|
|
|
|
| PAYBACK (1999) - R
|
|  |
|
ReviewScore: 46 out of 100
SBD Star Rating:
by Lew Irwin
View Credits | See Other Reviews
| |
Box office analysts appeared to agree that Payback, starring Mel Gibson, is virtually certain to pay back its investors handsomely following its debut this weekend, despite, or perhaps because of, one of the heaviest doses of violence ever included in a feature. "The issue here is violence," writes Stephen Hunter in today's (Friday) Washington Post, "and the eternal question of how much is too much. Hard question, but I do know the following: This much is too much." Similarly, Stephen Holden comments in the New York Times that what the movie "lacks in originality, [it] tries to make up for in sadistic gore. ... What one word might best describe Payback? How about 'loathsome'?" Joe Morgenstern in the Wall Street Journal employs two words: "Sadomasochist fugue." Several critics note that, in the end, Gibson essentially took the movie's reins out of the hands of director Brian Helgeland to "soften" the character he plays. But, writes Los Angeles Times critic Kenneth Turan, "Too bad he didn't think to soften some of the excessive violence while he was at it." |
|
ReviewScore: 46 out of 100
SBD Star Rating:
by Lew Irwin
View Credits | See Other Reviews
| |
Ben Affleck is receiving better reviews for Paycheck than he did for Gigli, but that's not saying much. All in all, his latest effort is also regarded by most critics as dreadful. "Ben Affleck must have signed on to this bloated action film to collect a fat check. That would make more sense than if he claimed to be mesmerized by this ridiculous story," writers Claudia Puig in USA Today. But Jack Mathews in the New York Daily News observes: "You can't really blame [Affleck] for picking up his own fortunes for his film work. He's a good-looking guy with zero screen presence, and if the studios want to keep throwing money at him to play heroic figures, that's their problem." But if Affleck received a handsome paycheck to make the movie, the producers stinted elsewhere, Manohla Dargis suggests in the Los Angeles Times. "Perhaps because there wasn't enough money (the look is knockoff Sharper Image), the film feels cheap, frayed around the edges," she writes. Michael Wilmington in the Chicago Tribune observes that one of the film's gimmicks is a device that erases memories. "Unfortunately, after watching "Paycheck," you may wish you had the picture's gimmickry at your disposal, so you could erase your own memory of it," he writes. |
|
|
|
