Revolver
User Score
5.7 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 50 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 29 out of 50
  2. Mixed: 2 out of 50
  3. Negative: 19 out of 50

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. Sausage
    Jun 3, 2012
    6
    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!!
  2. Lantis
    May 13, 2012
    10
    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.    … Expand
  3. Littlebomb
    May 2, 2012
    2
    One of teh worst movies I've ever seen. It blow's my mind the script made it that far. The one word I would use to describe the plot is convoluted. It's worth watching if you have nothing and i mean nothing else to do.
  4. CognauticCreix
    Jan 11, 2012
    10
    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 stee    ped 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.    … Expand
  5. rattlehaed
    Nov 22, 2011
    9
    I truly cannot believe the low ratings this movie has received from critics and "users". Maybe its due to the fact that it's an "artistic" movie that has action scenes in it. So in the end it doesn't please the person watching the movie for its intellectual merits that has to view shootouts or the individual looking for explosions doesn't like hearing about (SPOILER)------------------the human ego and how it controls us sometimes.

    Like another user wrote, I guess you'll either hate it or love it.    … Expand
  6. chardr69
    May 23, 2011
    4
    Very disappointing film! I am a big fan of Guy Ritchie's early gangster flicks (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch), but this one lacks the wit and freshness of both the other two. Ritchie regular Jason Statham just seems like he is going through the motions of the same role he always plays, and Andre Benjamin has no screen presence at all. Ray Liotta is the best part of the movie as the over the top stressed out mob boss.

    The twists and turns this film takes are very forced and by the end I really didn't care who did what and why! This film was made in 2005, barely released theatrically in America (if at all!), and then was released on DVD in America three years later in 2008 (maybe there is a reason why!).    … Expand
  7. okcomputer1016
    Apr 5, 2011
    0
    LMFAO can this review just be a review of ArmundW's random-thesaurus-word-generator paragraph comment? Have a glass of wine and swish it around. You will still fail the SAT.
  8. Circus
    Sep 21, 2010
    0
    Nonsensical crap. Guy Ritchie trying to be clever and failing miserably. Anyone who thinks it was a good film is quite simply pretentious. The whole reference to kabala in what is essentially a guys and geezers as Komode says is ludicrous. The ideology behind this affront to the senses is that of a prepubescent bafoon.
  9. na
    Oct 5, 2009
    10
    Your either going to love it or hate it. Until you see it for yourself you'll never know what to think of it.
  10. larnb
    Aug 12, 2009
    9
    This film was highly under-rated. Reason being, Ritchie has been pigeonholed as a director and all the supposedly sophisticated critics who saw it had no understanding of what the film actually is, but instead seemed to judge on what they thought it 'should' be. Look, it's not the greatest film ever made; it is flawed, yet quite interesting when taken on its own terms. If you choose to watch it -and I hope you do- don't bring any expectations with you. This is not a stereotypical Guy Ritchie film. What is amusing, however, is that it IS a con. The entire film is a con in that it pretends to be a macho crime drama. It IS about a con, the ultimate con in fact.… Expand
  11. PavelB
    Jun 29, 2009
    10
    This is one of the most sophisticated and interesting movies I have ever seen. Guy Ritchie has created of the brightest pictures for the time. It is extremely sad that public as well as educated critics were not satisfied with its depth and style. This movie is a must have.
  12. BrendanS
    Nov 13, 2008
    10
    This film is brilliant. Ignore the bad the reviews.
  13. CatS
    Oct 18, 2008
    0
    This is two hours of your life you will *never* get back.
  14. MOSTAFAB
    Oct 10, 2008
    10
    I'm really sorry for every man who see this movie and give a rating like a 0!!!!!! do you understand a movie at all that you give a rating?!!! I recommend to everyone to watch this movie Forget about a rating and review that you can see in this page just look at these ratings, you can understand what is my point a movie like a 3:10 to Yuma:76!!!(a stupid adaptation) transformers:61!!!!!!!(totally a stupid movie) revolver:24??!!… Expand
  15. NELG
    Jun 19, 2008
    1
    I will write a review in English. This is one of the worst films i have ever seen. Crap story badly explained, over the top acting, boring, stupid. Just feels like they have shot the film and then mixed it up to make it un watchable. They've tried to be too smart and its a complete failure. Would die before watching this again. Gave it one for the imagery.
  16. LeoC
    Jun 8, 2008
    0
    Self indulgence taken to the extreme. It's a picture so self-involved in the director's pseudo intellectual concept, that it forgets to bring the viewer along and actually tell a story. A complete waste of talent and resources.
  17. DanV
    Apr 22, 2008
    0
    Armund W's mini-review is absolutely hilarious and far more entertaining then the movie itself. Guy Ritchie should lobby to get it printed on the DVD jacket. For those of you who don't speak Pretentious, I have translated his review: "It's downright awesome while maintaining an indescribably crude hold on neo-noirism in contemporary British cinema (this sentence defies translation). The content of Revolver is thrilling and better then the violent stuff found in gloomy, fake Hollywood movies like American Gangster and Eastern Promises."… Expand
  18. NickT.
    Apr 18, 2008
    8
    I agree with Jonathan. If you want a wholesome and magical experience, go see Finding Nemo. This is *beyond a shadow of a doubt* NOT the worst movie ever. This is a fun and entertaining movie. I like movies to surprise me. Crank. London. Shoot em up. Donnie Darko. Requiem for a Dream. Revolver. all these movies movies have meat to em. theres something to enjoy in these. just see it. if you don't like it, then better luck next time. If you do....woopy. i think its nice to see directors catering to and audience that isn't titanic and walk hard.… Expand
  19. DannyH.
    Apr 15, 2008
    1
    From the looks of what the payed critics said, it seems like the common theme is the film is extremely pretentious. Armund W.'s response and score for the film makes it obvious only pretentious people will enjoy this film. don't watch this film if you like any of Guy Ritchie's previous films, its a bit too incoherent.
  20. ChadS.
    Mar 18, 2008
    3
    This filmmaker is no Quentin Tarantino. He's no Steven Soderbergh either. You just know that "Pulp Fiction" rocked his world. "The Limey", too, probably. But as the saying goes: he knows the words but not the music. In "Revolver", we see homage being taken to the brink of plagiarism. During a sequence in which Jake(Jason Statham) and his partners-in-crime(Zach and Avi, played by Vincent Pastore and Andre Benjamin, respectively) rip off the drug dealers and their buyers, this filmmaker dramatizes the more violent moments with splices of animation like Tarantino did in "Kill Bill: Volume One", while utilizing a jazzy score and non-linear editing style that's strongly reminiscent of "Out of Sight". And then there's the matter of Jake's interior monologue, which evidently seems to have gotten on the filmmaker's nerves, as well. After "Revolver" curbs Jake's incessant chattering, for some godforsaken reason, we now hear Macha(Ray Liotta), Jake's nemesis, in deep thought. I thought Jake was schizophrenic. I'm probably not the only one. As the end credits roll, a second film, a documentary short(this film is so incoherent, it needs an appendix to clear things up) of talking heads, men with PhDs in psychology who explain Jake's condition in laymen's terms. Let's just be grateful that this filmmaker doesn't throw in everything but the kitchen sink. Zach and Avi aren't figments of Jake's imagination, or for that matter, dead. Their true identities, however, seems equally banal, so easy was it to predict. "Snatch" was okay. "Snatch" made sense at least, even when Brad Pitt didn't(his thick regional accent was worthy of a citation by Ken Loach for authenticity). "Revolver" doesn't make sense. "Revolver" is just another crime film in the post-"Pulp Fiction" era that courts edgy laughs from violent situations.… Expand
  21. JayH.
    Mar 11, 2008
    2
    Overly stylized, cold and heartless. It's pretentious crap that has no soul, a director that is more concerned with imagery than with a comprehensible story. Shallow and unwatchable rubbish.
  22. JamisonR.
    Mar 9, 2008
    10
    You know who everyone that hates this movie sounds like? The guy in the elevator mirror between the twelfth and fourteenth floor. Mr. Ritchie did a disservice by re-editing it for American audiences. It sorta proves the movies point in a very real life way. To let ego and need for approval get in the way of initial instincts. So Ironic. I imagine the original is destined to become a cult film and the American version will be pissed on and burned. Next time, Mr. Ritchie, do like Mr. Green - Stand calmly with a knowing smile and wait for everyone else to catch up. Imagine if the Coens had re-edited Barton Fink just because people … Expand
  23. BEEKS
    Dec 30, 2007
    9
    A very interesting and entertaining dissection of human values.
  24. ArmundW.
    Dec 25, 2007
    10
    It's starkly superb while maintaining an ineffably visceral grasp on neo-noirism in contemporary British cinema. The content of Revolver headily transcends the extant exhibition of hostile sadism as manifested in glumly spurious Hollywood movies like American Gangster and Eastern Promises.
  25. JoeyL.
    Dec 25, 2007
    0
    Astoundingly bad. He ruins everything that could possibly be fun in this movie with some of the most stultifying and pretentious inner monologues ever. By the end of the movie, you're kind of just gaping in fascination at how bad it is.
  26. MartinB.
    Dec 18, 2007
    0
    Worst movie ever.
  27. BillB.
    Dec 17, 2007
    0
    Twaddle.
  28. JonathanM.
    Dec 11, 2007
    7
    HA! Yes, it's a total mess and there's no payoff. However, the images are memorable, the music is great, it's totally ridiculous,I laughed at some of the acting...but, hey, I had a fun time on a Sunday night at the late show. I personally don't care if everything makes sense in the films, books or music I consume. I can speak from experience from how I make my living (writing music for film and TV), it would be a super-boring existence as an artist if I didn't have huge failures along the way. Maybe this is his, and the next film he makes may incorporate the visual innovation into a story that makes sense. As a matter of fact, I think as an artist it's harder to take risks because people are so quick to criticize anything that they don't see 100%. I'm not saying that this is a brilliant film - I'm just saying I'm willing to take the leap, and let myself enjoy it.… Expand
  29. ColR.
    Dec 6, 2007
    0
    This movie was released in the UK around 2 years ago. I actually assumed that it was considered so bad that it wasn't going to be released in North America. You lucky people! This is *without any shadow of a doubt* THE WORST movie ever. It makes ZERO sense, and is akin to what I would imagine being overdosed with LSD would feel like. Badly acted, horrendous script (really, WTF is going on?), "innovation" for the sake of it, rather than because it's a good idea. My god! Even thinking about the fact that I wasted my time and money on this utter, utter garbage is still really annoying to me 2 years after I originally watched it. I CANNOT give this movie a low enough score. Guy Ritchie should NEVER be allowed to make another movie as long as he lives - how the mighty have fallen! Seriously, avoid this movie as though it's carrying some kind of death-inducing, super-agonising illness that you could catch by looking at it. If you're reading this, Guy, I work in the creative industry too - if you want a movie which is at least 1000 times better than this, gimme a call and I'll show you how to do it properly. Eugh - I need to go and try to calm down a bit.… Expand

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
25 out of 100

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 21 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 21
  2. Mixed: 5 out of 21
  3. Negative: 15 out of 21
  1. The Hollywood Reporter
    Reviewed by: Kirk Honeycutt
    30
    The film's pretentious style and fractured storytelling preclude any audience involvement in the coy melodrama.
  2. Variety
    Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    20
    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.
    Read full review
  3. Village Voice
    Reviewed by: Nick Pinkerton
    30
    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.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »