Samuel Goldwyn Films | Release Date: December 7, 2007
7.1
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 164 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
109
Mixed:
25
Negative:
30
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
0
BillB.Dec 17, 2007
Twaddle.
1 of 3 users found this helpful
1
NELGJun 19, 2008
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. 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. Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful
0
LeoCJun 8, 2008
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.
1 of 4 users found this helpful
0
CatSOct 18, 2008
This is two hours of your life you will *never* get back.
1 of 4 users found this helpful
0
JoeyL.Dec 25, 2007
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.
1 of 4 users found this helpful
2
JayH.Mar 11, 2008
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.
1 of 4 users found this helpful
1
DannyH.Apr 15, 2008
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 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. Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful
0
DanVApr 22, 2008
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 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
1 of 4 users found this helpful
0
MartinB.Dec 18, 2007
Worst movie ever.
1 of 4 users found this helpful
3
ChadS.Mar 18, 2008
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 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
1 of 5 users found this helpful
0
CircusSep 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.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. Expand
1 of 7 users found this helpful16
All this user's reviews
0
ColR.Dec 6, 2007
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. 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
0 of 5 users found this helpful
0
okcomputer1016Apr 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.
0 of 4 users found this helpful04
All this user's reviews
2
LittlebombMay 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.
0 of 5 users found this helpful05
All this user's reviews
0
ticrooJan 26, 2018
Stupid AF! I can't believe that anyone in the right mind could give this crap a passing mark. Of course, Kabbalists don't count as right in the head so I assume that the user score is pumped to the INCREDIBLE 7.3 thanks to those imbeciles.Stupid AF! I can't believe that anyone in the right mind could give this crap a passing mark. Of course, Kabbalists don't count as right in the head so I assume that the user score is pumped to the INCREDIBLE 7.3 thanks to those imbeciles. Dumb and boring beyond comprehension. But don't take my word for it: go see it. Why would I be the only one to waste two hours of life on this unimaginable junk? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
2morovianFeb 19, 2017
When a formerly talented film maker makes something this bad, there should be some sort of agency that forces that film maker to retire. In this case, I would add to the forced retirement, that Guy Ritchie be arrested and later invited toWhen a formerly talented film maker makes something this bad, there should be some sort of agency that forces that film maker to retire. In this case, I would add to the forced retirement, that Guy Ritchie be arrested and later invited to study plumbing. This may be the only film I have ever seen where I actually wanted to hunt down the film maker and do serious bodily...for not only wasting two hours of my life, but for insulting my intelligence and torturing me for those two hours. If I could give negative marks, I would. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews