Payback: Straight Up (2006 Video) User Reviews

The alternate version of Porter getting his money back

[ODDBear · 8/10 · 12 April 2007]

Payback revisited and a whole new ending. I wanna get this off to begin with; I really like the original cut. It's been circulating for years that it was the result of studio tinkering and the director wasn't all that pleased with the final version. Given that many films suffer similar fate and with disastrous results I thought maybe Payback was the exception.

Gone here is the blue bleach filter look, a lot of the music score which has been filled in with new cues, some alternate scenes throughout and some excised and a whole new final act. Everything is good here. I liked Porter's confrontation with his wife (brutal and uncompromising), the music score does help in giving it a darker tone and the new ending is fitting.

But I must say that the difference in quality between this Director's Cut and the original theatrical one isn't huge. Call me crazy but I actually miss Mel's voice over and I thought the bluish look suited the film. The humour has been downsized drastically and Porter's mean side has been fleshed out a bit more, which is good by the way. I just don't think one can be called great and the other crap.

The film plays more like a direct homage to the old 70's crime flicks and as the director explains that was what he was going for. The original does feel a bit lighter but that wasn't maybe such a bad thing. This darker version leaves more unanswered as to how Porter got back from the dead (but probably everyone has already seen the theatrical cut so they already know) and is more understated and mood driven.

To sum it up; Payback: Straight Up is an excellent companion piece to a first rate film. It's good to see director Helgeland's cut restored to his liking and it thoroughly deserves to be seen. Now fans can pop the film in the player that best suits their mood. The original a bit lighter and the latter more moody. It doesn't go wrong either way.

Seventy grand, I want it back.

[CuriosityKilledShawn · 7/10 · 1 May 2007]

Before studio execs and Mel Gibson got all uppity with Brian Helgeland, Payback was a darker, meaner film. But after an apparently poor test screening in 1997(honestly, what IS the point of these?) they put Payback on hold for over a year so Mel could do Lethal Weapon 4 before going back for some re-shoots, with a new director, to make the film happier.

So they approved a script of a dark, moody revenge thriller, green-lighted it for production and changed their minds to make it lighter because a ragtag audience didn't understand/like it? Man, Hollywood is one weird town.

The resulting film, which was eventually released in 1999, seemed a bit tacked together. There were scenes that just seemed out of place and irregular. It was obvious that any scene actually shot back in 1997 was shot on location and any scene shot for the 1999 cut was just shot in the generic 'street set' on the Warner back-lot. Despite all of this, Payback was still a fun film that failed to go all the way with it's concept.

The new DC is a superior version, no doubt and is about 33% different. There are new scenes and odds and ends through out the running time and the last act is completely different. Kris Kristoffersen is gone and replaced by Sally Kellerman (voice only, Bronson is never seen). James Coburn and John Glover also have smaller roles. The narration from Porter is gone as well as the blue tint to most of the film. Now most scenes are just lit as normal without any post-production filtering.

There is also a new musical score. The jazzy feel to the opening scenes is still there but through-out the rest of the film the score is more atmospheric and understated. Both are as good as each and fit the differing tones, so there's no better of the two.

It does end a bit abruptly and without any truly satisfying conclusion. I guess this is what annoyed test audiences. But a disgruntled audience should not be a decision-making committee when it comes to making movies.

Blows theatrical away

[TeresofBlood · 8/10 · 31 August 2007]

I think this was miles ahead of the theatrical cut. People probably knock it so much because of the "bond" they have established with the theatrical version over the years.

I having never seen either version, I unbiasedly watched Payback a few days ago. I liked it, but I didn't think the last act suited the movie at all. It felt not only tacked on, but it had a different tone and took the movie in a different direction that it should have gone. Gibson's character is a very destructive person, and I just couldn't see it ending so perfectly.

When I saw this version however, I thought it was not only a much better film, and suited the tone of the film much more, but it is also a better homage to the revenge-type films from the 70's.

This film had a very consistent musical score that was very pleasant to listen to throughout. It's the music that should have been. As much as I love Jimi Hendrix and BB King, they were out of place as you never really heard music like that in 70s revenge films. I liked the look of the film as well - the bleached, high contrast look. It was perfect for the gritty nature of this version.

It was also a much darker version. Mel Gibson is much harsher toward his wife when he comes home, and as hard as that is to watch, it feels more appropriate. He is justified in doing what he does. I felt she got off too easy in the theatrical cut.

People complain that they miss Gibson's humor in this version. I don't think the book its based on was ever meant to be humorous, nor were many 70s revenge films. There was a bit of humor in the director's cut, but it all stayed serious in the end, unlike the joke of an end in the theatrical cut.

There were a lot of bits missing here and there from both versions, none of which was really missed from this edit. I noticed that scenes were missing, but it added a bit more mystery to the plot.

The most important change to this cut is in the last act. In the theatrical cut, I found the last act to be very trite, light and out of place. For a movie that began very dark, it ended on a light note that didn't suit the film at all. The final act in this edit was more in line with the great endings of 70's style films. It kept building and building and building. You didn't quite know what was going to happen. It also has a very mysterious ending. You don't quite know what is going to happen and therefore it makes you think. The theatrical version was severely dumbed down. I guess they didn't want us to think.

This is the version that should have been released theatrically. It is the version that I will revisit in the future.

edges out the original

[prreith · 8/10 · 13 April 2007]

I have to agree with the previous poster's comments. I do miss Mel's voice over a bit and especially the opening score. Overall this version is better, but just edges out the original. It is really cool to see a movie which was good to begin with, but with a twist and still good. I found Maria Bello's performance towards the end especially powerful. I'm still on the fence about the very end.

A lot of good extras on the DVD, the director's narration in particular. You have to feel for Brian; it never ceases to amaze me some of the BS the directors have to coupe with from the studio executives. For the most part, the successful films have been ones which are new and original, where the studio exec's always seem take the exact opposite stance.

Still wish Maria Bello & Lucy Liu had bigger roles

[mish17 · 7/10 · 30 April 2007]

What I was hoping for in the director's cut of Payback is extended roles for Maria & Lucy. Lucy is absolutely hilarious in this film, with some great lines ("I need some satisfaction"), and her interaction with Porter ("I have a few minutes", "Go boil an egg") was just magnificent. There is some extension to the scene where Rosie & Porter meet up again, and she gets more of a part in the finale of the film. But Lucy definitely needed more of a role! Having watched both versions of Payback within the same day, I was shocked at how different they are. The original version of Payback is a lot darker, almost black & white in some parts, but this version keeps the colour. The beginning loses the opening of a doctor digging bullets out of Porter's back, and starts with him returning to the city, with no indication of a double-cross just yet until the flashback appears. It also appears to be cut together much better, and give the first few scenes a much quicker feeling. Porter no longer has a voice-over either. The scene with his wife is extended as well, leading to a more brutal confrontation, which leads more into him carrying her into the bedroom. Also, Porter the dog doesn't survive in this version. Big awww. The torture scenes are also cut from the film, and the boss's son who was originally going to get together with Rosie as his birthday present.

The finale is a load better, as in the old version, I did find myself getting bored, but the finale is more abrupt, and unexpected. Maria Bello gets a bigger role in the finale, although it does leave viewers hanging a bit, but I won't spoil it for anyone that hasn't seen it yet.

The only thing I'm gutted at is the low-class hooker, who Porter approaches when he's looking for Rosie, is completely cut from the film. Which is a shame, as she totally reminded me of the hooker from Pretty Woman that was Julia Robert's roommate. She's funny as well, despite the shortness of her scene.

Overall, I have to say I prefer the director's cut of Payback. Sometimes you find with some directors cuts, they tend to go a bit OTT, and keep in all the scenes which really weren't necessary, but this is well edited, and changing the finale was a really good idea. And seeing it in HD is well worth while too, if you can get your hands on it. I do like the idea of having it almost black & white, and I did miss it in this version. But it's well worth seeing if you want a different take on the film.

Payback - straight up to the roots!!! The genuine cut. POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD

[derirre357 · 10/10 · 25 June 2007]

After watching "Point blank" I decided to check out the new (and hopefully improved) version of Payback. I just finished watching it and I must say WOW!!! While I liked the theatrical version I found it to be trying too hard to be too cool. After the first half or so it became pretty much a different movie. It began as a hardcore movie in the spirit of the 70s and ended as a standard popcorn 90s cinema. I was kind of disappointed, because Porter was a tough guy and in the end became sort of Martin Riggs character which would be OK - but in a Lethal Weapon movie.

To make a long story short - what I miss from the theatrical cut is the blue filter, the soundtrack and maybe the voice-over. This is not a major problem and on the other hand all the things that annoyed me are missing as well - gone is the comic relief (I have enough of action-comedies, it is nice to see a major star like Gibson in such a gritty, grimy, cold and misanthropic film, in a role like nothing he's ever done except maybe for Mad Max), gone are all the funny faces that Gibson used to make, gone is the whole third act - instead we have a few shootouts more and a completely different and ambiguous ending. Porter is much more brutal and cold blooded (like killing a guy over something he said), much more like Lee Marvin - very aware of his environment and not committing stupid mistakes anymore. Gone is also the romance or at least is not so emphasized. Porter's meeting with his wife is also not what it used to be, he is no more the knight who wouldn't hit a woman. Kristopherson is gone (don't get me wrong - not that I had a problem with his character, and he himself is always enjoyable to watch)... Gone is also the scene where Porter blows up some goons using his cigarette to light up the gasoline, which I've never tried but according to most people is impossible (we still have the moment where Porter fires up I don't know how many rounds from his revolver when the Chinese gangsters try to assassinate him though). I have the feeling that in many scenes all we have changed are just minor cuts - just before characters smile - but they change their facial expressions in the particular scene and thus their reaction to what's happening and the overall tone of the movie. An example is when Porter is looking for Stegman at his office and has to beat up the guy at the desk who tells him to **** himself - in the theatrical cut we see him looking pretty funny - as he wants to say "Well now, that wasn't a very nice thing to say, was it?" - here we don't, cut to the chase. Porter doesn't look funny anymore - he looks like a mean person that you really really don't want to have to deal with. And i think that's exactly how Porter/Parker was intended to be (By the way I still can't figure out why did they change his name both in "Point blank" and "Payback"). Pretty much like Marvin acted him. The difference between the two versions is basically like the difference between Guy Richie's films and "Layer cake" (or "The long good Friday", while I am at it). Or the difference between the Brosnan Bond films and Casino royale - however the funny thing is that here we don't have Brosnan vs Craig - we have Gibson and he is playing the same character, here we watch Porter with different eyes though - he is a real antihero (and not supposed to be such just because he is a criminal) - which comes to show how important editing actually is. In the end to me this is the superior movie - I gave the theatrical cut 7 or 8 out of 10, this version gets well deserved 10.

Stick to the Original

[deltajvliet · 7/10 · 28 February 2009]

This review has many spoilers.

Gone are the blue visuals many associate with the theatrical cut. Instead director Brian Helgeland has replaced them with more standard, though maybe slightly oversaturated, visuals. Porter's (Gibson's) voice overs have also disappeared, and this all equates to a less noiry feel.

But the biggest changes come in the story. In the original version, we're introduced to Porter as he lays, shot up from his recent betrayal, on the table of a not-really doctor in some grubby basement who takes a drink of his whiskey before sterilizing his "instruments" in it. Porter vows he'll get the money he lost.

This slam-bang start is omitted, and the director's cut seems to steam ahead at full speed, polishing off the first 25 minutes of the movie in a time closer to 15.

From what I could recall, most of the middle portion is then relatively identical story-wise. The main changes begin once Porter kills Resnick. In the original cut, he and Rosie then head to a safehouse. There, the phone begins to ring and a suspicious Porter finds a bomb attached to it. Like a true badass, he subtly makes his way outside, cuts the fuel line of the guys in the car watching from the street, and waits behind the car for them to notice him. Then he throws his cigarette into the leaking fuel with predictable, and badass, results.

No such safehouse exists in Straight Up. Porter and Rosie just pack up and leave her apartment, and that's the end of that, with the exception of a brief trip back to frame the cops trying to take his money. Following Resnick's demise, Porter goes to Carter and Fairfax to convince the Outfit to give him his due. This is the same except that Kristofferson is replaced by a woman on the phone named Bronson. We never see her.

At Fairfax's home, Porter convinces Bronson to give him his money at a subway station. This is where the plot diverges the most; a whole alternate ending begins.

Porter goes to the station, and fully expecting some sort of ambush, begins taking out all the henchmen hanging around before they know what hit 'em. He eventually gets to the man with the bag of money, but just before he takes it and makes his getaway, a woman he hadn't suspected pulls a gun and shoots him. Shot once, he manages to fire back and take her down. Bleeding, he stumbles off the platform to the street below, the backpack with $130,00 in one hand and a gun in the other. Rosie gets to him and they drive away. She says he needs a hospital. He refuses - he "knows a guy." The movie ends, and Porter's survival is left in question.

It's not a bad ending, but it just kind of happens and is over. The Kristofferson subplot in the original was more effective, I thought. It was more drawn out, more satisfying. And we could put a face to the bad guy, a bad guy who brutally tortures Porter using a sledgehammer until he gets what he wants. Porter was then, with a little luck, able to outwit the Outfit one last time using their own ambush against them.

Was this the cut Helgeland really wanted? I understand he was limited in the footage he had to work with - a lot had been lost. So was this really his true cut, or just kind of sort of how he wanted the movie to turn out? Either way, I prefer the original. It was darkly funny, and Straight Up lost that sense of humor. I don't mind the blues being gone, but the voice-over did a lot to add atmosphere to the film. But most disappointing was the elimination of some of Porter's best, most badass moments. I wouldn't have minded the alternate ending if there was more to it, but as is it didn't seem to do the story justice like the theatrical cut's ending.

Payback: Straight Up isn't a bad movie by any means. If I had seen it first, I'm sure I would've loved it. It's just that the original is a classic in my book, and the director's cut doesn't quite do it justice.

Payback: 9/10 Payback: Straight Up - The Director's Cut: 7/10

this is how payback should have been

[nebsmate · 9/10 · 21 October 2007]

the theatrical version of payback was a good,if slightly uneven crime thriller.this cut is how the original director-brian helgeland-wanted you to see the film .hollywood wanted something more accessible,so the rewrites made the film very disjointed in places,swithching from dark to comedic,particularly towards the end.what started off as a dark,moody revenge film ended up a dumbed down action fare for the lethal weapon fans .thankfully,some years later,helgeland got to restore payback to its previous status.gone is the ridiculous,abrupt ending of the theatrical version version, replaced with a far darker,twisted ending.this movie really shows off porters hard edged character.much better than the easy,comfortable ending of the old version,the gritty train station shootout leaves you on the edge of your seat.a modern classic.

An interesting "What if?"

[Mr-Fusion · 7/10 · 15 March 2011]

I was as curious to see Helgeland's cut of "Payback" as the next guy. It was years before I even knew there were on-set complications, and I've been dying to see what he'd had in mind.

It certainly isn't better, but I can appreciate where he was going with this. The hardened noir angle is heightened, and the original's steely blue filter is gone - but so is the '70s revenge movie vibe, and in its place is something a little more generic. The new score certainly doesn't do the movie any favors. Gibson used to have a wry grin underneath the violence, and now it's just brutality. He's no longer someone to root for.

None of these are negatives towards "Straight Up"; just strong differences. These are two completely different movies, each offering its own flavor. As curiosities go, this is on the entertaining side, but I've always been partial to the sheer style of the original movie.

7/10

Peep This Reviews

[newblu · 8/10 · 9 July 2017]

Director's Cut could mean any number of things...studio interference, re- shoots, poor test screenings. Most of the time that just means a couple more minutes added but sometimes there are drastic differences from the original released. This is one of those big changes. I liked this movie with it's sharp writing and nice mix of violence with dark humor. 'Like' has become 'love'. If you've never seen it and your a big film buff I'd say watch both versions to see the difference. If you've never seen it, Straight Up is hands down the way to go.

A callous disregard for likeability and an engaging plot make this a strong revenge thriller.

[Pjtaylor-96-138044 · 7/10 · 5 April 2018]

This delayed director's cut made drastic changes, warranting its own listing on IMDb, that positively effected the quality of this revenge thriller. 'Payback: Straight Up (2006)' pits a relatively unsympathetic anti-hero protagonist against an arguably even more unsympathetic bad-guy and just lets him off the leash. The film isn't perfect, though its better in this form than in the washed-out and narration-heavy studio-mandated theatrical cut, but some brutal action, a callous disregard for likeability and an engaging plot mean that this is an entertainingly, and refreshingly, downbeat affair. 7/10

Not as good as theatrical release

[randomStuff101 · 4/10 · 14 July 2018]

I usually prefer directors cut versions, but not in this case. The ending of Straight Up is too messy, unrefined, too generic. Porter just goes from scene to scene shooting people in different ways and it's just not as strong as the original released version.

I'm a big fan of Payback - the original theatrical release, but not this version.

I'm not surprised the director was fired over this. While he did a great job with the first half of the movie, and the overall style, he didn't have a strong ending.

It's just the final scenes of Straight Up are too "normal" and generic. Overly conspicuous bad guys sitting in parked cars, train platforms, Porter walking around shooting people too easily... all handled like a million other films. It's just a weak ending to an otherwise great film.

I'm one usually to defend the director and oppose studio interference in the creative process. The studio often messes with films and makes them worse. In this case however, the changes made were needed, and actually are very good in the theatrical release. Kidnapping the boss's kid, blowing up the apartment etc, that was a good ending with a nice twist element.

I did prefer the lack of narration in this version, and I preferred the opening scene of Porter walking around the city cheating people out of money etc. but that's all. It's good to see the alternate ending. I was hoping it would be better than the theatrical release, but in my opinion it's not better.

Much better than the theatrical version

[tstudstrup · 10/10 · 11 March 2018]

Al though I enjoyed the original version, two thing always pissed me off: one: that studios changed the entire third act of the movie to please a dumb american audience. And 2: that the dog survived. In both versions the dog is clearly shot in the head. And yet later on the dog is seen alive, carried by Porter with bandages on its body in the theatrical version. A stupid childish scene, made to please animal lovers. Now Ilike dogs, but one thing I've always hated in Hollywood movies is the eternal cliche of the family-dog surviving. And this is not a PG movie. So of course the dog dies in this version.

I also never liked the blue tint, which is also gone from this version. And the whole third act with Bronson and his kidnapped son, which was kind of dumb is also gone.

This version (which is actually a different and better movie) is darker, grittier, more violent. And shows a more menacing Porter, beating up his wife (well deserved, she shot him and left him for dead) and killing more people, than in the theatrical version.

Instead we get a darker, more realistic ending with a badly injured nearly dying Porter. Natural ending for a man who take on entire crime syndicate alone. Porter still survives though.

For people that enjoy the John Wick movies, this is the version of Payback, you should see.

I reccomend this different but better movie for an adult audience.

Much better than the theatrical version. (i think)

[martin-fennell · 10/10 · 29 July 2017]

I've wanting to see this version for ages, and it certainly didn't disappoint. I saw the original version when it came out, and although I thought it was a good movie, I found it wanting. I guess I was comparing it to Point blank, the cult Lee Marvin movie, directed by John Boorman based on the same source material. In which the character is called Walker. I can only assume that my disappointment in the theatrical version of Payback lay in the fact that they made Parker/Porter softer than in the Marvin movie. Here that has been removed. Anyway leaving all that aside. I found this to be a terrific thriller. Is it better than the theatrical cut. Well I'm rating it higher than I did that movie. But if I saw that now, it might get a higher rating too.

Really misses the entertainment of the original.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 4 January 2009]

What made the 1999 cut of the movie so great was its entertainment value. It was an incredibly fun movie to watch, with a cool fun style and soundtrack and some nice twists and turns to its story. All of that is basically gone in this version and its a much darker and serious one.

After production finished the Brian Helgeland was deemed too dark and not suitable for the mainstream public. A re-write got done and scene's got re-shot by a different director for the original theatrical release. 90% of the times that a studio decides to do this and changes a movie entire, it isn't for the best. Director's cuts are therefor often way better than the original released versions. However this time I have to say I agree with the studio. This version is a much poorer written and constructed one that lacks whit, charm and whatever more. The 1999 "Payback" was an original and fun movie to watch, "Payback: Straight Up - The Director's Cut" however is just one typical revenge flick that just isn't among the best the genre has to offer.

You could say that this movie is more of a thriller, while the original, even though it was more entertaining, was done much more film-noir style, that was also a more violent one as well.

What is surprisingly different as well in this movie are its characters. It's amazing what some editing, a visual- and musical style and different scene additions can do to a character. The main character is much darker and seems basically depressed all of the time. It just makes Mel Gibson less great to watch in this version. Also most of the other characters don't work out halve as effective. The whole Maria Bello story-line and character in particular don't work out at all and seem totally out of place.

The movie is just overall also often too slow and dull to watch. Some sequences drag on for too long and not everything in the flows well.

The movie story-wise actually isn't that much different from the original release, until its final 30 minutes or something. The movie its ending is a totally different one. I must say that the ending of this movie is just a much weaker one that besides comes far too sudden and isn't really very satisfying.

Lacks all of the whit, charm, originality and entertainment of the original version. As a director's cut this movie is nothing but a disappointment. Just watch the 1999 "Payback" instead.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Payback: Straight Up 2006

[youngmarcus · 10/10 · 20 April 2014]

Great Movie!!! Mel Gibson Is The Greatest Actor On Earth!!! Perfect Movie, Perfect Scenes, Perfect Timing.!!! Everything Went Right In This Movie And I Am Proud Of The Work From All Actors In This Movie!!! thank you!!!! Maria Bello is special of course. She acts as the former outfit call girl and attempts to make the better life as she falls in love with Porter. Porter has one thing on his mind, honest revenge. Not wanting npt 1 dollar more than he was entitled to. Something about that type of principle. Spectacular idea from Mel Gibson. I honestly think that maybe one day they should come up with a Payback 2. If they did, it would be a very good thing. David Paymer of course brought humor into the movie as he is a great actor also. Bill Duke keeps his smoothness, Jack Conely abusive crooked cop. Great!!!!

A Subtle Light Comedy

[kindredparadox · 7/10 · 8 March 2021]

Porter (Mel) wants his $70k back from Val Resnick (Gregg Henry) which he stole. In doing so, Porter must face the organization which Val is affiliated with

This is an action comedy for me. For a criminal, Porter is too smart than he is strong, and 70k is too low than what he's capable of. Fun to watch

Just not as good

[jontoole · 6/10 · 23 April 2024]

I accidentally stumbled onto the Directors cut as I was wanting to rewatch the movie. I didn't realize that it wasn't in addition to the original, but a straight up reshoot of the ending. While, it is a very gritty version, and does stay true to the characters. The theatrical version in my opinion was just more entertaining. The difference between the two movies time wise is only about 12 to 15 minutes. But somehow the movie feels much too short and doesn't have the same sort of closure that the original does. The directors cut just sort of ends. Could be a more realistic version, but compared to the two the theatrical version is just more fun.

Typical Mel ruthless to the bone

[Bernie4444 · 8/10 · 12 January 2024]

Porter (Mel Gibson) common criminal is just doing his thing and rather flamboyantly. He pilfers from the mob and his cut is $70,000. He is double-crossed by his buddy and wife as he was left for dead. Well, Porter may be a common criminal but he does have a sense of Justus and does whatever it takes to recover his $70,000. In the process, he is roughed up a few times and the perpetrators find themselves skillfully dispatched. The questions are will he get his money back before there is no one left to give it to him.

Yep, it is a formula; yep Mel has a tendency for overacting. We get the standard surprises. Lots of action.

Be sure to check the details out on the different packaging as there are variations on the story.

Very Disappointed

[lazx8853 · 5/10 · 21 August 2007]

Where do I start? First of all, the post production blue tint was removed, making the ambiance of the film brighter. Mel's character Porter, although a bit meaner in this version is lost in the brightness, and lack of grit to support his enhanced character.

All the good music is gone. In the original version, Porter uses a very intuitive scenario as leverage to get his payment. In this version the storyline is completely changed leaving hardly any believable leverage scenario at all. Needless to say this is where the story took a dive into pure lousy.

I wasn't impressed with the lengthened scenes because they didn't continue on to support the climax of the film. Honestly, the climax was non-existent. This version just fizzles out too quickly leaving us desperately wanting more.

Like my father always told me... "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Substantially improved, except...

[cellocolin · 8/10 · 17 October 2021]

In general this is a much improved cut, with annoying hollywoodisms removed, but there are a couple scenes that should have stayed in for the sake of people who never watched the theatrical:

-the scene that shows the doctor fixing Porter at the beginning -the scene that shows how Porter knows who to ask for to find Rosie

There are probably other small bits I'm forgetting, but it's a minor gripe. The new ending is better as well.

i want my 1.5 hours back!

[triquetra_74 · 1/10 · 9 January 2008]

I really enjoyed the theatrical version so when I saw the there was a directors cut I could not wait to see it.

I was so utterly disappointed in this version. I liked the fight scene between Mel and his wife. I wish it was in the other version, and that was about all I liked about this version.

Sally Kellerman was the head of "the syndicate", and we never see her. She is only a voice over speaker phone. A great idea but for one BIG problem. Her voice sounds like she has inhaled helium! She was tough talking but it sounded ridiculous!!!(It sounded to me like Steve Martin's voice in Trains Planes & Automobiles. When he was picked up by his balls) I almost was laughing at it.

The two leads Bello and Gibson had zero on screen chemistry in this version. The scene where they "passionately kiss" was tepid at best!

Do yourselves a favour DO NOT watch this version.

The theatrical version is much much better!

Payback: Straight Up - The Director's Cut (2006)

[bimbo37 · 1/10 · 21 January 2008]

I just received the Payback: Straight Up - The Director's Cut (2006) DVD from the United States of America, because Australia doesn't have the movie yet, and Wow what a disappointment, all that waiting just to see the a great movie killed, half the story was gone overall my family and friends give it 0/10 pretty dam crappy.

No Johnny, No Ferrari, No Birthday Present, No getting hammered, and No telephone bombs, Just a cheap shoot out at a train station, then the end.

Director dude altogether you cut too much story out and also missing the monologue from Mel (Porter) which in the end killed the plot of the story.

If any one is thinking of buying this movie just wait till it comes down in price or into your country.

AVOID THIS and find the original theatrical version.

[colinstmichael · 2/10 · 4 June 2020]

Literally everything in the theatrical version is better. The director's cut extends scenes that don't need extended, provides exposition that either isn't necessary or makes later dialogue redundant, and uses a weak score makes the overall feel sluggish and toothless when this version is intended to be faster and grittier. The theatrical version includes subtle dialogue additions that are some of the most memorable moments in the film. The theatrical version also includes narration by Porter (the protagonist), which doesn't seem important until you see the film without it. It is sorely missed because it adds depth to the character while keeping the story moving during long shots of him walking to destinations. There are fewer scenes with William Devane's character, Carter, and his henchmen, which makes his eventual confrontation with Porter far less dramatic. Even the main antagonist is different. The head of the criminal organization is technically the main antagonist, but there's absolutely no building of tension between her and Porter, and the faceless woman who only pops up on two phone calls pales in comparison with the quality performance delivered by the actor in the theatrical version. His presence not only creates an entirely different third act, but changes the whole objective of the story and its much more satisfying conclusion. The director's cut is missing every single suspenseful scene, much of the humor, the development of the crime boss as the main antagonist, the escalation and confrontation between the protagonist and main antagonist, and concludes with all the effort and excitement of a balloon rapidly loosing air. The ONLY reason to watch it is so you'll have an even greater appreciation for the theatrical version.

Paydown

[thesar-2 · 1/10 · 18 January 2009]

Wow. I loved the theater version of 'Payback' even giving it 5/5 stars and ranks as one of the best Mel Gibson movies ever made. 'Payback: Straight Up –The Director's Cut' (P:SU:TDC) however is the biggest director's version disappointment since the 'Richard Donner's Superman II' cut. I have yet to review (and now should go back and watch the original 'Payback' in order to do so) the theater version, but I've seen it so many times to know where scenes were cut and added, tone/lighting altered and of course the deletion of Kris Kristofferson's character along with the theater's ending. If rented, one should absolutely watch the making of features on the 'P:SU:TDC' DVD to learn so much more about how this version surfaced. Such as the director Brian Helgeland being fired when conflicts with his vision and what the studio wanted us to see surfaced. Too funny: when fired, he was concerned of Donner's (who worked with him on 'Conspiracy Theory' also with Gibson) opinion, stating that Donner wouldn't have been (fired or removed.) Uh, well, he was – Warner Bros. threw him out of 'Superman II' that he almost completed. Also, you'll learn that Gibson, himself, didn't like this version as much as the theater one. What 'P:SU:TDC' contains is more violence – see Gibson beat up his wife and kill in cold blood and a relatively non-suspenseful cat/mouse ending. What this version took away, was almost all humor, great voice-overs, the suspenseful closing including Kristofferson's wonderful scenes and pretty much all the fun. Donner's 'Superman II' did almost the same things, even though 'II' wasn't the best one, the magic, humor, fun and action packed closing all vanished. 'P:SU:TDC' isn't even worth a viewing. Skip it – only watch the theater version for great entertainment.