Revolver (2005)

Wonderful character development!

Boring

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

It is not that I am looking for an easy movie. I love movies that make your mind work and don't just serve you the food on a plate. But this one goes an extra step (or five). It is not an easy movie and it is not for everyone.

Revolver is a Guy Ritchie movie, so I figured there'd be a lot of mayhem, with blazing gunfire, mumbled British dialog, and car chases. And Jason Statham is in it! But that's not really what I got. Instead, this is more of a psychological thriller, and that's not Ritchie's forte. There are more minds being blown than there are heads being blown off, that much I can tell you. Which made this movie a bit of a disappointment to me.Statham plays Jake Green, a gambler just out of jail after seven years. Soon after his release, he's winning games of chance left and right. Which doesn't sit will with his nemesis, one Dorothy (!) Macha (Ray Liotta), who owns the casino where Jake's winning his winnings. When Macha's goons go after Jake, he receives some unexpected help from a couple of strangers – the suave Avi (Andre Benjamin) and the burly Zach (Vincent Pastore). They'll keep Macha's hounds at bay, for a price – all of Jake's money and his willing participation in their own loan-sharking racket.This still sounds like a fun movie. And let's not forget, "revolver" is right there in the title, too. But as the story progresses, it becomes less and less about feuding and fussing and fighting than about mind games. Who are Zach and Avi? Is Macha insane? Why won't these people just shoot each other? The body count is way too low for this sort of genre thriller. Heck, after a while I began questioning my own eyes. Was Jake actually hallucinating the whole thing? Maybe Jake wasn't real, either. Maybe I was the one hallucinating! Maybe I'm in Purgatory, endlessly watching the same boring Guy Ritchie movie. It's not quite Hell – that'd be watching any Uwe Boll movie on a loop – but it feels just as tedious.Revolver seems like a baffling foray into a theater of the absurd for a director who's not known for overly cerebral flourishes in his work. That's not to say that Ritchie's earlier films are for dummies only – they're fun, visceral treats, for the most part, and a lot of fun. But this one? This one was dull and inscrutable. The novelty of seeing Jason Statham with hair wore off rather quickly, although he's just as good in this movie as he is in almost any other movie (except maybe Spy, where he was hilariously good). Liotta is an unhinged menace, as he typically is. It was nice to see Vincent Pastore playing someone who's not a low-level organized-crime fall guy, though. And Andre Benjamin is smooth. But no, and I fully intend this pun, Revolver is a misfire.

Surely those reviewers telling us to watch this movie at least three times before writing a review realize that this means the movie isn't getting its message across? It is not a case of the viewer being 'lazy', but that this movie is confusing. This movie sounded interesting, and initially looked interesting, but then when I started watching it, small cracks started appearing, growing larger and larger, until finally the whole movie just collapsed into a heap. That was around the 30 minute stage, when suddenly I realized that this movie must have been written by the same person that directed it.Looking up Revolver on IMDb quickly revealed that I was correct. Once again, the failure to have someone else carry out the checks and balances ensured that the movie would lack consistency and at times be confusing.Like when our domineering bad guy suddenly appears in a church like scene and acts subserviently to an older lady who is surrounded by a lot of younger ladies. Does that sound confusing? Well it certainly was. I'm sure the writer had a clear idea in his head, but it needed a (different person) director to point out that at times there wasn't enough information provided to the audience. Like when our hero suddenly falls down after reading a business card. Was the card coated in poison? Was he having a type of epileptic fit?Such a shame that once again all that money and acting talent was wasted by a bad script, and worse directing.

Guy Ritchie's Revolver is a crime/drama similar to his previous works of "Snatch" (2000) and " Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" (1998), however, the film was panned as a critical failure and did not live up to his previous bodies of work based on the opinions of many. The film is Guy Ritchie's 3md film, which focuses on the lives of professional English criminals. The film stars Jason Statham as the protagonist, who appears in all three of Ritchie's works. Statham is cast often as a major character, whom is important to the plot and story development. Due to its pre-convinced genre, the critical framework of the crime/drama genre was often used by critics to determine its value and thus missed its value as a mystery film. Many of the plot twists and unexpected developments are not typical to the crime/drama genre and thus confuse and upset the audience, whose expectations are subverted in a manner that they may not have expected or wanted. While the film uses many aspects and iconography of his previous films; such as similar mise en scene, long term character development techniques, quick cut camera work and fast paced editing. Guy Ritchie's films also have a particular "iconography", as many of the same actors are used in different character roles throughout his films. In addition, throughout his films, the "criminals" always seem to wear suits. Whether this is an intentional metaphor, or just for aesthetic appeal, the attire of the actor adds an air of class to an otherwise bleak and dark setting. Being of the Crime/Drama genre, the film techniques used often portray darkly lit settings, with bleak or sombre music over-toning the atmosphere. Contrary to his previous films, Revolver is shot almost entirely in the dark lighting, mostly featuring night-time settings, with very little natural light shown during the 115 minute feature. The complexity of the narrative makes the film vastly more confusing than the simplistic plot lines of his two previous successful box office hits. Neal (1990) asserts that from a cultural perspective, films have a preconceived norm, i.e the crime genre draws on authenticity, as it is important to convey a sense of realism to make plot-lines seems plausible and engaging. In this way, the film also defies its own verisimilitude, as it pretends to be of the crime genre, or that of the drama genre, but in reality explores a multitude of aspects from the genre pool. Many critics often assert that the film's overall complexity alienates a vast majority of the audience and thus makes the film's themes and morality inaccessible to the audience. (Mark Kermode, 2009) The film also explores the physical notion of " Kabbalah" which, " is an ancient wisdom that reveals how the universe and life works". It is the study of how to receive fulfillment in our lives. These themes are introduced in the prologue of the film via typographical quotes--mainly quotes from Julius Caesar and Niccolo Machiavelli. This subject is further reinforced in the epilogue, where documentary style interviews with renowned philosopher academics discuss the meaning of "Kabbalah" and how it affects our everyday lives. The film also breaks genre boundaries during the third act and switches its focus from the criminal element, to that of a question on self- enlightenment and discovery. This genre switch from crime to Art House Esque may have seemed too abrupt and unexpected for the wider audience and shaped some negative opinions that the film received.