1

I beg you…

DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME WITH THIS TRIPE…

There's a reason it hasn't been released in the US until now, it's utter crap.

JC on Nov 11, 2007

2

Not that I want to say you're wrong, as I havent' seen it… but can you explain why it's so bad?? The trailer makes it look AWESOME! It's Guy Ritchie, how did he go wrong here?!?

Alex Billington on Nov 11, 2007

3

It degenerates into nonsensical rubbish.

The film hobbles to it's ludicrous conclusion, if you want to even call it that, with all the sense and style of a paraplegic hopped up on acid doing a routine from Top Hat (1935).

jc on Nov 11, 2007

4

Yea, word on this one says it's pretty bad. I'll personally check it out just to support the Ritchie, but even fans of his old work haven't been so keen on this one.

Joe H on Nov 11, 2007

5

Just to give you a slightly less nonsensical answer, alex. The film is great, a classic guy ritchie ganster flick until the last 10-15 minutes where the whole things collapses into a pile of bullshit with seemingly random moments of schizophrenia and huge asides with ray liotta talking to himself. If you can seperate the useless crap at the end of the movie from the rest you'll enjoy it, otherwise I'd just sit back and hope that his new movie is a return to form.

newmiyamoto on Nov 11, 2007

6

i cant believe you havent seen this yet. i cant believe its coming to theatres only now. ive had this for years. it is a good movie. dont let them tell you otherwise.

marcomc2 on Nov 11, 2007

7

Hey all, this is coming to you from a great Jason Statham-fan and from someone who loved Guy Ritchie's first two movies, 'Lock, Stock…' and 'Snatch'. Unfortunately in this case you should believe the hype… 'Revolver'is a failure, eventhough it starts out great. Like with 'Ocean's Twelve', or worse even 'Boxing helena' . the ending is such rubbisch that it tears down the whole movie in the last fifteen minutes. I think what Ritchie has been trying to do is make a modern day version of 'Performance', also a British gangster movie with a surrealistic ending, but in the days of that movie (1968) you could get away with a crap ending because everybody was too high to tell what's going on anyway - nowadays however people recognised 'Revolver' for what it is: a bad, bad movie. All the more reason to look forward to RocknRolla though, Ritchie's first actual gangster movie since 'Snatch'.

djoolz on Nov 12, 2007

8

"this is going to be f**king ass!!"

I fixed it for you.

It really is gibbering rubbish.

pickle on Nov 12, 2007

9

Revolver is pretentious shit. Avoid it when possible. It sucks ass!!!

Kenneth on Nov 12, 2007

10

This has got to be one of the worst movies ever. The movie makes no sense.
The first poster said it best: "It's Utter Crap"

Worst thing is that the trailer ain't bad
The people who see this are getting burnt big time…

Guy Ritchie is way overrated!

Enola on Nov 12, 2007

11

How's that Alex? The views just keep on coming.

Thank you to newmiyamoto for using Nonsensical and for your opinion but from what I can glean from your view of Revolver, I'm afraid you are a fool. I don't use this term in regard to it's bastardised urban connotations, but in the true sense and meaning of the word.

Your judgement is poor.

JC on Nov 12, 2007

12

JC - just because you and some vocal people don't like doesn't mean that other people might take an interest in it… Heck, even maybe I'll hate it but it doesn't mean I still won't leave this up for people to watch… but I appreciate your opinion and respect you writing about how bad it is here, so I think it'd only be appropriate of you to respect mine…

Alex Billington on Nov 12, 2007

13

Seen it couple of months, it was done two years ago…anyway. ….Great, confusing, funny, well acted….guy film.

scar on Nov 12, 2007

14

Wow you guys are harsh. Alex is just saying it looks good…can you show me where he said he liked it or disliked it? No, that's what I thought. I agree with Alex, this does look good. If its bad, then it's bad, but Alex and I will leave up to ourselves if we like it or not. Live Free or Die Hard looked good but it sucked big ass monkey balls, so this could be the same thing… we will see. Just calm down y'all.

Jeff Warner on Nov 12, 2007

15

It looks bad ass, it's a Guy Ritchie flick (and barring that piece of crap he did with Madonna - are pretty much sure bets), it's got guns and women in it. It's a "dude night" movie.

Shit on it all you like, but I'm with Alex. I'll watch it when it hits here.

Phil on Nov 12, 2007

16

The last half-hour (I haven't seen it in a couple of years, mind you) really is difficult to comprehend - the build-up was good at points, but at some point you realize Ritchie doesn't know where he wants to go. Not a complete waste of time, but pretty close. More disappointing than anything.

Mike on Nov 12, 2007

17

It just goes to show, you can't account for other peoples taste. You should watch it, at least then you'll have your own opinion.

I was really looking forward to it, his first 2 movies were brilliant. Interesting stories told incredibly well.
But revolver was…… oh dear. It's seems as though he was trying to make some sort of artistic statement and ended up being up his own arse a bit, no actually a lot.
I remember being a bit dumbstruck at the end thinking "what the hell was all that about"

killer joe on Nov 15, 2007

18

it sucks, saw it last year, to flashy over substance

dvd_psycho on Nov 21, 2007

19

Mr. Gold is the devil. The End.

Spike Murdock, Poet-at-Large on Nov 21, 2007

20

Well, Revolver is very much an acquired taste. Show it to 20 people and 16 won't get it at all and wonder what the f*(> is going on, 3 will get it and not give a $h!+ (particularly as it come to the conclusion) and 1 will consider it a masterpiece. So you're looking at a 5% rate of return. Previous form from Ritchie's work is a poor indicator as to how people will respond as this is a very individual movie and bears little resemblance to his previous work, outside of the gangster genre framework. Key point of interest, Mark Strong's work as a meticulous hitman, which is one of the finest performances of the 21st century, regardless of your thoughts as to the overall worth of the film.

Cammell and Roeg's "Performance" is actually a decent pont of reference, as this is another film that tries to take the familiar gangland reference points and take them to somewhere completely alien to their normal place of residence. And like that film, this has spent years languishing in the vaults before release.

It got an absolute trouncing in the UK, but as I noted upfront, this is a film that will find an audience, however small, who really, really, love it. And for that reason, it's US release is to be celebrated.

For the record, I'm one of the 15% who got it but, in the end, didn't much care for it. Not to say that this won't be highly imortant for others, though, or has no value. I recognise that Ritchie shot for the moon. It's just my opinion that he missed.

Francoesque on Nov 22, 2007

21

Francoesque. listen.

We got it.

I got it.

The 15 or 16, you're a little unsure, aren't you, well those people saw it and GOT IT.

And they are just highlighting the major problem with the last third of the film.

The problem is that he lost his way.

No shame there.

But he lost his way.

Performances aside, "21st Century?" So, one of the best performance in the past 7 years of cinema? ??

Leave the 21st century alone for a moment as I can't use that term as we're only SEVEN YEARS in, but jesus ! Are you mad, No offence to Mark, but you're a little misguided to say the least.

You need to take that in son.

JC on Nov 23, 2007

22

i thought it was garbage.

KYUSS on Nov 30, 2007

23

The movie made sense to me but there wasn't enough forsight to the ending, so it was just thrown at you. My favorite kind of movies are the ones you have to think about. If they actually made the right changes to the US version this movie could be pretty good.

Jeff on Dec 5, 2007

24

I thoroughly enjoyed it. It looked and sounded amazing. Loved the Mark Strong character…Guy should make a prequel based on this character alone. But, I can see why many people didn't care for this movie. It is most definately an aquired taste.

I like films that have such a polarity of opinion. People either love it or hate it.

But man, some of the imagery is amazing. At least to me, certainly enough to recommend. Also, I like to be pleasantly surprised by movies I expect to hate….it's usually the other way around.

Villemar on Dec 9, 2007

25

Regardless of opinions - I want to know where people found the dvd or vhs of this? My boyfriend is a huge Ritchie fan and has been waiting for this to hit the U.S. for the last 2 years… and of course, it's not being shown in the midwest yet. Where do I get my hands on copy in time for Christmas? He'd shit solid gold.. I promise, I'll share the wealth!

Kalliegro

Kalliegro on Dec 9, 2007

26

You have two options.

One, the legal way to do this, you can buy it from http://www.amazon.co.uk. I have ordered stuff from them to be shipped to the states many times in the past. However, it may cost you a pretty penny to get it in time for Christmas. Also, you'll need a region-free DVD player to play it, or rip it then convert it to region-free and burn it to a DVD-R.

The easier way, although not technically legal, is to download it via a torrent. That's how I got to see it. Send me an email at villemar1@gmail.com if any of this doesn't make sense to you. Good luck.

Villemar on Dec 9, 2007

27

Villemar,

I found one on ebay, but it does specify "region 2" - not sure what that means. I also have no idea how to find out if you have a region free dvd player. This one is his, so I'm clueless. There's actually a few of them on ebay… but some of them are up for bid for another 3-6 days, but I would have the option to buy direct. The upside to this one that is region 2 is that it's already here in the U.S.

Do you think one would be faster that the other (amazon vs. ebay direct)?

Thanks so much for your input!

K

Kalliegro on Dec 10, 2007

28

dude, lol the only reason sum of u dont like the film, is because as u sum of u said, it made no sense, the film does make sense, u just need to watch it a couple times to understand it, and if u still dont, ur just stupid. the film does make sense, and its a brillant film.

michael on Dec 10, 2007

29

Though the build up was great, the movie had such potential and I was looking so forward to the end…But ultimatley was left dissapointed and speechless.

JDP - South Africa on Jan 6, 2008

30

Wow. I have seen this movie at least 7 times already, and EVERY time, I've loved it. Layers and layers of what I perceived to be genius. I was looking for a blog to find people who shared my views, but I see that so many of you disliked the movie…

Was it the standard guy ritchie fare seen in Lock Stock and Snatch? No. Not even close.
But to be honest, I'm perplexed as to why so many hated it so much.

Let's break it down. The style was present. The cinematography and creative angles and perspectives that Ritchie uses were there and nicely done. Not spectacular, but smooth and masterful.

The acting? Well Ray Liotta isn't my first choice for ANY role, but I thought that you properly despised his character by the end of the movie, so he fit the bill quite nicely.
Jason Statham? I thought he did quite well, especially during the "schizophrenic" elevator scenes. The character of "Paul" was necessarily bland and one dimensional, but the pair of cell mates were quite sublime.

Where were the shortcomings? I thought that the writing was a bit too involved, though being the person I am, I was extremely intrigued. I loved it, but certainly would not expect very many people to share my views. I enjoy a movie which challenges the thought process, rather than satisfies the emotion. I loved the cell mates and the neurotic style and thought the ending was quite appropriate.

Mr. Gold, representing the ego, the greed, the selfishness… And of course, the impactful repetition of the quote: "The greatest con he ever pulled, was making you believe that you were him".
In essence you have a beautiful contrast, in Jason Statham who surrendered pride and greed and self, revealing his true strength of character and the appropriate destructive end of Liotta's character, conveying the idea that a person devoted to the satisfaction of greed, lust and pride… the self… the ego… That person will eventually self-destruct.

My absolute favorite scene was the "near miss" of the car while Statham's character discusses that which drives us as humans. To me, the theme of the entire movie was captured in that quote…

Does anyone connect with any of this? I suppose it may make a difference that I've taken way too many literary analysis courses in my time.

ze gehmans? on Jan 25, 2008

31

Finally someone who loves this film as much as I do. Admittedly I felt like the smooth BMW of a film had flown off a cliff into an iron wall that was the end, but after the recoil and the obligatory re-watch I started to get it.
I think the cinematic style is amazing, especially the shot of Liotta in the massive hall after his meeting with Lily Walker, and the random but brilliant anime scene in the middle.
The acting was not amazing, but was definitely what was required for this film. I get the feeling that Richie had only discussed the real depth of the film with Liotta, Statham, Benjamin and maybe the Soprano's guy, and everyone else was just kinda playing set roles.
I still do not pretend to understand the depth of this film. I know it is about relinquishing fear and desire, and I know these traits are represented by Mr. Gold. I cannot work out whether Mr. Gold is real or not, or if he is Mr. Green, and if Avi and Zack ARE real then are they actually Mr. Gold? These are the questions that have led me to enjoy every one of the 10 times I have watched it, as well, of course, as the beautiful cinematography and slickly executed storyline.
I think that if you get the premise that if you relinquish fear and desire you change the rules on what in life controls you, then you can take something relatively important away from this film. Its suaveness, in many respects, make it enjoyable, and the multitude of questions the film leaves you with are unanswerable, irrelevant, important tools for accessing something far deeper. What that is I am not entirely sure of, but I can feel it just by reflecting on this film.
Why is it pretentuous for a director to try and do something metaphysical by manipulating what is expected. Richie, up his own arse…or genius?

Christoph on Mar 9, 2008

32

This film is the biggest load of fucking shit I have ever seen. Awful moronic script pissed on by pretentious direction and topped off by orange face Liotta acting his way deep into a paper bag. I would suggest to anyone who is interested in Revolver to purchase one and blow their brains out as a preferable alternative to this abomination.

Guy on Mar 17, 2008

33

rubish!

Marcin Kruk on Apr 12, 2008

34

Does everyone who thinks the film was garbage really get it? If so, how can you think it's garbage? I never saw a film like this before. Guy Ritchie not only shot for something no one else ever made, he shot for something no one else ever talks about. I was actually startled when I realized what was happening here. I thought it was phenomenal.

jim on Apr 16, 2008

35

I loved it. I loved the philosophy. It's an action movie with an intellectual bent.
I love the comments of the different confidence men in the bonus material.
I love the comments about why we do what we do.

If you want to see a movie that does not challenge you, dont see this movie.
If you want a movie that is as challenging as a TV show, dont see this movie.
If you want to see a movie that makes you think and wonder, see this movie.

Jim on Apr 28, 2008

36

I only read the initial comments and want to ask are you fucking retarded? The movie was amazing. There was humor, action, a typical Ritchie plot that draws you in, and a message. If you were too dumb to get it that's your problem.

Jack on Jun 6, 2008

37

I was shocked to read so many bad comments about this film. The study of the ego is always so interesting and should be on everyones "to do" list. This piece of art is Ritchie's study on the subject and some of us enjoy seeing artists explore it in thier style. The day I saw it I needed that "gangster" approach. All the way to the end was pure art, visual, style, music etc… If you did'nt "get it"…wake up… watch it many times. I have a whole new level respect for Ritchie and now even Madonna for marrying him. He's saying something very beautiful, no wonder it went way over most people's head!!!!!

rr on Jun 11, 2008

38

This movie wasn't destined to get ratings. The topic of the movie, conciousness, is extremely hard, if not impossible to define. Placing any definition to it attaches a label to it, instantly making it unconcious. I would ask those of you who are saying they "get" the movie to ask themselves if they really get it, or is it your ego that is saying it gets it to make it happy.

Eckhart Tolle's "A New Earth" would be a fantastic read for those who do understand in some capacity, or are really curious on what the movie is covering.

Good flick

The you who wants that gold watch, wants the largest house in the neighborhood, gets pissed off in traffic, dwells on those other "you"s who mistreat you, retaliates against those other "you"s who disrespect you and worries about tomorrow is not you. It is your ego. The real you does not identify with these things. And anyone else who exhibits these characteristics, that is not who they are either, it is their ego. "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."

El Dot on Aug 25, 2008