|
Directed by: Guy Ritchie Starring: Ray Liotta, Jason Statham, André Benjamin How IMDB can give this movie 5 stars is almost as baffling as how I paid £5 to go an see this! I heard it was bad, but hey I liked Snatch and Lock Stock, and we all know Ritchie can only make one kind of film; so what's the problem? The problem is Ritchie can only make one kind of film, and this wasn't it. Revolver starts off ok. Well in saying that, I mean you weren't bored yet, or cringing. It starts off how all his films start off, introducing the main character in a calm and in a definitely overly-cool manner. Statham appears to be in control and is hitting a casino for the big bucks. "I kind of like where this is going" I thought to myself, as the quotes that Ritchie must have ripped from "Guiness Book of bumper Quotes" appeared onscreen, not for the last time. "A man can only get smarter by playing against smarter opponents." Thanks Sun Tu Ritchie! Oh wait there's more: "An enemy is always in the place you least expect it". Cool. Basically Guy found some cool quotes, and made up a convoluted peice of crap script to go with it. Think i'm being harsh? Go watch it! Ok back on track. Revolver actually rips off so many good films it's a joke. The begining could be Snatch or Lockstock 2 (lets give him credit, he did make them), but the rest is as if a chimp has seen every Tarrantino, Fincher and other hip-of-the-moment directors and made his own poor mockery from a list of bullet points. There is even a poorly-grafted animated action scene just like Kill Bill, but in this case, loving poo poo! The worst bit, without giving too much away, is the whole 'mind-games' part. Ripped -off totally from Fight Club, but again, this time totally poo poo, Revolver manages to make you feel uncomfortable in your seat because you know you are watching a pretentious mockery of better films. Oh one last thing. The plot and storyline sucks. It sucks so bad that it tries to be really smart, and so ultimately fails, the viewer is left wondering what the hell hapenend. I talked to my friends about it afterwards, and none of us know really what was going on. The Fight-Club-esque plot twist at the end was so obvious, connotations of a Sperm Whale hiding behind some coral to get at the shrimp came in mind, and it was so poorly done, that you frankly did not care even if you didn't realise. In conclusion: GO SEE IT! Seriously, go see it, but bear in mind these warnings. Don't go expecting to enjoy yourself, go to see what a cheap forgery this film is. RATING: 0.5 PROS: Breasts? CONS: Convoluted, pretentious piece of poo poo that rips off from a host of your favourite movies. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365686/ concerned mom fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Sep 23, 2005 |
#
?
Sep 23, 2005 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
The Fact that there was no credits at the end of the showing hit me hardest, I was left sitting there thinking "Surely that is not it" I was talking to the guy who works there and he said some people had sat there wondering what had just happened, or if the film was over for 20 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2005 18:13
|
|
|
maybe its diffrent strokes for diffrent folks. But ive just got back from the cinema and i have to say, this is one of my most favourite films. I was afraid it was going to be style over content, but it seemed to be more style over content over style over content. Fantastic in my book. and i didnt like Land Of The Dead? Maybe that says something about me....
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2005 22:18
|
|
|
I thought "Snatch" and "Lock Stock..." were both pretty nifty flicks. Nothing spectacular by any means, but pretty cool movies that I could watch over more than a few times. I've not seen "Swept Away" and I don't ever intend to out of respect for Ritchie. But all that aside, in my books Guy Ritchie was a pretty reliable director. So when I heard that his new movie "Revolver" would be having its world premiere at the Toronto Film Festival, I made sure to get tickets. I started out writing a more positive review for this, but when trying to type out a plot description, I realized I couldn't do it. Mark my words right now. Anyone who tells you they can sit through this movie and "understand all of it" is a loving liar. Believe me. It can't be done. Jason Statham plays a con-man fresh out of a long stint in the prison; Ray Liotta is a devious casino owner who has some rather unseemly plans for our anti-hero. After that, things get a bit hazy. No scratch that. Things get really, really confusing. Revolver goes from a decent crime movie with promise and becomes this crazy double-crossing convoluted mess. I think I now understand how big a part Matthew Vaughn played in Guy Ritchie's previously successful movies. Compare Vaughn's "Layer Cake" to Ritchie's "Revolver" and I think you'll see what I mean. Plot threads are left intentionally dangling so that we stop the story, 40 minutes later, and have yet another "shocking" revelation given to us, but it's all done very haphazardly. Revolver would have been Ritchie's best movie. Seriously. There was a lot of really great stuff here and some very, very well done scenes. But it's just too confusing for the sake of being confusing. PROS: - Some really well shot/acted sequences here and there - Andre Benjamin proves he can act somewhat - I think there was some nudity somewhere....maybe.... CONS: - Stupid "shocker" plot twists that can be spotted miles away - Needlessly convoluted story - Sub-plots that are left intentionally dangling are more annoying than intriguing. OVERALL: 2.0 There's nothing wrong with complicated movies as long as there's some sense of..."organization." Lots of movies do the fractured narrative thing pretty well. Revolver doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2005 19:48
|
|
|
I watched this movie recently and loved it. It left an profound impact on me the second time I watched it. I would definitely reccomend this movie to anyone. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2005 09:01
|
|
|
I gave it a 4 out of 5.5 because PROS - The characters have character (Sorter easily the best). - Camera work (especially some cool scenes stand out). - Music. - Acting (not so great in some places, but Andre was a surprise, and the performances are solid in general). CONS - Convoluted methaphors don't make for a good plot device ($12 bills, Green and Gold, who is really being conned here?). - Multiple views required to have a firmer grasp on what is going on. - That animation sequence. I guess some people will like it for the same reasons other people dislike it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2005 04:20
|
|
|
I read a bunch of crappy reviews about this movie so I wasn't expecting much. I was surprised since it was well thought out (you really had to pay attention) and had some great characters. Jason Statham as always plays his type cast role and he's a pretty lovely actor but it was still a good movie. It's one of the few movies my friends and I have seen in the last few months that has us taking about it for 2 weeks afterwards. 4.5
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2005 18:29
|
|
|
There is a whole lot of symbolism in this film, and a lot of people didn't really 'get it'. They thought it was a typical Guy Ritchie film, when in fact it's much more complex. This is not an action film really, or a crime thriller. It took me 2 viewings to fully understand it, but the message it conveys is actually quite interesting - that your mind/body isn't always doing what's in your best interest. The main character only becomes 'free' when he realises this, and becomes centered in himself, rather than needing outside validation. Conversely, when the villian stops getting his validation from the main character, he crumbles. You have to try and follow the symbolism throughout the film to understand all of this properly though. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2005 21:44
|
|
|
PROS - Ray Liotta - Jason Statham CONS - Everything Else I really couldn't like this movie at all. I was expecting it to be like Guy Ritchie's other movies that I enjoyed, like "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" but it wasn't. Instead, it was just too long, too dull, and lacking in any sense whatsoever. 2
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2005 05:30
|
|
|
Rented this movie last night to watch with my roommates. I'm a fan of Ritchie's other films, and I really enjoy Jason Statham, so I was optimistic about it. In short, I thought it was a failure on almost every level. The acting was, for the most part, terrible. Statham was solid, but the performances of the fat guy(don't care enough to look up his name, Big Pussy from Soprano's) and Andre 3000 were laughably bad. Every single one of the fat guys lines fell completely flat, really amateurish. And Andre 3000 speaks every line of dialogue as if he's reading it from a cue card. Maybe this is supposed to be a nuance of his character, in which case, he does an excellent job of acting like a terrible actor. The plot is muddy, pretentious, and uninteresting. Twists that were supposed to grip you and pull you in to the film more just left me rolling my eyes. Aside from the cinematography, I just couldn't find anything there that was worth paying attention to. I actually fell asleep in my chair during Statham's unbearably long elevator soliloquy. Also, the animated portions of the movie are probably some of the most embarassingly stupid things I've ever seen. The entire time that sequence was happening, I just felt like shutting off the TV and forgetting I even tried to get half way through this mess. Pros: *Naked Asian chick with huge tits *Sorter *Impressive cinematography Cons: *Literally everything else 1/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2007 15:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
Definitely different then the Lock Stock and Snatch, I can see how someone could be put off by walking in expecting another film using the same framework as the last two and receiving something totally different. I really enjoyed this film, I though it was smart enough, but probably pushing on the lines of being pretentious. I don’t see how you can fault a movie for not being just like the movies previous of the film maker. All-in-all I felt it was a pretty disjointed film but I still found it pretty interesting and enjoyable. After watching it I wasn’t exactly sure what happened and every time I watch it again I come to a different conclusion as to what is actually happening in the story. As far as ripping off fight club I think when they said "we are you" they ment it figuratively, not literally, as in we shared the same experiences before jail, in jail, and after making us of the same Breed. It was never actually explicite as to them being a part of his imagination. Up: its different then Lock Stock and Snatch, open to interpretation and makes you think Downs: its different then Lock Stock and Snatch, and not very concrete in its presentation. Score: 4/5 Russell_Nash fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Feb 19, 2007 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2007 23:19
|
|
