Metascore
25

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 21 Critics What's this?

User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 95 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: ,
  • Summary: Gambler and conman Jake Green always ran with a bad crowd, and it cost him seven years of his life when he took the rap for mean Dorothy Macha and wound up in jail. After his release, Jake becomes unbeatable at the tables using a formula for the ultimate con that he learned from twoGambler and conman Jake Green always ran with a bad crowd, and it cost him seven years of his life when he took the rap for mean Dorothy Macha and wound up in jail. After his release, Jake becomes unbeatable at the tables using a formula for the ultimate con that he learned from two mysterious fellow prisoners. Now he is ready to take his revenge. Macha is plotting to eliminate his ruthless rival, Lord John, and has staked his credibility on a huge drug deal with the all-powerful Sam Gold. Jake visits Macha at his casino and humiliates him publicly in a game of chance. Macha, fearing more of the same medicine, sends his goons to "take care of" Jake. His life is saved by enigmatic Zach, who, with his equally inscrutable partner Avi, offers Jake protection. Against his better judgment, Jake accepts. He soon finds himself playing the very last game he wants to be playing, and there is danger at every turn. But the biggest danger of all comes from a totally unexpected source... (Samuel Goldwyn Films) Collapse
Watch On
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. 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.
  3. Reviewed by: Gregory Kirschling
    42
    The movie butts up against the director's newfound pretensions -- pseudo-philosophical voice-over, psychobabble, faux-art-film plotting -- and turns incomprehensible.
  4. 30
    The result is a film that's main crime is inducing stupefying boredom with little payoff in the end.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Although it contains crime and absurdity, it's not thrilling or funny and the title doesn't refer to a gun.

See all 21 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 32
  2. Negative: 14 out of 32
  1. Dec 1, 2013
    10
    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 bigReal 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 Expand
  2. 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 aboutThe 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.
    Expand
  3. 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.
  4. Apr 18, 2015
    6
    I really think Guy Ritchie tried to show an anti-egocentric manifesto here, but he failed, people just can't get the real message because theI really think Guy Ritchie tried to show an anti-egocentric manifesto here, but he failed, people just can't get the real message because the story order it's too confusing and it seems like nothing makes sense Expand
  5. 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 isOne 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. Expand
  6. 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 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
  7. CatS
    Oct 18, 2008
    0
    This is two hours of your life you will *never* get back.

See all 32 User Reviews

Trailers

Related Articles

  1. All Films Considered: Guy Ritchie

    All Films Considered: Guy Ritchie Image
    Published: December 21, 2009
    With Sherlock Holmes opening on Friday, we take the opportunity to get swept away by the previous films directed by Guy Ritchie. The results are not pretty.