MovieChat Forums > Payback: Straight Up (2007) Discussion > Comparing the two cuts....a few spoilers

Comparing the two cuts....a few spoilers

posted 17 years ago by flutter_bi2230
11 replies | jump to latest

I just got done watching Straight Up...and wow...what a difference.

I think the first thing to address is the "new look" of the director's cut. I'm a huge fan of the original version of Payback. And to be honest, the new "colored" look of Straight Up isn't a whole lot different from the washed out look of the original cut. This is still a very, very cold looking film.

The opening scene with the "doctor" is now gone...which is too bad, because I kinda liked that opening. But it wouldn't have suited Straight Up, because that opening really isn't needed, to tell the overall story. Straight Up is all about getting Porter from the start to the end, as simply and as ruthlessly as possible. The original version has some pauses in its narrative.

The voiceover is also gone. I had some mixed feelings about this, but the voiceover suits the original cut much better than Straight Up. I really like the new soundtrack, so much that I didn't even really miss the Jimi Hendrix riff in the middle of the film where Resnick double-crosses Porter...again. Without the voiceover, certain scenes do have a little more poignancy.

Straight Up is a good subtitle to this film, because a lot of fat has been trimmed from the original cut. Porter doesn't feel nearly as touchy-feely in Straight Up. He's actually much more vicious. A little bit of extra footage has been added to the first 45 minutes of the film, but not much. The really big changes don't occur until we "meet" Bronson in Carter's office. I much prefer the more mysterious Bronson of Straight Up, than the Kris Kristofferson character.

About the ending...Straight Up's ending isn't anything earth shattering, but its a logical conclusion to the film. Porter doesn't go through nearly as much hell in Straight Up, as he does in the original cut. But then again, he doesn't have to. He gets his money and the girl...there's simply no reason to go on from there.

Straight Up is a very direct, no frills film. It's very short at only like 80-something minutes. I would really hang onto the original version of the film though, because a lot of material in that film is still worth revisiting. This is no Kingdom of Heaven director's cut...where that one was clearly much superior to the theatrical version...this is simply an alternate re-telling of the same story, and as a huge fan of the original film, I don't really consider it to be much better or much worse than the original. If you are a fan of Payback, you should definitely have Straight Up, along with the original version of the film.

[–] aseddon130 17 years ago

i thought the theatrical version was much better, the harder, edgier and allround 'badder' Porter was the only decent thing in this new version, the end sequence in the theatrical version was tons better, not because it was more 'action packed' but because it was more interesting to watch, by the time it'd started it'd finished, and him getting his toes bashed in was an excellent scene, and having Kris Kristofferson's character replaced by a mystery voice on a phone (or visa versa, depending on how you look at it) was pretty lame.

it's an interesting cut of the movie, but the theatrical version was much better no matter how you look at it, having the harder, badder Porter in the theatrical cut would have made it better, as for the rest - it was right to be changed.

it would be more interesting to get someones take on the movie of someone who would watch 'Straight Up' first, then watch the theatrical cut, at least then they'd have no expectations of the Straight Up cut whereas us people who have seen it knew what was going on from the first minute, and knew what to spot and where things were different.

NEWS TEAM ... ASSEMBLE!

[–] menhahaha 17 years ago

I think this is the better version as it feels more of a 70 film and not the lethal weapon wannabe like the original was.

[–] XAPxSCORPx 17 years ago

It would've been great if the Director's cut had the scene with Porter poking the guy's eyes out at the Outfit hotel. If this is suppose to be a harder, grittier version, where the heck was that scene?

[–] menhahaha 17 years ago

Well you do not have to go "FULCI" on scenes to get the GRIT.
I thought it was great but, a little to short perhaps.

[–] DreTam2000 17 years ago

...the ending in this cut seemed a bit more abrupt. It was very interesting though. Some of it feels like it's still a little rough around the edges, but it's still nice to see more of the same story, which is basically what this version is, aside from a few changes.

Perhaps this cut would have been smoother and a bit better if the director had been given the OK for this version during its initial post-production. By having to create it about ten years later the results aren't as crisp as they could have been (unless this cut was already 100% completed in post-production ten years ago, which I doubt).

I definitely agree with what the other poster said about replacing Kristofferson's character with an anonymous voice on the phone. That was pretty weak. That voice was no-where-near as threatening as the Mr. Bronson character was. I have no problem with the gender, but if the "villain" is infact going to be a woman, then she ought to be more menacing somehow. The only credit I could give to the way her character was tackled in this film is the fact that it does indeed sort-of remind me of the old 70s, 60s style films a bit.

Nice version overall, but it could be better in some ways. Incidentally, I'd take either version over Collateral any day.

I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way

[–] ZOMBIE-8 17 years ago

Technically, Helgeland DID have one cut created back in '98 for a test screening, and it is this cut that has surfaced from time to time in bootleg format. Basically, it's a 10 minute longer cut of "The Director's Cut", but even Helgeland said that some of the choices he would've made back then differ from what he did now. Ironically, Richard Donner said the same thing when working on his cut of Superman II. I'm personally happy with the director's cut, but I'd still like to see the "original" director's (bootleg) cut as a curiosity piece. It would've been nice if Helgeland took the time to add the other ten minutes as (at least) deleted scenes for the new DVD. After all, when Donner decided to cut some of his old scenes out for his cut of Superman II, he at least put them on the DVD as deleted scenes. Oh well, we should be thankful we even got this cut of Payback at all in such a high quality format... to bad we can't say the same thing for John Woo's original cut of Hard Target... grr...

[–] DreTam2000 17 years ago

...some of it still feels just a little rough. It's still a good cut though.

It's a shame what happened with Donner's version of SMII back in the 70s though. It probably would have been an even more amazing sequel had Donner been allowed to complete it in its entirety. It was still nice to see his version of it finally released though.

Now maybe one day Morgan Creek can "find" the footage of William Peter Blatty's Legion that have supposedly been "lost." That would be amazing.

I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way

[–] marsellus7 17 years ago

Now see, the bootleg cut is exactly what I thought the DC would have been. While it was good to see this version finally, I had read up about the bootleg cut and knew that some things were missing. I was disappointed that the garbage truck fire scene and the eye-gouge scene were gone and that Porter still gets his money in the end - as it is my understanding that a homeless person stole it at the end of the bootleg cut. If you watch closely at the end of the DC you can see that the bag has disappeared but then miraculously appears next to him in the car when they're driving away at the end so obviously this is something that Helgeland changed his mind on.

In comparing the two films, I'd have to say that they are both at the same level. They both have their positives and negatives. I liked the fact that there was a voiceover in Payback as it drew you to Porter and made you empathise more with him BUT I also liked how removing this and adding some darker scenes in the DC make him much more menacing. The scene where he talks to Lynn and kicks her ass gave the viewer more insight into their relationship. The fact that he beat her showed that he was bothered about what she had done to him, whereas in the original he seemed 'too' forgiving and not really emotionally drawn to her. I liked the fact that in this scene you find out that his apparent affair with Rosie was not even actually an affair as Porter was with her before his marriage to Lynn. The inclusion of this fact makes the viewer feel more for Porter and Lynn and that they were both double-crossed by Val. In the theatrical cut, it appears that Porter was having an affair with Rosie the whole time and so Lynn rightfully double-crossed him. Furthermore, in the theatrical cut it looks like Porter tracks Rosie down for love in addition to getting her to help him find Val whereas in the DC it appears to be solely for her help.

I also thought that the third act of the DC was a bit too quick an affair. I think it would have served the film better if the train station scene was played out a little longer to increase the tension. The scene in the back of the truck seemed pointless to me as well. Although it showed how menacing Porter could be, it had little relevance to the plot and seemed like it would have fit better as one of a collection of deleted scenes on the DVD.

All in all, I think both films are equal and cannot decide between them. I think the DC has some noble changes and it is obvious that Helgeland would have made the original Payback slightly better, yet saying this, the DC is not without its faults. I think the original flowed better but I liked how much darker Porter was presented in the DC. Perhaps a combination of the two films with the original's third act would have been more pleasing. The eye gouge scene should have been in but the dog could stay dead.

[–] Sfpsycho415 17 years ago

I actually liked the final scenes in this cut more than the original. I guess i am a fan of endings that aren't so neat and tidy. And the part where the guy says "Hey. A guy wants you to drink this." I was rolling on the floor in laughter. Also, i thought Gregg Henry aka Val had a little more screen time in this version which was very welcome, and the scene where Porter beats up his traitor wife was cool and very dark.

However, i kinda missed Kris Kristofferson and the lady over the phone was kinda weak, probably because we already saw Kris in the original. The car blowing up scene and the torture scene were great scenes too, and i was hoping at least the car blowing up scene would be in the DC.

So, as i expected, i am gonna keep both versions and consider the whole thing a Payback "Ultimate Edition", and watch each one depending on my mood.

[–] mgtbltp 9 years ago

The best film would be roughly, the theatrical release with the blue tint up to the killing of Carter then go with the directors cut (keeping the blue tint) to the ambiguous end, but even that I would trim a bit, there are just too many syndicate men waiting for an obsessive nut case wanting a measly 130,000. I'd keep the beating of his wife & the killing of the dog also.

We need a fan edit

[–] Hands_of_Fate 8 years ago

I enjoy both versions for different reasons, but one thing I know is I hated the color timing of the original film. I have no idea why that's necessary. Michael Mann is good at that de-saturated look. Practically no one else is. It's a distasteful trend that I hope dies one day. A film is dark/edgy because of the subject matter not, because you make it look depressing.