User reviews

Payback, while admittedly one of the more violent movies out this year, was definitely an entertaining flick.

Like the promo catch phrase says, this time you'll root for the bad guy. If Gibson's character has any redeeming qualities, they are on a very short list. Porter (Gibson) is violent, at times even cruel and the other characters aren't much better; some are worse. Every character is from the wrong side of the tracks, even the cops are on the take and there are no punches pulled. The only character you can really feel is a "good guy" is Rose, the stereotypical Callgirl with a heart of gold (although it's maybe only 10 karat, not a real 24 karat heart).

Nevertheless, you will root for Porter. Frankly, I don't think anyone else could have pulled off this role and still kept the support of the audience like Gibson did, but then he generally always plays the good guy with a twist. This time, the twist is a little more savage than usual.

All in all, if you enjoy the occasional violent romp on the big screen and you're a fan of Mel Gibson; Payback is worth seeing.

Yes - Payback & Point Blank (1967) are very similar. But there is a very good reason for that. Both films are based on the novel 'The Hunter' by Richard Stark, a pseudonym for Donald E Westlake.

The films share several character names such as Brewster, Carter, Stegman and Fairfax and similar plots. In both cases the anti-hero Porter (or Walker) is trying to recover a sum of money after being double-crossed.

Now, I am a huge fan of Point Blank. It takes a relatively simple plot and makes a bit of cinematic poetry out of it. And if I was forced to compare Lee Marvin and Mel Gibson's performances, then I'm sorry but Gibson would lose big time. However, Payback is a much better film than I thought it would be. There are sufficient differences to make the story interesting and though it is told in a much more straightforward and, dare I say, 'safe' way than Point Blank, it is a very well made film and tells a compelling story well. And it's nice to see Gibson return to a somewhat morally ambiguous character a la Mad Max.

"Payback" is one of those highly entertaining movies that make you forget your sorrows for a moment and entertains you right till the end. Difference with most other entertaining movies is that this movie also has a great story!

The movie is completely driven by the main character played by Mel Gibson. He plays a great and fun criminal who is an anti-hero and a total bad guy but still someone for who you can feel and cheer about. The movie also features lot's of other great actors including James Coburn in a very fun role, Kris Kristofferson, Lucy Liu, Bill Duke and David Paymer. The movie is filled with great and entertaining characters.

The story is just great and has quite some nice twists and moments. The movie is comedy like but it also has a wonderful film-noir feeling with a typical atmosphere. There are also some nice action sequences in which Mel Gibson's character might be featured a bit too much as an hero.

Nothing about this movie indicates that there were troubles on the set during filming with the director Brian Helgeland, on the contrary! Everything about the movie feels very fun like.

Solid entertainment!

8/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

A modern-day film noir, this is about as tough as it gets. Rough characters, rough violence and rough language all comprise this re-make of the 1967 film "Point Blank," which starred Lee Marvin.

Mel Gibson is the "good guy" here, taking Marvin's role, but I put that in quotes because he's not really "good," just a thief attempting to get his $70,000 back which was stolen from him by his partner and ex-wife in a former heist. He goes up the ladder, little guy to the top boss, to finally get his money.

Gibson gets beaten up several times and even gets tortured in one toes- crunching scene. The women are tough-looking, coarse and unappealing. I did like the metallic-blue hues in here, making this an interesting visual film. However, the city scenes are bleak, a la Batman.

Despite the above, I still found the movie good enough to watch several times. Most people like a simple, revenge story which this really is, and there is dark humor in here, too. The other characters are interesting, particularly the one played by William Devane. I also liked the narration by Gibson, done in 1940s film noir style. The worst person in here was the sadistic "Val Resnick" (Gregg Henry). He was so bad, he was cartoon-ish, someone so bad he belonged in one of those Batman or Hellboy or Spiderman flicks.

What can I say. This movie is the one to watch when you are angry with someone. Through Mel Gibson, you can experience your anger and frustration and get that vicarious revenge.

Gibson's character just wanted what was due; nothing more or less. He methodically went up the line to get it. He was clever and ruthless. In the end...well, I won't tell you that. I have to say that I got the best of all those who wronged me through Porter.

With the possible exception of Braveheart, this is Gibson's best. He makes Richard Stark's book come to life on the big screen in a way that it is a pleasure to watch again and again. And, hey, it has Maria Bello, and that gives it an additional star.

Besides, it's cheap therapy.

Note: this review will apply to the 2006 directors' cut rather than the theatrical release.

Mel Gibson is convincingly ferocious as a lowlife criminal - albeit one of those guys with a personal code - who is double-crossed after a successful robbery. He survives, natch, and becomes absolutely HELLBENT on achieving justice for himself. He takes on all comers as he determines to reclaim his share of the money - $70,000, no more, no less - and get back at the slimeball (Gregg Henry) who betrayed him.

The main hook of this extremely brutal and visceral crime film is that there are no real "good guys" here - most of the characters are despicable to one degree or another. But Gibsons' Porter is one of those compelling anti-heroes whom you can't help but watch. It's richly satisfying whenever he dispatches his latest adversary.

People who loathe excessive violence in films are well advised to look elsewhere. But this second adaptation of a "Richard Stark" (Donald E. Westlake) novel, after the 1967 picture "Point Blank", has a superb forward momentum and a very gritty feel.

Gibson is ably supported by a rich variety of familiar faces. Henry is such a p.o.s. That you eagerly anticipate his demise. Maria Bello, David Paymer, Bill Duke, Deborah Kara Unger, John Glover, William Devane, and Lucy Liu provide sterling support. Liu is delicious as a sexy sadomasochist. James Coburn appears unbilled. This being the directors' cut, the crime bigwig named Bronson does not appear on screen (giving them a bit of an enigmatic quality), and is voiced by Sally Kellerman rather than played by Kris Kristofferson.

Scripted by director Brian Helgeland, this is a pretty straightforward story, and VERY amusing, no matter how implausible it may get. But at least our main character is no superhero; he does take some lumps before this is through.

Seven out of 10.

Easily one of Gibson's best, and one of the best of it's kind you will ever see. Homage to film noir, combined with usual Gibson tongue-in-cheekness, and some fabulous supporting roles from the likes of Coburn, Kristofferson, Liu, and Devane. Henry does a stirling job here opposite Gibson. Liu is simply wonderful in a role that - worryingly perhaps - looks like it was made for her!

Porter's single-minded, no-nonsense determination to get what he sees as justice for himself strikes a chord, and has you rooting for him right to the end. This film rarely lets up on the intensity, and gets better as it goes along. It will make you laugh and cringe at the same time, but you won't want to take your eyes off the screen for a second. It looks good, feels good, and oozes class. Definitely a must-see.

I saw the Director's Cut, and did not see the theatrical release, so I can't compare them. Based on what I've read, there are many differences between the two. Anyway, there is a lot to like about the film, but in the end I think it is too sadistic, too much a fantasy and seemingly only with wanton violence as the point. Gibson is chewing up the screen, surrounded by and playing off of great character actors. Chicago is both gritty and glamorous and is a great backdrop. The pace is great, the action riveting even when unbelievable, and the story is complex and creative. The taxi ambush scene is particularly unbelievable. The writer and director didn't get Lucy Liu's character right; is she meant to be funny ?

If you don't like violence, then don't watch this movie. If you are open to great storytelling and gritty dialogue, this is the movie for you. In some ways superior to the remake and just as gripping. Some have hated this film just because of what it was, and that's a shame for them that they can't enjoy a film that neither glorifies nor trashes the underside of life. In a weird way, the main character Porter (who was Walker in the Lee Marvin film, played this time by Mel Gibson who is almost as good as Lee Marvin. Nobody could be better than Marvin in this kind of role) has a kind of decency code of his own even though it is more than a bit twisted. After all, in a world inhabited by criminals, the rules change significantly and so once has to either adapt or find a way out. Porter does both in both versions.

No sense in rehashing the plot. Suffice it to say that it is about a crook who got burned and wants what is coming to him and gets even along the way. Besides, the plot has been recounted by so many better reviewers than myself. I can only say that in "Point Blank" the ending is a bit more ambiguous. A precursor to the films of the 1970s.

It's always hard for me to rate one film version over another. It is almost impossible to not want to (in my mind at least) mix and match actors in roles. James Coburn played the same part as did Carroll O'Connor in the original and they are both perfect while being so different. After all, they were both accomplished actors. And maybe I could have done without a lot of the S&M and B&D scenes in the newer version but I chalk that up to the changes in the world since the 1960s.

Long before there was a Quentin Tarrantino, there were great directors like Don Siegel, Sam Peckinpah and Sam Fuller who were as tough as nails and not just some fan who knew how to use the best of all of these guys brilliant touches, and add some sick jokes. But director/writer Brain Helgeland does spectacularly well with the material, while the new cast shines in their roles almost as though they weren't acting, but living the parts. And that goes right down to the underrated David Paymer as a pathetic hustler (who could easily have been played in earlier times by an Elisha Cook Jr. as he did with the Wilmer role from "The Maltese Falcon" yet Paymer does so with more humor.) It is hard to make one root for people so lacking in morals but director, writer and actors manage amazingly well.

Both "Payback" and "Point Blank" are instant classics that should be considered as such. And God bless the memories of Lee Marvin and John Vernon (both in the original "Point Blank" version.) Such fine thespians will be sorely missed. Fortunately, their memories are on celluloid and other mediums to be enjoyed by many more audiences.

You might have guessed I really love these two movies.

Payback is the third interpretation of Donald E. Westlake's novel The Hunter (1962), written under the pseudonym Richard Stark. A crime thriller novel, the first of the Parker novels. The other films are John Boorman's Point Blank (1967), starring Lee Marvin and Ringo Lam's Full Contact (1992), starring Chow Yun-fat.

Payback was directed by Brian Helgeland and written Brian Helgeland (screenplay) and Terry Hayes (screenplay), (theatrical cut). Cinematography was by Ericson Core, and music was by Chris Boardman.

The film stars Mel Gibson as Porter, Gregg Henry as Val Resnick, Maria Bello as Rosie, Lucy Liu as Pearl, Deborah Kara Unger as Lynn Porter, David Paymer as Arthur Stegman, Bill Duke as Detective Hicks, Jack Conley as Detective Leary, John Glover as Phil, William Devane as Carter, James Coburn as Fairfax, Kris Kristofferson as Bronson (Theatrical Cut), Sally Kellerman as Bronson (Director's Cut), Trevor St. John as Johnny Bronson (Theatrical Cut), Freddy Rodriguez as Valet, Manu Tupou as Pawnbroker.

There are two versions out there the theatrical release and the director's cut.

I've seen both versions. The best film version in my opinion would be roughly, the theatrical release with the narration and blue tint then go with the director's cut (but keeping the blue tint) to the ambiguous end. I'd keep the beating also.

The film looks great in a Noir-ish way. It homages beautifully classic noir with it voice over narration, the heavy use of stylistics and locations that evoke cinematic memory. Gregg Henry is impressive he evokes the spirit of Dan Duryea.Unfortunately the film goes somewhat slowly off the rails with various scenarios, i.e. Porter cutting a gas line under a an 80s Lincoln which would be physically impossible to do, you can't squeeze under that type of car, no way, and the unneeded extraneous additions of dominatrix Pearl (Liu ) and the Chinese Tong machine gun battle where it veers off into Action film and touches on Tarantino land, when it didn't have to, a shame. The majority of Films Noir were simple stories when you overload then with action sequences you tip the film past the noir tipping point it becomes more of the Action Genre, for me anyway.

Give it a fair shake your personal noir tuning fork may accept it more than mine does. Watch also the Film Soleil adaptation of the novel, Point Blank (1967), for a comparison, same story set in California. I haven't seen Chow Yun-fat's Full Contact (1992). Screencaps are from the Paramount DVD. 6.5-7/10

Payback directed by Brian Helgeland is a classic "film noir" following the tradition of urban "gangster movies" and Mel Gibson is giving an outstanding performance as Porter - the bad guy who is only slightly better than the rest of the gangsters, hoodlums, crooks and scoundrels to be met in the film.

"Payback" is a great movie in this genre. Donald E. Westlake, who has written the novel on which the film is based, has picked up the thread of Raymond Chandler and Dashiel Hammett to create an authentic universe with "real" characters, and Brian Helgeland has succeeded to bring this universe to the screen.

Everything about this movie is great - the storyboard, the cast, the direction and the soundtrack. This film bears resemblance to Sergio Leone's "The Good, the Bad & the Ugly" and if you have seen "the Maltese Falcon" starring Bogart, you should definitely see "Payback".

After hearing so much about the original filming of The Hunter, a novel by Richard Stark (Donald Westlake)- Point Blank starring Lee Marvin - I was pleased to discover a DVD of this recently. Now I can put into focus why the two versions (the other being the present film, Payback)have often been compared.

First, the two versions are very different. While Payback is informed by the first film's interpretation of the novel, most of it builds a whole new interpretation from the ground up.

Point Blank is a very odd film, attempting to interject avant-garde film ideas into a straight mainstream gangster film. It is entirely about the ethics of the central character ("Walker" in that film, "Porter" in this, Stark's "Parker"), a professional criminal bent on revenge. This professionalism - the heart of the Stark novel, by the way - is rather underscored in Point Blank, yet it is essential. Marvin's Walker is, specifically, a professional THIEF; thus the task of the storyteller is to let him get his revenge without actually killing anybody (since that would take him beyond his profession, into the role of murderer, with all sorts of worries attached to it that Walker doesn't really want).

Both Payback's director, Helgeland, and star Gibson have missed this entirely. Instead, they are more interested in seeing the character get his revenge in as violent a manner as possible, and still get away with it at the end. Thus, although Gibson's Porter is more clearly a career criminal, he is just not as professional as Walker (or original Parker).

This comes out in an oddly romantic way. In Point Blank, after sleeping with him, Walker's sister-in-law thinks she has found her way into his heart; "What's my first name?" he demands - a question she can't answer since he never bothered to tell her. This relationship isn't going to last very long.

Gibson's Porter, on the other hand, finds in the prostitute Rosie "the one good thing in life that hasn't been taken away." So Payback will need to find a way of resolving this new, exciting - and very UNprofessional - relationship by the end of the film (and I won't say how).

Does this make Gibson's Porter more "human" than Marvin's Walker? Oddly, no. One reason we're fascinated with Walker is because he is intentionally keeping his real personality hidden from the world. Gibson's Porter, on the other hand, is an open book - he's out for revenge, and we're along for the ride. The multi-dimensionality of the personality melts into the conventions of the genre. Thus despite his being a cold-blooded killer, Porter is really just another variant on the suicidal Vet-cum-Cop Gibson plays in "Leathal Weapon." The flatness of the characters in Payback is to some extent relieved by the excellent performances of the cast, all of which make these stereotypical genre figures seem believable - but it's all Hollywood, in the last analysis.

One more comparison between the two films is worthwhile here. Point Blank appears to have been made fairly rapidly, but director Boorman's strategic decisions concerning imagery and editing necessitated a remarkable precision in the making of the film.

By contrast, and despite delays, Payback looks hurried and sloppy. For one thing, the soundtrack wants to remind us that all this action is taking place around 1970. But since making this film a period-piece would have required much more expense and effort than is visible on screen, we are left with a film about 1990s gangsters who just never grew up.

Well, it sounds like I didn't care for Payback very much, but this is not true. Actually, I think Payback is a lot of fun, and I see it at least once a year; Now that I've seen Point Blank, I don't expect to see it again, because its so downbeat. Point Blank is a better film than Payback, but it's really a different film.

But films are not (contrary to Hollywood propaganda) just for fun. They can be that, but they can also be something else.

personally, I'm now looking forward to somebody savvy enough to make a version of The Hunter as complex as Point Blank and yet also as much fun as Payback. Now THAT would be a movie.

I gave this movie a 3 only because the acting was good considering the plot and script stink. Okay, Lucy Liu as S&M mistress was pretty much hubba, hubba. This story has got more holes in it that Lucy's fishnets. Sorry but other than a mindless 2 hour shoot 'em up, there's not much to the story.

By the way, wreaking that much havoc and mayhem and subjecting oneself to the "harm" that Mel took for $70,000 in this day and age just doesn't pass the 'suspend reality' test.

Simply put, this is a Mel Gibson movie. And a comedy, at that. A somewhat 'dark' comedy, but it clearly is not meant to be taken seriously. His crooked character has been cheated out of $70,000 by another crook and he is determined to get it back. No matter what. The entertainment comes in the ways in which he repeatedly gets into impossible positions, and usually is able to get out of them. Good excitement and good writing. There are no good guys in this movie, just bad, badder, and baddest!

Payback is a movie that doesn't take itself too seriously. In fact, the movie is really an action / comedy rather than a pure action film.

There is a little too much blood, but not excessive and no gore, so not too bad from the mindset of an action film buff like me. The plot has a few neat twists, and in general is a lot like the awful "Raw Deal" (w/Arnold Schwartzenegger) would have been if it had been well-acted, hadn't taken itself too seriously, and had an intelligent plot.

Plenty of stuff blows up and I recommend the film. If you are looking for another nobody-really-seen-hurt comedy / action like Lethal Weapon, this is not your film, however.

Who should see this film:

-- Action film buffs who won't mind a bit overaverage violence

(more than "Ransom")

-- Mel Gibson fans (but see everything else first)

Like most raters, I'll give Payback a 7 out of 10.

PAYBACK is wonderfully entertaining nod to the film noir drama that puts a great star smack dab in the middle of a great story and he totally runs with it. This dark and delicious film stars Mel Gibson as Porter, a former Mafioso who was left for dead by a former running partner and robbed of his half of a heist ($70,000.00)and Porter's single-minded quest to get his money back, not concerned with what he has to do or who has to kill to get it. The funny thing about the story is that all the people who stand in his way can't believe Porter is going to all this trouble for only $70,000.00...which is chump change where mob money is concerned, but this doesn't concern Porter, who just wants it back, no more, no less. Gibson appears to be thoroughly enjoying himself here, in one of his most off-beat and engaging characterizations. Effective support is provided by Maria Bello, James Coburn, Kris Kristofferson, Gregg Henry, David Paymer, William Devane, John Glover, and a brief but memorable turn from Lucy Lieu. The cinematography is dark and dreary(it almost looks like it's in B&W, but's it not)but it fits the style of the film perfectly. The story is simple and straightforward and will keep you engrossed until the final credits roll...an under-appreciated sleeper that got by a lot of people.

Porter (Mel Gibson) lies severely wounded with two gunshot wounds in his back. A surgeon removes the bullets and Porter spends months healing. He then begins tracking down Val Resnick (Gregg Henry), his former partner, and Lynn (Deborah Unger), his ex-wife, both of whom left him for dead following a $140,000 heist from the Chinese triads.

Although this is probably one of Mel Gibson's best roles, I have to also give a shout-out to the character Bronson (Kris Kristofferson). Sure, Brian Helgeland's Bronson was not supposed to be like this, and I do love Helgeland... but how can you deny the sheer awesome of Kris Kristofferson? Truly a force of nature.

This film shares the same source material as "Point Blank" (1967), directed by John Boorman and starring Lee Marvin. I must sadly admit I have not seen that film or read the original book. Now I feel like I should to get a better sense of comparison...

I haven't revisited this gem for a long time. It came out during Mel Gibson's heyday and before his fall from grace. Payback was the 90s version of John Wick, and it was headlined by one of the most marketable action stars of the time. The man's troubled past aside; his films have always been great. Whether he was behind the camera or in front of it, you could bank on the movie to be fantastic. The movie features a lot of other marvelous stars in supporting roles, as well as a smart script and tremendous action sequences. It was also made during the era of action stars showing how much punishment they could take on screen and Mel Gibson holds his own with Harrison Ford and Danny Glover in that regard. It may not be his best film of all time but it is certainly good old fashioned fun and enjoys cult classic status. It is on Prime currently, so feast your eyes before it goes back into the vault.

Mel (as Parker aka Porter) is a bad guy who comes across as a good guy because everyone else in this flic is even more nasty than he is. It's a simple play on perspective not often utilized in the movies. Usually, the hero is A HERO, white hat and all, even with a few quirks or deficiencies to his character. Not so, here. And the key to the whole picture is buying into Mel as a bad man, all despite his many years in heroic roles beforehand. It works very well, especially in the beginning, where it really needed to. There's an early scene during the credits where Mel forces himself to smile in a mirror, as preparation for putting forth his 'best face' to a teller at a bank. One gets the impression this really is a man unaccustomed to smiling, a sour, angry man. The early scenes also recall the beginning of "Miami Blues," that being a criminal swooping into town and wasting no time in bringing a little terror & hardship on certain select bystanders. There's a danger, in a film sense, of satirizing such moments too much, to the point of slapstick comedy - rather than dark comedy, which it really is. But Mel doesn't mess around here: he means business, bashing scum left & right, and blowing 'em away as he moves up the ladder of an organized crime organization. The rest of the cast is top-notch, by the way. The casting directors must have had a field day on this one. Then Mel himself is beaten; the whole theme of the movie seems to be about pain: how much one can stand; how much one can dish out. It ends up being very cathartic. The cinematography also helps this picture: the photography is quite stark,ultra-crisp, adding to the 'punch' of the whole show. The lines on Mel's face are deeper than ever; he seems to carry years of pain there. And years of guilt, maybe.

I got caught up in this movie one night just flipping channels and next thing I know, I've watched the whole movie. Mel Gibson plays a thug, Porter, who is out for some payback against a friend who screwed him over in a, lets just say, financial matter. While instant payback would have made for a very short movie, there are some nice twists and turns that make for an entertaining movie. Although a thug and most likely a menace to any society, you start to sympathize with Porter throughout the movie. As deadpan as Porter is, he becomes a somewhat likable thug. By the end of the movie, you're on his side and hoping he can get himself out of some tricky situations. Or could it just be the end of the line for him?

Zero out of ten -- strictly for the brainless. But here's a joke for you: in an interview just broadcast on French radio (France Culture), John Boorman, whose seminal classic Point Blank was dropped into the liquidiser by Gibson and Helgeland, recalls his first meeting with Lee Marvin to discuss the movie. The studio's script was so bad that Marvin hurled it out of the window of the London house where they both were. Subsequently the idea was re-crafted into a new script -- which became the masterwork Point Blank is. Boorman imagines that Mel Gibson may have been passing in the street and picked the original script out of the gutter where Marvin had thrown it -- and subsequently filmed it as Payback.

Boorman says he went around various film festivals telling this story, until, in the run-up to the release of Payback, Gibson rang him and asked him to stop telling it, as it was having a bad effect on Payback's chances! As if Payback didn't do a good enough job all on its own of persuading people it was trash...

Payback is utterly worthless; those with no sense for film may enjoy it as mindless pulp but anyone with any feeling for film will find it wildly uneven, graceless and crude. It flails around between clumsily derivative writing and acting, characters with no credible humanity, gratuitous sadism and unfunny slapstick. Some critics here have describes it as uncivilised, and I know what they mean - a film as stupid as this can only come about as a result of pure cynicism. Or... could it be that the rumours are right, and that the dead hand of Mr Gibson, currently in the news for his charming comments about blacks, Jews and gays, can be felt in the script and tone?