Agrega una trama en tu idiomaIn this politically charged homage to Medium Cool, a photographer covers the urban guerrilla war on New York streets during the RNC.In this politically charged homage to Medium Cool, a photographer covers the urban guerrilla war on New York streets during the RNC.In this politically charged homage to Medium Cool, a photographer covers the urban guerrilla war on New York streets during the RNC.
Vija Zvers
- Mousy
- (as Vija Brigita Grosgalvis)
Jim Titus
- Music Producer
- (as James T. Williams II)
Juan Carlos Hernández
- Cruz Santiago
- (as Juan Hernandez)
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
This movie offers true insight into the plight of the "real" average American. It depicts a hard core reality, and helps to clarify what system is keeping us down and who "The Man" really is! Working in the South Bronx of New York, I can testify that the reality of the situation (as accurately portrayed by "This Revolution") is harsh, and often times something middle America doesn't realize, or is blinded to seeing, either because they reject it, agree with it, just plain don't know.... I gave it a nine because the acting isn't that great at times, but the message more than makes up for it... for those who know, it's powerful, for those who don't know, it might just fly right over their heads....
I saw this movie at the Munich film-festival. Due to the nature of film-festivals I did not know very much about what I was going to see since the info on all the movies shown is very limited. From the first moments on the rapid and rough style of Marshall's picture grabbed me by the throat and held my interest until the end. THIS REVOLUTION has a feel of a modern reality show like the ones we see on MTV. Like it or not this is current and pretty "Zeitgeist"! This should appeal especially to younger audiences. It certainly would be a great thing if younger people watched this film. Marshall has a lot to address and delivers something that regular Hollywood fails to accomplish: He really changes your perspective on things. His film gets you thinking, especially after leaving the theater. Since Marshall wrote, shot, edited and produced the whole thing in the very short period of 100 days I am even more astonished how well it came out. Marshall delivers a clear and classic 3 act structure! That works well of course but Marshall - coming from a documentary background - also succeeds in filling in a lot of documentary like bits and pieces which launch a lot of social background at the viewer. Furthermore everybody gets a good idea of how divided America really is at the moment. If you take nothing at all from this film this still won't escape you. To me as a German this is particularly interesting. OK, the love story sometimes slows the movie down, the main character is not always sympathetic. But considering all the achievements Marshall made in this film and how big the impact of the movie was on me, I consider this minor flaws. This is a modern, controversial, exiting, stylish and very original movie that grows and grows and grows on me after seeing it. And that is certainly a good thing to say about a movie. Go see it. Especially when you don't share the same political view...it could be very inspiring! And if it annoys you...even better! Controversy means movement, and movement means change! For me as a German I can say that I am very happy to see a controversial film like this coming out of America these days. We all can look forward to more feature films from Marshall!
10sdnoble
There's a scene in Butterfly, Jose Luis Cuerda's film about the lead-up to the Spanish Civil War, where the teacher removes a book from his bookshelf and briefly considers giving it to the protagonist, a seven year-old-boy. The book is by Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin. It is quickly returned to its place on the shelf.
Is the filmmaker suggesting we aren't ready for such ideas?
The scene in Butterfly provides a metaphor for the way anarchism and politics in general have been treated by filmmakers. With few exceptions, either such topics aren't broached at all, or they are broached in such a way as to leave the viewer completely mystified. "Social Realism", according to the online artcyclopoedia, "is a rather pejorative label in the United States, where overtly political art in general, and socialist politics in particular, are extremely out of favor".
Which is perhaps why I enjoyed "This Revolution" so much. There's nothing shameful about expressing overt political sentiments in art, and there's nothing shameful about going overboard either. Witness John Heartfield, or Josep Renau, or Jean Vigo, or Pier Paolo Pasolini. Better sorry than safe, and better to risk being labeled pedantic than pussyfoot around the issues in the hopes of appeasing the critics.
The film is honest. Marshall may not be in the same league as Pasolini, but as another reviewer pointed out, he's not ending his career but beginning it. There's nothing in This Revolution that can't be forgiven in light of the budget constraints and timetable. If nothing else, it's a lot of fun. Watch for Immortal Technique's piece and the 9/11 rant; watch for the RNC footage, which is electrifying (you won't always be sure what is staged and what isn't); and watch for the reference to Malatesta, who I'm pretty sure has never been mentioned in the medium before.
Get off your high horse and I think you'll find Marshall's film refreshing and timely. We need more of this stuff.
Is the filmmaker suggesting we aren't ready for such ideas?
The scene in Butterfly provides a metaphor for the way anarchism and politics in general have been treated by filmmakers. With few exceptions, either such topics aren't broached at all, or they are broached in such a way as to leave the viewer completely mystified. "Social Realism", according to the online artcyclopoedia, "is a rather pejorative label in the United States, where overtly political art in general, and socialist politics in particular, are extremely out of favor".
Which is perhaps why I enjoyed "This Revolution" so much. There's nothing shameful about expressing overt political sentiments in art, and there's nothing shameful about going overboard either. Witness John Heartfield, or Josep Renau, or Jean Vigo, or Pier Paolo Pasolini. Better sorry than safe, and better to risk being labeled pedantic than pussyfoot around the issues in the hopes of appeasing the critics.
The film is honest. Marshall may not be in the same league as Pasolini, but as another reviewer pointed out, he's not ending his career but beginning it. There's nothing in This Revolution that can't be forgiven in light of the budget constraints and timetable. If nothing else, it's a lot of fun. Watch for Immortal Technique's piece and the 9/11 rant; watch for the RNC footage, which is electrifying (you won't always be sure what is staged and what isn't); and watch for the reference to Malatesta, who I'm pretty sure has never been mentioned in the medium before.
Get off your high horse and I think you'll find Marshall's film refreshing and timely. We need more of this stuff.
If you are a Bush-Cheney supporter who believes in conservative values, this movie may not be for you. The conservative point of view is presented but mostly to be ridiculed or criticized. Those who served in the military are respected and praised, but why they were serving is another matter.
Of course the protesters are more than just lazy people looking for an excuse to make trouble as some of the conservatives think. But they are working hard to take a stand and drive change. If they were lazy they'd just back down from all the adversity.
Rosario Dawson does a great job as a mother who is trying to cope and seems reasonably happy considering her circumstances. And she is pushing her son to be more than she is.
Nathan Crooker does a good job as an idealistic journalist.
The real stars of the movie are the ordinary people. Most appear to be merely actors but they come across as more. And there is a lot of what appears to be real footage.
And of course the convention itself was real. According to this movie, though, Bush didn't speak at night, but I guess that's a minor criticism. Maybe it wasn't safe to film that part of the powerful climactic scene during the day.
The ending is pretty amazing if disturbing.
There is some violence, but it's not too bad. I'm so glad I saw this movie cleaned up for TV, because the sound went out a lot.
It's not what we would like to see, and it's not necessarily the truth, but it's what we need to see. If only to make us think.
Of course the protesters are more than just lazy people looking for an excuse to make trouble as some of the conservatives think. But they are working hard to take a stand and drive change. If they were lazy they'd just back down from all the adversity.
Rosario Dawson does a great job as a mother who is trying to cope and seems reasonably happy considering her circumstances. And she is pushing her son to be more than she is.
Nathan Crooker does a good job as an idealistic journalist.
The real stars of the movie are the ordinary people. Most appear to be merely actors but they come across as more. And there is a lot of what appears to be real footage.
And of course the convention itself was real. According to this movie, though, Bush didn't speak at night, but I guess that's a minor criticism. Maybe it wasn't safe to film that part of the powerful climactic scene during the day.
The ending is pretty amazing if disturbing.
There is some violence, but it's not too bad. I'm so glad I saw this movie cleaned up for TV, because the sound went out a lot.
It's not what we would like to see, and it's not necessarily the truth, but it's what we need to see. If only to make us think.
I know we shouldn't expect much from a low-budget indie film. But the idea behind it is sound: an attempt to open America's eyes to the cozy relationship between the government, and the journalists that are supposed to be keeping an eye out against it. But somehow the documentary aspect of it, takes away from its drama. The protests during the 2004 Republican convention in New York were not that compelling to make a documentary about it. Those kinds of compelling protests belong to the era of the 1960's.
It would have been better to stick to a drama format. Perhaps a slow build-up where the young journalist's eyes are gradually opened up to the conspiracy.
It would have been better to stick to a drama format. Perhaps a slow build-up where the young journalist's eyes are gradually opened up to the conspiracy.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaDuring filming of a scene August 29, 2004 a block away from the Republican National Convention, Rosario Dawson, Vija Zvers and director Stephen Marshall were arrested. Dawson and Zvers allegedly refused to yield to police and were wearing bandannas as masks, in violation of local law regarding public demonstrations. When Marshall protested the arrests and showed police the film's permits, he also was arrested. The last 15 minutes of the film were changed to incorporate the incident into the movie including using actual footage of the arrests. All charges were dropped in March 2005 after video showed that the filming did not cause any obstruction and that Dawson and company obeyed all police directives.
- ConexionesReferences Poder que mata (1976)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Эта революция
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 2,000,000 (estimado)
- Tiempo de ejecución
- 1h 35min(95 min)
- Color
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta