Here we have three more reviews of the "very advance test screening of PAYBACK" This means that it has a temp track, is a rough edit, and is not, by any means, the finished film. The first two reviews are positive (which goes with the one from about two weeks ago which was positive) and the third is negative. That way we show both sides of the coin. Well without further talking, I'll introduce our spy GOLDFINGER, and my friend Auric!
Well, I just got back from a test screening of PAYBACK, the Brian Helgeland film which stars Mel Gibson as Porter, a thief who is trying to revenge his partners' betrayal.
While looking like your average dark, morbid, seedy film from the late 70's, PAYBACK also manages to bring us something we haven't seen since the MAD MAX movies: Mel Gibson in a totally remorseless, unforgiving, moral-free, kick-ass role.
The feel of the movie was perfectly accentuated through the use of music (temp music, that is) from a whole slew of movies, including THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR, COPYCAT, THE USUAL SUSPECTS, CHINATOWN, and more. Definitely an "atmosphere" film.
The only problem I really had with the film was that it ended up trying to make itself too "generic". The time in which the film took place was ambiguous (could have been the 70's, 80's or even 90's). Heck, there was not ONE touch tone phone in the entire film! And every license plate said "Centennial State" on it - whatever that means. Though it was obviously filmed in Chicago (and perhaps part of New York City), Helgeland decided not to specifically place it anywhere. But perhaps that just adds to the atmosphere of the film - it could take place anywhere.
PAYBACK is based on the novel "The Hunter" by Donald Westlake (as Richard Stark when he wrote it), and was made into a film called POINT BLANK back in 1967 by John Boorman (EXCALIBUR) and starred Lee Marvin. I'm told that there are considerable differences between these two movies (I have yet to see POINT BLANK) which would make me believe that POINT BLANK might be the better film ultimately.
See, there really isn't any character development in this film Gibson plays a man set on getting his half of the money from the heist in which he was double-crossed on. That's his motivation. That's about it. Everything else seems to just happen, and he doesn't change at all.
Sure the dialogue has some nice touches, and there are some really funny moments (the actress who plays Pearl is a joy - although a sometimes PAINFUL joy - to watch on the screen), the film left me with an "okay, now what?" kind of feeling. I would recommend this film, mainly because I haven't seen a film in a long time which made me want to gargle with Scope and then take a shower because of the scummy feeling it left me with. And the action sequences are pretty good, too. Helgeland proves that he can direct, and with the exception of THE POSTMAN, he can write good dialogue too. (No, I don't count ASSASSINS or CONSPIRACY THEORY as his best work. But check out 976-EVIL!)
Ok ok ok, that wasn't tooo positive, but I got the idea that Goldfinger enjoyed himself. So anyway, it's on to The Lord of the Storm and his merry band of toadies. He causes the skies to open from the sound of his belching toadies, and well if he can do that, you better believe he can infiltrate a screening... His review has QUITE ALOT OF SPOILERS, You MAY WANT TO SKIP TO THE NEXT REVIEW!!!
Hey Harry -- been laying low, avoiding federal magistrates, but The Lord of The Storm has penetrated yet another screening, live and in person from the City of Lost Angels.
Tonight's flick was Mel Gibson's "Payback" and it was screened at the Paramount lot over on Melrose. I was standing in front of a group of French nationals and broke into their native tongue to avoid detection, listing myself as a real estate agent. The poor deluded Paramount goons were taken in by my ruse, and I snuck myself and one of my slithering toadies in unharmed.
We took up seats near the door so we could be obnoxious in peace, and sat for a long time and waited. There are vents under every seat in the Paramount Studio Theatre, and they were pumpin' AC like crazy. I was unable to feel my toes, but my fingers and my powerbook still work so here comes your news:
The Flick was a "work cut," but in that I was paying all my attention to the script, I saw nothing and thought it was release quality. Gibson plays Porter, a thug with an attitude who drives hookers to their jobs safely (one in particular he falls for, *SPOILER* which causes his wife [who was the blond in "The Game"] to betray him to a "syndicate" wiseguy and shoot him several times) and robs people. Aforementioned spoiler happens in flashback as he lays in bed with his wife (how he survived the horrible multiple shooting was never made clear, my toadie assumed it was sheer attitude and "Mel"-ness) after stalking her, breaking in and trying to get her off heroin enough to tell him where the wiseguy was.
Porter does several cool, noirish things early on including stealing a lot of money and an identity, easily acquiring a gun and a suit of nifty clothes and being a general scoundrel. He acts like a Terminator knock-off and is literally indestructible it seems (*SPOILER* No matter what happens, Mel survives admirably, his safety is never a question as he has this "I'm The Star" look for most of the flick).
William Devane was amusing but not original as a upper level Mafia executive who Gibson ends up shooting. Bill Duke's corrupt cop looking to buy a boat on illegal money was also somewhat predictable. For action fans, however, all the shooting and suspense would keep them going, even with the suspense element added.
The pace was very swift, where the plot just churns along at full clip and you decide along the way how to get involved with the characters. Mel Gibson is surprisingly subdued as he searches for vengeance and what turns out to be karmic balance in recovering his $70,000 cut from the hold up that turned his best friend and his wife against him. (Remember the hooker he fell for? The best friend found a picture of them, showed wifey, manufactured a story, much hilarity ensued).
All and all, an enjoyable if somewhat thickly genre piece. It had predictable moments, and Mel -- playing a normal hood with no special training or anything, just attitude -- being invincible against an army of Mafia goons was flatly silly in some points. But if you like shooting, suspense, and the like this is a solid saturday matinee.
In any case, many more screenings are headed my way -- Keep up the rumors, mon ami, and this is the Lord of the Storm signing off from the City of Lost Angels.
After The Storm, good ol SUN comes up with his review. Seems Sun can't excise the quality of L.A. Confidential from his mind. So here he goes....
Illustrious spy "Sun" here, reporting for duty. Just got back from "Payback," the second screening in about a week. I gotta say, I was very disappointed. LA Confidential was one of my favorite films this past year, so I was expecting great things from writer (and now director) Brian Helgeland. But while this film did have some style, it was sorely lacking in plot and character. Mel Gibson plays the main character, Porter, a double-crossed con man, but he plays him so lifeless and flat that he's rendered uninteresting. The pitfall when you make your good guy slightly bad is that he must be interesting enough that the audience is still drawn in. I have a feeling that Mel was trying to go for enigmatic....but the character is so sketchily drawn, that he becomes dull instead. This is the main problem with the movie: there are so many great actors that are trapped in roles with no definition (see: Maria Bello, Deborah Kara Unger, David Paymer, etc.) The only character that's at all interesting is Gregg Henry as the intial bad guy, and the only reason he's watchable is because as an actor, he looks like he's enjoying himself and he imbues his meagerly defined character with lots of energy. All of the movie's good scenes are because of him, especially a great S&M sex scene that's actually played for welcome laughs. I would have liked to see a lot more of him. But alas, we had to spend more time with the uninteresting characters. If Paramount is going to make changes, I'd suggest giving the characters and story more depth, and also please cut that horrible cliched line from Maria Bello (after she's seen Mel, who had been presumed dead): "You look pretty good for a dead man." Stylistically, it's good-looking and well-shot by Helgeland, but he really slacked off in plot and characters. The focus group gave a mostly so-so response, and I have a hard time seeing how they'll market this one. They intially told us it was an action movie...um, without any action scenes, guys? Guess I'd better go see LA Confidential again to restore my confidence in Helgeland.
