STRAIGHT UP
THE DIRECTOR'S CUT
OK, so a little back story is needed for this review. Helgeland (best known as the writer of L.A. Confidential, Conspiracy Theory and Man on Fire) wanted his directorial debut to be on a low-budget, crime film. So he adapted Donald Westbrook’s novel “The Hunter” (written under Westbrook’s pseudonym Richard Stark) into what was originally Payback. Helgeland then hired Mel Gibson to star and produce (whom he had known from Conspiracy Theory). They shot the entire film. They edited the entire film. They then test screened it. Audiences were less than thrilled with it. The studio really didn’t like it. After much deliberation, Helgeland left the project. Gibson changed the script. 10 more days of shooting commenced, and finally the film we saw in theatres was released.
For those that don’t know, in Payback Gibson plays Porter. Porter is a professional robber and basically the most badass guy alive. He takes no guff and lets his fists/magnum solve his problems. But his partner, Val (Gregg Henry) tricks Porter’s wife (Deborah Unger) into betraying him during a robbery. Porter gets shot and left for dead, and Val takes off with all the money from the robbery. But tough as nails Porter survives and is now on a mission to get his share of the money back, no matter how many people he has to beat the shit out of/kill in order to do it.
So, what are the differences between the two versions of the film? Well, they are right, Porter is much more likable in the theatrical version. Don’t get me wrong, he’s not completely unlikable in the director’s cut, just much less likable. First of all, there is voice-over by Porter in the theatrical version. It gives the audience a little insight into Porter’s mind and helps the audience understand a little more why he’s doing what he’s doing. Also, they added a little dry humor to his commentary. In the director’s cut, no commentary. You really have no idea why he’s doing the things he is doing in the director’s cut.
Secondly, there are 2 major scenes added to the first and third acts of the film that are not in the theatrical version. In the first, Porter kicks the shit out of his heroine-junky, backstabbing wife and at the point he does it, you have no idea that she has backstabbed him, so Porter really just looks like a wife beater when he does it. Also, at the end of the film, one of the mobster goons insults Porter’s girlfriend. Porter then kills the goon while the goon is handcuffed and defenseless. These scenes show a more aggressive side of Porter that makes him less appetizing to the American pallet.
Third, the director’s cut has no Kris Kristofferson! In the theatrical release, Kris plays the head of the mob, Bronson. He has a major role and he stalks Porter for the entire third act. In the director’s cut, the audience never meets Bronson. Bronson is only a voice on the phone, like Charlie from Charlie’s Angels. AND Bronson is a WOMAN, voiced by Sally Kellerman (I only know Kellerman as Rodney Dangerfield’s girlfriend from Back to School).
Which brings us to the final and most significant change. The entire third act of the film is COMPLETELY different. In the theatrical cut, Porter kidnaps Kris’ son in order to get his money back. There is a torture scene (as there must be in every Gibson film) and eventually Porter escapes and the mob gets their just desserts. In the director’s cut, there is a shootout with some mob goons at an el station (for you west-coasters, that’s short for ELevated train, the mass transit system in Chi-town) where Porter gets shot. Porter gets away, but the ending is very cryptic. Like Shane, you wonder if Porter lives or dies.
So, what is the overall verdict? I LOVE the theatrical version of Payback. It really is one of my favorite films. The tagline, “Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy” is a fabulous tagline for the theatrical version because you really do root for Porter in that version of the film. Plus, the addition of Kris Kristofferson is fabulous. He’s such an overactor and he fits in perfectly with the other two heads of the mob, Bill Devane and James Coburn. I don’t know, call me the typical American who likes to see the good guys win and the bad guys lose, but I like the theatrical ending to the film better.
That is not to say I disliked the director’s cut. It was a good film. Helgeland has said he was trying to make a gritty 70’s film. That he did. Unlikable characters, grit and grime and an open-ended ending are all major parts of 70’s film. Well, I don’t particularly like 70’s films, so I liked this version less than the original.
No screenshot for this one, sorry.
On the DVD:
A very interesting director’s commentary. It’s interesting because not only does Helgeland talk about the making of the film, but how things were changed in the theatrical release and why.
A making-of featurette. Nothing to write home about.
A VERY good featurette on the making of the director’s cut. If you only watch one special feature, watch this one.
A short conversation with novelist Donald Westlake which covers his career.
FINAL ANALYSIS!
This was a decent film. If not for the theatrical version, it would be a quaint bad guy film for a niche audience. If you like 70’s cops and robbers movies, definitely check this out. You’ll probably really like it. If you like the original Payback, rent this one just for a night of interesting contrasting and comparing the two films.
RENT THIS MOVIE!!!
Back to the Main Page
Back to the DVD Reviews