The question many people are probably asking themselves of Revolver is whether or not Guy Ritchie is back in cheeky-gangster form after the Swept Away debacle. The answer is yes, but Ritchie is more ambitious than that. Here he is attempting no less than a full-on deconstruction of his first two films both structurally and thematically. Whether or not anyone will actually enjoy the film is another question entirely. It took some pretty big brass balls to do something this ambitious (for Ritchie). The movie does however, collapse under its own weight somewhere around the halfway point. Deconstruction is perhaps too big a goal for films as shallow as Guy Ritchies. The man is most known as the best of the Quentin Tarantino rip-offs with an even bigger emphasis on style-over-substance.
Fresh off the Transporter 2, Jason Statham is a bit more nuanced as Jake Green than Frank the Driver. He has switched to a pinstriped suit (which he is always wearing) and has a lot of hair on his head and a beard. He is the typical calm and collected type, a Statham specialty perfected in both Lock Stock… and Snatch. But in Revolver, Jake has more of an edge. He constantly doubts everything around him and is very much on edge internally and closterphobic to boot. Jake wasa low level thug who went to prison after his boss betrayed him. After a 7 year stint where he studied gaming theory and the art of the con from two anonymous inmates, he aspires to new heights in Londons gambing underworld. He is immediately successful upon his release from prison, amassing massive amounts of cash, and hurting he ex-boss by taking much of his money in a serious of showy and audacious bets. It all goes to hell however, when he is blackmailed by two mysterious loan-sharks and forced (for incredibly convoluted reasons) to work for them, starting a massive war between the Britsh and the Chinese gangs in the city. Frank goes from issuing gaming lectures right out of John Dahl's Rounders to questioning whether or not he is in fact the 'sucker.' This is one of the best stengths of the film.
Ray Liotta plays a reckless and unstable crime boss. If flying into red-faced rage while spitting on your underlings is the path to power, it is quite obvious how Liotta rose to where he is. But even Liotta is a small fish in the sea next to the mysterious Gold, a Kaiser Soze type who has an Edna Mode woman handle his business arrangements with the mid-level crime bosses. You know right off, that a live wire such as Liotta doesn't stand a chance in the con-game, but Liotta chews up the role (and the scenery) with gusto and is a pleasure to watch, even it he often is wearing a skin-tight leopard skin speedo which wouldn't look out of place on Ray Winstone in Sexy Beast.
Another stand out in the film is a sniper (Mark sorter looking like a cross between Stanley Tucci and Tony Shaloub) who experiences a change of heart in one crucial scene. What follows is Revolvers best sequence, not surprisingly, a highly stylized shoot out.
Revolver is a chess game within a chess game, within a chess game. At some point you may ask yourself whether or not it is actually worth trying to keep up with the film and just enjoy one implausible scene after another. Take for example the 3 day timeline the film sets out with. The wardrobe and exotic-location changes on the loan sharks (Vincent Pastore and Andre 3000, both very comfortable with this material, are clearly enjoying themselves) alone would take a pretty serious level of co-ordination.
Part of the fun is to see just how far Ritchie is going to go after he has jumped the (loan) shark. One interesting thing to note is that Ritchie has also turned down the humour here, make no mistake there are laughs in the film, but things are not played as broadly as Lock, Stock… or Snatch.
Revolver shameless rips of from Mamet's many con-game films, The Usual Suspects, Fight Club and P.T. Anderson's Hard Eight. I kept being reminded of Donald Kaufman's screenplay in Adaptation for some reason. The operatic and ambiguous finale is bound to test the patience of the multiplex audience, but hey, I enjoyed the ride, it is excessive and silly fun told in the snappy language Ritchie has been developing for his humourous gangster confections.
i heard theres a possiblilty of ritchie doing an anime like feature, which could be very sweet.
saw revolver yesterday at a press screening. you're correct in saying there are a couple of different movies spinning around in the bloated, shiny mess that richie has eventually seen fit to release, but sadly, none of them are really any good. his fetishes (guns, flash motors, crotches, flashy camerawork) are all present and correct, but revolver is like listening to someone with a tenuous grip on metaphysics deliver a lecture about the meaning of meaning itself. just saying the words 'quantuum mechanics' isn't nearly enough. you have to try to show an understanding or an insight. other than some tricksy editing and a bit of the old back-and-forth 'time loops', he doesn't. he doesn't make his point, because he doesn't have one to make. despite some 'actorly' performances from statham and liotta (who just about squeaks through this side of 'overbearing ham', it's a stone cold shambles. as for the kabbalah 'ego reduction' bullsh1t...
So I was at a press screening of Ritchies new movie REVOLVER at the Toronto festival, It blew me away.
I thought Lock stock was ok I liked Brad Pitts Charcter in Snatch, I cant comment on Swept away, but Revolver for me has shot Ritchie from Best Britsh Director right into International along side Scorsese. This movie is nothing like his past efforts this see's Ritchie as a much more mature serious confident film maker. My only negative point about the film was the music but the Photography was very rich each shot framed like a photo the Editing was mastermind stuff, I dont know how he maintains something new in his each of his pictures. I thought the casting was genius and the story hasn't made me stop thinking about it ever since i left the screening, its hard to talk to any of my friends about it as they haven't seen it yet. its just pure genius, you think the movie is about mind games, power struggle and greed but by the end of the movie you sit there with your mouth open like a fly trap, then a day later you work out who Sam gold is and you still cant close your mouth.
Its the best thought provoking film ever, think Old Boy Meets GoodFellas.
this film got SLATED by english film critics, Mr R apparently tries his hardest to plug his CULT religion, which is unfair on the audience. LOL and apparently its his bird who is the one who funds this CULT, ohmigod Mr R isnt just going downhill, hes falling off the cliff... sorry Mr R!!
and oh gosh when i see this if that CG scene is ANYTHING like kill bill, then we know who bottom youve been cleaning, TARENTINO's!!! BTW tarentino kicks large a$$ all the time coz hes a G.
ANyway ill still see this film, i bet it isnt that bad, but religious plugging is just stupid.
the anime sequences reek of kill bill, no doubt
i am a huge film fan and watch loads, but i just didnt get this film, there was no resolve at the end to tie it all together
all the way thru the movie i was saying "this is one of those movies where its all explained in the last 5 minutes&"
but it never came, it just ended
there were about 8 other people at the preview screening and everyone basically said "huh?&" NO-ONE understood the movie
maybe i will understand it better on repeat viewing but that wont be for a long time
loved "snatch&", like "lock stock&" , did not "get&" this movie one bit
performances are great, especially Liotta, there is lots of flashy richie trade mark camera work, but in my honest opinion this movie is just a mess
Saw the film last night and after a night spent thinking it through I am still none the wiser as to what it was all about.
No one else has mentioned it - but the where were the end credits ? In the cinema I was at the screen went black - and the house lights came up - we all sat there for about 5 mins to see if it was part of the film ?
Maybe they were all too embarressed to put their names to this ?
Now that you mention it, I don't recall end credits on the print I saw either....atticus, you may be onto something :)
Mild Movie Spolier (sorry)
Reading the reviews from the Toronto festival I thought Ritchies new 'G' movie was gonna be a Swept away 2, but I watched it last night AND ITS THE BEST FILM IVE EVER SEEN ITS WILD. Reading other peoples reviews I feel like I watched a different movie. Anyone who hasn't watched it make your own mind up go see it trust me, anyone who has already seen it watch it again or wait for DVD. it truly is a classic. I dont know if Mr. Madonna wrote this himseelf as its nothing like the witty Snatch dialogue it's POETIC (especially Jake's voice over), the acting, which is still in Ritchies LS2SB style yet more mature (which I feel he pulls off), the look, the feel, the fancy cutting, music and i dont even need to mention the concept, the hidden meanings, the stuff in the BG. Maybe it does have a few Kabbala references but so what!!, me and my friends talked about the film for 3 hours afterwards never have I discussed a film this much before (and no im not a film student) between us we worked out Sam Gold is like Kaiser Soze except he doesn't have a limp or cripple hand and you see him a few times in the last quater of the movie (if you watch closely!), Ritchie has turned a movie into a Game you either get conned and don't understand it or you play along and enjoy the ride (nobody likes to get conned which would explain why people who dont get it slate it) what i most liked is GR gives you all the set ups but its up to you as the viewer to put the puzzle together he only answers 1 question which i think he should have also left blank (Zack & Ave) people will soon start copying this concept of cinema interaction (like they copied to death his LS2SB style) as I for one am fed up with the likes of Tom Cruise saving the world. REVOLVER***** God Damn Genius
Personally I think this is the best movie to come out of the UK !!!!!
I'm disappointed not to see our Great British Film Critics backing one of our finest English Directors as what I can only see as a progression from his earlier films in experimenting with film concepts, which is a true film makers job rather than working on a constant winning fomular ie. Mike Depressive Leigh (but full respect to the man who has directed some truely classic films, but each film however is in the same style, same character base plot, poor low class british families and genre).
Mr. R has turned his back on the Hollywood ticket as he believes in the art he crafts. He tries to experiment and test his audience, modernising Film. He has been loyal to trying to increase the British film industry unlike first chance to get glory and a tan Mr. V went to claim his fame on X-Men 3 until he discovered the amount of Green screen VFX which only confused him, bless.
I dont know about you but im fed up of watching Richard Curtis Romantic comedies and Merchant Ivory Period dramas, or rip off Lock Stock gangster movies eg: Channel 5 movie Layer Cake or hard core Indian Midget porn but then again who ever gets bored of watching that.
History has shown that 'True' great British directors films always get knocked until someone explains the genius and then people enroll and embrace in the fold ie, the Late Great Stanley Kubrick, No Oscar HItchock and the Genius which is Mr. T. Big Balls Gilliam always testing the cinema goer.
If this picture had been directed by any other director, better still an unknown, I feel this would have been helmed as a Cinema Classic (ie Donnie Darko, Old Boy ect.) but for some unknown reason to me the press sharpen their knives whenever they hear the whisper of Mr. Madonna starting a new movie, which was proven on Snatch until the public revolted against the press which awarded it 2 stars.
Whether you love or hate Revolver or are just plain CONFUSSED to what you think, there is no doubt that the shoot out scene in the restaurant should go down in cinematic history, I could watch that scene over and over again, pure brilliance its the Best Cinematic moment I have seen since, Jake La Motta had his 2nd fight against Sugar Ray Robinson in Scorsese's, M. Chapman and Schoonmakers Raging Bull. P.S Good Luck to all Adventurous new Film Makers.
The reason they didn't have credits was because the ending is meant to be pretty final. Even if you didn't get the movie, surely you would be able to get that ;)
ps the abscence of screen titles at the end i presumed was about abscence of 'EGO' !!!!!!
I watched this movie Thursday and couldn't stop thinking about it all night. Saw it again Friday and then it dawned on me...
This is the only film in history to identify evil eloquently and realistically. Sam Gold is the Ego and Sam Gold aka Ego runs this world, a world of illusion, "everyone wants to be in business with Gold&". your mind is making it complicated, it isn't complicated at all, that is the con. if it was easy to identify the devil we would have found him a long time ago. If this film was popular with Critics it couldn't be true, because all of the Critics work for Gold, 'and "they will do anything to protect there investment&". It's pretty I MEAN VERY smart. ***** (And errr - Avi, Zack and Jake? Abraham, Isaac, Jacob? And it is Sam Gold who pulls the trigger at the end... not Macha, it was 'Sam 'Gold in the elevator with 'Jake, and if you don't think this makes any sense, you who it is behind that.
I, too, was stunned by this movie. Guy Rithie style from previous movies is cool - sure, but this time Guy makes a really grown-up movie. I'm delighted that i've found people here who've got the interpretation right. Movie is consistent and hints and culture references are well placed. Movie nicely prompted who the loansharks were working for - the greatest loanshark of all: the devil himself.
Apparently none of the critics got it or would care to mention an interpretational value of this movie.
This one is a must for film students.
I have watched this movie twice now and loved it. first veiwing i sat there after for about an hour trying to understand the deaper meaning behind the chess game and con. realising that Sam Gold is infact not a real person but the evil inside everyone took some convincing. by the second veiwing things began to make more sense. In my opinion people are taking this movie the same way the Matrix trilogy was viewed, that the deaper meaning was too hard to find for the simple man. take alottle time, ponder some thoughts and youll find its true meaning, that the greatest con he ever pulled was to make him believe that he is you.
Just finished watching this last night, (it was hard as hell to find). I just have to say that this is by far one of the best guy Ritchie movies yet. It makes you think, and the average moviegoer wants to go to the movies to see a happy ending, beginning/ end, white snow f'in movie, most critics suck anyhow, I almost hardly agree with critics. However if you do go in expecting LSATSB 2 or SNATCH 2 then you will get a rude awakening. This movie was Smart, Cool and thought out. I have only watched it once and I cant wait to watch it again. The whole Sam Gold realism is frickin brilliant. Plus the Guy R. Cinematography was beautiful. Wish this would get distributed in the US.
-----
I will watch this movie a couple of more times and to satisfactorily "figure it out". I have practiced Nichiren Buddhism with the SGI for 35 years and I related with Mr. Green's "psychological" struggle and his relationship with his "mentors", Avi and Zach. The common misconception that Buddhism is about extinguishing desire must be discarded to understand what I am going to say next. A true understanding of Buddhism entails using earthly desires to reveal enlightenment or changing poison into medicine. To be alive is to have desire and enlightenment is clearly a potential all of us are challenged to reveal as we live out our mundane lives in the midst of our struggle to improve ourselves and society (as expounded in the Lotus Sutra, considered by most scholars to be Sakyamuni's ultimate essential teaching as opposed to his provisional or preparatory teachings). Though, if approached properly, one can "burn" the firewood of desire and reveal enlightenment, ultimate one must deeply perceive that one's egotistical expectations of gain or loss are NOT what Buddhist practice is ultimately about. Indeed, often prosperity can present more or an impediment than loss (think Matt.19-24 "And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.") Also, loss, if approached correctly, is often the most powerful event which precedes deep awareness of our essential identity, our own eternal buddhahood that transcends benefit or loss. I think that this is the kind of thing that Mr. Green and his mentors were dealing with. Macha and Mr. Gold are just metaphors for the world of "benefit or loss", i.e. greed, animality, etc. where the weak cower before the powerful and then in turn lord over those they perceive weaker than themselves – in common parlance, shallow egoism. In the end, Mr. Green's "enlightenment" corresponded with the collapse (release) of Mr. Macha's confinement in that lower, greedy state of life. In Buddhist mythology the last scene could be a scene between Sakyamuni and his arch rival, Devadatta. Like a quote from the movie says, "Ones ultimate enemy is always eternal." (or something close to that). So Mr. Green overcame the eternal fundamental darkness of shallow egoism inherent in all of us with the help of his supposed enemy, Mr. Macha, but in reality, Mr. Macha was not the enemy and indeed Mr. Macha ultimately in the end benefited from his "negative" relationship with the Mr. Green (the Buddha). The real help to Mr. Green came from Avi and Zach who exemplified with the Mr. Green the mentor-disciple relationship so essential to the heritage of Buddhist practice. The goal of the mentor is to see the disciple excel and in turn help others. Mr. Green felt abandoned by Avi and Zach when they didn't take him out of prison with them (those who have not seen the movie yet, Mr. Green doesn't realize Avi and Zach were his prison neighbors until the end of the movie.). But Avi and Zach did not really abandon Mr. Green…indeed they were wise mentors who achieve the ultimate a mentor can hope for…that their disciples "take up the baton" and press the advantage of their ideals even further. So that's my take on the meaning of the movie. Bottom line, Mr. Green throws off his transient identity and reveals his true identity. That is what achieving enlightenment is all about. I have to watch the movie a couple more times to really nail this, but that was my impression on first viewing.