The gritty ’90s thriller is a smart, sexy, ultra-violent revenge film
Author: Robert Skuch Published
My favorite part about ’90s heist thrillers is that the stakes are so low. 1999 returnStarring Mel Gibson, the film requires modern viewers to suspend disbelief not because of its over-the-top, revenge-fuelled brutality, but because the brutality itself stems from someone stealing $70,000 from our protagonist. I graduated college with $80,000 in debt in 2010, so if I were betrayed and died for a similar amount, I can’t say I would go quietly. However, by 2025, for someone with three roommates in most metropolitan areas, that amount will barely cover rent and basic living expenses.
The most interesting thing is return That’s the difference between the theatrical version and the director’s version. Director Brian Helgeland was removed from the project (but remained credited) due to creative differences with Mel Gibson and the producers. I can’t say for sure which version I prefer; they’re both solid, but stylistically they feel like completely different movies.
I recommend watching both as a double feature. They use shared footage to tell similar stories, but your preference depends entirely on your mood.
drama editing
two versions return Following the same basic plot, but executed in completely different ways. I prefer the theatrical cut, which is made lighter thanks to Gibson’s voiceover narration, giving it a grim neo-noir feel. The entertainment value is very high as we are supposed to root for the bad guy and the narration helps justify his actions. The contrast between what is said and what is seen on screen adds a layer of dark comedy and campy charm that the director’s cut lacks.
The storyline goes like this: Porter (Mel Gibson) is shot and left for dead after being betrayed by associate Val Resnick (Greg Henry). After receiving $140,000 from a local Chinese gang, the two agreed to split the money equally. But Val is in debt to the crime syndicate he works for, The Outfit, and Porter’s wife, Lynne (Deborah Kara Unger), shoots him in the back so he can escape with the rest of the cash. After a brutal recovery, Porter is ready for revenge. Val owes him $70,000, and Porter is determined to burn the world down to get it back.
He teams up with former call girl Rosie (Maria Bello), who has ties to The Outfit and relied on Porter for protection in the past. He teams up with a team of corrupt cops, drug dealers, and mob bosses who can’t understand why this man is so obsessed with collecting what they think is loose change.
This version of the remake includes a completely different third act starring Bronson (Kris Kristofferson), the elusive leader of The Outfit. He never appears in the director’s cut and can only be heard on the phone as a woman voiced by Sally Kellerman, so this addition completely reshapes the story’s climax.
Director’s Cut lacks glamour, but it’s full of grit
director’s cut return Taking a more direct approach, it feels more like a gritty revenge thriller than a black comedy. It still has the humor, it’s just dialed back. We’re still rooting for Porter, but without the narration, the film feels cooler and more grounded. The theatrical version was clearly designed to please mainstream audiences, and is the kind of crime film that could easily stand up to films like this. murder weapon. Helgeland was considering something darker and less polished for his directorial debut, and it was clear the studio wanted something different.
Bronson’s plot is far more interesting in the theatrical cut, as it would have led to a clearer, more studio-friendly ending. “Happy” may not be the right word, but you know what I mean. The director’s cut, however, is faster, leaner, and fuzzier. and RoboCop The director’s cut added about a minute of footage, while Helgeland’s version was actually 10 minutes shorter. The theatrical version reshot approximately 30% of the film and rearranged scenes to tell a more traditional story.
Play both versions of “Payback”
two versions return It is a work worth watching in the neo-noir crime genre. It just depends on what kind of experience you want. If you want to see a big-budget revenge movie packed with charm and charm, look no further than the theatrical cut. If you want to see a stripped-down, more serious, grittier version, pick up the Helgeland cut. Personally, I think both cuts are equally matched, but for different reasons.
You can stream both versions return Watch it for free on Tubi and decide for yourself which revenge story you like.
