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.
575 Reviews
Entertaining
billcr122 August 2014
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.
Extremely stylish...extremely violent...extremely confusing.
planktonrules10 March 2020
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.
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.
It isn't style without substance it is style with poor substance
bob the moo15 October 2008
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.
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.
Hey look who can act
chickenpek17 September 2016
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.
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.
Not sure.......
michael-dovey23 September 2005
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!!
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!!
A new gangster movie from the old British gangster flick expert.
james.p.taylor22 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
A lot has been said about this film even before the release to the public. Taking all that on board I went to see Revolver with the hope it wouldn't be that bad.
The tale of an ex-con sent to prison for not giving up his employer, the film starts as a typical Ritchie flick that will be familiar to anyone who has seen Lock, Stock... and Snatch. This film. however, lacks the crackling quick wit of the other two films. What you end up with are long scenes full of dialogue that could easily have been replaced. Where's the wit, charm and humour gone?
By the last third you find yourself in realms that David Cronenberg would be happy with. Is anything real? Who is conning whom? Does anything make sense anymore?
The actors go from chewing-on-the-scenery insanity (Ray Liotta) to quiet and restrained (Jason Statham), both great to watch. My main niggle is the Tarantino-esquire anime portion that creeps in during one of the main action scenes. We've already seen this done better in Kill Bill and I don't see what it adds when mixed in with the live action happening at the same moment. The slightly disturbing mix of the styles might be the point, but it doesn't cover for the other problems in the film.
Why a 7/10 then? I think it was a valiant effort by the actors to make something out of a script that was so badly written. The fact I sat through the whole thing without once feeling like leaving makes it a rare film at the moment.
See it, you might like it.
The tale of an ex-con sent to prison for not giving up his employer, the film starts as a typical Ritchie flick that will be familiar to anyone who has seen Lock, Stock... and Snatch. This film. however, lacks the crackling quick wit of the other two films. What you end up with are long scenes full of dialogue that could easily have been replaced. Where's the wit, charm and humour gone?
By the last third you find yourself in realms that David Cronenberg would be happy with. Is anything real? Who is conning whom? Does anything make sense anymore?
The actors go from chewing-on-the-scenery insanity (Ray Liotta) to quiet and restrained (Jason Statham), both great to watch. My main niggle is the Tarantino-esquire anime portion that creeps in during one of the main action scenes. We've already seen this done better in Kill Bill and I don't see what it adds when mixed in with the live action happening at the same moment. The slightly disturbing mix of the styles might be the point, but it doesn't cover for the other problems in the film.
Why a 7/10 then? I think it was a valiant effort by the actors to make something out of a script that was so badly written. The fact I sat through the whole thing without once feeling like leaving makes it a rare film at the moment.
See it, you might like it.
revolter
cantstandya1326 May 2022
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".
Style and thought-provoking substance.
darklydreamingrahu23 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Okay. The negative reviews for this one have some merit. It is pretentious. It is confusing and jumbled. The ending leaves plot points dangling. Ray Liotta is three-quarters nude most of the time (if not completely nude). There's stints of "psychobabbling" and jabs at the viewer which only a theology major or philosophy scholar will pick up on. But there's a reason for all of this.
I normally don't do spoilers, but some are necessary here to discuss the underlying meaning or non-meanings of Revolver. Sorry.
First of all, it's obvious GR has fell in the Kabbalah hole with Madonna. For those of you who don't know, Kabbalah is a set of esoteric thoughts and teachings of Judaism, meant to explain the relationship between an eternal and mysterious creator and the mortal and finite universe (In my humble opinion, it's more of the same ancient religious hogwash). Revolver is overly-laced with references to it. The number 32 pops up in numerous places (In the Kabbalah, there are 32 Kabbalistic Paths of Wisdom) along with lighting that refers to auras emitted by the characters. The "Trinity" of the Patriarchs (Avi - Abraham, Zach - Issac, and Jake - Jacob) wear their corresponding colors and follow their mannerisms. The film's main theme is conquering one's own ego and following a righteous path to enlightenment. A very esoteric theme. Indeed, the "Snatch" director has been reading.
There's also many philosophies touched on. All the major ones are hit from Kant to Plato. You'll notice many philosophical references if you are familiar with that sort of thing. If not, don't even attempt it. Just grasp the overall concepts of the film and it seems like you'll be one step ahead of most of the reviewers.
Many people have misinterpreted even the physical happenings of the movie (of which are there are fewer than first perceived).
First off, the guys in the prison, they didn't exist. Mr. Green created Avi and Zach in his head while in solitary confinement. Both of them were the "Conman and gameplayer" aspects of his persona and indeed his ego itself. In fact, the whole crime-based plot is an esoteric subtext for the war between greed, revenge, and ego. The characters and plot devices are simply put in place to personify the messages given. Even Ray Liotta being so naked all the time represents his vulnerability and sloth-like laziness. Pay special attention to the colors and auras displayed around all the "characters" at certain times. The true meaning of the main theme is you are your own worst enemy because of sins you fail to accept. Let these sins like greed, pride, and sloth fall away, and you will be one step closer to enlightenment (hence Jacob giving Abraham and Isaac all the money and following them down the path of righteousness in the wake of his perceived death).
Who is Mr. Gold? Mr. Gold is most likely meant to be the representation of greed and ego within all of humankind. It could be Mr. Gold is God himself. He is omnipotent and "sees everything." It is said he is the "King of this game," so it is a logical conclusion that he is the "Creator." His representative glows on the screen and says things like, "You only get one chance with Mr. Gold." There are many interpretations to be found for "Mr. Gold."
What does the ending mean? It is left for interpretation. I have my own ideas of what it means, but based on what was hopefully my useful context, you will go back and watch again, and make your own conclusions. I'd hate to ruin all the fun. I've only touched on the basics of what it takes to grasp this movie's intentionally complex messages and concepts.
"Revolver" will either completely turn you off, or completely engage you in thought. Unlike trite films such as Inception, it's convoluded story speaks to the complex nature of esoteric thought. Being a non-theist, it's hard for me to accept some of the overtly religious mumbo-jumbo images and assertions, but I still respect the film. It's an intelligent one that requires an open and intelligent mind to grasp. It's no wonder it flew over so many people's heads. While I generally don't like preachy messages and things shoved in my face, the surreal nature of "Revolver" and the clever GR execution was a hit. It kept my attention and made me think for hours about it's many complex themes. Some of the characters were useless and some of it was just too preachy for me, but overall a very well-made art film. The acting is phenomenal and, as usual, GR is stylish and smart. 8/10
I normally don't do spoilers, but some are necessary here to discuss the underlying meaning or non-meanings of Revolver. Sorry.
First of all, it's obvious GR has fell in the Kabbalah hole with Madonna. For those of you who don't know, Kabbalah is a set of esoteric thoughts and teachings of Judaism, meant to explain the relationship between an eternal and mysterious creator and the mortal and finite universe (In my humble opinion, it's more of the same ancient religious hogwash). Revolver is overly-laced with references to it. The number 32 pops up in numerous places (In the Kabbalah, there are 32 Kabbalistic Paths of Wisdom) along with lighting that refers to auras emitted by the characters. The "Trinity" of the Patriarchs (Avi - Abraham, Zach - Issac, and Jake - Jacob) wear their corresponding colors and follow their mannerisms. The film's main theme is conquering one's own ego and following a righteous path to enlightenment. A very esoteric theme. Indeed, the "Snatch" director has been reading.
There's also many philosophies touched on. All the major ones are hit from Kant to Plato. You'll notice many philosophical references if you are familiar with that sort of thing. If not, don't even attempt it. Just grasp the overall concepts of the film and it seems like you'll be one step ahead of most of the reviewers.
Many people have misinterpreted even the physical happenings of the movie (of which are there are fewer than first perceived).
First off, the guys in the prison, they didn't exist. Mr. Green created Avi and Zach in his head while in solitary confinement. Both of them were the "Conman and gameplayer" aspects of his persona and indeed his ego itself. In fact, the whole crime-based plot is an esoteric subtext for the war between greed, revenge, and ego. The characters and plot devices are simply put in place to personify the messages given. Even Ray Liotta being so naked all the time represents his vulnerability and sloth-like laziness. Pay special attention to the colors and auras displayed around all the "characters" at certain times. The true meaning of the main theme is you are your own worst enemy because of sins you fail to accept. Let these sins like greed, pride, and sloth fall away, and you will be one step closer to enlightenment (hence Jacob giving Abraham and Isaac all the money and following them down the path of righteousness in the wake of his perceived death).
Who is Mr. Gold? Mr. Gold is most likely meant to be the representation of greed and ego within all of humankind. It could be Mr. Gold is God himself. He is omnipotent and "sees everything." It is said he is the "King of this game," so it is a logical conclusion that he is the "Creator." His representative glows on the screen and says things like, "You only get one chance with Mr. Gold." There are many interpretations to be found for "Mr. Gold."
What does the ending mean? It is left for interpretation. I have my own ideas of what it means, but based on what was hopefully my useful context, you will go back and watch again, and make your own conclusions. I'd hate to ruin all the fun. I've only touched on the basics of what it takes to grasp this movie's intentionally complex messages and concepts.
"Revolver" will either completely turn you off, or completely engage you in thought. Unlike trite films such as Inception, it's convoluded story speaks to the complex nature of esoteric thought. Being a non-theist, it's hard for me to accept some of the overtly religious mumbo-jumbo images and assertions, but I still respect the film. It's an intelligent one that requires an open and intelligent mind to grasp. It's no wonder it flew over so many people's heads. While I generally don't like preachy messages and things shoved in my face, the surreal nature of "Revolver" and the clever GR execution was a hit. It kept my attention and made me think for hours about it's many complex themes. Some of the characters were useless and some of it was just too preachy for me, but overall a very well-made art film. The acting is phenomenal and, as usual, GR is stylish and smart. 8/10
Was I supposed to 'get it'???
galasius11 September 2005
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'......
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'......
Storyline vs production
lucaslilja17 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
As I have been reading the posts regarding this movie, I come to realize those that like this movie tend to make a point of explaining to others about how to interpret the storyline. And it's quite a storyline with all the symbolism and metaphors about chess and human sins squeezed into it. The problem is that the production doesn't hold all the bulky storyline together in a satisfying way. It's like Guy tries too hard and ends up making mess of it all.
Many of those that watch this movie and understands the detail and intricacies of it like to point out that they do get it and therefore feels good about themselves and automatically gives the movie a high score. It's like in the movie: They are being fed pieces and feel intelligent when they knock them down.
But seriously, the movie just make you feel sick when it tries to display it's twisted view of a inner psychological battle. It's full of clichés and rough edges to the camera work and effects. It picks up bits from all other films with twists in it and it doesn't hold up. He mixes up The usual suspects, David Lynch in general and his previous films in one big bad camera mess.
So, to wrap this up, here's my conclusion and opinion; the storyline is kinda cute, but the production of it isn't. To you who liked it, I can only say: Good for you. You got something out of it, and I didn't. To you who didn't like it: It's not always easy to understand if you're not used to think the movies through for hidden meanings. That will make even good movies seem like crap. Or, you just didn't enjoy it because it hurt your eyes with it's sloppy psycho scenes.
So, here a can of fuel to all you flamers. Light it up! =)
Many of those that watch this movie and understands the detail and intricacies of it like to point out that they do get it and therefore feels good about themselves and automatically gives the movie a high score. It's like in the movie: They are being fed pieces and feel intelligent when they knock them down.
But seriously, the movie just make you feel sick when it tries to display it's twisted view of a inner psychological battle. It's full of clichés and rough edges to the camera work and effects. It picks up bits from all other films with twists in it and it doesn't hold up. He mixes up The usual suspects, David Lynch in general and his previous films in one big bad camera mess.
So, to wrap this up, here's my conclusion and opinion; the storyline is kinda cute, but the production of it isn't. To you who liked it, I can only say: Good for you. You got something out of it, and I didn't. To you who didn't like it: It's not always easy to understand if you're not used to think the movies through for hidden meanings. That will make even good movies seem like crap. Or, you just didn't enjoy it because it hurt your eyes with it's sloppy psycho scenes.
So, here a can of fuel to all you flamers. Light it up! =)
This film is good
texas_phil23 September 2005
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.
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.
Ambitious...annoying...memorable
harryangel1313 September 2005
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!
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!
Here we go....
michaeljameshughes11 July 2022
Caught this last night. 2005, how did I miss it?. Richie, Statham, Liotta, oh yes, sit back and enjoy. Except....it was diabolical, truly bad, of EPIC PROPORTIONS. Over the years, with canny shopping, buy one get one free offers, I have saved the magnificent sum of 8500 pounds, and I will GIVE this sum to anyone who can explain, to my satisfaction, what the hell this was all about. No psychobabble, no 7th Seal b.s., help me.
Vaporous Adversaries in the Margins of Quantum Mechanics Textbooks
tedg6 February 2009
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.
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.
Not what I expected...
buddhamatic12 September 2005
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????...
AND WHO IS MR. GOLD????...
Complicated but still a very good movie
david-116112 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Now, I'm not a typical "testerone" viewer, I won't go watch any action movie that has big explosions or lots of death and destruction. I think this is a much more complex work for Ritchie than his previous work (i'm thinking of lock stock and snatch, rather than swept away.
I do acknowledge that it can be hard to follow at times. His plot is not executed a la Lynch, in that the "twists" aren't completely out on Mars, that if you follow the bread crumbs, you can find what you're looking. You just have to know what to look for.
Gold is a fiction, he does not exist, but everyone comes to believe that maybe they are gold. Gold is the greatest con every conceived (in the realm of the movie), in that people fear what they cannot see, and they'd rather die themselves than find out what this mysterious person has waiting for them. Stratham's fellow con men from prison reveal that even though thought he really didn't know as much as he thought he did. They know more than anyone else, because they had created the con in the first place. Get your opponent to believe that there is someone bigger, stronger, than you, and they either eliminate each other, or they eliminate themselves.
It's a bit of a stretch to get a general audience to get their head around this, especially in one viewing. And admittedly including anime for no reason was a bit odd, but just as much as it didn't fit in Kill Bill either. I don't claim to hold all the answers, but this is what I got from the movie. At times I was a bit lost as well, but it eventually clicked for me.
I do acknowledge that it can be hard to follow at times. His plot is not executed a la Lynch, in that the "twists" aren't completely out on Mars, that if you follow the bread crumbs, you can find what you're looking. You just have to know what to look for.
Gold is a fiction, he does not exist, but everyone comes to believe that maybe they are gold. Gold is the greatest con every conceived (in the realm of the movie), in that people fear what they cannot see, and they'd rather die themselves than find out what this mysterious person has waiting for them. Stratham's fellow con men from prison reveal that even though thought he really didn't know as much as he thought he did. They know more than anyone else, because they had created the con in the first place. Get your opponent to believe that there is someone bigger, stronger, than you, and they either eliminate each other, or they eliminate themselves.
It's a bit of a stretch to get a general audience to get their head around this, especially in one viewing. And admittedly including anime for no reason was a bit odd, but just as much as it didn't fit in Kill Bill either. I don't claim to hold all the answers, but this is what I got from the movie. At times I was a bit lost as well, but it eventually clicked for me.
Mr. Black's Grade: B-
dvdguy20055 October 2005
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.
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.
Just no. I'm a Statham fan, but just no.
mshort297417 February 2024
I wanted the blood and guts, bone twisting martial art tough guy film, and this was just way too deep if you're not expecting it. Too trippy, and no explanations at the end. Was it split personalities, which characters were the personalities, what was real, what was imagined. It's like a bad Tim Burton acid trip, and I mean a bad one, not a good one like that may sound. Now, if you were looking for a psychological thriller in the first place, then I still wouldn't recommend this one. Mostly due to the lack of closure and explanations. Imagine the film Sixth Sense, and it "ends" before the reveal. Stuck wondering.
A brilliant movie
lubomirv110 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I watched to movie today and it just blew my mind away. It is a real masterpiece of art and I don't understand why most of the people think it's garbage. The main idea of the movie - take your ego away and then you will have true power! This was the main battle at the end of the movie and Guy Ritchie has shown that in a magnificent way. "The greatest enemy will hide in the last place you will ever look" - do you remember this from the movie? Because our true enemy is in us - it is our ego... That voice that always tells us that we are important, that gives us our pride, that tells us not to give, but only to take, that creates our aggression, that wants to be in control, that creates all the negative feelings and thoughts. GR expressed this idea in an astonishing way and has shown that the only way to gain true control is when you loose control and you just let go of your personal importance. A superb movie!
Unexpected
dap-131 October 2005
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'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.
Even die hard Ritchie fans can't defend this one
casmart-5808726 May 2022
Watching this film is akin to listening to an elderly relative recount the plot of any random Guy Ritchie film, without coherence or narrative.
A rambling disaster, it's like the director took cut scenes from all of his other films and strung them together in no particular order.
Watch out for the bizarre, unexplained and incongruous animated sequences which are dropped in just to highlight the lack of respect the film's creators have for its viewers.
Or don't - and save yourself from watching of this film at all.
A rambling disaster, it's like the director took cut scenes from all of his other films and strung them together in no particular order.
Watch out for the bizarre, unexplained and incongruous animated sequences which are dropped in just to highlight the lack of respect the film's creators have for its viewers.
Or don't - and save yourself from watching of this film at all.
a trip to enlightenment
memeplexo6 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
it's all very simple. Jake goes to prison, and spends five years with the con and the chess masters. they get compassionate about his history of loss and failure, and utterly misery that he lives on because of his belief in his mastery of small tricks and control of the rules of small crooks. they decide to give Jake the ultimate freedom: from his innermost fears, from what he believes to be himself. for that, they take him on a trip where he got to let go all the fear, all the pride, all the hope - to be reborn as true master of his will.
it's a clever movie about the journey of illumination, about the infinite gambles and games that we do with and within ourselves. 10/10, no doubt.
it's a clever movie about the journey of illumination, about the infinite gambles and games that we do with and within ourselves. 10/10, no doubt.
Decent movie, but Ritchie's flair outstrips his story.
dannyguitar24 September 2005
After hearing so many bad reviews for Guy Ritchie's latest film, you have to feel sorry for him. For as a director, this film marks a huge step forward. His visual flair and cinematic tricks, his camera-work and editing have simply exploded on to the screen showing him to be one of the most talented directors today. Like Scorsese, he doesn't just direct his actor's but employs all the techniques of the camera to produce slick, visually stunning scenes. But perhaps the problem is, unlike Scorsese, he hasn't paid his dues. Take Scorsese's breakthrough film, Mean Streets. The film is brilliant but raw and edgy, rough around the edges. It's not until many films later that he knocks us for six with Goodfellas, using every trick in the book to deliver a knockout blow to your senses. But Ritchie has tried to do this with his forth feature, and while his skill is impressive, you get the feeling it's been used on the wrong script. The story centres around the character of Jake Green. Out of prison he sets about working a con he learnt inside, a formula for gambling, pretty soon he's incurred the wrath of gangster Macha and has to resort to the protection of two mysterious figures Avi and Zach. What happens next is the reason for all the bad reviews. The film has many (apparent) red herrings. There are very simple explanations for everything, but the existence of certain scenes, characters and dialogue seem to add up to something else which may be another layer to the film or simply a decoy for those who think that they are cleverer than the really are. Ironicly enough, this seems to be one of the themes of the movie. The film repeatedly throws us proverbs, and rules of "the game" which are then repeated again and again until your not sure, what Guy Ritchie is getting at. I'm still not sure whether you're meant to ignore these things, because if you do it's actually a pretty enjoyable film, despite the lack of cockney humour (the only laughs coming from Ray Liotta in his underpants)But it's my bet that the film was written with the intention of people watching it multiple times, to a: make lots of money, and b: to become a classic like The Usual Suspects, Fight Club, and to a lesser extent 12 Monkeys. With a bit more work on the script the film could have been a hell of a lot better, but it still entertains and I would recommend it, if only because it's a wonderful looking film. It is up to you whether to hang on to every word to try to figure the plot out 100 percent, or just sit back and enjoy Ritchie's craftsmanship. It might be worth waiting for the DVD.
Pretentious Rubbish
johnjackie-robson13 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
What we have here is a film about how the pursuit of money & revenge can corrupt your soul... or something like that. Guy Ritchie, a director known for his reworking of the gangster genre, bites off more than he can chew with this one.
His use of modern film noir to tackle the theme of a man setting himself free by swallowing his pride, being nice to his enemy & giving away all his money falls flat on it's face. When Jason Statham's character no longer fears Ray Liotta, it apparently drives Liotta crazy enough to blow his head off in the final scene. Why? Basically you cannot set up a mafiosi like the Liotta character, who has presumably got to his station in life by displaying the kind of ruthless behaviour evident throughout the film, only then to have him driven to suicide by nothing more than a pitying smile on the face of Statham's character.
Before anyone starts to say I'm missing the point... I'm not. I get it OK? Opt out of the quest for riches & you'll find true happiness and inner peace. Be nice to your enemy and this will confuse him into self-destruction. This seems to be the gist of the movie and in itself this is not a bad premise for a story, although hardly original. The problem is that Ritchie simply doesn't have the skill as a movie maker to carry it off. At the moment when even Guy Ritchie realises this, he appears to get bored with the story and begins to insert red-herrings: The scene when Statham gets knocked over by a car - Why? The shooting of some scenes as Marvel comic animations... again, why?
There are so many loose threads & unanswered questions left at the end of the movie you could get all 2001-ish about it and try figuring them out, or simply accept that there are no answers & each viewer will interpret things in their own way. Myself? I was so bored with the pompous tone of the film that I simply didn't care. Frankly the ending couldn't come too soon so that I didn't have to sit through any more of this pretentious psychobabble.
A waste of two hours of my life.
His use of modern film noir to tackle the theme of a man setting himself free by swallowing his pride, being nice to his enemy & giving away all his money falls flat on it's face. When Jason Statham's character no longer fears Ray Liotta, it apparently drives Liotta crazy enough to blow his head off in the final scene. Why? Basically you cannot set up a mafiosi like the Liotta character, who has presumably got to his station in life by displaying the kind of ruthless behaviour evident throughout the film, only then to have him driven to suicide by nothing more than a pitying smile on the face of Statham's character.
Before anyone starts to say I'm missing the point... I'm not. I get it OK? Opt out of the quest for riches & you'll find true happiness and inner peace. Be nice to your enemy and this will confuse him into self-destruction. This seems to be the gist of the movie and in itself this is not a bad premise for a story, although hardly original. The problem is that Ritchie simply doesn't have the skill as a movie maker to carry it off. At the moment when even Guy Ritchie realises this, he appears to get bored with the story and begins to insert red-herrings: The scene when Statham gets knocked over by a car - Why? The shooting of some scenes as Marvel comic animations... again, why?
There are so many loose threads & unanswered questions left at the end of the movie you could get all 2001-ish about it and try figuring them out, or simply accept that there are no answers & each viewer will interpret things in their own way. Myself? I was so bored with the pompous tone of the film that I simply didn't care. Frankly the ending couldn't come too soon so that I didn't have to sit through any more of this pretentious psychobabble.
A waste of two hours of my life.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
