Revolver is a Guy Ritchie movie, so I figured there'd be a lot of mayhem, with blazing gunfire, mumbled British dialog, and car chases. And Jason Statham is in it! But that's not really what I got. Instead, this is more of a psychological thriller, and that's not Ritchie's forte. There are more minds being blown than there are heads being blown off, that much I can tell you. Which made this movie a bit of a disappointment to me.Statham plays Jake Green, a gambler just out of jail after seven years. Soon after his release, he's winning games of chance left and right. Which doesn't sit will with his nemesis, one Dorothy (!) Macha (Ray Liotta), who owns the casino where Jake's winning his winnings. When Macha's goons go after Jake, he receives some unexpected help from a couple of strangers – the suave Avi (Andre Benjamin) and the burly Zach (Vincent Pastore). They'll keep Macha's hounds at bay, for a price – all of Jake's money and his willing participation in their own loan-sharking racket.This still sounds like a fun movie. And let's not forget, "revolver" is right there in the title, too. But as the story progresses, it becomes less and less about feuding and fussing and fighting than about mind games. Who are Zach and Avi? Is Macha insane? Why won't these people just shoot each other? The body count is way too low for this sort of genre thriller. Heck, after a while I began questioning my own eyes. Was Jake actually hallucinating the whole thing? Maybe Jake wasn't real, either. Maybe I was the one hallucinating! Maybe I'm in Purgatory, endlessly watching the same boring Guy Ritchie movie. It's not quite Hell – that'd be watching any Uwe Boll movie on a loop – but it feels just as tedious.Revolver seems like a baffling foray into a theater of the absurd for a director who's not known for overly cerebral flourishes in his work. That's not to say that Ritchie's earlier films are for dummies only – they're fun, visceral treats, for the most part, and a lot of fun. But this one? This one was dull and inscrutable. The novelty of seeing Jason Statham with hair wore off rather quickly, although he's just as good in this movie as he is in almost any other movie (except maybe Spy, where he was hilariously good). Liotta is an unhinged menace, as he typically is. It was nice to see Vincent Pastore playing someone who's not a low-level organized-crime fall guy, though. And Andre Benjamin is smooth. But no, and I fully intend this pun, Revolver is a misfire.

As a gangster movie, just a simple one. But if you (can) see it as the fight with the ego, it is a genius creation!I saw it at least 20 times, but each time it shows me something new.6,5 stars are way too low, so go and watch it again, open you eyes, and change your rating! ;)G

Surely those reviewers telling us to watch this movie at least three times before writing a review realize that this means the movie isn't getting its message across? It is not a case of the viewer being 'lazy', but that this movie is confusing. This movie sounded interesting, and initially looked interesting, but then when I started watching it, small cracks started appearing, growing larger and larger, until finally the whole movie just collapsed into a heap. That was around the 30 minute stage, when suddenly I realized that this movie must have been written by the same person that directed it.Looking up Revolver on IMDb quickly revealed that I was correct. Once again, the failure to have someone else carry out the checks and balances ensured that the movie would lack consistency and at times be confusing.Like when our domineering bad guy suddenly appears in a church like scene and acts subserviently to an older lady who is surrounded by a lot of younger ladies. Does that sound confusing? Well it certainly was. I'm sure the writer had a clear idea in his head, but it needed a (different person) director to point out that at times there wasn't enough information provided to the audience. Like when our hero suddenly falls down after reading a business card. Was the card coated in poison? Was he having a type of epileptic fit?Such a shame that once again all that money and acting talent was wasted by a bad script, and worse directing.

I do not write many reviews on here, for practical reasons, but I felt so compelled to for this. How wrong the critics (some of which I respect and admire) were. This is a review for the UK cut (fully loaded DVD edition). I avoided this film for so long because of how bad rocknrolla was and the god awful swept away plus the marketing and sleeve design of it too. However I felt redeemed by catching both Sherlock films back to back and I picked up the disc around the same time criminally cheap. So, like everyone probably thought when they first watched it, the first hour or so were filled with terrible dialogue, clichéd typecast performances, (apart from Andre 3000), redeemed by being glossed over with a great soundtrack, slick editing and superb cinematography that I nearly switched off believing everyone's vitriol towards it. However, the second half of the film hit me like a fast moving car. That scene in the restaurant is probably one of the most tense and stylish I've ever seen, especially the sound design (almost as though the co-writer Besson had directed that segment himself) and from there on in the film really threw curveballs and pulled the rug out like From Dusk Till Dawn did. Ah, so this ISN'T a straightforward cockney/American gangster flick! Lost is the tongue in cheek cheekiness of Snatch, which doesn't hurt, and replaced is sheer intelligence that would make Fincher proud. Getting to the end of the film was so rewarding. So much so I wanted to watch it immediately and not many films do that to me! I decided against, for various reasons practically, but I did re-watch the following night and I noticed so many things I missed first time hidden in plain sight through clever filming and editing conventions. A very brave move for Ritchie making this (even to the decision over the end credits) and my hats off to him. I do feel though that if Besson had actually made the film it would be reverred, no criticism at all about Ritchie's style just that some of the dialogue at the beginning was very cringeworthy. Hence my 9/10, even though I wanted to give it 10. Also worthwhile watching for Statham's best ever performance. Keen to see the U.S. cut now (why does this even have to happen producers? - you've only got it right once with Donnie Darko) but I've heard it's butchered. Ritchie's best film to date and true film art. This film would happily sit in a collection nestled inbetween The Limey, Gangster Number 1, Mulholland Drive, Fight Club and American Psycho.