"Revolver" raises the question of whether Guy Ritchie has gone completely nuts. He took a press beating over his "Swept Away" remake a few years ago, but he was in the throes of newly married bliss. Cut the guy some slack, I thought. But this new movie, well, there's no other way to say it; "Revolver" makes NO SENSE AT ALL.
It's very difficult to write about a film in which I have no idea what goes on. This movie is stealthy. All the Ritchie crime flick hallmarks seem present for a while. There are some fearsome crime boss types, piles of money, wackily-nicknamed characters, and Jason Statham. Both "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Snatch" were confusing for a time, too, but neatly cleared themselves up, so it appears this one will work itself out, as well. After a while, though, "Revolver" begins to show itself for what it is - a pile of elements with a whole lot of necessary parts missing. Early on, we find out that ex-con Jake Greene (Statham) has a rare blood disease that will leave him dead in three days. That leads him to a pair of loan sharks (Andre Benjamin and Vincent Pastore) who claim they can "help" him, which they do by using his gambling fortune as seed money for loans. Then they steal some coke from Ray Liotta, who himself is merely brokering a deal for the shady Mr. Gold. Then Greene finds out he's NOT dying. Then he starts hearing voices. Then it looks like he might be Mr. Gold, or that Mr. Gold doesn't exist. Then...see what I mean? "Revolver" features a lot of voice-over philosophy equating chess and con games. At times we get the impression that Greene is manipulating strings of a con only he's smart enough to pull off. AT others, it looks like he's the dupe. At still others, it's hard to tell if there even are any strings in the first place. there are five or six flashback montages that seem to be leading to a big reveal, Keyser Soze-style, but they always end instead in more chess, or with Liotta shouting at some underling to kill someone, because he doesn't give a f**k. There's a lot of bloodshed, too, but it means nothing when we can't even follow who these characters are, or what they're after.
Don't misunderstand me; "Revolver" isn't simply a caper with an intricate con that requires sorting out with your friends afterward. It's more like a series of outtakes or sequences that are shown together, but feel like they're not even from the same movie. Was there no one involved in this project with the wherewithal to stand up and declare "Mr. Ritchie, this film makes no sense"? The expectation that audiences will be able to comprehend this movie is as unreasonable as it is improbable. With "Revolver," Ritchie has left behind the unintelligible cockney of his earlier films that baffled so many audiences, and traded it in for unintelligible whole movie instead.
It's very difficult to write about a film in which I have no idea what goes on. This movie is stealthy. All the Ritchie crime flick hallmarks seem present for a while. There are some fearsome crime boss types, piles of money, wackily-nicknamed characters, and Jason Statham. Both "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Snatch" were confusing for a time, too, but neatly cleared themselves up, so it appears this one will work itself out, as well. After a while, though, "Revolver" begins to show itself for what it is - a pile of elements with a whole lot of necessary parts missing. Early on, we find out that ex-con Jake Greene (Statham) has a rare blood disease that will leave him dead in three days. That leads him to a pair of loan sharks (Andre Benjamin and Vincent Pastore) who claim they can "help" him, which they do by using his gambling fortune as seed money for loans. Then they steal some coke from Ray Liotta, who himself is merely brokering a deal for the shady Mr. Gold. Then Greene finds out he's NOT dying. Then he starts hearing voices. Then it looks like he might be Mr. Gold, or that Mr. Gold doesn't exist. Then...see what I mean? "Revolver" features a lot of voice-over philosophy equating chess and con games. At times we get the impression that Greene is manipulating strings of a con only he's smart enough to pull off. AT others, it looks like he's the dupe. At still others, it's hard to tell if there even are any strings in the first place. there are five or six flashback montages that seem to be leading to a big reveal, Keyser Soze-style, but they always end instead in more chess, or with Liotta shouting at some underling to kill someone, because he doesn't give a f**k. There's a lot of bloodshed, too, but it means nothing when we can't even follow who these characters are, or what they're after.
Don't misunderstand me; "Revolver" isn't simply a caper with an intricate con that requires sorting out with your friends afterward. It's more like a series of outtakes or sequences that are shown together, but feel like they're not even from the same movie. Was there no one involved in this project with the wherewithal to stand up and declare "Mr. Ritchie, this film makes no sense"? The expectation that audiences will be able to comprehend this movie is as unreasonable as it is improbable. With "Revolver," Ritchie has left behind the unintelligible cockney of his earlier films that baffled so many audiences, and traded it in for unintelligible whole movie instead.