User reviews

Jason Statham is Jake Green, a criminal recently released from prison after serving a seven year sentence. He is able to win big money at casino card games and he is pitted against Ray Liotta, who plays a mob kingpin who spends a good deal of time surrounded by tanning lights while walking around in his underwear; a very strange sight, indeed. Andre 3000 and Vincent Pastore of Sopranos fame become his underworld mentors as they combine to commit a series of death defying heists. The acting is superb, with solid action scenes from director Guy Ritchie. Unfortunately, the story becomes somewhat convoluted. Stathan, 3000, and Pastore have good chemistry and provide some good funny moments in between the bloody carnage. Liotta is quirky but his usual watchable self and overall, the cast makes Revolver worth the ride.

Revolver is one of Guy Ritchie's most underestimated films. Stylistically, he is built the best of all previous paintings and completely rehabilitated the actor after Swept Away. One of the best roles for Jason Statham. The open ending, of course, spoils the impressions of the film, but the main plot twist worked.

Whether you enjoy watching "Revolver" or not, I would say that it is not among director Guy Ritchie's best work. Yes, it's stylish, has some remarkable camerawork and effects, and is, as usual, ultra-violent, but in the end the story seemed confusing and not all that satisfying.

Explaining the story in "Revolver" is almost impossible, as it's a very confusing film that would get better if you watched it repeatedly...though I am not inclined to do so. Suffice to say, Mr. Green (Jason Statham) is having a VERY bad period in his life and he's being manipulated and controlled by some higher power...as if it's all a game. In the process, many other bad people and gangsters are killed.

The problem with the film is that the audience is deliberately held on the edge of their seats waiting to see WHO and WHY all this is occurring to Green. This sets expectations VERY high....and for me the ending just seemed like a lot of mumbo-jumbo that really didn't explain anything. So, if you are a person who was left confused and mad at the end of "2001: A Space Odyssey", well, you'll feel pretty much the same at the end of "Revolver". Overall, a somewhat unpleasant and bloody film that just didn't offer the payoff or the enjoyment of Ritchie's other films, such as "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" or "Snatch". Parts of the film were great (I loved the bald hitman) and parts were just unpleasant and confusing.

After seven years in solitary confinement between a cell containing a chess master and a cell containing a con artist, Jake leaves to seek revenge on Macha with the vast amount of money he has gotten from gambling. He starts his revenge with humiliation but soon blacks out only to be told by a doctor that he has mere days to live. Mysterious loan sharks Zack and Avi offer him "protection" from death in return for all his money. Meanwhile Macha puts a hit out on Jake. With death and betrayal everywhere, somebody is playing the ultimate high-stakes game – but are all the players known, and who will emerge victorious?

I had someone ask me recently if I'd seen this because they wanted a second opinion. The reason for this, they said, was that they thought it was good one minute, then terrible the next, then maybe it is good again, then not, then it ended. Of course being asked for an opinion peaked my interest (and boosted my ego) and I was planning to watch it anyway, just to see for myself what about it deserved such a slating from the critics. In answer to the latter statement it must be said that, unsurprisingly, the film did not deserve the universal condemnation it received in the press and in truth it was just another time to lay into someone who had gotten too big for his boots and perhaps needed taking down a peg or two – and a weak project was the perfect reason. It happens every year – critics have so many mediocre films to write about that a good one sees loving reviews in the same way as a bad one is the chance to write a really memorable, scathing review – whether either it is truly deserved or not.

So this leaves me with my colleague's statement and on that I found him to be accurate because at times it does SEEM to be a really cool film that is going somewhere interesting. This impression is built around a good start and pace to the film, with plenty of tough posturing, mystery and style. In fact, to deny that the film is delivered with style would be bad form indeed because the film does look very cool and very interesting. Problem is that, at some point, that isn't enough and once you get beyond the halfway mark you get the increasing feeling that this isn't going anywhere nearly as interesting or clever as you would like to think. By the ending that feeling will be confirmed as correct as the film stumbles into a pretentious and poorly delivered conclusion to the story and characters. Ritchie had been quite unreasonably arrogant about people who don't "get" his film but to me not only is it his fault for the ham-fisted delivery of his twist, but as writer he also has come up with an idea for a twist that reads like a poor copy of other, better films. It just doesn't play and the cold (if stylish) approach keeps the audience at a distance so we care less than we should and are given more opportunity to see the twists as pretentious and half-cooked.

Within this messy and slightly nonsensical affair the cast actually do pretty well by playing to the style rather than the content. Statham makes the best of his situation with another tough presence on screen even if, ultimately, I don't think he buys his character himself and thus cannot be part of the sale to the audience. Liotta I quite liked even though the "unhinged violent criminal" thing is pretty much the equivalent of him staring out the window with everything set to cruise control. Pastore and Benjamin are a cool presence who drive the film early on (with the mystery of their characters) but gradually become less engaging as the plot unravels. The rest of the cast pretty much provide solid enough tough men without (fortunately) sinking into the easy "apples and pears" type performances that Ritchie seems to like in his films generally. The only performance of real note though is from Ritchie as director because he pulls everything together with a lot of visual style and imagination; shame then that the worst "performance" is also from him as a writer because he has produced a script so full of its own cleverness that it cannot be bothered to aim for engaging the audience and sits back arrogantly while the delivery is fudged and incoherent.

Revolver is not the screaming disaster that everyone would have you believe, but this is as close to a recommendation as I can give it. Visually it is stylish and early on this sense of tough coolness does draw you into the plot to see where it goes. Sadly though the answer is that it doesn't go anywhere worth being and it goes there with a slow pace that suggests it is being very clever and worthy when really the plot is not anywhere as clever or as developed as it needed to be. It isn't style without substance – it is style with poor substance.

Guy Ritchie and Jason Statham collaborate once again with a huge cast of mostly action bloke films. While this is absolutely still a bloke film this one is quite different from your average Ritchie film and I have to admit I find myself impressed with the acting range shown by the entire cast but a shout out to Statham who was a real performance surprise and absolutely to Ray Liotta who hit all of his marks perfectly.

I hope more film makers see this film as a new benchmark for the two actors so they may be cast in a few more interesting rolls.

I enjoyed it and hope you guys do as well when you get around to seeing it.

After catching this at the cinema last night and having a nights sleep to think it over I've got to say I'm still a) not quite sure what happened at the end and b) not 100% sure if I enjoyed it or not.

However, given the recent glut of dot to dot plot and expensive thoughtless nonsense we've been treated to this summer is it really a crime to make a film that regardless of your liking for it still makes you ponder? Sure it has delusions of grandeur and at times disappears up its own backside - the anime still baffles me as to its inclusion - but you've got to give Guy Ritchie credit for trying to make something a bit different, and whilst he is taking a battering on all sides I've got nothing but admiration for his 'bravery' - as his missus declared at the premiere.

Jason Statham is as dependable as always - despite the dodgy barnet - and Ray Liotta and the rest of the supporting cast all acquit themselves well - special mentions should go to Mark Strong and Andre Benjamin. It looks great and has some good set pieces - so all in all - interesting.....did I like it, not sure - am I still thinking about it -Yes - which is more than can be said for the majority of the other instantly forgettable nonsense we've been spoon fed with over the last few months - a DVD viewing beckons, I'll work out that ending even if it kills me!!

Well, I think I would have enjoyed this film more if I 'got it'.

I don't often leave theatres with a total sense of WHA???? And, based on some of the comments and conversations after the Gala screening at the TIFF this evening, I wasn't alone.

The story (what I got, anyway) was pretty good and had a great deal of potential. Great concept, and visually well executed. As would be expected from a Guy Ritchie film, it was gritty, dark, aggressive, and loud, with a (big) dash of violence for good measure.

Ray Liotta was pretty good, although his performance could have been a little more polished. Jason Statham, on the other hand, was excellent. He had a very challenging role, and pulled it off with style.

Thrown right into the middle of the film was a collection of anime-style animated clips. While they were somewhat visually cool, I didn't see the relevance. Was I supposed to 'get it'? The mind trips were pretty intense for both Statham and Liotta's characters, but again, I think I missed something. Was I supposed to 'get it'? If you like testosterone-filled films, you'll probably probably enjoy Revolver whether you 'get it' or not. When you watch it, keep this in the back of your mind - maybe it'll help - WHO IS MR. GOLD?

I really wish I 'got it'......

This movie by Guy Ritchie is his one bad film I've seen so far. And its really bad. I could tell when I first watched it by the unnatural and forced dialogue. I should have turned it off at the beginning but because it is a Guy Ritchie film I gave it a chance.

This film however is perhaps the most incoherent and nonsensical movie ever written. Most of it doesn't make sense. And just so you know, I love movies that make you think, and are mysterious and even confusing, and give you something to figure out. But they have to come together at least by the end. This movie doesn't. It just continues to get more and more nonsensical as the plot unravels more and more. This movie attempts to mind-F you and yet it just comes off as ridiculous BS.

Worst yet is that it is so pretentious and tries to come off like a super intelligent and intellectual film, which it is certainly not. When things are said that are meant to be thought provoking, they don't actually make sense. And again, the writing is terrible. Nothing seems natural or realistic, and yet it is not supposed to be a fantasy film, and there is no explanation as to why nothing is realistic. It just seems kind of silly and dumb.

The directing, cinematography, editing and production are good, which is why I am giving it a 2 and not a 1. But other than that this movie was a frustrating 2 hours of time wasted that I wish I could get back. Especially since I spent my saturday night watching it. An unfortunate fail for Guy Ritchie. Thank god all his other movies are good.

OK... this movie so far has been slated by critics and board-posters alike (although playing devil's advocate you could suggest that critics are often people who didn't make it for themselves as film-makers, and board posters are often people who didn't make it for themselves as critics) so I wanted to sit in Guy's corner with the magic sponge to perhaps reach maybe a couple of the people who've decided not to see the film based on how everybody seems to be looking down their collective nose of approval at it.

The film's biggest flaw in earning wide support is how unexpectedly complex it is. This has been described many times as as making the film "inaccessible" to the viewer. The film's chronology is relatively non-linear and the characters are used as not only a means of storytelling but as a device for showing us the subtle (or not so subtle) hints of bias we give things as we commit them to memory, IE. Ray Liotta's character brandishing a gun saying the words "fear me" is portrayed as both tragically pathetic (from Statham's POV) or interrogating and bold (from Liotta's POV). This is but one example of Ritchie's far more mature approach he has taken to film-making with Revolver, we have a storyline which is pretty archetypal (the strong but silent gritty anti-hero gets released from jail with a score to settle but gets drawn inadvertently into a world of corruption... I mean it's paint by numbers film noir here guys, all the way down to the vague poetic choice of diction and the gritty voice-overs) but then Guy has taken this framework to make a number of extremely philosophical and complex points.

Take the scene where Jason Statham's character runs afoul of a car. This throwaway sequence could have been emitted from the film and made no difference to the story whatsoever... but Ritchie is making point about how such little chance happenings such as receiving a phone call can make the difference between life and death.

So the final act of the movie is pretty mind boggling, I'd be taking the p*ss if I said I didn't spend the last 20 minutes or so of the film turning to my date going "uh... wtf?"... but that is the shoddiest reason to disregard a piece of art. It is far too easy to dislike something because you find it hard to understand. And even easier to say "well nobody else seemed to understand it so it must be a real turd of a film!". In my humble opinion, Revolver is a stylish, complex and mature piece of modern art which should be greeted with the same manner we would give the work of the Saatchi Brothers. If we choose this opportunity to collectively say "Ah sh*t, I wanted a film about a load of bleeding' cockney gangsters in-nit loll... Guy Ritchie is a tit!" then the day will come when film-makers are allowed only to make that which is expected of them by shallow, crappy people. Just because Guy made a name for himself with funny, cheeky cockney romps, doesn't mean he can't be deep without being "pretentious". Funny people can be thoughtful too.

To keep things short-a very attention and concentration demanding movie. I mean, blink and your could miss something that helps to understand Revolver better.

I've left the cinema with some mixed feelings after watching this. But then i've felt like watching Revolver again. It's really creepy. Sure, it's the gangster movie on the outside, but it's more Heart of an Angel and Machinist. Especially like the HOA-who's the bad guy? And then there's the ending. BANG! And your brain goes numb for 30 seconds. Surely not your typical movie.

And it's not an action comedy you could expect by watching trailer. Can be recommended to people who enjoy some Lynch or disturbing psycho thrillers.

Also worth noticing that Ray Liotta is really good in Revolver. I'm waiting for the DVD to watch this movie again.

I noticed this on noflex and started watching this with a feeling of deja vu and roughly 20 minutes in I remembered it's distinct unagreeable aroma. The idea was there but the delivery was painfully and repetitively atrocious as after minutes and minutes of incoherent "mind" babble you find yourself screaming at the teev "OH FOR FORKS SAKE JUST GET TO THE BLOODY POINT".

This is a test.

This is a test of the system, to determine who is who and who is speaking to whom. You think this is me you are watching, but it is you making these letters into bits of yourself.

Its a banal, sophomoric insight. Its the stuff of retail religions. Its aped by dopes. But none of that makes it less rich for artistic exploration.

Richie is something of a nitwit with an amusing style which merges staccato internal narration with clean, brisk editing. His stuff is simple, cinematic fun. Here he takes this idea, common even in Adult Swim cartoons on TeeVee, and serves it up as a sort of kindergarten "Memento." (or more aptly "Old Boy.")

But. But in my world it doesn't matter. I think David Lynch would be a disaster as a dinner companion. Listening to him is like listening to an acid burnout case, and it makes me sick. Yet his films are as deep as they come because he opens a door and leaves room for me to furnish the place. His films are genius so he doesn't have to be.

This is a small case of that. Except for some amazing missteps (the cartoon, the reversed car crash), the guys in the hot tub, the lollipop lips.... this is a Stata Center, a jumbled space that is friendly to advanced ideas merely because it is jumbled and open -- and not because it has any sense.

I believe this is because where the Stata Center is jumbled spatially (its at MIT), this is jumbled cinematically in much the same way. Its the cinematic quality of the room. Its easy to read. It provides launching pads. It doesn't matter at all what it says. In fact it even says it doesn't matter what it says. It pretends to be a challenge that is equal of the highest level of play (and believes it) but at the same time it allows that this is always bogus.

Its no Greenaway, Kar-Wai or Medem. There is nothing here to find, no implanted wisdom, quite the opposite. But you will find it worthwhile.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

If this were a David Lynch or David Cronenberg movie we'd be gushing..but Ritchie ultimately is not these directors so the surrealist film REVOLVER will alienate many fans. REVOLVER takes the pretensions of the tough guy gangster flicks that Ritchie has been known for and remixes them into a masturbatory, pretentious, overdone but fascinating mess. I almost walked out several times during this film...it meanders, is dull, obnoxious, but completely and utterly unpredictable. I liked it. Very much. It will inspire discussion and no matter what it's faults, film doesn't do that any more.

Guy, IF you read this - take heart. You will get ASS RAPED by the critics and fans alike. BUT they'll talk about it...eventually, REVOLVER will find a massive cult of pseudo intellectuals and the film will ABSOLUTELY be viewed as a turning point in your career. There is no other film quite like it and for that, for your ambition and mastery of new, slick cinematic techniques...you are to commended. Follow your film journey wherever it takes you..eventually you will be followed.

Growing is ALWAYS painful!

I was at the premiere last night with 2000 other people, sitting in crappy balcony seats but whatever at least I got in. Anyways from my expectations of the film and the synopsis I figured it would be like Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels as well as Snatch, well Revolver was not like those two, but rather very different. Guy Ritchie tried to pull some David Lynch type stuff this time around, dealing with psychological issues with his characters. Jason Statham gave a hell of a performance, as did Ray Liotta who was always wearing his briefs throughout the film which made the audience laugh quite a bit. Those expecting a great film, this really isn't a great film but it's a good film with great visuals and some weird animation sequences thrown in for no apparent reason I think (ala Kill Bill). The story was quite confusing to say the least but I like the concept of the film of the con artists getting conned. Whatever the case may be, I might have to watch it again when it's released in theatres to see if there is something I missed. A lot of the people after the movie was finished left with confused looks on their faces and couldn't stop talking about how the movie didn't make sense or because it wasn't like Lock Stock or Snatch, you know what? I'll give Guy Ritchie for taking his gangster film and taking a whole different spin on it.

AND WHO IS MR. GOLD????...

Revolver (Toronto Film Festival Cut) Mr. Black's Grade: B- Directed by Guy Ritchie , and starring Andre Benjamin , Jason Statham and Ray Liotta .

Guy Ritchie's last film was Swept Away?? Now that blows me away. I'm glad he is back in action in this 'con' film, which was not as violent as I expected. Jason Statham plays a very confused Jake Green, a gambler who enters into a game with potentially deadly consequences.

The director said that the plot is a "chess game within a chess game within a chess game." The time line is a challenge for sure - I overheard a guy say that it would take 50 viewings to understand it! Ritchie disagrees, saying "It is a simple plot, but our minds will not let it go that easy". The script gives Ray Liotta and Jason Statham a lot to chew on, and they respond with great performances. With tons of style to spare, and a bit of Anime thrown into the mix for good measure, the concern for the viewer is the con... on a con...on a con plot.

Since the birth of his children Guy Ritchie has been watching a lot more kiddy fare of late. He loved the The Incredibles and had not laughed that hard in a while. Next up, a "Detective" picture, and then a children's' animated film starring the voice of Jason Statham! You read it here first.

ITS ABOUT FIGHTING YOUR EGO!!

clap clap well done I watched this movie when I was blind drunk, I still got it then, it was predictable, it was obvious what Ritchie was trying to achieve but it was pieced together in such a way as to "look" clever.

When the majority of people think its a bad movie, take the majority vote.

Its not arty, its not clever, its been done before and done better. Just spend your money elsewhere and feel happy in having done so.

I bought this movie on DVD, it now has its own special place on my shelf under the "should have kept the receipt" section

I despise this movie even more for the pompous attitude it seems to attract "Its about Ego, Ego is the mind killer" Good grief, its like a child discovering a new word, just saying it on loop with a big cheesy a grin smacked all over their face, big glossy eyes looking for praise. Well done you, aren't you a clever sausage.

Do yourself a favour, watch something else

I always enjoy seeing movies that make you think, and don't just drip-feed the answers to their audience. "Revolver" is one of these films, and although many reviewers have stated that it is difficult to follow, with a bit of concentration and an open mind I got it. First time. True, it doesn't compare to other mind-mucks like "The Usual Suspects" or "Memento", but in its own right its an intelligent and thought-provoking film.

Another thing I really liked about this film is how damn beautiful it is. Every scene, every camera angle seems to have been thought about for ages. If you see it you'll know what I mean.

So, to conclude... watch it with an open mind and you may enjoy it. If not, well, no-one ever said "Revolver" is for everyone. And that's my 2 cents.

I love a thinking movie, but at points I started to think that some of this was complexity for the sake of complexity. I don't know if there was a succinct answer or point to a lot of the twists and turns he lays out for us during the movie or if they were randomly disconnected ideas.

The movie definitely keeps you thinking, but then as it comes around to its conclusion it makes a few little statements, answers a few little mysteries, but leaves you with a lot of hanging questions.

I am not the type of moviegoer who demands resolution and answers, but when I left the theatre it did wonder how clear Guy Ritchie's idea of what he was trying to say was. Was he just unravel a yarn of little mysteries without thinking about how they were all going to fit together.

In the Q&A after the screening Guy Ritchie emphasized that it is worth watching a few times. So I will take his advice and see if more things connect after a second viewing.

Can't believe that any of this movies stars actually signed up for this piece of unmitigated cr@p!

It's no wonder Guy Ritchies career is finished... the movies he made with Madonna would be a huge leap up after this. It was so rubbish I find myself at a loss to find words that adequately describe its badness.

So I'll fall back on saying...RUBBISH, RUBBISH, RUBBISH, RUBBISH, RUBBISH, RUBBISH, RUBBISH, RUBBISH, RUBBISH, RUBBISH, RUBBISH, RUBBISH, RUBBISH, RUBBISH, RUBBISH and finally RUBBISH!

Not even if someone gives it to you should you waste the electricity needed to run the DVD player.

You would better spend you time counting the grains in a bag of sugar.

Hopefully - enough said!