Payback - directors cut

[alphadec]

One of my favorite M.Gibson movies is "Payback". I already got this on dvd and just had to have this on BD also.

But boy was I surprised but this movie that is a directors cut.

I cannot see any reason why they have completely destroyed this fine movie. So if these studios are going to release a directors cut then let me choose between a theatrical release and this "show off", that I am not very intrested in.

I can not see any reason for releasing a directors cut like this.

[miked924]

Obviously you don't know the history of this movie to know why there would be a director's cut that had a dramatically different 3rd act. Yes it would've been nice for them to include both versions of the film but the director's cut is not bad, it's just different. And this is the original vision before Mel Gibson took over the director's chair

[SDon1969]

I hear ya, this "Straight Up" version of the film is not as good as the original IMO. I really wish they would have released both versions of the film on one disc, then I would have purchased it.

[alphadec]

very sad as the original opening of payback is maybe the coolest opening of any film.

[Stuart_Larkin]

I really do hope they release the one that came to theaters at some point on Blu-ray. I'm not speaking out against the Directors cut.. however I DO really love the theatrical release.

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by alphadec

One of my favorite M.Gibson movies is "Payback". I already got this on dvd and just had to have this on BD also.

But boy was I surprised but this movie that is a directors cut.

I cannot see any reason why they have completely destroyed this fine movie. So if these studios are going to release a directors cut then let me choose between a theatrical release and this "show off", that I am not very intrested in.

I can not see any reason for releasing a directors cut like this.

Because the director was pulled off of the project and his movie was completed trashed by the studio and by Gibson, who added a lot of 80's slapstick and of course, a torture scene.

The original is a much different project and is what the director originally wanted. The script is much more pure and streamlined. I really like the movie- it's something different than the typical action movie. The theatrical was too much like the Lethal Weapon series (which is what they were trying to emulate when the studio stepped in and made decisions via commitee).

Everyone has their own opinion but I think you're really missing out if you don't give the Straight Up cut a chance. Try listening to the Director's track and he explains a lot of this.

[Eternalnow]

Originally Posted by alphadec

very sad as the original opening of payback is maybe the coolest opening of any film.

Yeah, the opening act is still the same. It still shows him walking back into town and all that stuff. Geez kids, seriously. This is how the movie was INTENDED. You all clamour about "artists intentions" around here, yet when a film comes out that actually stays true to the artists vision you all complain. I don't get it.

Yeah, The DC version of Payback is very brutal and doesn't paint Mel's Character as such a nice guy, but hey thats life.

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by Eternalnow

Yeah, the opening act is still the same. It still shows him walking back into town and all that stuff. Geez kids, seriously. This is how the movie was INTENDED. You all clamour about "artists intentions" around here, yet when a film comes out that actually stays true to the artists vision you all complain. I don't get it.

Yeah, The DC version of Payback is very brutal and doesn't paint Mel's Character as such a nice guy, but hey thats life.

Exactly. I'm really passionate about this movie since I found out about the "true" Payback. This is the definition of artist intent. Gibson agreed to shoot additional scenes at the request of the studio, and honestly I don't blame him as he wanted the movie to come out. I also love Gibson's directorial decisions (Apocalypto, Braveheart et al). I just greatly prefer the Straight Up cut.

[cathexist]

I really like both versions actually...however I do with that they had included both versions on the disc so I could choose which to watch....that's why I haven't purchased this release.

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by alphadec

One of my favorite M.Gibson movies is "Payback". I already got this on dvd and just had to have this on BD also.

But boy was I surprised but this movie that is a directors cut.

I cannot see any reason why they have completely destroyed this fine movie. So if these studios are going to release a directors cut then let me choose between a theatrical release and this "show off", that I am not very intrested in.

I can not see any reason for releasing a directors cut like this.

I agree. It was horrible. I sold my copy on Ebay after watching it. Very disapointed.

[miked924]

I like both versions and if you really are a fan of this film, you should appreciate both versions. Same film but the vibe is different in both of them because the director's had different visions of how this story should be told. Not only storywise but the color grading as well, with the blue tint of the original gone. That's why both of them should have been included, I'm sure Paramount will get around to it someday

[Col. Zombie]

I agree. Some "director's cuts" shouldn't be released or at least one should be given the option to wathc the theatrical. Rob Zombie's Halloween for example. I liked aspects of the unrated DC, such as showing more of young Michael's emotional and psychological instability. But the thing that killed it for me was the DC version of Michael's break out from the hospital. They were two drastically differences between the two and I much preferred the theatrical.

[robsdoghouse]

Originally Posted by miked924

I like both versions and if you really are a fan of this film, you should appreciate both versions. Same film but the vibe is different in both of them because the director's had different visions of how this story should be told. Not only storywise but the color grading as well, with the blue tint of the original gone. That's why both of them should have been included, I'm sure Paramount will get around to it someday

I agree with most on this thread that the directors version sucks, that movie required a third act.

About the only positive thing I could say about the director's version was the color grading because seeing lucy lieu in her getup not washed out in blue was worth the watch

I would have totally respected this release had both versions been included, but when I bought it I was expecting that and not this cut version. I enjoyed some of the harder edges on this movie regarding Mel, but if anything with the scene in Mels third act the theatrical release was darker than this version.

I checked out the special features looking for the real version and after watching the director's commentary about the same movie and hear him whine like a ***** really pissed me off. He took someone else's book and made a movie then even though it was lacking and needed the third act and some improvements he acted like a stubborn 4 year old and abandoned the project all together.

Anyone who recreates someone else's story and then has the selfishness to not accept constructive criticism shouldn't be in the movie industry. I am selling my copy on e-bay just so I don't support that *****.

It's a shame because together had he not left the project they could have made that movie even better than it already was so now I feel like I got ripped off on one of my favorite movies because of the director.

[fronn]

The Director's cut follows the book it's based on far more ("Carter"). The Mel Gibson cut (theatrical), while very enjoyable isn't really better or worse than the DC, if you ask me. One is almost a dark/gritty comedy and the other one is just a dark and gritty revenge flick. I definitely wish the BR had both versions, as I can't get rid of my DVD copy at this point.

Both are different and even if you hate one version, it's very interesting to see how the same source content can make two very different movies (at least in tone).

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by robsdoghouse

I agree with most on this thread that the directors version sucks, that movie required a third act.

About the only positive thing I could say about the director's version was the color grading because seeing lucy lieu in her getup not washed out in blue was worth the watch

I would have totally respected this release had both versions been included, but when I bought it I was expecting that and not this cut version. I enjoyed some of the harder edges on this movie regarding Mel, but if anything with the scene in Mels third act the theatrical release was darker than this version.

I checked out the special features looking for the real version and after watching the director's commentary about the same movie and hear him whine like a ***** really pissed me off. He took someone else's book and made a movie then even though it was lacking and needed the third act and some improvements he acted like a stubborn 4 year old and abandoned the project all together.

Anyone who recreates someone else's story and then has the selfishness to not accept constructive criticism shouldn't be in the movie industry. I am selling my copy on e-bay just so I don't support that *****.

It's a shame because together had he not left the project they could have made that movie even better than it already was so now I feel like I got ripped off on one of my favorite movies because of the director.

That's uh... not how it happened at all. He didn't abandon the project. Also- it clearly states on the box what you're getting. Here's Amazon's snippet that explains what happened:

There were reasons writer-director Brian Helgeland's cut of Payback was dismissed by distributors Paramount and Warner Bros., then heavily re-shot and re-tooled by Mel Gibson's production company, Icon Entertainment. Those reasons are explained in detail by Gibson, Helgeland, and others in the special features of Payback: The Director's Cut (Special Collector's Edition). Among them: Helgeland's version was too dark. America wasn't ready in 1999 to see Gibson play an unapologetic, 1970s-style antihero who might not get exactly what he wants. Audiences didn't have the patience to wait for answers to their story questions. A dog dies. (A big no-no.) All of these comments make sound, practical sense. But here's the bottom line: Helgeland's cut, perhaps even a bit more disciplined and taut (according to Payback’s editor, Kevin Stitt) than it was in 1999, is a serious movie with an organic tone and logic that makes the film look the way it was meant to look: as a neo-noir film for adults. The theatrical release of Payback, by contrast, was and is silly and vulgar, self-sabotaging, pointlessly vicious, and perversely jaunty. It is very much like--deliberately like--the Lethal Weapon series. The Director’s Cut makes clear that’s not at all what Helgeland had in mind.

Kudos to Gibson and Icon for giving Helgeland a chance to restore his film and get it out on this DVD. But a look at both versions (this disc does not include the theatrical cut) back-to-back can certainly make one's head spin. Icon’s revisions in the original release show little faith in a contemporary audience’s ability to discern much about a story or mood or character from spare but telling details. That film relies on crass swatches of voiceover narration, cute inserts, added scenes, and hipster tunes on the soundtrack. All of that was designed to tell an audience how to feel rather than encourage a cinematic experience encountered with an open heart and mind. Worst of all is a specious third act nakedly built around an obligatory Gibson-gets-tortured sequence, leading the film to a lazy, comforting conclusion. The Director’s Cut eschews all of that. Gibson’s character, Porter (based on the central character in the novel "The Hunter," written by Donald E. Westlake under the pseudonym Richard Stark), is a man returning from the brink of death with nothing but his identity and the memory of something (an almost-nominal amount of money) taken from him. His iron determination, his capacity for brutality and inducing fear, and his survival instinct make him anything but warm and cuddly. It's his few ties to the past--especially an interrupted relationship with a call girl (Maria Bello)--that humanize him. One doesn't have to like Porter; one just accepts him and follows his journey in an honest, unmitigated fashion. That’s exactly what Helgeland does, and his cleaner, leaner, smarter cut is instantly rewarding for its uncompromising, undistracted toughness. Special features include a documentary about the film’s history, and a wonderful interview with Westlake. --Tom Keogh

[gaeljet]

i won t write for how much time like some others, i ll just tell you what, i saw both vesions and the original one was merely better, end of story, too bad but that s life..

[Sky_Captain]

God forbid a director gets to release the movie he wanted to make. The theatrical release was a shit, watered down cartoon. If that's what you like, then more power to ya. I'll stick to the Point Blank homage that Payback was clearly meant to be.

[Azareus]

Just got this today from Amazon and finished watching it. Quite liked it and I don't have a strong preference over the theatrical or the directors cut. Both have their good and bad points.

My only complaint (and as others have already said) is I would have liked to have seen the original version on this disc as well considering its a 50gb disc.

[easyrider]

Great movie, but was initially disappointed with the "Straight Up" cut of the film - an (almost) completely different film in tone from the theatrical version.
However, I did watch it again the other day and enjoyed it more than the first time.
I think that this version may grow on me, even though it is not my preferred version

[DigitalfreakNYC]

Never saw the original but I have to say that I really enjoyed the director's cut...and ended up purchasing it.