Revolver

Jason Statham is Jake Green, a criminal recently released from prison after serving a seven year sentence. He is able to win big money at casino card games and he is pitted against Ray Liotta, who plays a mob kingpin who spends a good deal of time surrounded by tanning lights while walking around in his underwear; a very strange sight, indeed. Andre 3000 and Vincent Pastore of Sopranos fame become his underworld mentors as they combine to commit a series of death defying heists. The acting is superb, with solid action scenes from director Guy Ritchie. Unfortunately, the story becomes somewhat convoluted. Stathan, 3000, and Pastore have good chemistry and provide some good funny moments in between the bloody carnage. Liotta is quirky but his usual watchable self and overall, the cast makes Revolver worth the ride.

Revolver is one of Guy Ritchie's most underestimated films. Stylistically, he is built the best of all previous paintings and completely rehabilitated the actor after Swept Away. One of the best roles for Jason Statham. The open ending, of course, spoils the impressions of the film, but the main plot twist worked.

Whether you enjoy watching "Revolver" or not, I would say that it is not among director Guy Ritchie's best work. Yes, it's stylish, has some remarkable camerawork and effects, and is, as usual, ultra-violent, but in the end the story seemed confusing and not all that satisfying.

Explaining the story in "Revolver" is almost impossible, as it's a very confusing film that would get better if you watched it repeatedly...though I am not inclined to do so. Suffice to say, Mr. Green (Jason Statham) is having a VERY bad period in his life and he's being manipulated and controlled by some higher power...as if it's all a game. In the process, many other bad people and gangsters are killed.

The problem with the film is that the audience is deliberately held on the edge of their seats waiting to see WHO and WHY all this is occurring to Green. This sets expectations VERY high....and for me the ending just seemed like a lot of mumbo-jumbo that really didn't explain anything. So, if you are a person who was left confused and mad at the end of "2001: A Space Odyssey", well, you'll feel pretty much the same at the end of "Revolver". Overall, a somewhat unpleasant and bloody film that just didn't offer the payoff or the enjoyment of Ritchie's other films, such as "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" or "Snatch". Parts of the film were great (I loved the bald hitman) and parts were just unpleasant and confusing.

This is a test.

This is a test of the system, to determine who is who and who is speaking to whom. You think this is me you are watching, but it is you making these letters into bits of yourself.

Its a banal, sophomoric insight. Its the stuff of retail religions. Its aped by dopes. But none of that makes it less rich for artistic exploration.

Richie is something of a nitwit with an amusing style which merges staccato internal narration with clean, brisk editing. His stuff is simple, cinematic fun. Here he takes this idea, common even in Adult Swim cartoons on TeeVee, and serves it up as a sort of kindergarten "Memento." (or more aptly "Old Boy.")

But. But in my world it doesn't matter. I think David Lynch would be a disaster as a dinner companion. Listening to him is like listening to an acid burnout case, and it makes me sick. Yet his films are as deep as they come because he opens a door and leaves room for me to furnish the place. His films are genius so he doesn't have to be.

This is a small case of that. Except for some amazing missteps (the cartoon, the reversed car crash), the guys in the hot tub, the lollipop lips.... this is a Stata Center, a jumbled space that is friendly to advanced ideas merely because it is jumbled and open -- and not because it has any sense.

I believe this is because where the Stata Center is jumbled spatially (its at MIT), this is jumbled cinematically in much the same way. Its the cinematic quality of the room. Its easy to read. It provides launching pads. It doesn't matter at all what it says. In fact it even says it doesn't matter what it says. It pretends to be a challenge that is equal of the highest level of play (and believes it) but at the same time it allows that this is always bogus.

Its no Greenaway, Kar-Wai or Medem. There is nothing here to find, no implanted wisdom, quite the opposite. But you will find it worthwhile.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

As others have stated, it might not be the best of its kind (movies with many layers that are hard to read or even to fully comprehend with just one watch), but it's still more than solid. If you don't like a movie that is not just entertainment (which is OK), there are other places to look for that. Guy Ritchie did "Lock, Stock ..." and "Snatch" and other movies who are more on the entertainment side, but with this, he tried (and imo succeeded) to add depth to that.

And Mr. Ritchie knows what the story is (even if some viewers might think and feel different), which is clear in his audio commentary for the movie. What will not become too clear, is what the movie is about. That is a personal experience and you yourself might be the your enemy - to liking this movie ...