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.
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.