While I’m going to give you a less-than-great assessment here, I admit that this is the second time I’ve written (very subjectively!) about this film. In the first, immediately after watching, I threw my thoughts on who Mr. Gold was and what the meaning of the film was in the text, the text in LiveJournal, providing it with some illustrations. I did it in order to at least a little to understand this difficult but interesting film.
On the first view of the film does not leave the feeling that Freud called Das Teufelsblodsinn ("i> German. - bloody nonsense, delirium). Surely, the second view would be the same, if I did not engage in analysis, assuming the presence of a logical idea. Nevertheless, the meaning, the core of the film is and it is not necessary to rush to diagnose cinema schizophrenia. If you have already done so, I highly recommend that you gather all your strength and review the film. Take a look at a few things this time:
Firstly, the author became interested in Kabbalah and references are scattered on this film. Many names, for example, are characters from the Bible, but this is not the main thing. Do not dwell on this - you can understand the film without the Kabbalah or the Bible.
Secondly, as it seems to me, the film is specially painted in different colors: then in the frame everything is red, then, in another, blue colors solo. Thus, the author distinguishes the levels of personality development on a spectrum from primitive, “animals” to “enlightened”: red, orange-yellow, green (Mr. Green is none other than Mr. Green). Green), blue and blue, purple and finally white. This echoes the teachings of the Chakras, but if you are frightened by this word, you can talk about Maslow’s pyramid of needs, or just keep in mind the “rainbow of development”.
Finally, there is the theory of collective intelligence, congestion. When, what most people think becomes a reality, this superconsciousness can live in the minds of many people at the same time. Like the voice of selfishness. He sometimes hears, probably everyone, but not everyone can find the strength to kill him in themselves, thinking about the lives and fates of other people too.
8 out of 10
I watched this movie a long time ago. It has been five years since then, and I have reviewed it 10 times. Honestly, the first impression I had was similar to those who left negative reviews about this film. We all sat down to watch another Guy Ritchie movie, but at the end there was one thought: 'What did I watch?' That thought would have stayed in my head if I hadn’t watched the movie and it wasn’t fair to google articles about it. That's the thing about the movie. See above the clipping from the book '3500 film reviews'. Here. This is it, the well-known critic simply simply corny did not understand the film, whereas when it is revised, when switching to the thoughts of the characters and the overall picture, moving away from all this action and scenes with utilizer, which for some reason was remembered by all critics-intellectuals, we see a completely different movie. A film about the inner voice.
Remember when you were a kid when you didn’t have that voice in your head? Our eyes were turned outside, the stage of contemplation, the grass is greener and so on. We were unaware of the shame, neuroses, and other disturbances that came with age. But there was a voice. And we trust him, he meditatively won our trust from childhood. In fact, quotes at the beginning of the film describe his tactics and features, which are also revealed in the film. This is a film about the mouthpiece of our neuroses. Jake is claustrophobic. It's a film about the lust for money, power, and who whispers that we need it all. I'm not going to argue about what that entity is. Particularly stubborn fans of the film throw themselves into conspiracy theories and mysticism, about certain entities that, through the power over our minds, feed on our emotions, and mainly pain. I myself indulged in such reflections and the final theory was reduced to one of the monologues in the film. A very beautiful concept is a god named Sam Gold who feeds on our passions by gaining power over our will through a voice inside our heads, hiding behind our pain if we deny him the food we want. And its sources are extensive - anger, jealousy, greed, shame, fear, loneliness. The film does not reveal half the essence of this process. After the film's final acceptance, I began to notice Gold's traces in my life and noticed a principle. We try not to return to physical pain. Burned, we know it hurts. So why doesn’t this principle apply to depression? Depression is the cyclical repetition and whipping up of bad thoughts. We come back to them again and again, but what do we do? It hurts. No logic, if you draw parallels with pain reflexes. Remember that? You seem bad, but these bad thoughts are so intrusive, although it would seem that no one is pushing you to them. Pushing. The inner voice that whispers them to you, you are sick, you are hurt, but you are fixated on them. Obsessed with pain, from the sight of your body in the mirror, from the girl / guy who sits in your heart, but does not reciprocate and so on. And I had these thoughts, and I do, for I do not yet see the obvious sources of my pain, and I do not know where to look for my elevator, but I already know my enemy, and I see how he works. My picture of the world and society changed beyond recognition when I understood and accepted this film. There has been so much suffering in life, and at last I was shown that the one who is guilty of them sits in me, but is not my very essence and can be rid of him and the sooner the better.
After this film, it’s fun to read reviews of different paintings that are presented as some kind of divine revelation. So I was told about 'Interstellar','Other Hypostases','Space Odyssey 2001'. But no, now I will not buy it, get signed - the deepest film in the history of mankind was directed by Guy Ritchie, and in the title role (and very good) - Jason Stetham. And yes, acting - Ray Liotta - genius! Seriously, you can't find a game like this in a day with fire. After this tape, for me, this is one of the greatest actors, although I have not seen other roles, but it is something!
The film is out of the mark, the best movie in the history of mankind, on which you can write dissertations, and about which you can talk for hours in a bar. This film changed my life forever and will change even more in the future.
Created two suitable criminal comedies “Cards, money, two barrels” and “Big jackpot”, the British director Guy Ritchie noted and much less successful film “Revolver”, shot in the same seemingly genre, but at the same time striking its abstruseness and pretentious idea, which, in fact, is a complete puff. And the whole reason is that Ritchie just jumped “above his head” (perhaps partly this is the “merit” of screenwriter Luke Besson, on whose account there were several epic files): without experience in creating “intelligent” tapes, he could not repeat the success of his film debut, so the film came out simply sucked out of the finger.
“Revolver” begins relatively cheerfully, although not as cheerfully as Ritchie’s previous films, but at least you expect a more or less good criminal action movie with Richie’s characteristic dynamics and witty dialogues – that’s only in the tenth minute the plot of the film dies out, becomes boring, protracted and predictable. It seems that Guy Ritchie tried to deconstruct the “criminal” genre, making it something peculiar and witty, but in the end, instead of deconstruction, it turned out that Ritchie raped himself, perversely mocking the style of his previous black comedies and blinding something absurd. And towards the end of the picture, looking at the completely idiotic behavior of the characters who only abuse substances, and the narrative affected by the most severe form of schizophrenia, I want to break my face on the table.
Revolver’s claim to some kind of “intellectuality” also looks, to put it mildly, groundless. If you compose a stubborn plot and stuff smart quotes into the picture (and even repeat them ten times, the viewer is stupid, the first time will not understand), then the film will not become smarter and better – rather, on the contrary, it has every chance to turn into a product for spiritually rich virgins wrapped in a warm plaid and subscribers of degenerative publics with “motivating quotes”, which is an unambiguous reason to send it to the cesspool of world cinema.
The verdict is a reference example of what happens when the creator overestimates his capabilities and climbs not into his genre, having neither the proper talent nor diligence.
4 out of 10
Complete analysis of the film "Revolver" Guy Ricci
I did it the other day. Every fifth or sixth, I guess. I went through it again, and then at some point caught myself thinking that I should write a detailed review. Not for anyone, but for yourself.
So, the protagonist Jack Green (Jason Statham), a card catala and a virtuoso money picker, enters a skyscraper casino to disembowel the wealthy owner of the institution, a crime boss named Mac (Ray Liotta). Seven years ago, Mack got him into an unpleasant story; he thundered into a solitary cell three meters long. Having spent many delightful prison days preparing for the gop stop, Greene for years polished the ability to mysteriously steal people’s luck, and more than anything else he dreamed of getting even with the one who locked him in four walls. Two men like him helped him in this matter: one was a master of chess, the other a master of wiring. They were both so savvy that they could get whatever they wanted. As a result, Jack adopted their magical mechanism of duping, but when he was released, he began to fear elevators.
Going back to our days. Greene wins money from Mac, then with the words “I will continue with him” leaves the casino, but loses consciousness, going down the stairs. Doctors are diagnosed with a rare blood disease that leaves no more than three days to live. Meanwhile, the offended gangster orders his abuser and at the same time begins to cooperate with the influential warlock Sam Gold, the king of the underworld. After that, an assassination attempt is organized, a shootout ensues, in which all the people who were with Green are killed, and he is saved. Two noble street moneylenders Zack and Ivy offer Jack a “profitable” deal – they protect him from danger, but in return demand money and complete submission. Green agrees.
Then more. Tattooed yakuza, some mystical masons, an intelligent killer-professional Recyclist, a brunette with a chupa chups. “Revolver” at the time was stated from the position of a criminal thriller, in fact it looks like a TV report from someone’s nightmare. The scene is the nameless city N, elusively reminiscent of large neon signs Las Vegas. Black Cadillac cars are running through the streets, cops have disappeared from the streets, illegal people pay in $12 bills. The director Guy Ritchie took the degree of convention accepted in noir (all these scenes in the rain, the last single hero, always taunting something under his nose), wrapped it in a glossy cover of cheap tabloid reading and let go of all the nonsense on the crazy rails of clinical cinema. According to the principle “the better you think you understand what is happening, the more chances you will be fooled.” If you try to isolate a certain plot construction, you will get about the following.
The trick is that Zack and Ivy are imaginary character characters, most likely materializing Greene's second self. Their dissimilarity, pronounced and striking, gives both images special significance. Black and white, thick and thin, one carries brilliant business suits, the other - outstretched on the knees of sports pants. This partly explains why they interact exclusively with episodic characters, how they managed to get out of prison, and why the Sixes. Macs at point-blank range do not notice them (the scene with the pool, in the casino). For the same reason, it must be assumed that the mysterious Mr. Gold does not seem to exist. To me, the key to the mystery of Gold's personality is the anagram of the surname - the similarity of the sound of the English Gold (gold, wealth) and God (god). It's a metaphor. Mr. Gold symbolizes power: the charm of big money, unappetizing greed, increased ambition. “Nobody’s seen Sam Gold, but Sam Gold sees everyone.”
“Revolver” is framed by four very relevant quotes, which consistently sum up the basis of the film under the final plot twist.
“The only way to become smarter is to play with a smarter opponent.” – Basics of Chess, 1883
Jack tells Ivy the principle of winning chess. “I have to feed you little pieces to make you believe you won them yourself. So, the opponent distracts his victim while she wriggles in the arms of his own greed. And when the victim begins to doubt that the opponent is equal to her, in fact she will doubt her own intellectual abilities.” The same principle applies to Zai and Ivy. They make Jack hand out his money, which is a metaphor for feeding pawns in chess. They then steal Gold’s powder and quarrel Mac with Yakuza boss Lord John, reminiscent of “eating” important figures – an elephant or a queen. At the end, Ivy in the last farewell game easily beats Jack, thereby showing that he needs to get smarter to take over Sam Gold. The latter, apparently, personifies the chess king, i.e. the most important figure on the board.
“The first rule of business is to protect your investment.” – Banker etiquette, 1775
The story of three Eddies. Greene took money from them and returned it with interest; they protected him, trying to protect him by any means necessary. “Why talk about someone who makes money?” But one day, Greene disappeared with the money, and three Eddies were unlucky - they were so lying that they ceased to be believed even under torture. In this quote, investment refers to human vices that can completely enslave a person.
“The greatest enemy will hide where you least seek him.” – Julius Caesar, 75 B.C.
Zack and Ivy explain to Jack that his main enemy is not Maka, but Sam Gold. Through the perception of two fictional friends, the protagonist embarks on a path of self-purification. First, he gets rid of excessive greed, then crosses over pride (the scene by the bed), and as a decisive blow he comes face to face with his own cowardice (the split personality in the elevator). Having overcome his inner demon, Green finds freedom and incredible power. In the finale, he meets a trembling, confused in words, Mac with a loaded gun - he frantically shouts "Fear me!" But Green stands with a stone expression and slowly takes away from him the main attribute of power – fear.
Great movie, you can't tell. I can talk about him forever. Perhaps one of the few absolutely author's films, where the director comes into direct contact with the audience - without obstacles and production interference. It's such an uneven breath. There are scenes that are invented for some reason and that look disconnected from the film, and there are shrapnel masterpieces like an outstanding shootout in a restaurant, made in terms of camera work, soundtrack, flawless. Ritchie, of course, walks the fine line between magic and charlatanism, but he does it quite delightfully - with what fantastic ease he throws frames-deceptions, as he trumpets close-ups, as he balks at the viewer with spectacular phrases - with all this incomprehensibly clear, incredibly convincingly tells the story. A man who played a dangerous game with his vices... and won.
The most striking thing is that at first I put a 7 after watching, looking at the creators. Then I asked the most important question that I always ask after watching a new film: “What did I get new, what did I learn, take out, comprehend?”, the answer was extremely simple and concise: “Nothing.”
But what's even more striking is that I'm caught on the hook of pseudo-sense. I have reviewed enough films on various subjects and risk assuming that I have something to compare with, but no – I got hooked, and only a non-biased, detached analysis allowed me to see the void.
Associatively, this spectacle reminds me of a tangle of threads, you unwind it with anticipation, but nothing awaits you in the middle. What has overshadowed analysis is the husk, the bombast, the illusion of creating something meaningful, almost ingenious, something that answers questions. I am not surprised that so many enthusiastic reviews have taken emptiness for meaning.
I venture to suggest that some of the admirers, almost only to themselves, can admit that they did not understand what they saw, they did not understand it, and this is what gave rise to the Simulacrum of a deep hidden design.
I put five for "Utilizer", I liked the game and type. Even at the end, I felt sorry for him, I lost count, miscalculated, forgot about the driver.
5 out of 10
After seven years in prison, Jack Green is released and re-enters the world of casinos, big money and crime. It all began in the best traditions of Guy Ritchie, but to my boundless surprise, after half an hour the plot began to slide into some twilight zone, where three cheap phrases were issued for a cool idea, an absolute blanket was issued for a mind-blowing denouement, covered with excellent music and editing, and for a deep and twisted plot was given complete nonsense and confusion.
I'm very disappointed. “Revolver” is not like the masterpieces of Guy Ritchie. There is no enthusiasm, no sparkling humor, no great plot with a stunning denouement. Nothing. Of course, the musical accompaniment, editing, camera work – all the technical aspects at the height, and it was the picture that the film came out successfully, but what is a beautiful picture without a plot? The acting was great too. Ray Liotta, who I don't really like very much, just amazed me. I didn’t expect him to play such a high quality game. Everyone else did the right thing, too. Except for the director himself, who went into some remote steppe and heaped up everything he could. The first half of the film catches the viewer cold in one place, tension and anticipation grow with every minute, and then it turns out that the truths that the director tried to pass off as virtuoso ideas, shoved down the throat of the viewer from the very beginning and several times during the film, as if hinting at their significance and grandeur. It was very pathetic. But the ponts, so to speak, turned out to be cheap and empty. Like the whole movie.
If you’re not an ardent fan of Richie’s and don’t want to watch every movie he makes, then Revolver is best missed. See (or review) "Cards, money, two barrels" or "Big jackpot."
4 out of 10
Your friends are close, but your enemies are closer.
The “revolver” of the great and inimitable: Guy Ritchie and Luke Besson. 4 philosophical statements as an epigraph. Undoubtedly noteworthy as a gangster movie with action elements backed up by schizophrenic characters like Jake Grinn (Jason Statham), Macca (Ray Liotta), Avi (Andre Benjamin) and his partner Zach (Vincent Pastore). The attention is focused on a seemingly intricate philosophical context with an intricate plot, winged expressions and constantly looming questions: who am I? Who are you? Who is a man, what is his essence? Why? But nothing more...
It seems to me that Guy Ritchie outlived himself as a director at that time, being under the influence of Luc Besson, who forced him to turn the original criminal anecdote into a troubled thriller with action elements in the spirit of American blockbusters, which in principle did not promise the box office and general respect, as the first two films of Guy Ritchie. Although, this film deserves special attention and praise among fans of the director.
The plot is good, intriguing, but twists the imagination, as if playing with it. Without the irony of Richie's movies. A twisted American product, not an English one. The script was made in collaboration with a famous blockbuster producer and director named Luc Besson. In my opinion, it would be better if he did not get involved, I am talking about the script, not the implementation of the project.
The camera work is great. Detailed elaboration of many scenes, made with jewellery accuracy, except for one episode with the setting of light (seen wig).
Actors under the influence of the director were not bad enough. Especially noteworthy is the work of (reborn) Jason Statham. Here he performs in a more dramatic role, not inherent in him, as a hero of explosive militants (except for London in 2005). Jake Grinn is a very thoughtful character, with unstable, constantly popping up questions. With a very wise inner monologue. I began to have a special respect for Statom, after watching this film, here he was on top! – as for such actors as Ray Liotta, Mark Strong and many others, Guy Ritchie showed himself from a more favorable side as a director of artistically dramatic moments.
The installation is very specific. Able to keep the viewer watching the tape without hesitation.
The music, namely the sound track, deserves special praise. Harmoniously matches the genre. Motivating to maneuver the ear to the illusory thinking provoked by sounds of thought. After viewing, there is a desire to find and savor the tracks separately.
6 out of 10
Someone will bet more. After all, this is the work of none other than Guy Ritchie himself.
Conclusion. You are going to see another creation of the maestro. My advice to you is to watch Luc Besson’s 2008 Angel-A first, so that you don’t get disappointed. Because Guy Ritchie put a specific effort into this product, I mean "Revolver."
- The further, the sweeter the speech.
I love Guy Ritchie’s movies, but this movie is a few of his movies. First of all, Stetham has hair, quite long, by the way. Secondly, the influence of Madonna on the director is very strongly felt, in this film, which he nurtured and invented for 3 years, just during his relationship and marriage with Madonna. The whole film is riddled with quotes that are repeated, 3-5 times each, at least. From the recordings on the black screen at the beginning, then from the mouths of virtually every character, and then back to the black screen. Apparently, the fascination with Madonna Kabbalah and other teachings for Richie did not go in vain.
My review, in this case, is not even a review or a review. There are more questions and attempts to explain the meaning of what is happening on the screen from my subjective point of view.
The film is not psychological, absolutely. Although the director is persistently trying to get into the depths of psychology and drag the viewer into a “game” with myself, where I am not myself, Stetham is not Stetham, and all the others either exist or not. The personality here is not divided or upset, there is only one person - the hero of Stetham, who is trying to find freedom by inventing himself (?) neighbors in prison, an influential and mysterious man in the wild, as well as a whole maelstrom of events and actions that should lead him to the much-desired freedom. At the same time, it is not clear what kind of freedom the hero wants to gain. External or internal? It is also unclear whether he does this while he is out of prison or still in solitary confinement. And where does this prison exist, if it exists at all?
Perhaps Ritchie, having shot two beautiful crime films, with a great and interesting plot, and then, having plunged (or got into) the swamp of life with Madonna, tried to redraw himself, making a movie with philosophical inserts, for the sake of inserts, with a claim to deep knowledge in the dark corners of the human brain. He clearly failed. Philosophy and psychology are zero. Only quotes, good quotes, it should be noted, useful, but what they are here, it is unclear.
The film is like a transition from an unsuccessful attempt to make a drama to the old, kind and well-tested genre of crime comedy. It seems that there is already a criminal world with its bells and whistles, a lot of storylines scattered around the film randomly, even Stetham is, and there is no sense. All these apostolic references with names, what are they for? What did the author mean by that? Just to say he knows the names of the apostles? Or show everyone your deep faith and knowledge of the “secret essence of things”? During this period of his life, he became “actively supportive.” Madonna in her follow-ups and hobbies, quite often appearing at the “congregations” of Kabbalists, the next “crestina” of some child of another celebrity, also a follower of Kabbalah under the watchful eye of the paparazzi and, quite accidentally, professional photographers of various publications who were there at this very moment. He may have had to do it for his wife, or he may have succumbed to fashion influences like many celebrities. But this film has suffered greatly from this, it can be seen and the film, really, sorry.
By the end, there is a feeling that the author himself is already tired and it’s time to finish it somehow, at least how. Let the audience think about what he wanted to say. The final shot seems to indicate the beginning of the release of the director himself from all the rules of the game imposed on him. And the voice of his best friend is locked in his head forever. He knows what to do. The subsequent divorce, the film Rock and Roller, a new life with a new wife and the birth of 3 children, as well as the release of his own son from the strong embrace of the loving-best-all-knowing-and-all-understanding-mummy-in-the-world, this is not what you can safely call the film necessary. Not only and not so much for the viewer, you know what I mean.
From all the above, it follows that my “review” is more positive. And for the performance of the actors, you can throw a couple of points into the assessment, after all, Stetham and Liota coped perfectly here to show the idea of the director, which was not fully formed. Quotes are also a plus.
I will lead you to the light, but through the darkness.
I am delighted and shocked ... after watching just could not leave a review. This is not just a film, it is a riot of colors of quotes and in general the apotheosis of the intellect, how many delicious metaphors, here and the struggle with myself, which flared up in the main character and the mysterious Gold, everything has a secret meaning, but somewhere very close to me and true. I did not think the film is long, it shines with colors, fascinatingly intriguing, like a tangle that asks for a solution. The film is very pleasant, if it seemed to someone protracted or tedious, then it is just dislike for self-digging.
The film made me think about its true purpose, about how many times, this harmful second I interfered with, and prevents me from being FREE, as for me a lot of topics are covered, not all to the end, but this tape is just food for thought, for serious conclusions. Philosophical, tasty it has become so dear to me, I will certainly watch it again, and maybe more, because the feeling that it was not a film, but a conversation with an experienced psychologist, friend, someone who wants to be good to you, instructive, although sometimes wants to hurt you.
As for me, the environment for the film was specially chosen with big money, quick profits, excitement, those temptations that reveal the human essence. These two former prison neighbors led our hero to the light, through blood, through greed, as deftly they provided their lessons as if playing on the strings of his soul or bags of his money. It is a pity that many people will pass by, saying that they do not like this hat, albeit, but I am sure that there are those for whom the picture will open a little more than an interesting pastime.
Our lives are just a variation of successful and unsuccessful parties. What needs to be overcome? What to become? Maybe you should be more modest when you are racing at full speed?
To me, this movie is simply genius.
I will try to be the king of the secondary world. Mr. Macca: ': The wise man says there is only one rule in the world. A tiny question on which our luck depends. The more often we hear this question, the stronger we will become. You know what the question is, Mr. Greene: What does that give me? 39 What does this movie give us? After a third of the film, Mr. Mackah said: 'We will remain the living dead until we fix the situation'. What if some stranger or doctor told us we had 3 days to live? I wonder what most of us would do. Perhaps many would try 'Reach out to heaven'? What if there were something else?
'How far are you willing to go, Mr. Green?'
I want to be as short as Chekhov and help you do the work. This movie is like a new person, whether it’s a guy or a girl, at first you can’t see beyond your nose, except for one thing that you may be constantly hitting. After watching this movie for the first time, you start to put together your own puzzle, you throw it aside, then it is again in the focus of your attention, somewhere you change it, maybe sometimes you come to the realization that you will never fully assemble it anyway. There are even periods of hard work, maybe even a war you've always tried to delay. . .
'Understand the cause of your pain and you will win this game'.
I can’t say anything about the actors’ play – I don’t know about it, and without me there are enough professionals who will tell you. The only thing I remember is the cult scene in the elevator, when after it the main character very naturally changed in the face, almost, as it seemed to me, not until the end of the film. And then there's Mr. Mackah with a gun by the elevator -- very naturally, very willingly believing that you freeze, like he's telling you this, but you don't believe him anymore. And, perhaps, one of the best in his narrow business, as a recycler, who in the end could not forget his feelings. But we love that sentimentality so much. Cinematography does not lie.
'You wanted answers, and they made new puzzles'.
I don’t really like filmmaking, so it’s the only movie for me.
10 out of 10
No one has yet thought about what psychological problems may arise in the near post-industrial web 3.0 future. For example, what will happen to subscribers of the public with smart quotes, so in 20 years? After all, systematic reading in Confucius, Machiavelli and Virginia Woolf sooner or later can lead to the replacement of one’s own consciousness. The perception of reality will be compared only with clever phrases, even if they do not fit into the meaning of the situation. And it seems that Briton Guy Ritchie turned out to be a visionary, filming a story about what 10 years ago seemed unscientific fiction.
Once in prison, Jason Statham’s hero Greene meets two inmates. More precisely, they were in different solitary cells. And they didn't talk to each other. I haven't even seen my fellow misfortune. Not that there was a prison at all. And there are doubts that if you see Statham, he exists. He certainly does. But that's not the point. After leaving prison, he decides to take revenge on the owner of the London casino Maki. And this is where the movie turns the mind inside out. After all, sitting in prison, the hero read between the lines in books about quantum physics and theoretical astrophysics chess combinations, options for relatively honest ways to take money from the population, as well as quotes. Quotes. Quotes. Quotes ...
It must be said that the film is in many authoritative encyclopedic dictionaries, as an illustration for the article "Talent Deflated in the Sewer". It’s not that the film is self-replicating. If he were like that, I'd just walk by. Despite the fact that the director did something very professional there, with a visionary spark, I must say, on the way out, for some reason he turned out nonsense. The viewer who understood what the whole divorce was and whether he had divorced himself is worthy of respect. And Guy Ritchie, fortunately, corrected (not without years of torture by Hollywood producers in the vicinity of Guantanamo), giving a rather ironic spy comedy “The Man from A. N. K. L.”
"What are you, huh? What have you done? We are used to you entertaining us, that we giggle at your characters, laughing at funny situations, over which you do not need to think much, everything is chewed up. And what is this? — shout like an intercom overseas director writers of “red” reviews. "Should be entertaining, right? You didn’t, did you?, Guy Ritchie says sadly, watching the low rating and bad reviews for his creation. Concerned that the first attempt to remove something not for chewing jaws, the viewer took with coolness, the respected director went to shoot what is expected of him - an excellent self-remake of "Rock and Roller", well, "Sherlock Holmes", where gay detectives, spitting on Conan Doyle, amuse us with their "comic verses".
I do not want to give a brief overview of the content of the film: a person who drops the viewing 30 minutes after the start, just read the official description. For those who will look to the end and appreciate what they saw, to say what the tape is simply meaningless - it is for everyone about their own.
I can't say that Guy Ritchie introduced us to something innovative. The ways of searching for oneself, which are always reduced to one point, to oneself, are as old as the world. Only someone really seeks, fighting for the right of freedom and happiness given by nature, so did the hero of Jason Statham Jake, and someone, spitting on the inner voice, lives in Epicurean, enjoying his primacy. And so Jake is looking for himself. He seeks in the original “Richev” manner, so much absorbed from his American counterpart, which, however, absolutized the brightness of death, is largely devoid of the elegance presented in “Revolver”. Fighting your second self, which pretends to be the first, is an interesting activity, which is capable of only smart people. What will win: the thirst for money or the thirst for justice, pride or repentance, fear or freedom from it? Richie presented these questions to us in a complex, controversial, monochrome form, which can be understood only by those who are interested in the answers.
The cheerful beginning, in which fans of the first two films of the director, almost found the desired pleasure, is gradually transformed into a difficult game with creation. Heroes, becoming more complex, lose their “adequacy” and begin to be perceived as characters of the “Fight Club”. Before our eyes, Jake changes, revises his values, achieves an almost esoteric perception of life (Madonna, hello!), fight his weaknesses and fears, soaring above them, realizing what the real power over people and over “situations” is.
All this Ritchie clothed in the shell of a multiplayer chess game, where the potential winner and loser change places every minute, where they fight not with the one sitting in front of them, but with the one sitting inside them, realizing that fear is just self-doubt, which the ego whispers sadly about. To follow his lead is to lose.
All these shootouts are just a tribute to the genre, because without them, in a cloud of complete philosophizing, the viewer would be completely lost. Therefore, paying tribute to expectations, the director provided the picture with his own and others' (hello, Tarantino) chips: animation, stone faces, the paradox of some situations. However, all this is only the background, the background for the answer to the main question: “What does this give me?” What do the attributes of life give me, for which I get up in the early days and go to work hated by me with a fufuzz? What does money, the attention of the opposite sex, universal recognition give me? What brings me pleasure? Why am I given this life?
Having gathered through the bars, Ritchie, in his recognizable manner, presented an idea as old as the world, at different times seen / heard / read by us here and there: works and their adaptations of King and Palahniuk, reflections of Castaneda, esotericists, medieval mystics, quotes from ancient classics and classical music that can approach anything, allusions to Tarantino, a great cast (especially I want to mention Mark Strong), this is what “Revolver” is. If you are interested in all this, then the picture will become another step in the endless ladder of self-knowledge.
The only way to get smarter is to play with a smarter opponent.
It’s amazing how cold the audience has been. Perhaps the role played by the failure in the box office of the previous film Guy Ritchie, perhaps unlike his early work. But in my opinion, people just waited for a fun and dynamic action movie, and didn’t get what they wanted, they left disappointed.
And this despite the fact that the elaboration and complexity of the script Revolver will give odds to the other films of the director. But against him played excessive entanglement, places behind the actions of the characters becomes banal boring to watch. And the abundance of internal monologues does not increase either the dynamism or the clarity of the picture. But with all this, when you come to understand the plot, the film wants to forgive almost all the shortcomings.
Well, of course, Jason Statham, I had the impression that he can give a decent and diverse acting game, only from Guy Ritchie. In all the other movies I saw, he played the same character, with little variation. Well, it is impossible not to note the game of both his former cellmates, they turned out bright, but in what elusively similar.
Revolver can be presented as a kind of puzzle, thoughtful, interesting, but somewhat boring.
The movie Revolver hit me to the bone. After watching once, you can hardly understand all the subtlety, all the nuances of this film, since it is very much a confusing psychological thriller.
The greatest enemy will hide where you least seek him.
Ju. Caesar 75 B.C.
Guy Ritchie decided to deviate from the usual style, this time he decided to work with the “second me” that every person has. He didn't just make a film about that mysterious inner voice, that it's in each of us, that voice that appears to us as "Mr. Gold" (that mysterious image that no one sees, but he sees all of us, everyone participates in his game, but no one realizes it). He tells us what to do and when to do it, and he showed us that we can fight it. On the example of our hero (Mr. Grinn), who did not suspect, almost to the very end, that he struggled with the very trait inherent in all of us. And that trait is greed.
Protect your investments
etiquette of the banker, 1775
Mr. Grinn, who is released from prison and later became rich with the help of a miracle formula, discovers that he has a blood disease and has 3 days to live. But then he is found by two mysterious strangers and under the pretext that they will save him, he gives them all the money (which he hates most), but he does not even suspect that they are helping him start a war with his only real enemy, although Grinn considers him his best friend, giving the money, he starts the war.
" The more sophisticated the game, the more sophisticated the opponent.
Basics of chess, 1883
The victim always doubts the opponent, in fact, he doubts himself, but does not admit it, even to himself. In this case, the victim is Mr. Grinn, the rival is Mr. Gold. By changing the situation with someone who controls you, you can change the situation by controlling it yourself. How far are you willing to go?
Despite the fact that the beginning was very twisted Guy Ritchie was able to deftly get out of it and made the end with answers to almost all the questions, so that the movie was intriguing, exciting and certainly not to be bored.
As for the acting, I would especially like to highlight the play of Ray Liotta, who played the role of a gangster, but the other actors also perfectly performed their task.
I would also like to highlight the amazing music of Nathaniel Mekali, which even more helped to immerse yourself, feel the atmosphere of the film.
Finally, remember:
“The greatest enemy will hide where you least seek him.”
10 out of 10
This is more like a deception for the viewer than a philosophy, but the film is filled with a huge number of references to philosophy, economics and most importantly to chess. Only by playing chess with a smarter opponent can you become smarter.
"Not for nothing they say "The harder the battle, the sweeter the victory"",
Without spoilers and any entry into the plot of the canvas with philosophical thoughts, my opinion I will try to break the film into parts. Such a film, in my opinion, should deserve the sympathy of the audience, naturally without fanaticism.
I want to emphasize that the film has a very free thinking, but it is bound by the stigma of a number of clichés. Because of its contradictions, the film is sometimes uncomfortable to watch. Usually, such films should suit the mood, approximately similar to reading a book, but I note that it does not make sense to compare it with a book. It's very, very, very copyrighted. Author of the script and dialogue.
So what did the movie really do to me?
Most importantly, he managed to convey the chic, seductive atmosphere of noir. This is followed immediately by dialogue, they, frankly, smell of incoherence, but they are smart. Good story, but not great.
The criminal component, filmed by the creator of "Cards, money and two tables".
The music is strong, inspired by classics and perfectly included in the film.
What are actors worth? Jason Statham defies heavier roles and looks great. And a number of other actors like Strong, Liotta and others. I will note that Ray Liotta’s acting still looks much better than other actors, of course, he is no longer a beginner in such roles. At the end of the day, he is insane.
Finally, I will note this bold, albeit wrong, step for Ricci to make such a film, but for me the film is revisited for the tenth time.
"We are drug addicts sitting on the needle of someone else's approval and recognition."
A totally unreal movie! The impossible! Left after viewing an indelible impression and a full bouquet of thoughts.
But everything in order.
When my friend said the movie was fantastic, I was skeptical. I immediately realized that the film is atmospheric, and it requires a special “mood”. Not immediately, but this "mood" was found.
“Revolver” immediately reminded me of “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”, primarily because it is built by a “book”: introductory epigraphs, separation of several chapters, each of which reveals a separate topic, the voice of the author. It's called "Red Lights."
One of the main advantages of the picture is the atmosphere. Captures and doesn't let go. It’s not about wanting to know what will happen in the end. Nope! Here is the second main plus of the picture - its saturation with meaning.
I was really impressed by the cast. Not just really, but so sincerely, so honestly, with panic or malice - genius!!
I would also like to mention the soundtrack, selected, as you guessed, perfectly. Right to the point! Music that amplifies the emotions of the moment a thousand times - is not this the dream of any sophisticated viewer?
And in the end, I would like to say that this film changed my idea of life itself. Yes, it happens.
How stupid? I beat the fool! Seriousness is boring. Tooth scarring is boring. Philosophizing is exhausting. Clergy is frightening. I combined all these styles according to time and chance.
Umberto Eco, The Island Before (c)
Part One. Hello Quentin!
The business card of the British director Guy Ricci of the tarantine era of the 90s was the debut film “The Hard Case” in 1995. Prior to the dualogy of Kholmshchyna with Robert Downim the Younger, he evolved into a persona-grata in modern cinema. Not counting of course Robinsonade "Gone" with Madonna. This film somnambulum director later commented as a misunderstanding although the twist happened to him.
His next experiment was the film “Cards, Money and Two Guns” about the underground criminal bromance of London guys about underground card games, drugs and crony jargons. And all the roads obviously led to the creation of Snatch/Big Snatch, a lot of iconic performance that became a springboard for an actor like Jason Statham. The tragicomics of the picture with an ultra-original plot became almost Tarantinov’s “fiction” only with a British shade. An intriguing story develops around a diamond with a superorganic reincarnation of actors, especially the fan Guy, Brad Piet and quadruple Bennicio Del Toro in the cult modern movie Snatch.
With the murky anarchic irony of 2008’s Rock and Roll, the preconceived idea of the inevitable karma of chance was conceptualized, and Ricci once again hit the bull’s-eye. Already he had to deal with a considerable budget and bright figurants of modern cinema like Gerard Butler, meticulous Tom Hardy, and the original Brit Tom Wilkinson. The crown performance of the “bad boy” Toby Kebbell with Uncle Mark Strong only added additional grace to the picture. If, hypothetically, there were a festival for subtly cynical black comedies, then this picture would become a template/criterion for the selection of laureates.
Part two. Lynch's head.
A creative person in a state of constant dissatisfaction with himself for a couple of years exhausted the idea of creating an intellectual bond while plotting to please apologists of art-house and avid fans of Linichovsky psychedelics. Vainly touched the themes of various wildly interesting sayings with their subsequent possible application to the gambling world. Attempts to interpret the inner conflict of the human “I” up to practical cabalistics, I had the feeling that Ricci himself was in a state of cognitive dissonance in the process of creating “Revolver”.
The design of huge quantities of intelligent canons from Caesar to Macchiavelli, from chess theory to the parallel of the revanchist Monte Cristo is intertwined with the periphery of the same plot book.
The big subtext hanging under the film and the very idea to bring the canvas to complete intricacy could only come up with Guy Ricci. He's a bit of a mystic.
Part three. Lobotomy.
Mr. Green is in trouble or he thinks he's in trouble. Fact-He spent seven years in solitary confinement learning the basics of quantum mechanics and chess cheating almost first-hand. Fronts start fighting. Mr. Maka (Ray Liotta) along with the assistant half-witted Paul, and with the opposite phalanx, Mr. Greene with the guardian angel Avi and Zach enter the battle. Mr. Gold's all-seeing eye from the tops of the mountains misses nothing. The trick is to realize you're eating a bear or it's eating you. Or even nihilism in the wastelands of reason. The recycler doesn't believe the devil intervened, and Mr. Green is annoyed that he's being offered tea. He wanted to get rid of the ego. Everything from skinny Pete to Lord John is screwed up. And Mr. Greene believes that we only live to acknowledge human altruism. Maybe that’s why we lost our nerves!
Fin.
The intricate storyline of the film will require you to view the picture more than once for the completeness of the picture. There is no denying the quality of the roles with the plot that the actor is a figure on the board and the director just moves them. Don’t write off the phrase “Long live the sacred simplicity.” You won’t find it here even with a candle in broad daylight. The conclusion is ambivalent: classic or pseudo-intellectual?!
This is at your discretion.
How to turn an interesting story into an absolute thrash
Guy Ritchie, Luke Besson, "Early" Statham, Ray Liotta, gambling, crime bosses, an interesting and intricate plot, what else is needed for a great movie? And this is a sober mind.
What the first (and most appropriate) 30 minutes of the film tell us: After serving 7 years in prison, Jake Green is released. 2 years after his release, Jack “divorces” money from Mr. Mackie, the casino owner, after which Mac instructs his men to remove Greene. Meanwhile, Jake faints, and then finds himself in the hospital, where he is tested. After that, he gets into a shootout, in which all his people die except him. There he is saved by a certain Zach, about whom nothing is known. Zack takes him to a chess club, where he introduces him to his partner Avi, they offer Green a deal, warning that they have his tests and he is terminally ill, he has a maximum of 3 days to live. Their conditions are as follows: they save his life from Maki, in return he gives them everything he has, and starts working for them.
I don’t know what happened to Besson and Richie after that, but from a rather intriguing film with an interesting plot, the film turned into a kind of apogee of absurdity. The main character suddenly becomes a schizophrenic with a split personality, the plot, which was so filigree built over the previous hour, is absolutely unnecessary, because the problem of the “second self” is built in the first place.
It's just a failure. Why put so many problems together in one movie without giving a single answer? Richie seems to have climbed the wrong steppe. Not him. In the end, only a spinning top was missing.
3 out of 10
play of reason, in the voice of conscience, with a noose around the neck
In any game there is always an opponent and there is always a sacrifice, the whole trick is to realize in time that you have become second and become first ... as there is no other way to become smarter than to play with a smarter opponent ... and the more sophisticated the game itself, the more sophisticated the opponent ... and who wants peace, prepares himself a war ... which cannot be avoided, it can only be postponed, to the advantage of your opponent ... for nothing causes such pain as humiliation and loss of money ...
When the euphoria passes... there’s something in each of us that we don’t even suspect is an existence that we’ll deny until it’s too late, and it makes no sense to us... that’s what makes us get out of bed in the morning, endure blood, sweat, and tears... and all because we want to show others how good, beautiful, generous, funny, and smart we really are; you can fear me or honor me, but please don’t consider me the same as everyone else... we are united by this addiction, we’re addicts sitting on the corner and we’re covering ourselves up... if we don’t get a chance to start with the truth... but we’t get it all from you, we’re ready to admit it all, and we’re ready to get it all from us...
And the movie is not over, the game is not finished, and the theme of struggle, self-effort is open, even if you wake up, even if you rule yourself, and have already gone to the eternal confrontation of vice and virtue, love and fear, diligence and indifference, where there are always immeasurable voices and no clear answers, and the rule is almost forgotten - what is still above profit ... but you know that it, they are still there, and that he is you.
Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34
The film ' Revolver' with a complex plot is full of philosophical reasoning. With the right understanding of the basic idea, one can embark on a path to spiritual awakening, however strange it may sound. After a few views run goosebumps all over the body with delight and the desire to revise, clarify the depth of the idea of this brilliant film!
The central figure of the film is Jake Green, who shows us his way through fear, pain and humiliation to freedom from inner dialogue with his ego, Mr. Gold. In the story, Mr. Green's ego makes him believe that there are rivals and there are victims, forces him to enter a fight in which it is impossible to win. But thanks to the lessons of life, in the person of Zach and Avi, he understands what is what.
Guy Ritchie laid bare the situation we are in like Jake, forcing us to think and take action to solve it. And the acting does not leave anyone indifferent, one only has to look at Jake’s unshakeable and peaceful face when Maka pointed his gun at him.
10 out of 10
I will try to explain my reaction to this film. I have seen all the works of the great Englishman. My favorites are "Big jackpot," "Cards, money, two barrels" and "Rock n = roller." I watched Sherlock Holmes. I didn’t just see the classic movies. I basically saw everything. Sherlock Holmes is a good entertainment (for the mind of entertainment too) movie. The first three are Guy's style. Unique, daring, London style. And sitting down to watch a movie under the formidable and cool name “Revolver”, I aimed at this style. And in principle, I would not be very surprised to see something like Sherlock.
But I was surprised. I didn't get it. I didn’t understand the film – both the plot and its morality, I didn’t understand why it was made at all. I have only one guess, Guy Ritchie splashed out all his thoughts and experiences, which accumulated in his intelligent and talented head. He was a great Englishman (forgive me). He saw his thoughts on the screen and was probably happy. How beautiful it sounds (and the movie is beautiful). He knows (or should at least know) what he wants to say. Close and other creators are probably also aware and happy to see. I'm not happy. Who would explain to me... I didn't understand...
Oh, come on. Jason Statham is the power, the brain here. Probably the first and only time. Many, many beautiful phrases and quotes. So many murders. Even for Guy Ritchie, a lot. And a very beautiful picture. And some pretty colorful characters. Although for the bar "characters in the movie Guy Ritchie" they did not reach. well, all but one - Mark Strong. There he is. Crazy funny. Crazy crazy.
Here is one of the most accurate thoughts and emotions about the film. And so to speak and assess difficult. It is necessary to urgently review the "Big jackpot".
Zugzwang is a position in chess in which any move you make only makes things worse.
Due to the fact that the film is filled with hidden meaning, it is so complex that it is impossible to understand it unequivocally, but it generates thinking after the credits, forces to turn on the brain after watching and think about the plot, this is extremely rare and this is what I probably liked.
There is a feeling that this film does not really carry any deep thoughts, but is presented so that you find them yourself. The plot actually resembles the reworked classic Count of Monte Cristo from Dumas, with the addition of mysticism, the enemy in himself, and psychic moves ' Fight Club'.
Everyone will understand the meaning of the plot in their own way, it is definitely worth seeing!
If you try to destroy the ego to save people, they will destroy you to save it.
The film-bomb, the film-revelation, the film-the answer to many human secrets, the film-the answer to pressing questions. Excellent plot, colors, music and acting. The main idea of the film, in my opinion, to convey to the viewer the whole essence of being. And the essence is something like this: within each of us there is an inner dialogue-our ego, which is conducted on Sex, Money, Glory and Power, our task is not to engage in this dialogue, overcoming fear, pain, humiliation, loss, etc. Only after passing through hardships and hardships, extorting yourself, overpowering and forcing you to act, not paying attention to the “radio” in your head, you can feel Freedom, Harmony, Confidence. This struggle with ourselves lasts a lifetime and is one of the main and important games we play. And, most likely, you can not come out of it finally the winner, but you can score a lot of bonuses by the end of the game, which, alas, will end in death. But, most likely, that’s the beauty: live playing.
I agree with all the positive reviews, they also contain a lot of worthy conclusions. It is very pleasant that there are so many people on the network who perceive such films not just as a thriller, but also look under the crust, digging a little deeper, and still healthy divide films into the right and all the rest.
Initially knowing that the director of the film Guy Ritchie, and the main characters are played by such actors as Jason Statham and Ray Liotta, I had no choice: to watch or not to watch, definitely – to watch! In the middle of the movie, I didn’t know what was going on. Speeches with the main characters, interrupted and not having a single meaning, a sharp transition from film to comic cause the same question - what the hell?! Many of Statham's actions, Jack Greene, raise the same question. For most of the film, I sat with the look on my face, ‘What just happened?!’ Why not?
The only thing I have left is that the main character is a schizophrenic with a split personality. And the constant voice in his head began to drive me crazy.
I won't hide it, it's not an empty film without a single idea, not at all. For example, there were dictums of the protagonist that you can really agree with, such as (not verbatim) “If you want to get smarter, play with a smarter player.” Of course there is something in this movie. But either the director could not shoot in such a way as to convey to me and, I think, other viewers what he wanted to say, or I simply do not have enough screws in my head to understand such a deep idea.
Bottom line,
Discarding all the mysteries of the film, the phrases of great people, you can describe the main idea of the film: do not succumb to fear, passion, love (including to yourself - Ego), which create prejudices, cloud your mind, think always, and then you will come to enlightenment.
This philosophy is not new. It is the foundation of Buddhism.
A movie.
This picture is not for the spectacle and cinemas.
The film is beautifully shot. The actors played truthfully and subtly. The music is harmonious. The main character of this film is me. I feel the main character. The picture is holistic, concise and not broken into unrelated scenes. I didn’t find anything in it.
You feel a distinct style - cold-blooded, sophisticated, thoughtfulness of every little thing, in a word mysterious, but not mystical. This picture is a mosaic of precious stones, which you look at point-blank, admiring the stones, and you can not see it fully with your eyes or feel it completely, appreciate it immediately. Only by assembling a mosaic of pieces in your head, you will understand then ' you will see ' with your mind that it is magnificent and created by a master. And with each re-view you open new pieces that describe the picture deeper.
I want to admire her endlessly.
You find the best opponent where you least look for him.
Many believe that Guy Ritchie’s biggest mistake, which hit him hard, was to marry Madonna. And I will say this: a much greater mistake was to infect her Kabbalistic ideas and try to partially implement them on the screen, and even within the framework of the genre of cinema, which the former Richie would have called “cool criminal action movie, rich in humor and unexpected plot twists.” Those who wish to evaluate these ideas can start with three main characters with the talking names Jake, Zack and Avi or with the concept of the devil and two guardian angels, and end with numerological research, and we go further.
The plot is based on Ritchie’s refrain of repeated (God forbid, do not forget) statements: 1) the simpler and more artless wiring, the more people will fall for it; 2) the only way to become smarter is to play with a smarter opponent; 3) what is in the epigraph; and a couple of quotes from Machiavelli and Caesar. It is funny that all these statements are very elegantly and much more interestingly implemented, for example, in Friends of Ocean, eleven, twelve and thirteen respectively. It is better to make a good film without super deep ideas than a bad film with them.
Already from the first frames, the gloomy tone of the picture and the dullness of the voiceover are striking. Instead of the usual cheerful soundtrack, you can enjoy Mozart, Vivaldi, Beethoven and other respected composers, whom I love very much, but consider inappropriate here. From time to time (sic!) animated inserts appear, making Richie painfully suspect of being overly impressed with Tarantino's Bill dilogy. The main highlight, the “cunning secret”, turns out to be sewn with white threads. The humour is the same as in the Titanic finale. And finally, by the end, the action turns into something worthy of Chuck Palahniuk, but ten times more depressing.
With acting, of course, the situation is not so bad. True, the weak involvement of Stetham in the filming process is immediately noticeable, but the case is saved by Ray Liotta, Andre Benjamin and the charming Mark Strong, who always looks extremely intelligent for the criminal genre. Operator work, installation - here too is not a failure. If you evaluate all the above, then it is not difficult to list the main problems of the Revolver: it is too easy to understand, there is nothing to ironize about it and there is no one to cling to. Fortunately, Ritchie was reanimated a little thanks to Rock and Roller and Sherlock Holmes (of course, if we consider the latter as another criminal-humorous action, and not as a film adaptation of Conan Doyle). And two blatantly bad works in filmography - not so terrible, as long as the muse did not leave! So with best wishes...
Revolver is kitsch in its purest form, a beautiful farce that for two hours tries to look like a spectacle deeper than it really is; a protest against everything irrational in cinema.
It will seem that Guy Ritchie, who, not wanting to secure the status of a director who makes a film about the relationship of a punk and dangerous uncle, suddenly decided to prove to the world community that his talent is enough for a very serious crime film, clearly overdosed with tinsel, polishing the picture to a blinding shine, but at the same time completely forgot about the script and the word measure, carried away by playing an aesthete director. And if there was a device capable of measuring the degree of absurdity, then, measuring the Revolver, the device not only became useless, it would explode from overvoltage. The Briton, cramming into the picture, it seems, all possible manifestations of postmodernism - from the change of the subconscious and the absence of final credits to animated inserts - in the end, finally entangled in the intricacies of the plot, made such a hellish cocktail of neon light, the Japanese, crime drama and a car-hit hero Jason Statham, or else there will be that little by little you doubt what is happening. As much as we would like, but a film in which the director, near the end, turns everything upside down, revealing the main mystery of the picture, and then says that this is not the end, that we are waiting for several more endings, it is impossible to take seriously.
I learned about the film on walking on social networks excerpt with a stopped elevator and a conversation with the inner voice. Interesting, the video hinted that the movie has something more than just “chasing, shooting, money, etc.”, something more than just a beautiful wrapper.
View
At the beginning of the film a lot of incomprehensible, confusing, which in itself attracts further viewing. And as the plot develops, only new mysteries are added that you want to solve together with poor Jake. Who are these guys who help him and at the same time force him to do unpleasant work? Why is he so humiliated? Who is Sam Gold and does he exist in the flesh? Why doesn't he touch these guys?
And only in the moment of conversation on the roof of the house everything begins to clear up. Sam Gold is the Ego that convinced him that he is you. But the Ego is only a part of us, the helm that thinks it's a ship. The effect would have been more impressive if I hadn't watched that damn video.
And this is the climax of the film, after which interest began to decline. The elevator scene. Jake received enough humiliation to make his inner voice grow louder. And now he's stuck in the place he least wanted to be: the elevator. The ego tries to protect itself from this, trying to return Jake to the shackles of fear. The ego doesn't care about Jake's suffering, but it and his false self-images shouldn't suffer. But Jake exposes that voice in himself. And a chic dialogue begins, ending with Jake Green realizing that that voice is only part of it. Now he chooses who to fear and who not. Emotions no longer possess him. For Mack, who met him on the 1st floor, it turns out to be an unpleasant surprise. He's used to pointing a gun at a man and he'll start to tremble with fear. So why isn't Jake shaking? Is he human? As a result, Maka himself falls into the trap of Gold and begins to shake.
The uncredited ending leaves a sense that nothing ends there, at least for us viewers.
Result
Jake’s path is one of liberation, enlightenment. But this movie isn't just about him. It's about us. We all have Sam Gold in us. You need to gather all your will in your fist and go where you least want to go. And at some point we will realize that it is not we who do not want it, but the voice within us.
10 out of 10
“His best wiring was that he made you believe he was you.”
The film explodes the brain in the truest sense of the word. The form of presentation of sacred knowledge about the essence of things is rigid, but effective for society. The film is riddled with quotes, Kabbalah, DAO and other instructions and passwords to Life.
About the film:
'What does it give me?'
The answer is simple: everything and nothing at the same time. Ideally, of course, the Mind does not make sense to kill, but to put it in a cage or reach consensus would not even interfere with absolutely everyone.
' I know you’re still there.
I can feel you dying.
I hear you knocking, begging for food.
Who among us is now shaking, begging for a dose?
Aren't you a little cramped?
You're right. Because the walls are already moving.
No food.
Sunshine too.
My eyes are open and restaurants are the opposite.
Get off me! Go away!
Find someone else who will fill you up, who will not feel your approach, and will not know when you will be near. '
Selfishness is a behavior that is entirely determined by thought...but whose thoughts are these? You’re sure they’re yours?...what’s scary?...then this movie isn’t for you yet...the mind should be gradually prepared for this kind of information...otherwise it can go crazy abruptly, and in a Game called Life it’s not very profitable...you will fall out of the game for example in schizophrenia and then from this kind of participation in Life...so read, observe and try gradually training your brain and body, and better through the body – Mind, like yogis for example (doing physical education for the brain), then you will be happy and the Mind will come into unity with the Soul.
The film reveals the secret of the game mode of life. . .
Watching Revolver for the first time, there was total chaos in my head. Everything is so unclear that I want to reconsider. Despite this complexity, the film is fundamentally simple. But Guy Ritchie has presented us with a simple truth in such a graceful light, in such a beautifully wrapped shell, that this very truth is hidden behind all this tinsel. I will not say that the film is ugly, moreover, the whole film is saturated with a charismatic style, which is pleasant to watch, and after a while you want to immerse yourself in it again. I was drawn to the revision (and, I have reviewed several times) the depth of this picture and its incomprehensible, the first time, meaning. Everyone sees it as a disadvantage, in my opinion it is a virtue. Films that you want to review, and in which every time you discover something new for yourself deserve to get into the collection of any gourmet.
With each new viewing, I am very pleasantly surprised by Jason Statham, here we do not see the typical bald thug who walks and ruins everything. Nope! Calculated, intelligent, cautious, unflappable, but at the same time obsessive and suspicious Jake Green. This is who Statham showed us, and he showed us as deeply as he can. After this role, the language does not turn to call him a bad actor. Together with Ray Liotta (Maka), the actors create the struggle of intellectual titans of the criminal business.
If you want to enjoy Revolver, you have to turn on your brain and imagination. Otherwise, you will be among those who vehemently criticize the film for its incomprehensibility. The film is built on images, footnotes, premises, veiled meanings, it should not be perceived as an artistic picture. Pure philosophy in a delightfully appetizing wrapper.
"I wish you'd put me in right away..." Ricci! The film was excellent!