Revolver

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.

I always enjoy seeing movies that make you think, and don't just drip-feed the answers to their audience. "Revolver" is one of these films, and although many reviewers have stated that it is difficult to follow, with a bit of concentration and an open mind I got it. First time. True, it doesn't compare to other mind-mucks like "The Usual Suspects" or "Memento", but in its own right its an intelligent and thought-provoking film.

Another thing I really liked about this film is how damn beautiful it is. Every scene, every camera angle seems to have been thought about for ages. If you see it you'll know what I mean.

So, to conclude... watch it with an open mind and you may enjoy it. If not, well, no-one ever said "Revolver" is for everyone. And that's my 2 cents.

I normally do not like movies about gangsters, drug pushers and warlords, but this one has all of that and it had quite a different twist. It is one of the best made films I have seen in a long time. The timing is impeccable. The scenes are well designed. The casting is marvelous. Some might call it a psychological film, but I think its more about one man's spiritual growth as he grapples with what life hands him. The writing is engaging and the action has much to be expected, but also unexpected outcomes.This keep the film fresh from start to finish and it ends in a way that makes you wonder. I wouldn't want anything more from a film and highly recommend it to people who are willing to watch a move thoughtfully with full engagement.

I will start by saying that this has undeservedly be panned by just about everyone! The fact is it wasn't what anyone was expecting, especially from Guy Ritchie. What everyone was expecting was cockney geezers and good one liners "do ya like dags?" etc, but this is far more mature than his previous works. I would agree that it is confusing but all the facts are there for us we just have to see them and listen harder, this film demands all your attention! Look past the cool and dazzling look of the film, try to listen to the dialogue rather than admire the performances and i think we will all get a more thorough understanding of the whole film.

Yes this has its influences from modern classics( fight club, pulp fiction etc ) but it is in the whole original in both direction and pacing with a music score second to none. I feel that if everyone watched this film over and over they would understand it a lot more and maybe appreciate it for the fine piece of modern cinema that it is and i hope also that Ritchie continues in this vain as i far prefer this to his mockney "masterpieces".

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.