subject: Watch Payback Movie Free Online [print this page] Margaret Atwood's brilliant 2008 essay, "Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth" is the jumping off point for this fascinating, far-ranging cinematic essay by Jennifer Baichwal, Here the filmmaker, working from Atwood's premise, explores the multifaceted notion of debt: financial, economic, moral and spiritual. She visits with both sides in a contemporary Albanian blood feud, involving automatic weaponry; with Conrad Black, the disgraced media mogul, imprisoned for mail fraud; with environmentalists who describe the degree of responsibility BP has taken (not enough) for the Gulf oil spill; and with Florida tomato growers who ultimately reconcile with their workers over improving working conditions. But "Payback" is no dry academic treatise on conscience. In riveting, literate passages from her writing, Atwood focuses on the urgent issue of the debt we each owe to the larger social good.
Payback is no exception. It seems that every single film I have attended had a preview for this film attached to it. Every video I rented had Mel Gibson's face before it. There is only so much one person can take. However, the marketing strategy worked, as the theater I attended was nearly sold out. So what does this mean? Is the film bad, or is it one of those rare exceptions where a good film is actually worth all the media attention? First, the reason bad films are promoted so heavily is because studios know they have a bad film but want to get as many people into theaters on the first weekend before the bad word of mouth spreads. Good films, on the other hand, usually get missed, because theaters are so content on pulling a film out of theaters before it has a chance to find an audience. So again, is Payback a bad film? The answer is a definite yes.
Payback begins as Porter (Gibson) lies unconscious, getting two bullets removed from his back. Shot by his wife Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger) and partner Val (Gregg Henry) during the theft of $140,000, Porter now wants revenge... and his share of the money. He steals a man's wallet, buys expensive suits with his credit card, walks out of restaurants without paying. Porter is not your atypical hero, and this is not your atypical action film. What we have here are the ingredients of film noir: femme fatales, evil villains, and insidious heroes. Even the look becomes a character, the nameless city is washed out in a blue hue.Unfortunately, the film doesn't know what to make of the material, and, I fear, neither does Gibson. Whether you like or dislike Gibson will affect your opinion of the film, but even moreso is the complete and utter dehumanization that Gibson displays throughout the film. Even film noir heroes had their fair share of good qualities. The moments when Gibson tries to connect with the audience seem tacked on, like an afterthought. In fact, that is exactly what they are. Director Brian Helgeland left the film after the studio requested him to add some scenes that would establish Porter as a likable guy despite his evil deeds. What they manage to do instead is create a monster--a hero more unlikable than any of the various villains. We see he has a human side to his personality, but that just strengthens the idea that he is completely without morals.
The film is not without merits, however. The gritty look of the film is eye-catching. The blue hues that seem to flood the screen capture a sense of a corrupt world. The violence depicted becomes even more shocking due to this surrealistic quality. Each gunshot looks more gruesome than in any film since Saving Private Ryan. The acting by the cast (save one exception) is superb, especially Lucy Liu as a dominatrix vixen who really enjoys her work. Liu takes the role way over-the-top and it works hilariously. Whenever Liu is on screen, the film picks up incredible speed.Strangely, it is Gibson who breaks this film. While not a fan of his, I tend to appreciate his on-screen charisma. Unfortunately, this is his character from the Lethal Weapon series, and it comes off rather bland. Everyone seems to be content on saying Gibson is a great actor... I just don't see it. He doesn't seem to have much of a range, and this film proves it. Every evil deed he does seems more like Gibson trying to break from the normality of stardom instead of the character trying to revenge his near-death. Gibson obviously is here merely for the draw power he has--without him, the film would have felt more independent. Perhaps Gibson should try expanding his range. All Payback feels like is a cross between Lethal Weapon and Braveheart.
Brian Helgeland had every right to leave the film, since he obviously knew how bad it was. After the studio requested reshoots, he just didn't bother. After all, reshoots weren't going to make it any better. In fact, they may have made it worse. Terry Hayes, the writer who wrote the Mad Max films as well as the creepy Dead Calm, and Helgeland, the writer who penned the great L.A. Confidential and the underrated The Postman, handle the adapted screenplay with assurance, despite ending up sounding contrived. After L.A. Confidential, this is a sure step-down for Helgeland.Payback is rated R for strong violence, language, torture, and sexual content. The torturous scenes are hard to watch, but they also have comic undertones. It's a rare treat to actually laugh as Gibson gets his toes broken with a hammer. Unfortunately, it's one of the very few laughs in the film. The film rides on Gibson's back, and he lets it down with one of his worst performances. Had he been replaced (perhaps by James Woods), the film may have succeeded quite well. After all, Woods is much better at tongue-in-cheek humor than Gibson is. Watch free movies online
"It's payback time!" is a sentence Hollywood loves. Not only does it come loaded with a double-barrelled shotgun pointing at an effects-laden finale, it executes a primal pattern of perceived social justice: You hurt me, so I hurt you.We crave revenge, and many beloved movies baste in this human yearning with belaboured plots about getting even, whether it's Shane, Citizen Kane or Dirty Harry.At some level, it feels good to watch the bad guy get his just desserts. Yet, somewhere deeper, we know this fleeting pleasure is hollow, and can't possibly satisfy our profound hunger for genuine justice. A debt remains.This largely intangible emotional, "moral," space is difficult to grasp, but it's given full-frame exposure in Jennifer Baichwal's latest documentary, Payback. Based on Margaret Atwood's Massey Lectures and book with the subtitle, Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth, Payback explores the myriad meanings of "debt" through various human stories.
Movies that pivot on abstract concepts need to build emotional connections with the audience, and Baichwal clearly recognizes this obstacle, because she builds in several stories that push buttons.From the highly personal to the globally political, Baichwal finds some of the most incendiary issues facing our society. From the reality of modern slavery in American agriculture to the oil spill off the gulf, our consumerist hunger has created debts we may be unable to pay.Yet, just when the argument begins to feel a little too big, and a little too abstract, we meet two Albanians fighting over a fence. Apparently, one guy moved the enclosure without permission from the other, and now one fellow has a bullet hole in him, and the other is imprisoned in his own home.There is no Judge Judy in Albania, and the truth is, that's the kind of public justice we actually desire: punishment combined with a little public humiliation.Baichwal touches on all these things over the course of her movie, but because all the content is delivered through monologues to the camera, the movie is only as strong as the interviews themselves.
