Guy Ritchie's Revolver -Confused.

_Turismo4 · 13-03-2006 02:44AM #1

Maybe it’s just me but I thought that Guy Ritchie film Revolver, was a big let down, I didn’t get a chance to see it in the cinema so I rented it out To view with my girl friend, we weren’t impressed ,as the film seamed to be unclear in so many ways, like why use animation in a short sequence. And I still unclear to who Mr. Gold was? / I just felt so unforfilled at the end of this film.
And it's a Shame as I loved Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, and Snatch..
Whats Ritchie doing

And was I the only one who thought this film was a let down

lodgepole · 13-03-2006 10:25AM

I haven't seen it...

But I have listened to this interview between Simon Mayo and Guy Ritchie, and based on it I don't want to see it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/networks/fivelive/aod.shtml?fivelive/guy_ritchie

Running Bing · 13-03-2006 10:30AM

_Turismo wrote:

And was I the only one who thought this film was a let down

lol no, i thought it was one of the worst films ive ever seen. it was without doubt one of the worst films of the year.

monkeyfudge · 13-03-2006 01:20PM

I blame Madonna.

Look at what she did to poor Sean Penn. It was years before he could get his career back on track after Shanghi Surprise.

Playboy · 13-03-2006 07:58PM

The movie wasnt bad .. it just wouldnt appeal to his normal fan base. Some great scenes and the editing was superb. It suffered from being a bit pretentious and slightly derivative (the animation scene for one). Jason Stratham was suprisingly good in the lead (I didnt know he could act) and Ray Liotta was superb as an over the top version of previous characters he has played. I dont think it deserved all the criticism it has gotten ... it requires the audience to do a little bit of work in a movie climate where all the work is done for us.

Skalragg · 13-03-2006 08:58PM

one of worst films ive ever seen. confusing

Running Bing · 13-03-2006 09:23PM

Playboy wrote:

The movie wasnt bad .. it just wouldnt appeal to his normal fan base. Some great scenes and the editing was superb. It suffered from being a bit pretentious and slightly derivative (the animation scene for one). Jason Stratham was suprisingly good in the lead (I didnt know he could act) and Ray Liotta was superb as an over the top version of previous characters he has played. I dont think it deserved all the criticism it has gotten ... it requires the audience to do a little bit of work in a movie climate where all the work is done for us.

I must strongly disagree with you there. This is an argument I hear again and again aboout this film "that it requires people to think unlike most movies these days and thats why its unpopular". The mark of a truly great film imo is the ability to create ambiquity while at the same time remaining coherent. If you want to see a film that requires the audience to think watch anything by Bergman or Tokyo Story or Sanjeyit Rays Pather Panchali or mean streets or taxi driver. These are great films. Revolver is a bad film by any measure. The plot is muddled at best completely incomprehensible at worst, the script is dire, it's over stylized and imo the editing is incredibly poor. I have yet to find a reasonable explanation of the films plot even from its most die hard fans on imdb. Revolver is quite simply a steaming pile of toss that richie made trying to be clever. He should stick with enteratining crime capers instead of trying to make kabala inspired philosophy based art films which he clearly doesnt have then skill to pull off.

_Turismo4 · 14-03-2006 02:23AM

Babybing wrote:

I have yet to find a reasonable explanation of the films plot.

That makes two of us.

Thank god I’m not the only one who thought this film was bad. Normally I like films with twists in them especially gangster films but this one won’t be added to my DVD collection.

Playboy · 14-03-2006 02:30PM

Babybing wrote:

The mark of a truly great film imo is the ability to create ambiquity while at the same time remaining coherent. If you want to see a film that requires the audience to think watch anything by Bergman or Tokyo Story or Sanjeyit Rays Pather Panchali or mean streets or taxi driver.
These are great films. Revolver is a bad film by any measure.

Why assume that I have never seen any of these movies? How can you compare Bergman and Scorsese to Revolver. They are chalk and cheese. I never said anything about it being a great movie. It said it wasnt bad and didnt deserve all the criticism it got. I have seen far worse movies get better reviews.

Babybing wrote:

The plot is muddled at best completely incomprehensible at worst, the script is dire, it's over stylized and imo the editing is incredibly poor. I have yet to find a reasonable explanation of the films plot even from its most die hard fans on imdb. Revolver is quite simply a steaming pile of toss that richie made trying to be clever. He should stick with enteratining crime capers instead of trying to make kabala inspired philosophy based art films which he clearly doesnt have then skill to pull off.

Yes the plot is a little bit muddled if that is the way you want to look at it. You can also look at it from a different angle. The movie was a head game - it was a who dunnit which never told us who did it. Everybody has their own interpretation and imo that is a good thing. It was interesting and different and provided a welcome relief from the dire repetitive formulaic scriptwriting of Hollywood (and now in Europe) where something has to happen on a certain page of the script or else it gets chucked in the bin. Imo the Editing and Visual Effects are superb, you must have been watching a different movie to me as everyone who i watched it with whether they liked it or not commented on how good they were. Imo directing is about performance and Ritchie got great performances out of his cast - It was good effort that wasnt entirely successful but imo bravo to Guy Ritchie for taking a risk and not playing it safe like everybody else.

_Turismo4 · 14-03-2006 08:18PM

Playboy wrote:

Yes the plot is a little bit muddled if that is the way you want to look at it

That’s the way we are looking at it... I can’t see why you’re defending this film.. yes the actors performance was good, but the story wasn’t.

Playboy wrote:

The movie was a head game - it was a who dunnit which never told us who did it.

I’m wondering if the film was edited a lot to cut down running time for the cinema.. and if so will there be a special edition released down the line, That makes more sense..

Running Bing · 14-03-2006 10:10PM

Playboy wrote:

Why assume that I have never seen any of these movies? How can you compare Bergman and Scorsese to Revolver

Sorry if i came across as patronising there that wasnt my goal at all I assure you. I was merely using those films as examples of how a film can inspire deep thought while at the same time have a perfectly coherent, understandable, engaging plot. It is my opinion that just because a film requires the viewer to work that doesnt mean it is in any way a decent film. Revolver certainly did make the viewer work but im sure I could go out and make a two hour mish-mash of uncoordinated images that would be equally challenging to an audience, this would not mean it is a good film.

The point im really trying to get across is despite the flashy imagery,the good performances(I'll give you that:) ),the striking plot and interesting stylistic devices Revolver is just a badly made film plain and simple. But then films are a highly subjective thing and life would be a lot duller if we all liked and disliked the same movies.

_Turismo4 · 15-03-2006 03:25AM

Playboy wrote:

...............

Any chance of a response

Chardee MacDennis · 15-03-2006 03:37AM

damn that bbc interview is confusing - cant imagine what the film is like!

_Turismo4 · 15-03-2006 05:30AM

Call_me_al wrote:

damn that bbc interview is confusing - cant imagine what the film is like!

You don’t want to mate...

Playboy · 15-03-2006 03:25PM

_Turismo4 wrote:

That’s the way we are looking at it... I can’t see why you’re defending this film.. yes the actors performance was good, but the story wasn’t.

I'm defending the movie because i enjoyed it. I thought it was good conceptually. I liked the style and I thought the DOP did an excellent job. The editing and visual effects were superb. I was intrigued by the plot all through the movie .. I liked the characters and I thought the performances were excellent. The ending could have been better but I dont judge a movie on the end alone. I like movies that are philosophically driven .. the whole id vs ego aspect of the movie that Jason Stratham and Ray Liotta's characters went through was very interesting .. the scene with Jason Stratham in the elevator was excellent. But it all comes down to taste at the end of the day .. I thought it was different and took a lot of risks and I admire that in a film maker. It's not most people's cup of tea but thats fine .. we can agree to disagree.

_Turismo4 wrote:

I’m wondering if the film was edited a lot to cut down running time for the cinema.. and if so will there be a special edition released down the line, That makes more sense..

I'm not aware that it was m8 .. I have seen it on dvd and in the cinema and they were both the same version. I don't think the movie was popular enough to warrant a special edition dvd.

~Rebel~ · 16-03-2006 07:17PM

Most pretentous piece of crap i've ever seen. The worst thing about it is that it was Richie had to resort to lying and pretending in advertising about what the film was to get people to see it.

How many people were sure from the trailers and ads and posters etc that it was a gangster movie they were going to see, and how many people were sure they were going to see a karbala based mish mash of ideas that would leave you sitting blankly in the darkness like a fool wondering if the projector was broken and wishing you could get those 2 hours back?

Kolodny · 21-03-2006 04:22PM

Just saw this at the weekend.

All style and no content tbh. Didn't have much of a clue what was going on throughout - very confusing. Some great camera work and editing but a complete jumble of a plot as far as I could tell. The animated sequence was just weird. Nice idea but seemed out of place somehow. Pity because I was expecting a lot more, especially consdering cast involved.

monkeyfudge wrote:

I blame Madonna.

Look at what she did to poor Sean Penn. It was years before he could get his career back on track after Shanghi Surprise.

Sad but quite possibly true.

~Leanne~ · 24-03-2006 03:22PM

Saw this a few months ago, have to say i left the cinema so confused!!
I loved Guy Ritchie's other films and was looking forward to this one. Im going to rent on dvd again though and see if i can comprehend some of it!!
The cartoon bit through the middle of it has me thinking he is robbing ideas from Quentin Tarentino!
Anyone who seen this in cinema - did you notice at the end the film just finished and was a blank screen for 1 or 2 minutes, everyone was so cinfused not knowing if it was over or not ha!!

meldrew · 10-04-2006 10:57AM

I have to say this is one of the worst films I've ever seen , having heard all the reviews I still gave it a go and I was never so disappointed what a waste of time and effort .

pbsuxok1znja4r · 10-04-2006 11:36AM

I tend to agree with Playboy on this.
While not a particularly good film by any stretch of the imagination, it is certainly better than the brainless gangster tripe Ritchie's put out in the past.
Fair play to Ritchie for the trying what he tried. The execution was inconsistent at best, however. The animated scene, for example, was derivative and basically cringe-inducing...

Maxwell · 10-04-2006 12:16PM

Never got to this in the cinema and have watched it on DVD , still have to make up my mind whether it is good or not.

Didn't hate it, but didn't exactly like it too much either. The animation is a direct rip off from Kill Bill.

Will have to watch it again on my own (when I don't have to try and explain to the wife) ....I might enjoy it more.

As for the 2-3 minutes of blank screen, that is just plain stupid and Im glad I wasn't sitting like a fool in a cinema for that.

mrsamsamsam · 24-01-2010 11:31PM

I personally think Revolver is one of the best films ever BECAUSE it made me think so much; yet once you work it out it the genius of it makes it even better.

For those of you who didn't get it (admittedly it took me several viewings) here is a very brief explanation based on my interpretation:

Sam Gold is not a person, but a representative of greed. Avi even says to Jake; 'Gold is all up here' (pointing to his head).

Think of the quotes said again and again: your greatest opponent (your greed) will always remain in the last place you ever think to look (inside yourself). This also drives all fear because your greed drives you to 'protect your investment'.

Jake Green gets sent to jail and has nothing to do except plan his revenge against Macha, and play chess.

This brings us to Zach and Avi, they are not real. (Notice that apart from when they are 'loaning', which could be Jake's imagination, or he might be a loan shark himself (?) they bascially do not interact with anyone except Jake). I believe the short animations are demonstrations of how fear, anger and greed blind people into not seeing everything quite in reality (these emotions are all very present in each scene).

In jail Jake's desire for revenge (driven by greed i.e. Mr Gold) grows, and he realises that to defeat Macha who is entirely driven by greed (notice he lives by the rule 'what's in it for me?'), he must overcome it. Zach and Avi are supposedly the only people to have ever come into contact with Mr Gold and live, i.e. they are the counterbalance to greed. I believe that as all cons are the fruits of greed, that the 'formula' for the con is about overcoming any sense of greed, which allows you to see beyond and predict the behaviour of greed in others.

Slowly over the course of film Zach and Avi force Jake to give all of his cash away because they want him to confront his greed. Eventually, in an inner battle between himself and his greed (the lift scene) he does it, and loses his fear of it, and his fear of Macha.

Before that occurs, Zach and Avi (Jake) play Macha and Lord John off each other to infuriate them, and blind Macha further by his own greed.

At the end of the film Jake has overcome the side of him that is greed and fear, whereas Macha's side of greed has overtaken him thanks to Jake's plan (which he formulated in jail I think). Macha realises that Jake doesn't fear him (take the end of the lift scene when Macha is crying and asking Jake to 'fear him'); without fear, Macha knows he cannot beat Jake. As a last resort, Macha threatens the young girl in front of Jake while looking him directly in the eye, and still cannot stimulate a reaction from him. Eventually Macha's bigger side (greed) realises its defeated and kills the real Macha (listen to the internal argument he has with hmself at that moment, and also notice that Jake stops having internal discussions because his greed is gone and only the real him is left).

I realise this could have been much better explained in the film but personally I love it. I think that many people are shallow considering how good the filming, acting, cinematography and soundtrack are when they say the film is **** because they dont understand it; its still a beautiful thing to watch.

There are still plenty of holes in my theory (such as his blood disease etc) but I hope it helps anyone to appreciate the film more. If you dont agree with me then dont bother telling me that, its just my interpretation!

Thanks for reading, happy viewing!

Guy Ritchie's Revolver -Confused.

Comments