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!
My problem in many ways lies in the fact that the verdict I endure, starting from the plot, and the director’s work, music, acting – all this goes by the wayside. In this picture, to reason otherwise would be wrong. Those who didn’t like the movie didn’t understand it. They were expecting a British gangster fighter, with a lot of gunfights and hard humor. Here, a completely different option is offered by the genius of Guy Ricci.
The whole material is built on several theses, which are the whales of this model. What are the pillars of the Revolver design?
The greatest enemy will hide where you least seek him.
Kit number one. A phrase thrown by Julius Caesar as early as 75 BC. The ancients understood more than ours. A Torah written, for example, contains a lot of theses useful for any psychologist or philosopher. That's not what we mean. Your biggest enemy is often yourself. He's hiding inside you, so you won't find him. Remembering your mistakes, you often realize that you simply did not have enough determination, or, on the contrary, did not keep yourself in control. Yes, sometimes there is this voice in your head that stops you when you need to act, or vice versa. In the end, your ego will always find an excuse for your failure.
The only way to get smarter is to play with a smarter opponent.
Keith number two. the phrase is taken from the Chess Tract, which does not exist in nature, apparently. I remember that my search for this work ended in nothing. The meaning of the phrase applies to almost everything. If you look at the forehead, it is a sporting principle. A strong adversary who is superior to yourself gives you, first of all, an incentive to strive forward, when the weak only relaxes and pulls down. Now apply that to the everyday life you've become so fond of as a consumer society.
The first rule of business is to protect your investment.
Kit number three. This dictum is from the etiquette of a banker from 1775, which is now in the archives, I have heard, though it may well not exist at all. The point is pretty clear. This rule is more than useful for the player, whether he is a bettor, a poker fan, or just a businessman. In life, investments are our efforts, invested in certain goals, and they must be protected. However, I am sure that many will understand this phrase too literally, then, as in the modern world, man became saturated with materialism from head to toe.
War cannot be avoided, it can only be postponed to the advantage of your opponent.
Kit number four. The good old Machiavelli and his "Sovereign." The greatest work, the best that can be for a leader and a politician. The postulates of "The Prince" are still alive. It is impossible to avoid, but it can be postponed. Why the advantage of the enemy? The answer is obvious: you are wasting time by giving your opponent time to prepare, whether it is a real opponent or driving yourself into a pit of lack of will, if it is about yourself. For those interested in politics and history, The Prince is a must read. This is the best work I have ever read, except after the Bible.
There are many brilliant phrases in the film, in general, a great place is paid to thought. After his release, Jake is left with nothing, but he has a formula for success derived from his prison neighbors. With the help of this formula, he gains wealth, and with it comfort. But at one point he has to give up what he has earned to save his life. This is where values change. Jake’s inner voice is his main enemy, but the main character comes to this only in the elevator scene, which is one of his fears.
I have no questions about the story, it is amazing. One can speculate about the reality of Jake’s two friends, but the film hints that they are also his fantasy. They evaporated from their solitary cells, leaving no trace, but in the memories of the protagonist, the police searched only his camera, or the pool scene, where the gangsters did not pay attention to the fat Zach and black Avi. I don’t agree with the ending. The fact is that our main enemy often imposes fears on us, so it is unlikely that Mako would actually shoot. Another thing is that in the picture this is explained by the fact that the fear of meeting with Gold simply outweighed the fear of his own death.
But the downsides of the film are plenty. It's too much, the movie is too long, that's a fact. Some episodes can simply be cut out, like knocking out debts from an Asian. A lot of people don’t understand the movie, a lot of people don’t even try. You can talk about it for a long time, because the scene itself deserves a separate conversation, some characters, such as Utilizer, for example, but let them do it professionally. I've said so much already.
With this script, Ricci went to all the big Hollywood studios and everywhere he was wrapped - they say, or it will not work, in short, a hopeless one. As a result of his ambition, only Luc Besson helped to realize it - with English and French actors without any Hollywood involvement. Except that there is Ray Liotta, whose fame has already faded a little, as the main villain Dorothy Mac. In a small episode, Madonna starred here, but during the editing, the loving husband carefully cut the scene with her. Yes, he did not get out of his criminal theme, but the comic that was in “Cards, Money, Two Guns” is no longer in sight. Everything is much darker and somehow more conceptual. Crime bosses, cold refined killers, big money and drugs are stable attributes of the genre. There are actually more than one or two barrels, and most of them shoot, the same actor Jason Statham has a beard and long hair. Humor still exists, but it is just insanely black.
First of all, the sharp, tough and intriguing Revolver is good for its atypical nature. Who, tell me, other than Guy Ricci (clearly influenced by Madonna with her fascination with Kabbalistics) would think of throwing so much mysticism into a gangster film with a plot of sophisticated revenge like Kill Bill or The Punisher? And he did it! For example, by introducing the omnipresent and omnipotent character Sam Gold, in which critics saw the devil. He is feared and respected by everyone, he is a great crime tycoon, but no one has seen him, and he will never see the end of the film. However, if desired, it can be seen at least a hint of the entire world behind the scenes, at least someone specifically from the owners of the memorable Federal Reserve System.
Revolver is a mystery film, a puzzle film, as much as it can be a criminal action. With a long backstory, numerous subtexts, abstruse quotes from Machiavelli, Caesar and chess textbooks. It is also quite likely that a sequel will appear in the distant future - the depth of the topic touched on allows it.
“The only way to get stronger is to play against a stronger opponent,” reads one quote in the film. That's what Statham's hero Jake Green does with success. Not only he plays, but also other characters - who at what - cards (for big money), chess (for nothing) or golf (on the roof of a skyscraper). One can only wonder why the themes of go or dominoes are also not disclosed here.
Quote:
- Chess and wiring are a dangerous combination.
Greene also reflects a lot and suffers from a split personality. It is this reflection that is atypical of Statham’s role in Revolver, whom we are already used to seeing in the images of strong mercenaries or tough policemen who do not suffer from special sentiments. And the atmosphere of Jake's heartache is brilliant!
Because of some scenes, I would be willing to watch Revolver over and over again. For example, how a refined killer nicknamed Recyclist works (this is where I first saw Mark Strong). Or because of the beautiful scene of the passage of the sinister delegation from Sam Gold and the dialogue of his main representative (what her name is there – did not remember) with Maka. Etc. and p.
I will not spoil frankly, but in the end it turns out that Green himself was a pawn in the game of virtuoso breeding. Or a chip that brings players money. Who likes it best? But it's not for nothing. The main thing is that after coming out of all the troubles, he becomes even stronger and more experienced. But why the film is called “Revolver”, and remained unclear. It was quite possible to call it “English Gambit”, “Grandmaster with a gun” or something else in chess.
This film is not for everyone and not for everyone.
The picture was shot very qualitatively, some moments are simply unforgettable (slow-motion shooting when a car crashes into Jack, etc.), which resembles footage from a good video clip.
Look for complexity and strength in content. Voice-over from the first person enhances the psychology of the picture and even more tunes the viewer to himself. What about your self? Everything okay? Are you sure? But don’t forget the whole story, otherwise you may not understand the story of Jack Green. And she deserves understanding and insight. Behind trades, games and money lies a deep introspection. And, unfortunately, not everyone has this introspection available. I cannot give the film too high a rating due to the excessively deliberate complexity of the hero’s speech, especially his thoughts. Too much in the picture of the second Greene. Or maybe the first one. The film is really decent, but it was shot for “his” audience, so, as usual, I will not advise everyone to watch it.
And finally, a quote from the film, with which I can not disagree:
We are drug addicts sitting on the needle of approval and recognition
7 out of 10
P.S. After watching, try not to discuss the film with anyone, sit for 10 minutes and think about your own life, your second, third (or how many of them there are) “I”.
Scratched a couple of simple lines of last resort, at the end of a hard day and mostly for those watching as usual. I watched the movie for the third time and very carefully. Color green, didn't miss. Let's go.
A little bit more director would have fooled me like on a boring couple, and the review would be gray, about how I played Tetris on the phone, but a couple of interesting points do not allow for such actions. I'll focus on those moments later. Now let's talk about the bad. In truth, when I saw it for the first time, I drove into what was happening by about 10%, in the second – by 50%, now I understand almost everything, but I missed the main thing again. No problem, let it be so, but the fact that the story takes such a strange look, gives the impression - either I am a fool and do not understand anything about "philosophy", or someone else. All right, to hell with the leaky script, I'm the one who loved this movie. And not for endless thinking about power, wiring, money. So I see two major flaws. The script does not reveal the end, the beginning and the characters. There is also an excessive philosophy with the prefix “pseudo”. Keep going. Power, as one of the main “complex” issues of the tormenting GGs, did not manifest itself normally, well, they did not show that anyone has moral weight, except for the abstract Mr. Gold, who, like God, sees everything, hears everything and fiercely punishes the undesirable, but in life, of course, everything is not so. I could have added more tar, but we won’t go into details.
Loved this movie for the elaborate character of heroes such as Green, Mac and Recyclist, the latter is now an idol. Mark Strong played it perfectly, I remember. Very interesting, but we do not explain who they are, you can only create a stereotyped image, connecting logic, there is almost a balance. A great contrast of confrontation is created, a ground for hatred and sympathy. I like some monologues, reasonable quotes. Filmed correctly, without unnecessary effects, beautiful, and original. Although there are scenes that would be better not shown, unfortunately. The family is not without a freak. And although there are too many of these freaks, I'm happy to remember the good things I've seen in almost two hours. But no matter how hard I try, I cannot forget that unpleasant feeling of ruined hopes, some unfulfilled expectations. The irony worked fine, Richie, but not the movie.
This movie is really great. However, not everyone can appreciate this. As already correctly written in the reviews on KinoPoisk - that is why there are so many bad reviews and frankly enthusiastic. For those who do not have a certain knowledge base (quite extraordinary, I will tell you), this film will seem strange, incomprehensible, heavy. The common man will be tired, and perhaps irritated by it.
But those who have the necessary knowledge will see in this film such depth that they will never forget about it and will review it again and again, because it is not just a film, but a real practical guide. It’s incredible that someone could make such a movie!
I can add that very few people really understand all the details and the meaning of the film. If you think Mr. Gold is greed or vice, that's a misinterpretation. Good, also useful, but not the one that Richie intended.
And only if you understand why Mr. Greene has a surname ' Green' (no connection to money) and why Ave tells Greene in the car: 'There is no problem in the world, Mr. Greene. There are only situations' (correct translation without ' unpleasant'), then you really know what (or who) this film is about and what it is about.
P.S. This movie needs to be reviewed, revised and revisited. And when you think you've understood everything, review it over and over again.
10 out of 10
The minds of a brilliant chess player and fraudster
The only film in my memory, the creation of which was attended by two famous cinematographers Englishman Guy Ritchie (both director and screenwriter) and Frenchman Luke Besson (as a screenwriter and co-producer) and was expected to release another supernova, a thumping blockbuster. In fact, everything turned out to be wrong, according to the overwhelming majority of critics and viewers "Revolver" and not nearly compared with "Map money and two barrels" and "Big Kush".
In "Revolver" quite noticeable was the change of the main genre, which gave fame to Guy Ritchie. Two of his above pictures were adventurous crime comedies, generously supplied with black English humor, but "Revolver" turned out to be a crime film slightly related to drama. For the viewer, who was waiting for the next masterpiece of Guy Ritchie, the lack of humor and colorful characters instantly played on the perception of the picture.
Another point of some perplexity from "Revolver" was the finale of the film, which gave more questions to the plot and development of the action than answers. There was a feeling that Guy Ritchie and Luke Besson more bellow than gave a pleasant aftertaste from the phenomenal ending, which could please Guy Ritchie.
To the pluses, I took the purely English style, the aura that enriched all the scenes in the tape and the skillful acting of the actors. It seems that the operator Tim Maurice-Jones did not shoot panoramic footage of London in the picture, but subconsciously you feel the atmosphere of the capital of Albion.
And the actors. The main role in the favorite Guy Richie Jason Statham. He played in the previous works of the director, but all the time was more in the background, but in "Revolver" he is the "main player". Strict, stressed, intelligent and charismatic in "Revolver" Statham has not yet entered the role of one image, which at the moment is very pleasing to the eye. Good, as always, in the image of the bad guy, crime boss Ray Liott, psychopaths always suited him, and at the end of the film he was generally, according to the creators, very much like many of his roles, but opened as if from the inside. A bright tandem of contrast was created by Andre Benjamin and Vincent Pastore - a very suitable tandem for the film, well emboldened and the actors also tried. And I liked the image of the killer Mark Strong. Probably, this character displayed the whole action of the tape: unexpected, mysterious, not quite clear, but dangerous and dynamic, like sharp claps of a gun from a silencer, which was skillfully used by the hero Mark Strong.
This, again, is not the best work of Guy Ritchie, but as a film you can not refuse. If you like puzzles, then "Revolver" will do.
The greatest enemy will hide where you least seek him.
Honestly, when I started watching the movie, I expected to see a picture like Big Kush. That is, the movie is strong, but not a masterpiece. Because of this, I was so amazed by the action I saw. the answers to the questions why the film Revolver so liked me, and why I advise everyone to watch it I will try to give in this review.
(1) Plot
The main merit of Guy Ritchie is that he left the previous scheme and created a film not about criminal infrastructures of different levels, but about each of us. This book is about how to become a successful person. The director suggests that there is a part in each of us that prevents us from being free. This film is by far Richie’s best creation. In this work of art there are phrases of many philosophers, commanders and other famous people. These quotes are added not for beauty, but carry a great semantic load and help divide the film into components, each of which allows you to see the overall picture of the action.
2) Actors
I must say right away that I haven’t seen a performance of this quality anywhere. I especially want to highlight Ray Liotta. He became a criminal authority. I’m not afraid to say he’s the best actor in the movie. Jason Statham is here in an unusual role as a thinker. But the Englishman did his part with dignity. The discovery to me was Mark Strong. The actor is talented, but always playing not the main roles.
3) Music series
It would seem that here special-take classical music, added a little modern and ready. Many not-so-good films also have immortal pieces of music. But Revolver isn't that kind of movie. Any melody organically fits into what is happening on the screen. Many scenes, especially in the restaurant, are very well known to people who do not like such films at all.
In conclusion, I would like to wish Richie to continue to make such films.
Good to see you!
A complicated movie. It’s hard to understand the first time, I’ll definitely watch it again someday. Also, it's very stylish. In general, it seems to me that this is not just a thought, but a thought in a beautiful shell.
It's a message, but wrapped in a gangster thriller wrapper. Because of what there is a paradoxical fusion in perception. You seem to solve the criminal mystery of who wants to steal whom, who wants to kill whom and why it is necessary, but at the same time you solve a completely different story - the story of the main character Jake Green.
He's kind of going through a catharsis. They will be tested and cleaned up. From who? From your main opponent, your ego. The whole idea of the film is aimed at a clash, a game, a tournament with you. There is a man and he fights his opponent, his fear. It is important not to accept it, but to purify.
At first Greene lived in prison, he spent many years there, but not alone, he had friends who taught him how to play. Then he got out, but he stayed in that inner prison. He chased money, success, wealth, but could not carry it. And that started killing him because the game he was playing was too serious for him. He was still afraid, afraid of death, afraid of the non-existent Gold, afraid of humiliation. And fear is associated with a big ego. The main enemy of man is what is inside him. Not external evil, but himself. And he can do anything.
I first saw it in 2005. I was immediately swayed by veiled gangster dialogue with an admixture of “chess” and “breeding” and the impeccable game of Ray Lotta. For the sake of juicy phrases and replicas, for several years I have revised it at least 5 times.
But the turning point came when he began studying Castaneda. When I read his last book, I immediately ran to revisit Revolver. And so, after 3 views, I managed to partially remove the veil from the dialogues of this masterpiece.
Sam Gold
Version 1: Mercantility, greed, gluttony, carnal pleasures, intoxication from power.
Version 2: The material world that holds a person in its fetters, not allowing him to look beyond his nose (in terms of spiritual growth). This puts pressure on a person, not allowing him to get out of the wheel of reincarnation and reach Buddhahood, to enter Nirvana. This is Samsara.
Version 3: From the point of view of the Castaneda paradigm, this is the Tonal.
Zack and Avi
Version 1: Part of Mr. Green's enlightened self, which are endowed with wisdom and help suppress ego and selfishness, help kill the dark side of Green's soul. Kill fear, love of power and money, etc.
Version 2: It is the spirit guides/angels (' Allies' according to Castaneda) who lead Green out of the spiritual vacuum. How Virgil brought Dante.
How do angels lend money and then kill debtors? Answer: Money usurers is good and bright karma. The angels give a person good/wisdom in loans, he must repay in return, but with %. Naturally, a person can only consume, and there will never be love and good in return, so these usurer angels take the life of such people. Note that all debtors are old people, people who are too late to change something in themselves. Older people don’t have enough energy to kill their egos and start seeing the world. #39 Time is running out, and there is no money (goodness, love, and happiness) for them. As a result, their lives are taken away by usury agnesels. The only young debtor was Green himself, who, nevertheless, found the strength to change the picture of the world & #39; He took lessons of wisdom from the angels and repaid by becoming free from Sam Gold’s chains and ego, etc., perhaps turning into an angel himself.
The main gangster (Ray Liotta)
Version 1: It may be a demon that exists inside Mr. Greene's spiritual body. And with various techniques, Green makes the demon disappear from his life. And the whole film is a fight between the angels Zach and Avi with the demon Macca.
Version 2: It is shown how a person who has suppressed the passions for profit and power, who is completely out of Gold’s control (selfishness, money, material world) is fighting a man who is completely immersed in the networks of samsara.
In the film I did not see, due to my erudition of course, something from the Kabbalah, but Castaneda this tape is completely stitched!
PS 1: To understand the film, you need to be well acquainted with Castaneda (This is my opinion, cozying up with Carlos Castaneda helped rethink the film).
PS 2: Film critics who call the revolver "cinematic schizophrenia" are simply out of the question. It's an elite festival film.
Those who used to be content with ' spiritual fast food' - this film will not be to taste. This is not an action movie, not a comedy or a horror movie. For an adequate perception of this picture, at least intelligence is required.
But intelligence, in turn, also limits the perception of the spiritual background of both this film and the universe in general. That's what it's about. The essence of the film is closest from the classics to the works of Carlos Castaneda. The basic principles of the spiritual growth of the individual are taken from there, or at least strongly resonate with them, as in Fight Club 39.
The cornerstone laid in the wall by the limiting personality from itself is the Sense of Self Importance, the stages and ways of dealing with this inner enemy with the help of external elements guided by spiritual elements ' benefactors' just shown in this film. The liberation of the true Self, from a set of habits, patterns of behavior and complexes that many mistakenly believe to be their personality, is the main goal of spiritual initiation facing a person who has realized the illusory nature of the Game and its rules. The path of the most difficult struggle - with himself - gets the main prize - freedom!
This is the first movie by the famous director Richie that I have seen. Even the famous "Cards, Money, Two Guns" have not yet been seen. And now I doubt what I want to see. To put my impression very succinctly, I would prefer that Madonna's husband be a carpenter.
Perhaps it is a representative of the so-called art house. The film search claims "thriller, drama, crime, detective." I think it's just crazy, all 2 hours.
As he forced himself to examine, he tried to guess which drug addict or schizophrenic he had composed. To my amazement, the script is written by Guy Ritchie and Luke Besson. I've seen some of the last movies. Not all are equally good, but all are sane. Hence, Richie's crazy. By the way, on Besson's page about the Revolver it says "adaptation". I don't know what that means. I suppose he was trying to translate Richev’s visions into human language. I can’t imagine what happened before the adaptation. . .
I am very interested in the motives of those who have appeared here. Actually, I know two people. Ray Liotta is not a first-rate actor. Maybe he was paid enough to show off his naked ass. Statham's cooler, but not Al Pacino either. Let's say his fee covered the appearance with a stupid hairstyle of licked long hair. But did they see the script?! Is it worth doing everything for money? Ranevskaya and her “spit into eternity” would not understand them.
Acting isn't bad. The work of the operator and other specialists, as far as I know, is good. Unfortunately, I won’t say anything about the soundtrack. I was so busy with futile efforts to understand what was happening that the music in the background not only did not appreciate, but simply did not notice.
Again, my review briefly. There's gunfire, intentionally hypertrophied piles of money, blood, even boobs. There are internal dialogues in the style of “Am I a sage who imagined himself a butterfly, or a butterfly who imagined himself a sage?” Nevertheless, I do not recommend watching any action lovers, lovers of philosophy and psychology, or anyone at all.
At first he wrote the above, and then began to read reviews. The book 3,500 Film Reviews agrees with me: a vivid example of "cinematic schizophrenia." And most of those who subscribed to Imkha and Kinopoisk liked it. And, to my deep surprise, I didn’t just like it: “masterpiece”, “genius idea”, “we need to take notes and study”, “wonderful film”, “I watched it 20 times probably”... I was especially impressed by “The best movie in the history of the film industry!” After reading these assessments, I went crazy even more than the pseudo-masterpiece itself. To write “I disagree with this” is too soft. To my taste, these reviews fit the film as little as the title, that is, exactly zero percent.
I saw this movie for the first time a long time. I watched it again, then again and a few more times. Today I watched it again and I can say for sure – this film is impossible to understand until the end!
He'll be here soon, and you won't even notice.
One simple and obvious question: "Who is Sam Gold?" He lives in all of us, but we may not know. It controls us, but we think it's our own decisions. He is our best friend, whom we always protect and for whom we are ready to give our lives. No one sees him, but he sees everyone.
Great interpretation of the inner voice. Indeed, everyone can remember a hundred times when the inner voice helped him out in a difficult moment. But if you think about it, you can recall three hundred more cases when this voice failed, was wrong, or even remained silent. So who is he? Guardian angel or demon? A selfless defender or an evil tormentor? This is for everyone to understand on their own.
They're new friends and I'm old!
For the sake of the elevator scene alone, it is worth watching this movie. Of course, it was supposed to happen in the elevator, because Jake is mortally afraid to ride in them. In addition, the building does not have a thirteenth floor, so the elevator was stuck between the twelfth and fourteenth floors. This is how the decisive battle with ourselves takes place. In this battle, Jake has the upper hand, but in the finale he says he knows he is still inside. "I can feel you dying." But will he die?
It turned out to be a very good movie with a very deep meaning. There is something to think about, and, probably, no one will remain indifferent after watching. Next time you ask yourself, “Am I a victim?” Is my opponent hiding inside me?
9 out of 10
Movie ' Revolver' about how a tandem of initiates in something, produce the rite of initiation-initiation of a smart guy Green. A good slogan for this tape would be the phrase: “Everyone works for himself to the extent of understanding, and to the extent of misunderstanding on who understands more.”
Guy Ritchie talentedly and intelligently initiated an unlimited circle of people into the existence of the intangible Mr. Gold, who rules people using their weaknesses and fears. Because it is the deepest and most competent film director.
In addition, "Revolver" is useful to those who are fond of conspiracy theory, as an illustration of a variety of rites of initiation into esoteric knowledge.
Everyone has long known that Guy Ritchie is a master of his craft. Each of his works is filled with a unique style, the spirit of this director. His films are revered by many people, but this film is considered the most underrated. Why? The film may seem strange, perhaps ridiculous, some will say that it is an attempt to swing at other people's work with great success. But I’m not writing to understand this. I am writing to praise this tape.
The plot tells about a guy Jack Green, who because of the pressure on the family of his brother sat down at a card table, and due to circumstances was in prison. Sitting for 7 years in solitary confinement, he met two more recidivists who were aces in their business. During the years spent in prison, they taught him their tricks, and then they were going to escape. But the guys decided to leave Jack and left, taking all the stashes in his house, which he did not forget to mention during his years in prison. But they taught him the right skills, thanks to which he quickly got on his feet, annoying the local casino owner, robbing him in fair play. That’s the background here...
It seems that at first everything seems incomprehensible: a shootout, a chase, some talk, a little catch the thread of the conversation, and then — boom, Richie is already running forward. Gatz skillfully shuffles cards in front of us, leading us by the nose. He's kind of playing with the audience. Everything is so filigree and masterfully executed that in some moments I was just delighted! It seems to me that Guy Ritchie just didn’t have enough time to express everything that he had, so to speak, boiled. But he still brought general ideas to us, and the time spent watching was not in vain. The film leaves an interesting aftertaste, it will be happy to review, as it does not load and at the same time it is very useful for the brain - gives food for thought. As a result, the plot and directing receive the highest score.
The cast is simply torn from familiar names and surnames, and there is really nothing to complain about. The whole film is animated by Jason Statham, who played the role of Jack Green. If someone says that Jason only acts in stupid action movies, where he does not play, but just shows his brutal face with a wide smile, then he simply did not see this film, and after watching it, you will surely change your opinion about this actor. He has good potential and monstrous charisma, and here he worked hard. Another memorable game Mark Strong in the role of "Utilizer" and Ray Liott in the role of the owner of the casino Maki. Here you can immediately see that the guys worked not for money, but for a good result, which in itself is commendable, so the performance of the actors was excellent.
Everyone will find what they want here - someone will see their favorite actors, someone - a beautiful action movie with a famously twisted plot, and someone will just watch the film of their favorite director. But one thing is clear - no one will leave indifferent.
Very deep film. But some may think that this is a typical film about the mafia, about their competition, and so on. In principle, all these elements are present here, but it is not so simple. This is far from a militant and the name does not answer for itself. Why the Revolver? I don't understand. The so-called “revolver” was in the film only a couple of times, and the role was not played, probably. In one of his interviews, Guy Ritchie said that this is just a beautiful name, but really beautiful.
The main character Jack, played by brutal Jason Statham, seven years ago fell into an unfortunate situation. When he got out of prison, he wanted to take back his territory and try to resolve everything peacefully, but of course, without the "guns" can not do. The hero is talking to himself and it’s very strange. It's not even weird, it's crazy. But you can't call him crazy. There are several personalities in his head. One is a calm and balanced person, and the other is a so-called “friend” who pushes Jack around.
Deep speeches and philosophical meaning are enough here. Therefore, it is impossible to call this picture a typical gangster militant. The plot itself seems to be not particularly complex, but it is presented in some complex wrapper. Guy Ritchie’s stylistic direction makes you look and think. Sometimes, a sharp change of frame begins to irritate, I was not annoyed, just differently you can treat it. The action scenes here are not enough (unlike the Rock-N-Roller), but such a depth of soul in the script, such as I have not seen in any work of Guy Ritchie.
I don’t know much about the cast, but Jason played great here. Here, his character is not like other Statham heroes. Most of Statham's characters are silent killers (the Mechanic, the Carrier), but it's a joy. And here he played perhaps his best role. So vividly express the emotions of your character, so cool to display his rage and at the same time his calm. After the first hour of viewing, the film begins to annoy (a little), but the ending itself will cover everything.
The film itself is very complex and may not appeal to all viewers. It's not a typical action movie, it's more than that. It is a shame that the director did not receive any award for this film. This is definitely one of his best works.
The genre of intellectual cinema is gradually disappearing into oblivion. That's what I've been thinking about for the last couple of months. And I began to think for a reason, but because in my desire to see something fresh and not stupid, I began to constantly bump into a wall. And the name of this wall is stupidity. Everywhere you spit the same scenarios and predictable endings. Over the past year, I can recall five films in which I was really surprised. I looked at a hundred different pictures. And that's why I have to watch old movies more and more.
Today I would like to write about Guy Ritchie’s film “Revolver”. To call it old language does not turn, but for me this picture is a kind of classic. "Revolver" is at the junction of the genres of psychedelics and crime. Quite an unexpected mix, but I think it's very successful. Guy Ritchie has shown that business tycoons are human and have their own devils in their heads. Thank you so much for that. They are not bulletproof sages. Let them smell the smell of madness.
To be honest, I didn’t want to watch Revlver, but the stagnation in the genre of intellectual cinema just made me see this creation of Guy Ritchie. And I was pleasantly surprised that the film was much better than I had heard of it. Before watching, I went to the page to see the actors and saw an unusually low rating of critics. And a two-point assessment and a negative review of a person who calls himself a critic. And you know what I want to say after watching Revolver. I don't care about critics. What do they know about cinema? Appreciating a movie for money is already unworthy, and to make verdicts for a film because it is so fashionable it is completely stupid. I've ignored critics before, but that was the last straw.
The most interesting thing, in my opinion, that put the film in reproach, is actually its merit. As I said before, a mix of genres, an extraordinary approach to lighting and shooting, and a general departure from the standard “rules” of shooting. How can you blame that? Many respected directors have long and successfully shot according to their own ideas about cinema and for this they are, in fact, loved and respected. So why did everyone lash out at Guy? That's why his film is a challenge. Challenge standard ideas about shooting and the genre of crime. Like Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction." It was only then that all these "critics" had to come to terms with Quentin's genius. But sadly, Guy Ritchie wasn't lucky. His film has been omitted. They are in the literal and figurative sense. Low box office, unreasonable negative reviews and output in England immediately on DVD. All this was supposed to throw Guy off his rut, but he managed that he couldn't help but rejoice.
The movie "Revolver" tells us about the magnificent wiring of Jake Green. He is a smart man and a talented player, only all these advantages are not overbought by one huge minus.
I don’t recommend reading to anyone who hasn’t seen the movie. Boldly skip my review and watch this magnificent film from the master of the genre.
And the downside is he's schizophrenic. Only he won't know about it until a certain point. That's certainly not surprising. Seven years in solitary confinement will make even those who do not have them go crazy. So in prison he read a lot about games, wiring and just about life. And there he came up with his grand plan. A plan on how to make a lot of money. And that plan worked.
The most interesting thing, in my opinion, is not the wiring itself and the style (which is simply stunning), but the dialogue. They may be a little sloppy, but they make sense. There are so many secrets throughout the film. Mr. Gold (a very telling name, isn't it?) is really just an image of reckoning. Snake temptor. The abundance of blue and finding the hero Ray Liotta in it also suggests certain thoughts. Blue is a concentric color, it devotes everything only to itself. This color has no bottom, it never ends, it draws into itself, intoxicates. The power of color is underestimated. He creates a precondition for deep reflection on life; he calls to find meaning, truth. But! does not give an answer in understanding the meaning of life; drives into melancholy, weakness. How exactly the inner state of the hero Liotta is conveyed only by color, as well as gait, movements, speech. Interested and searching viewer will find in this film an abundance of beautiful mysteries.
Now, the actors. The discovery for me was Jason Statham. In another painting by Guy Ritchie, “Cards, Money, Two Guns,” he was not expressive. And all his subsequent roles were not distinguished by an abundance of speeches and were reduced to playing biceps and shooting from everything that shoots. In Revolver, he just shines. His dramatic potential is playing to the fullest. All the muscles on his face are now twitching not from physical pain, but from mental pain. This is a huge step forward. Ray Liotta also surprised me. I didn't expect him to do that. He played even better than Jason Statham. And his monologue in front of the elevator in his pants. Just a sight. The rest of the actors remember little, well, perhaps, except for a couple that instructed Jason.
Musical accompaniment is also at the level. Guy Ritchie was always famous for his musical taste (like Madonna’s husbands), but here he was chic. I especially liked Beethoven’s moon sonata. I also note a rather non-standard manner of shooting, which is no better suited to the manner of narration. I really enjoyed working with light. The sharp contrasts on the screen echo the contrasts in consciousness. It’s an amazingly well-designed effect.
Overall, the film was the most intelligent. There are smart phrases, and chess, and cards and so on. But he's smart, and Guy Ritchie proves it to us. Look at everyone and don’t care about the critics.
9 out of 10
