Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 21 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 21
  2. Negative: 15 out of 21
  1. 63
    Good grindhouse fun until a last act that's like a meeting of a psychoanalysts' convention.
  2. Reviewed by: Sid Smith
    Part gambling heist, part graphic novel, part metaphysical mumbo jumbo, Revolver is a mess of many colors, few of them satisfying.
  3. Definitely deserves points for trying to be something thought-provoking and different, but it doesn't really stand up to analysis and it comes off as a pretentious mess.
  4. Reviewed by: Matt Zoller Seitz
    By turns clever, impassioned, incoherent and silly.
  5. Reviewed by: Gregory Kirschling
    The movie butts up against the director's newfound pretensions -- pseudo-philosophical voice-over, psychobabble, faux-art-film plotting -- and turns incomprehensible.
  6. Its main purpose -- and no, you are not experiencing ocular breakdown -- is spiritual.
  7. A few scenes are stylish enough to amuse, but they all add up to nothing - leaving you ten bucks short and feeling like a sucker.
  8. Guy Ritchie's Revolver premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival two years ago September. That's 26 months on a shelf somewhere, depriving moviegoers the thrill of jaw-droppingly awful Ray Liotta line readings, of bloody shoot-outs, bags of money, cutaways to frosty babes sucking on lollipops, and even a bit of violent anime.
  9. The film's pretentious style and fractured storytelling preclude any audience involvement in the coy melodrama.
  10. Reviewed by: Nick Pinkerton
    It's no return to rock, this, but rather Ritchie's soporific, proggy-conceptual Film of Ideas, with Vivaldi interludes, fussbudget set design, recurrent references to chess, and a hit man inexplicably got up as Tati's Mr. Hulot.
  11. 30
    The result is a film that's main crime is inducing stupefying boredom with little payoff in the end.
  12. 25
    The problem with Revolver is that it is Ritchie's first attempt at a ''serious'' look at the underworld, but the result is so pretentious and muddled it's almost a little embarrassing.
  13. The movie's onslaught of psychobabble is the annoyance most likely to ruin your evening. Imagine getting stuck on a ski lift with Dr. Phil for nearly two hours.
  14. 25
    Ritchie wraps this folderol in cinematic razzle-dazzle, including animated sequences, reverse motion, trompe l'oeil production design and tricky lighting. But it's still claptrap.
  15. 25
    The latest Guy Ritchie shoot-em-up, is a joke. You laugh with it but mostly at it.
  16. 25
    Surprise of surprises, Revolver turns out to be worse than "Swept Away" - and not just by a little bit.
  17. 25
    Ritchie has said that it takes several viewings to fully understand what's going on in Revolver, but once will be enough for most to agree to take his word for it.
  18. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    Guy Ritchie shoots a blank with Revolver, which replays the low-life criminal shtick from his first two features with an ill-advised overlay of pretension. The action, attitude and wise-guy talk all feel moldy this time around.
  19. 12
    It is a "thriller" without thrills, constructed in a meaningless jumble of flashbacks and flash-forwards and subtitles and mottos and messages and scenes that are deconstructed, reconstructed and self-destructed. I wanted to signal the projectionist to put a gun to it.
  20. This 2005 feature offered me my first taste of Guy Ritchie's macho-centric artiness, and I hope it's my last.
  21. Although it contains crime and absurdity, it's not thrilling or funny and the title doesn't refer to a gun.
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 64 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 16 out of 31
  2. Negative: 14 out of 31
  1. Jun 3, 2012
    It has taken me 3 years to pluck up the courage to watchthis movie. The reviews were awful at the time...but to my surprise...I actually really enjoyed it!! Ray Liotta's acting was awful(and whats with his plucked eyebrows?)...but Statham has never had this much character. I didnt fully understand the movie...but It says something that I had a great time watching it!! Full Review »
  2. May 13, 2012
    Everything in its place. Very few people will understand the depth of this one. I had to watch it three times myself to understand all of it (and I never had to watch a movie more than once before). Those who don't get it will target it's action scenes, plagiarism, philosophism and who knows what else. This is not Pulp Fiction. It's far better than that. Why? Because it has a deeper meaning. It is portraying the human EGO. Bear that in mind when reading the citations at the beginning of the movie.

    Also, there are two versions. One of them is shorter and is absolute rubbish.
    Full Review »
  3. Jan 11, 2012
    The best advice I can give to someone who didn't enjoy this movie is watch it once, then read about it, let it sit for a while, think about the conclusion, and then, watch it again. That being said...

    I'm not surprised that this movie got terrible reviews. I don't agree with them, but I am truly not surprised, and in fact, it's almost to be expected. For a movie like this which is so steeped in philosophy and intellect which completely distances itself from typical cinema, the fact that a high profile director even made a movie like this is, to me, incredibly impressive. For the majority of the movie the plot is intentionally very secretive, releasing key elements to you one at a time, making allusions to the messages and feeding you pieces of the conclusion piece by piece until it all comes together in one big revelation in the final scene. Hell, even if you still didn't get it the movie gave you a damn documentary in the credits to try and help you along, which, apparently, only managed to piss off the viewers and make them think the movie was condescending. The directing's excellent, the key concepts masterfully pulled off, and the writing superb. In fact, the only thing that I could possibly say to critique this movie is that it's a little hard to comprehend first time around, and therein lies the key to it's failure.

    This, while an excellent example of a very well written and interesting movie, as it turns out, is not a good idea for a successful blockbuster. The typical audience for movies with big budgets have a very, *very* short attention span, and when a movie isn't feeding them all the clues in a linear, easy to understand simple step by step feed, they get a little cranky and start thinking that the movie's insulting them, that it thinks it's smarter than them, and we all know it's hard to accept that you're the smartest person in the world. Of course, the immediate step by people who wish to rebuke their lack of understanding of the movie's convoluted plot (makes me think of the great amount of people who dislike anticon.) is to immediately throw out words like 'pretentious' which is a word ironically mostly used by those whom actually better fit the term than those who are most subjected to it. To say this movie is pretentious is, to put in literary terms, like saying "A Separate Peace" is pretentious. Well, not exactly because "A Separate Peace" is kind of pretentious, but the point is it's like saying that novels who strive to use metaphors and complicated plots which have powerful self-realizations at the ending instead of necessarily catering to Pulp Fictions.

    *That's* what's wrong with Revolver, a cultural barrier that prevents movies who try to have writing on par with the greater literary works of our time are thrown away because they're too different, because they're judged on a different standard. The only reason Snow Falling on Cedars, for example, got so much acclaim is because it was already standing on the shoulders of a giant - the book it was based off of. Because it already had an extremely acclaimed novel already known for some literary depth to base it's writing off of it could stave off the ignorant masses' claims of "pretentiousness," for, had it been called such people could have just as easily pointed to the book as a reference and say, "See? It's right there, and you loved it, so why the hell does it suck in a movie?" I, personally, enjoyed this movie a lot, and you don't have to respect what I think about it's quality, you really don't, you can just move on and enjoy the movies you're going to watch, I mean, I also enjoy big budget blockbusters as well (well...not all)! But I think this movie has not been getting its proper due, so please, keep an open mind.
    Full Review »