User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 70 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 43 out of 70
  2. Negative: 22 out of 70

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 22, 2011
    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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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!!
  5. Sep 21, 2010
    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.
  6. Dec 1, 2013
    Real masterpiece! This movie can change one's ife, like it changed mine. Every scene and every word is masterly designed to show you the big con that you are messed in. If one will watch closely, maybe several times, one can get a big reward. Beautifull cinematography and sound. 10/10
  7. Apr 5, 2011
    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. May 23, 2011
    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!).
  9. May 2, 2012
    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.
  10. Dec 1, 2013
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is one of the interesting and Intellectual Movie I have ever seen.... excellent job... Real masterpiece! This movie can change one's Life... it has a deeper meaning. It is portraying the human EGO. Expand

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 21 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 21
  2. Negative: 15 out of 21
  1. The film's pretentious style and fractured storytelling preclude any audience involvement in the coy melodrama.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.