Sortof SPOILER ALERT - though there are not details:
Don't watch this if you loved the original film. It changes everything and ruined the whole Guy Ritchie-esque style to it. It loses its flavor and intensity. I bought it in the Mel Gibson 3 pack (Payback, Braveheart, We Were Soldiers) and it didn't have the option to watch the original cut, the good, much better cut. I recommend you don't watch it, it ruined it for me and I wish I could get my money back.
You're weird. I don't prefer this to the original cut but I nevertheless liked it. It's very similar to the original, it's mostly the final act that's completely different, the bluish look and the voice over. I don't know how one can be called great and the other crap.
And Guy Ritchie-he totally blows. How do you compare the original Payback to his miserable ouptuts.
I agree with fact that the directors cut is very similar to the original aside from the end. However, you tainted your comment by saying that Guy Ritchie blows. You are a complete moron. The writer/director of Snatch and Lock, Stock, and Two Smokin Barrels...cmon...I cant believe you said he blows, two of the most original, entertaining films you will ever see. Guy Ritchie is amazing, and so is this directors cut.
shareTo devon 64:
C'mon. Did I offend you in some way? You may think my comment is somewhat tainted, but is there a need to call me that?
I dislike posters like you very much. I stated an opinion about a director whose films I don't like. And you see fit to call me a complete moron.
You are at the very least very rude. But if you're so taken by my comment I will retract it somewhat. He doesn't blow, I just don't think he's very good.
Thankyou, and Im sorry that I offended your very delicate sensitivity. I respect your opinion and calling you a moron was mostly a joke. However, dont talk down to me, just to make yourself feel better about having a bad taste in movies, and being a terrbile judge of character. That was also a joke. We are all allowed our opinions, so go ahead and dislike Guy Ritchie. Everyone has different movie tastes...hopefully this smooths us over, so you dont put me in the same category as people who just post rebuttles for the sake of arguing. I understand your frustration, but I was joking. Anyways, the point of this board was to support Brian Hegeland's directors cut.
Scorsese For Life
Devon and this original poster need to realize they both know nothing about films.
Arthur
wewerethecoolkids.blogspot.com/
I realize this is 8 years later, but I recently received a message where this thread was still being responded to. Anyways, I'd like to just say, opinions and knowledge are separate. They inform one another, but there is a difference. My preference for the original cut speaks nothing to my understanding nor does it inform my knowledge of film. In short, eat some, nancy.
shareTo jbjorns:
"I dislike posters like you very much. I stated an opinion about a director whose films I do not like. And you see fit to call me a complete moron. You are at the very least very rude."
Homeboy, wasn't it YOU who began the first response to the poster of this thread by calling him "wierd"? Don't be such a clueless hypocite.
@ jbjorns~
don't mind dolts, such as devon 64,for they are merely simplistic, unrefined miscreants, who can't bear to read anything contrary to their own opinions.
devon 64 what has he really done since? and how can you say they are two of the most original films? With movies like these it's like saying the newest zombie flick is the most original entertaining film ever to hit the horror world... really it's all been done before, all you can do is put your twist.. guy is a minor threat among the big boys of directing who lucked out with two very similar movies. the end.
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, or insanity to anyone. But they've always worked for me.
[deleted]
Snatch and Lock, Stock, and Two Smokin Barrels...are basically the same movie...and his other two offerings, Revolver and Swept Away, were unwatchable. Ritchie is a hack.
share" two of the most original, entertaining films you will ever see. Guy Ritchie is amazing"
Jesus..... That's like the most incorrect statement since "2 + 2 = 1000000"
Baron Frankenstein:
"To know death Otto, you have to *beep* life... in the gall bladder!"
Worst directors cut i have ever seen. The original is superior in ALL aspects !
shareGuy Ritchie is Tarrantino light. Even more style with even less substance. He's a wannabee and little else. He's done 2 watchable movies in almost 10 years. Did anyone bother with Swept Away? Or with Revolver? The first was universally panned and the second universally forgotten.
So Lock Stock became a MINOR cult classic. Enjoyable little film, fairly amatuerish. Snatch is essentially the same film with a bit more polish and a few more stars. Still felt like a Pulp Fiction/Resevoir knockoff with British accents.
That doesn't make him a great and not even a particularly good director. Sure he's milked the publicity for all its worth and his celebrity has become larger than his actual body of work warrants. We can't quite call him a hack because he hasn't done enough work. But there's no reason to think he's good.
I gotta defend Snatch, I thought it was much more than just a Pulp Fiction knockoff. Much different style, much different structure, much different pace. Both mess with time, deal with illegal activities, and have "funny" dialogue. Doesn't mean they are the same.
share[deleted]
But you like the new Fantastic Four movie...and you call Pulp Fiction "overrated crap"?
"It's complicated. Let's just say it's vengeance for the life you stole from me."-Edmond Dantes
Enough talk about Guy Ritchie. Let's get back to discussing Payback! Anyway, I have to say that I prefer the director's cut. It's more brutal, and the tone is more consistent. The Kris Kristofferson/kidnapping subplot in the original is exciting, but the quips and the humor don't really meld with the darker tone of the first half. Also, why did the son they kidnapped have to be a gay-acting pretty boy? Hmm ... probably because Mel hates poofs and that's his go-to move when he wants to make a character weak and unsympathetic (see Braveheart).
But I digress. I can see why people prefer the theatrical cut, but as a fan of the original novel (classic '60s pulp; remorselessly brutal and amoral), I prefer the director's cut. Just my opinion.
[deleted]
Straight up was way better than the theatrical cut. Just my opinion!
shareI just thought this one was great, I saw it before I saw the first one, and I've gotta say I applaud Brian Helgeland for being original.
I thought as a movie it was brilliant, I don't see it as a different cut, I see the first one as a different cut, and I LOVE Straight Up!
Agreed - although I like most seem to like lots of aspects of the original... I like the intro to the original cut better (with the doctor)... If you notice in this one he's walking across a grate at the beginning and then in the wide shot hes on pavement WITH the grate crossing sound lol...
share
Snatch is the most hilarious thing around, with a very good original screenplay and Guy Ritchie sure knows how to direct. I can't believe the way you are so completely restricted to your own little universe, that everything has to be a copy of a copy of a copy. The only thing that really connects the movies mentioned here is that they all have a lot of clever dialogue and humor. Snatch is much more funnier than watching anything Tarantino has been able to put out so far and yet, you are pushing for the fact that Tarantino has been able to put out more *beep* than him. Now, it's really weird to call Guy Ritchie Tarantino light (then again, you spelled it 'Tarrantino', I guess you were stoned), when their flicks actually aren't as similar to each other as you suggest.
Now, I'm a Tarantino fan. I love the way he works his magic. But I'm a huge fan of Guy Ritchie as well. I just can't understand the narrow-minded people always praising the other and pushing the other down, when they are both equally good. I do, however, share your opinion about the amount of movies. Ritchie should've done a lot more stuff already, but I guess he's been playing family with Madonna or something. Then again, if one had Madonna in his bedroom, directing movies wouldn't be the first concern.
Thank you. I find it redundant to point out to those who've seen both versions that the beginning 2/3 of the theatrical and director's cut were the same. However, if Dorothy never threw water on the witch and just pounded her to death, it'd make for an entirely different feel to the overall film. But, that's just me. It's silly to think that the theatrical ending and the director's cut didn't completely change the way you view the film overall. Thanks for agreeing though. Cross your fingers we'll get a theatrical DVD release.
shareI agree, this one is absolutely disgusting. Original was way more interesting. If I saw director's cut first I wouldn't even bother to watch original
share[deleted]
[deleted]
now im ashamed to say this, but i just found out what "directors cut" really means after watching this movie today. the last time i saw this movie was a while ago and after watching this version today i was like.."WTF i thought the last time i saw this i remember mel getting his toes hammered or somethin?!"
i gotta say im disappointed, i also bought this on the mel 3 pack and i wish i could just return this version and get the original. the original had much more action i think and it immersed u into the movie more.
but hey i just hope theres an eegg on the dvd that alows me to see the original version. all i know is that im never getting anything directors cut again.
I think a good number of people who didn't like this held the theatrically cut so sacred that they were just looking for more of the same. The director's cut is what the film was supposed to be.
I bought the director's cut, having never seen the theatrical, so I rented the theatrical and watched it. The a couple days later I watched the director's cut. It's just so much better.
I agree that if I had seen the movie long ago and now saw this version, I would probably hate it. Funny thing is when I saw the trailer on TV so long ago, I wanted to see it badly (I was like 13), but when it came out on video, I never attempted to see it... until now.
The director's cut is for two kinds of people: those who've never seen the original and would prefer to see the director's original vision, as opposed to the version that eventually wound up in theaters; and for those who loved the original novel (and series featuring the same character) by Donald E. Westlake.
I would never recommend it to someone who loved the theatrical version, and this thread seems to bear this out.
I love this version because I'm a big fan of Westlake's Parker series, but I can see why people who liked the theatrical version wouldn't care for this. Saying that it's "terrible," though, just seems small-minded. Just because something is different doesn't make it bad.
[deleted]
The Guy Ritchie thing happens in the very end of the theatrical release. It's that oh-crap-what-are-they-gonna-do-now-thjere's-no-way-out..... ohhhhhhhhhhh MAN!! Didn't see that coming, kinda bait and switch. Not necessarily the filming or cutting or much, similar characters perhaps.
shareGUY RITCHIE-esque???? Oh my God.
shareI don't like the modern style (Or Guy Ritchie style as someone put it) of these type of films made in the last 15 years. They always try to be cool, fun, and hip. Thats why I liked the directors cut way more. It took out most of the comedy. Made Porter a total badass. Got rid of that awful blue tint. The blue tint isn't what made it noir-ish, as some would have you believe otherwise. It's style was overall, a lot more like the original british film Get Carter, or the more recent The Limey. It was harder, and tougher.
It's a revenge story, it's not supposed to be fun.
As of right now, you are reading my signature. :)
[deleted]
if you read the books and understood the character, then you would think like i do that this is a much better version, with a better ending. This is almost true to the story its based on, unlike the watered down version that was originally released.
In the directors cut, Mel is as close to Parker as anyone has been.
whether that's good or bad, I DO NOT KNOW.
shareI agree. I didn't like this version. I thought the final act was clumsy and it just didn't come off well.
I really liked the original; not this one as much.
Rule #1 on action movies: Do NOT leave out an explosion scene. The director's cut does just that, along with every other great action scene in it. I wish the director would've just called it quits when editing it on his Mac. Seriously? Removing EVERY Bronson scene with his son & all that? WHY? This is what director's cut is all about? All the badass parts I wanted to watch to remind myself how awesome this movie was weren't even there. Set sail for fail, director.
shareGuess everybody has another taste...I liked this version much better then the other ! And...this is the Original cut from the directors point of view ! Back then they changed it cause Gibson thought it was harm his image,as far as I know !
shareI really liked this movie. I liked the original, but I found this one more palatable.
To clarify (once again), this is the original director's vision of the movie. The movie he was making when he was fired. Mel Gibson actually likes this version of the movie better and it was the studio suits who fired the director and got them to make the changes that became the theatrical release. Having him not beat up his wife, even though he had just cause (hey, noone is above an ass-whooping especially if you shot him twice in the back!), killing the dog, etc. are all things that the studio felt the public wouldn't accept in a Mel Gibson movie. But if you see the special features and listen to the commentary, you'll see that he liked the Director's cut better.
So Kris Kristofferson was never in the original version, but added when a new director was brought in to make it a "better" theatrical release. I didn't miss him, and think it's more likely that he would never get close to Bronson to kill "her" too.
Revenge movies aren't supposed to be fun? Isn't that the point of a revenge movie, to set up a scenario where bloody catharsis is the order of the day?
I think the best films are the ones that toy with ALL of your emotions, not just one or two.
This one had done to it what happened to blade runner.
OMG, say the execs, a protagonist who isn't a saint and an ambiguous ending, my god this can never work! (never mind film noire). Lets add a cheesey detective narration over it to make people actually... not need to pay attention to the movie to understand it and change the ending to something you'd expect from a TV Movie or a GTA mission.
The narration is unnecessary. The ending of the first one seems cool but in the end its just too cut and dried.
What made Brian Helgoland's original ending better? Porter doesn't get away scot free with the money. In the release he basically got away. He was alive didn't lose anything except some blood. The director's cut you see that he might not live, maybe he's actually going too far, maybe he should have cut his losses.
There is a lesson to be learned in the Director's Cut. The original release was just... meh it just tied it up too nicely.
I agree with Detroit. The studio screwed Brian Helgeland.
Now, if you want to make a slightly slapstick lighthearted 'bad guy' movie, fine. No harm, no foul. It is OK to make one and it is OK to enjoy it. I enjoyed the Theatrical Cut of Payback. I thought it could be better, but it was OK. I didn't need Lucy Liu comedy extended 'sadist' bit; I thought it pandered to the audience. I thought the end was OK, but I thought not killing the dog was pussy. "Oh, no, the puppy-puppy can't die!" Meh. The studio's imprint left a noticeable odor on the film, and I thought that LONG before I knew about BH being fired and the movie getting reshot.
The Director's Cut was a smarter sharper edgier movie that didn't pander to a studio and its test market. It showed Porter was a guy who (SHOCK!) would be mad enough at his wife for shooting him in the back that he might slap her around! Oh, no, the studio says. Can't have that! Porter was also a guy who would shoot a guy for talking s#it to Rosie (the meat truck scene, which I loved). Oh, no, Mel's the hero - he can only shoot guys who are shooting at him or otherwise in his way!
It is disgusting that studios are so cowardly; but then, let us be honest. It is the mass of the movie going public that are the cowardly ones. If they didn't whine about such things as moral ambiguity in the leads or unresolved endings then the studios wouldn't try to force directors into pandering to them. I still recall how people were outraged at a movie like No Country For Old Men because of the 'sudden ending'. Any time a movie isn't dressed up in a nice neat package (preferably with the hero driving off into the sunset with the hooker with the heart of gold by his side and the scary but lovable slobbery dog in the backseat) the movie-going audiences freak. Which only hurts the integrity of the film. The Player is the most obvious example of that.
On a final note, the voice-over issue got mentioned. Yeah, I liked the noir quality to the VO, very much in the same way that I liked it in Blade Runner (BR, in fact, had one of the all time greatest lines in the VO: They don't advertise for killers in the newspaper.). BUT the movie is better served by respecting the writer and the director, not pandering to the audience. I would have enjoyed Blade Runner without the VO and without studio interference. I certainly would have enjoyed Payback a hell of a lot more if it had been released the way Brian Helgeland wrote and directed it.
1. Being moody.
2. Being bad at maths.
3. Being sad.
I agree. Director's cut all the way.
share"Porter doesn't get away scot free with the money. In the release he basically got away. He was alive didn't lose anything except some blood. The director's cut you see that he might not live, maybe he's actually going too far, maybe he should have cut his losses. "
I don't know about that one. Porter may have gotten away with his money in the theatrical cut, but I'd argue he had it even worse than in the Straight Up version. I mean honestly in the director's cut Porter just got shot in the side a few times and it's not so ambiguous as people like to think. Why? Because at the very beginning we saw him survive three shots to the back! At least in the theatrical cut we see Porter getting the holy *beep* beat out of him. That added in interrogation scene was still pretty rough (especially since Porter got two of his toes smashed with a hammer), I'd argue that he was just as torn up in the directors cut.
On the subject of both cuts....am I wrong for liking both? I mean honestly, they're pretty much two completely different movies. They're both film noir, but in different flavors.
Nothing wrong with liking both. I used to like the theatrical version better, then I saw the director's cut, went back to the theatrical, and decided the director's cut was a superior film, much more in keeping with films from the 70s owing to its ambiguous ending.
In the theatrical he does get the crap beaten out of him, but it has no effect. He's always in control it seems. Despite his pain and suffering he's basically never in danger. And we get that cheesy ending. The danger is just a pesky obstacle to overcome, so we shouldn't worry too much. He'll take a few bruises but in the end he always had an escape plan so the bad guys never stood a chance.
Straight up I do think its supposed to be more ambiguous and that you can't just accept that he's fine in the end because he survived being shot once so it must be that he'll survive again. I also think that the fact that Porter doesn't get so beat up in the Straight up version its a stronger film for it. We see him basically running rough shod over these guys but it feels very dangerous, he's pushing and pushing and in the end he gets shot and might die for it. Its much like that film Heat where Robert Deniro's character is free and clear, he can just walk away, but he just can't make himself do it, there's a matter of principle, his identity makes him go back to do what he has to do. He pays for it by dying. Its much the same with Porter. Thats why there is so much focus in this film about the notion of principle. Its central to trying to understand whats happening. The idea is that for all his toughness, for all his intelligence, this matter of principle is whats putting him in jeopardy, and in a world where everyone is a backstabber and has no ethics and just does whats good for themselves he is basically going to end up losing out to it in the end. He's not pragmatic, he's doggedly bound by his personal code, and he pays for that.
Its a very subtle examination of that old anti-hero idea, the whole concept of their ideals that these characters often consider paramount but which are in direct contradiction to most of law abiding society's. You see it in Heat and those characters and you see it here. I think that Straight Up hones in on it while the Theatrical release misses it because it butchers the film to make it into a cliche.
"In the theatrical he does get the crap beaten out of him, but it has no effect. He's always in control it seems. Despite his pain and suffering he's basically never in danger."
To the theatrical cuts credit, that's essentially how Porters book counterpart Parker handled everything too.
Funnily enough about the whole principle thing, Porter himself disputes this in the movie.
Fairfax: "You just signed your own death warrant for $130,000. What is it? Uh, the principle or something huh?'
Porter: "No. I just want my money back."
He disputes it but its obvious that Fairfax is right. If it were just about money then he'd be happy about it being $130k rather than 70. Its an irony about his character. Porter can't see it clearly even if others can.
sharei strongly agree with you
the director's cut loose the tone of the theatrical cut
i prefer largely the theatrical cut
the ending in this director's cut is very mediocre
Payback 8/10
Payback director's cut 5/10