PAYBACK (1999)
A Film Review by Ted Prigge
Copyright 1999 Ted Prigge
Director: Brian Helgeland
Writers: Terry Hayes and Brian Helgeland (based on the novel "The Hunter" by Donald E. Westlake)
Starring: Mel Gibson, Maria Bello, Gregg Henry, David Paymer, Deborah Kara Unger, Lucy Alexis Liu, William Devane, John Glover, James Coburn, Kris Kristoferson, Bill Duke, Jack Conley
Like I did with "American History X," I wonder if there's a different cut of "Payback," a Director's Cut if you will, that is significantly better than the one I saw. As you've probably heard, as it was official controversy, both films were subject to re-cuts by each film's respective star, and in the case of "Payback," multiple reshoots, changing the original cut of the film which either didn't test well with said actor, test audiences, or both. But as I also did with "American History X," I bet the original cut, though perhaps better, is not exactly stupendous. At best, "American History X" was a very good TV movie, boasting at least some intensity from its lead actor (Edward Norton) if not some truly obvious jabs at contemporary racism (no way! racism can transform people into monsters?!). But with "Payback," it's at best a really entertaining, silly bad guy flick. The focus of "Payback" is, of course, on a "morally corrupt individual" (read: the villain, if this was another movie) and his numerous attempts at cold-hearted vengeance. Many of the criticisms of "Payback" bring this out about the movie: the lead character's completely unsympathetic, the movie's too dark and too violent, and it's too bleak. My estimation: he's not unsympathetic enough, and the movie's not nearly as dark, violent, or bleak as it should be.
My guess why: Mel Gibson, the film's star, who perhaps was not man enough to go the distance and make his character a completely repellent character. Normal audience members hate to see movies where they have conflicting views on the lead character, and they bitch and moan when a movie puts them in a position where they are forced to follow things from the point of view of a character they are opposed to, for whatever reason. The supreme example of this is with "A Clockwork Orange," where the lead character is a complete deviant: a thug, a rapist, and a self-centered sonofabitch. But because it's his story, because there is voice-over narration by him, and because the film puts him in a position where instead of him being the torturer, he's the captive, we are forced into a peculiar catharsis where we have to wonder if we're supposed to like this character or not. Either way, we care about him in some capacity, and listening to different people's reactions, including your own, is intriguing.
This probably should have happened in "Payback," another film adaption of the Donald E. Westlake novel "The Hunter," which was adapted back in 1967 by John Boorman as "Point Blank," a classic noir film starring Lee Marvin which I've not seen but hear it's so cold and bleak that it's incredible. The same will not happen for this film: yes, it's very cold and bleak and the character is generally a bastard, but it's the things that Gibson has added that lessen the edge on the film and make it more of a hoot-and-hollering bit of entertainment: the audience laughs hysterically at the twists because they're proposterously ingenius. A bit with a bomb and a hotel room is only a nice touch because it requires skillful manipulation on the part of Gibson's character over the rest of the characters, shrewd intelligence that no one else seems to have. At one point, he walks into said hotel room, the phone mysteriously rings, and he finds the bomb. Next shot is of the bad guys who planted it there sitting in their car, and trying to set it off again. Suddenly we see someone cutting the fuel tank underneath the car. A couple seconds later, we're back in the car, and Gibson is seen menacingly through the rear-view mirror, puffing on a cigarette. A large lake of gasoline has spread from underneath the car to his feet. He drops the cigarette, the car explodes. Audience roars with laughter, and maybe some applause.
It's this kind of showmanship that disengages us from the cruelty that could be and might very well be the original cut of "Payback." At heart, this film yearns to be brutally bleak and questionably immoral because it's teeming with villains - there's really not one 100% likable character in the movie. The film's plot is even gritty and admittingly great: Gibson's character, with the simple moniker of Porter, is a career criminal who does a small job with his wife (Deborah Kara Unger) and a pal crook of his (Gregg Henry, a greasy DePalma regular) only to be shot in the back and left for dead by the two others. He lives, though, and when completely rehabilitated, he comes back not just for vengeance, but for his cut of the money. His wife is quickly offed via a drug overdose (a shame, considering Unger is such an interesting actress as evidenced by her performances in "Crash" and "The Game"), but his other two objectives are harder to get at. Henry, as it turns out, has joined a large crime corportation dubbed "The Syndiacate," and entry contained Porter's cut of the money. Not only is Henry harder to get to, but now he also has to go through the numerous levels of this Syndicate to obtain his biggest objective.
That he's so concentrated on this objective is what's so entertaining and so silly about this film. We end up rooting for him not only because he's the one dolling out the narration, but because his ambition measures head-for-head with his brain, and that he manages to be so precise while being so crazy (going head-to-head with this Syndicate for a mere 70 grand is a joke in itself). It's a not-bad plot, but let's face it: we can't take what he goes through seriously at all since he goes so over-the-top in his attack on the corporation, and thus I wonder if that other cut is more subtle and more believable, and therefore more engaging. Not to say this film isn't engaging: "Payback" is furiously entertaining, a showstopper that leaves you with a big stupid grin on your face, or at least that was my perception. In short, it's fun. Gibson's Porter is weirdly likable, and the opening moments of this film are mesmerizing. We see him getting the bullets taken out of him by a criminal's doctor, then getting back in the game by stealing a man's wallet and spoiling himself, all with a deadpan look on his face, like he's not really enjoying himself, he's just being true to his nature.
In fact, Gibson is superb here. With a low, gritty, tobacco-induced voice that sounds eerily like the computer in "Alpahville," Gibson plays him as a man who doesn't seem to have a real emotion in his body and reacts to the doublecross by merely wanting to get his money back, and maybe getting vengeance on his traitors as a little bit of extra credit. He makes it tough on the audience to really like him, and surprisingly enough, Porter doesn't evoke at all his Mad Max character, the antihero who has had the soul drained out of him. But then again, there's the rest of the film, which tries to make him more sympathetic by introducing a romantic interest in the form of a prostitute (Maria Bello) whom he comes to for help and becomes interested in. Their half-assed potential romance is just that, and it's something I wish had been done in a far more subtle, more bleak fashion (I hear "Point Blank" reduces their romance to a one-night stand which is far more compelling and true to form than the bit in this film). As such, it corrupts the film, and makes it seem like Porter is perhaps not being shown in his true colors, like he's been distilled for a mainstream audience.
Other parts don't bode too well either: the subplot involving Kris Kristoferson as the head of the Syndicate is, yes, entertaining, but it's also distracting from what this film should be. Originally supposed to be an off-screen Angie Dickenson, Kristoferson's role is there merely so that the audience will be whipped into a frenzy by the sheer theatrics of the production (meanwhile, William Devane and James Coburn as the two sub-heads of the Syndicate, who were in the original cut of the film, work nicely). None of this is a bad thing, in particular. I really enjoyed "Payback." For what it is, it's a very good flick, a nice deterent from the usual Hollywood films that sometimes can't even rise to give us any interesting elements, or at least any witty material. This film at least has hilarious subplots, like run-ins with crooked cops, an incompetent bookie (David Paymer), and a sadistic dominatrix (Alexis Liu), all which register well. Its cinematography is exquisite, all drained and pale, accenting grays and blues, giving the film a wonderful tone that may be the very best thing about this movie. And it's never boring or excruciatingly stupid (well...the bit with the dog was rather retarded, but ah well...). In short, it's basically everything a Hollywood piece of entertainment should be. But should films ever merely settle for being a Hollywood piece of entertainment? That, of course, is a rhetorical question.
MY RATING (out of 4): ***
Homepage at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/8335/
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews