it seems that i've stopped enjoying movies that should be fun to watch . take payback , for example , a movie that most people seem to like . however , <NEG> it's horrible schlock </NEG> , straight out of hollywood's vast talent for <NEG> sucking creativity out of movies </NEG> . it was written and directed by a guy who should have done better ; however , maybe he did do better , after all , 30 percent of the movie isn't his own . mel gibson , <NEG> that hollywood zombie </NEG> , decided he didn't like the ending and had another director reshoot it . what a crock . if you sign on to do a movie , then do it the way the script calls for . why film a movie and then look at it later and say , - no , i changed my mind , i don't like the ending . you're fired . let's get someone else to do it . - i suppose honor is dead in hollywood . <NEG> the end of the film is , of course , hollywoodized </NEG> . which is to say that it's happy and the guy you root for beats impossible odds to win his prize . in this case , as is most victories in hollywood movies , gibson's prize is a blond and money . i miss originality in film , i really do . i think audiences are so starved for it that they'll flop down a lot of money in hopes that a movie will be original . payback's tagline - get ready to root for the bad guy - promised an original idea , but it was far from the truth . while gibson's character certainly broke the law , he was a character that had honor ( odd that gibson himself seems to have very little of it ) , wouldn't kill in front of children and protects his blond woman . there's nothing bad about him - he's a hollywood character , a person who could never exist in real life . and gibson knows it - he spends his time trying to act like a " bad guy " , and <NEG> instead comes off as pretentious and arrogant </NEG> . the story involves gibson being double-crossed by his partner ( who is a real bad guy , which made me wish that we could root for him ) over $70 , 000 . gibson recovers from multiple gunshots , is pissed ( naturally ) , and will do whatever it takes to get the exact amount of money back - no more , no less . he makes a point of it that it's strictly 70 grand . a real bad guy would have made his ex-partner pay 25% interest . this idea is completely stretched out . gibson ends up going after his partner and the chicago mafia that his partner is affiliated with . what i didn't understand - this is the chicago mafia . $70 , 000 is like spare change to them . they'd probably just pay the guy rather than go through the trouble of dealing with him . i think they'd respect a guy going through this much trouble for a simple $70 , 000 . maybe i'm being too hard on the movie . perhaps the filmmakers were just trying to make a simple popcorn movie . i read roger ebert's review and he liked gibson in the role because he is a comic at heart playing a bad guy . that's why we're allowed to root for him . and it's true - gibson walks the movie as if he's smiling at a joke he just heard . <NEG> but he's wrong here </NEG> . i wanted a lee marvin or old-time clint eastwood or somebody who wasn't a comic , just an ass kicker . as a side note , i've just checked the internet movie database and discovered that i am the 38th person to post a newsgroup review of payback . after this many reviews , why would anyone want to read this ? really , i don't care . i'm just trying to gain membership into the on-line film critics society by posting as many reviews as i can .
