Metascore
25

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

User Score
6.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 60 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 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) Expand
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. 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.
  6. 25
    The latest Guy Ritchie shoot-em-up, is a joke. You laugh with it but mostly at it.
  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: 16 out of 31
  2. Negative: 14 out of 31
  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 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 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. 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
  4. 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!! Expand
  5. 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
  6. 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. Expand
  7. 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. Expand

See all 31 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.