For several years now, I’ve believed I’m one of Guy Ritchie’s biggest fans. Obviously, Madonna comes first, but let’s say I’m in the first 10, OK?
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch are some of my all-time favorite crime comedies. Most critics find these formulaic, but hey, that’s what makes them such good comedies. This is Spinal Tap is formulaic too and this only adds humor.
I also like complicated plots. As long as the beat’s all right, I’ll watch all night. Both of Ritchie’s previous “crimes” are high energy pieces that are fun to watch.
Now, Ritchie’s lost it.
I have no other explanation. Revolver shares many common elements with Ritchie’s previous movies, yet, all the shots are blanks.
The movie starts with an aphorism on war. Then another. And a third. I didn’t know what to make of them so I welcome the sight of Jake Green (Jason Statham) as he’s released from prison. It appears, he spent the last 7 years in solitary confinement (wrongfully accused too). His only company were his two neighbors (solitarily confined as well): one a chess master, one a top con artist.
Jake is under the impression that being in between these two great minds, he got the formula for the con of all cons. He could be right as in no time he manages to get himself a ton of cash from casino owner, Macha (Ray Liotta).
It’ll be naïve to think that Ritchie will stop here in terms of the plot: Jake (good) vs. Macha (evil). Macha predictably orders a hit on Jake. Jake survives because of two mysterious guys, Zack(Vincent Pastore) and Avi (Andre Benjamin).
This is where the movie starts its downward spiral. The dialog leading up to this point wasn’t spectacular either but now the whole movie bogs down. There are a few notable scenes but they’re rare and far in between: Jake’s brother being nailed to the table; a hitman who turns “good” and proceeds to kill all the bad guys… Well, that’s it.
With Revolver, Ritchie’s playing double or quits. I do admire him for his courage to go the same route for a third time BUT make it a mystery/con/transcendal movie. He didn’t want to repeat Snatch verbatim, so he took a more different approach. Well, it doesn’t work so maybe he’ll do something different next time.
Speaking of next time, I suggest he teams up with his mate Matthew Vaughn. They did an incredible job in Lock, Stock and Snatch. Since they parted ways, Matthew Vaughn did the equally bad Layer Cake. If I have to really compare the two, however, Revolver is much, much worse.
Ritchie’s third time unlucky – the movie still doesn’t have a US Distributor! Or maybe, that’s luck – pure and simple. This movie is best kept as far away from the first two movies as possible; preferably swept under a rug.
Update: Some of the comments below seem a bit extreme. Before you post another, please check my recent post on my comments on the Revolver review. I do believe that that any Revolver explanation will fall short, whatever Cabalah you’ve been reading. For some quality entertainment, check out Steve Ballmer’s Developers video.
You’re and idiot.
Says who? The Associated Press? Come on …
revolver is a great film it made me laugh alot and actually made me think a bout a film…AND WTF LAYER CAKE IS SHIT AND WTF U CHATTN BOUT THIS IS WORSE..THIS FILM IS GREAT YOU ARE JUST TO DUMB TO UDNERSTAND IT AND HAVE NO INTELECT TO EVEN TRY TO UNDERDSTAND IT CUS UR TOO SIMPLE NOW STFU GIVING GREAT FILMS DODGEY REVIEWS AND GET A REAL JOB U MIGHT BE GOOD AT
Hey Tovey, let’s just agree to disagree, OK? Glad you liked the movie … you’re probably one of the few.
Hey, I agree with Admin – “Revolver” is unnecessarily complicated. It has few good moments (ie. Sorter killing baddies, scene in restaurant), but it not as good as previous Guy’s movies…
Thanks MSaint. I am a person who loves to give a second chance so I plan to give Revolver a second chance. By the time the DVD comes out, I’d have probably recovered from my first impression.
As I said, it’s BAD compared to the other two movies which I considered very good and entertaining.
I’ve read some film explanations (I can give link to this – but it’s written in polish
), but conclusion is always the same – it’s too much complicated to understand the truth without making many simplifications with the story… a failed try to copy “Fight Club” and Tarantino films IMO.
Yep, Ritchie needs to put it behind him and try something new…
Revolver to me was a could have been good film but did get totaly lost in its self.After viewing i was first afraid it may have been me that just was not intellectual enough to grasp its plot,but here im quite relieved to hear people giving an honest opinion .I like Guy Ritchie films as much as the next guy ,but if everyone told him all his films were good he wouldnt try as hard on the next one .However i still will eagerly await his next project through credit of his previous outstanding attemps in lock and snatch .Resolver quite rightly should be forgot about if possible and lets move on.
Hey Paul W, totally agreed. Guy definitely deserves another chance and I’ll give it to him
You’re just getting the plot all wrong. Guy pulled a con on the audience. Mr. Gold is the bad guy. Mr. Gold represents greed! Mr.Gold represents that voice inside of our head telling u to do the most profitable thing. Anyway, just “google” for some explanation =P i can’t explain it all here.
You’re a moron who doesn’t understand the underlying plot.
Stick to movies with Vin Diesel.
I usually don’t post comments for things like this, but I feel that the above descenting comments are not just harsh, they’re pathetic and juvenile. The majority of those with negative comments have simply attacked the author. Poor tactics – and very non-intellectual.
I found the film exquisitely stylish – the visuals, camera angles, editing, etc. are fantastic. However, while I enjoyed the first part of the movie’s storyline, my opinion is that it simply became lost. Neither myself nor any of my family who I watched it with fully understand it. And that’s a first in all the movies we’ve watched.
I would like to understand it, but despite the fact that everyone just says “‘Google’ for an explanation”, I have yet to find one. I’m not writing the film off entirely, but until I can find a good explanation, I’m certainly not recommending it to anyone.
I’m definitely not writing Mr Ritchie off. In fact, I eagerly await his next film – whatever it may be.
It’s unfortunate, I want to like this film but I just can’t, it’s just trying way too hard. I think Guy just listened to the excellent Plastikman track ‘Ask Yourself’ and got inspired.
for anyone who hasnt seen any of guy ritchie’s movies, please do not judge his work based on this movie- everyone is allowed failures!
look up “snatch” and “lock stock and 2 smoking barrells”
you really have to be a guy ritchie fan to even remotely enjoy this film.
i agree with all the previous posts that the movie tries way too hard, and that only guy ritchie himself can shed light to some of the themes explored in the movie, most notably, mr. gold. maybe it’s on the dvd? (i saw it on my computer
)
(un)fortunately, i am a guy ritchie fan, so i will add this movie to my collection.
The mass confusion is expected, and somewhat understood on my part. First of all, watching Esquire Andre is a pleasure. The style and sophistication of his role suggests that his performance alone is worth the euros to see it. As for Vincent Pastore who synonymous with American gangster cinema, his role could have been cut from the script entirely. In my opinion, Mousier Richie attempted to use the storytelling method of the Russian novel in the telling of the script. Compare to Notes from the Underground, The Gambler, or War and Peace. Notice how the characters simply move in and fade out without fanfare or warning. The exception is the protagonist who tears himself from the inside out.
To the fellow critic who saw Fight Club(I would add A Beautiful Mind as well) I completely agree. Yet, how else can one depict multiple personalities? I love the idea of watching a man play chess with himself and gloating in superiority as his overcomes himself. Certainly good for a row.
As for the shots, don’t be ridiculous. Go watch Casino again and marvel as the same lighting and shots are used over and over again.
The only part I truly was disgusted with was Andre’s lines near the end. The idea of “fighting the Mr. Gold in us all” was pathetic and should have been ducked all together.
I would also admit the movie was forced upon us all at some points. Compare to Lost In Translation when Bill Murray is for the first time on the elevator with the other citizens of Japan. The shot clearly shows the height difference as to clearly show that there are clear differences between the two cultures. I believe we are intelligent enough to understand that for ourselves, vous remercier si très beaucoup de monsieur.
Thank you for your attention.
Ciao.
I liked it, but you’re given a brain. So you have your opinion too, but, do me a favor…Don’t have any preconscieved notions, watch it, but don’t think of it as a comedy…because it isn’t.
Wait, wait…I understand now, you believe films represent expression at its greatest form, and expect meanings to be handed to you on a silver platter. Ok, now that I’ve read the bottom portion of the replies I understand. Seriously, give the movie some thought, it isn’t a comedy.
I anticipated that the end of the film was going to leave me disappointed, and in that it failed to disappoint. I thought I dont get it, there must be something so deep and intellectual about this film that it is above my intellect, ‘the kings new clothes, dont admit you dont see them’ so I sought guidance, and found that I did get it , but the depth was so shallow , what was there to get. For a second a brief second I thought well done Guy, you made me think, but then I thought, hang on mate Im paying you to entertain me, not to make my brain work. If I want mental exercise Ill by a book of those japanese puzzles
Final conclusion, film is an exercise in Guy Ritchie self indulgence.
I pay you to entertain me I excuse your self indulgence this once.
now please do what I pay for.
Your previous films had depth and they entertained , dont think Ill bother rewatching this one. You dont care you have my money, ( however, I wont be so willing to part with it next time)
Chris, a lot of people find that being forced to think and exercise their brain is a form of entertainment itself.
Anyway, as for this film I have some comments.
The concept of the film, to me, was not hard to grasp, although I may have misunderstood it. ‘Mr. Gold’ is most obviously a fictional idea, and only exists inside each of our heads. Zack and Avi have realised this, and have also realised the ways in which to avoid ‘displeasing Mr. Gold.’ This is why, I believe, they help Jake, the big money player, as otherwise they could be effected by what he does. They claim themselves that they didn’t help him because they like him, only because they are him. However, I may be totally wrong on my understanding of this part.
The basic storyline is that Jake confronts Mr. Gold and wins, whereas Macha confronts Mr. Gold and loses, as almost everybody does. Zack and Avi have already confronted Mr. Gold and won, seemingly the only people to have done so.
My criticisms are as follows; who invented Mr. Gold and placed this fictional character into the real world, as an existence for whom people actually work? There was no attempt at an explanation for this. When Jake confronted Mr. Gold, why didn’t he shoot himself like Macha did? Again, there was no explanation for the reason behind this difference. There was far too much dialogue, and nowhere near that amount was needed to explain the concept of the storyline. Plus, is this film really capturing reality? I would have to disagree, if not only for the fact that somebody pointing a gun to your niece’s head would scare anybody, and you wouldn’t just stand there and smile if you were the uncle, no matter whether you thought they’d pull the trigger or not.
All in all, 2/5 in my opinion. Over-complicated and unrealistic.
the story might seem very complicated, but ones you understand the principle behind it is easy. MR gold is the devil. It’s about the devil who constantly whispers in your ear. Everybody things he’s not there, and think that they’re speaking to themselves, but it’s actually the devil. The biggest con he ever pulled was make you believe that he is you. (wink to “the usual suspects”
)
In the elevator scene, Jake sheds his influence and becomes good (even thoug he raised symphaty from the start; he wasn’t a choirboy. Suddenly he gives charity. He humilitys himself, he asks his enemy for fogivnance. The two guys Zack and Avi, they’re angels. They tell jack, if you want to survive, fight your instincts (=wich are actually mr golds whisperings). they’re the last resort. They messed with mr. Gold but even he won’t go after them.
See it all works out well. Watch it again with this in your mind and you’ll see all the pieces come toghether. Problem is everybody who wach it is to busy trying to figure out what the con is or which character is part of the main characters paranoia. I ‘m telling you it’s no fight club, and it’s no matchtickman or whatever con-movie gets your freak on. Just ol’ fashion good vs. evil.
in that last paragraph, obviously i meant to say: “to busy trying to figure out what the con is or which character is part of the main characters schizofrenia rather then paranoia”
My bad …
Lock Stock, and Snatch probably make my top 10 films of all time.
I thought Revolver was poor, and I was gutted about it.
I tried to like it, to grasp “this new angle” but it was just too arty farty for me.
I hope he sticks to what he does best next, if indeed there is a next, this pretty much got slated from all areas, so I hope his confidence isn’t knocked.
I like the fact that Richie has tried to move away (not completely admittedly) from the first 2 films. I must admit this film is not to everyones tastes, but it is still a masterpiece it its own way. Consider if he had done another film in the Snatch/Lock Stock genre, many would have critised him for sticking to the same idea and just following the same formula. Admittedly, he takes parts of the original formula, but it has been modified to a greater extent. I personally didn’t like the fact that mr. Gold was not explained properly in the film, and neither were his origins. Although one is to assume that this is a fictional world, it did make it hard going for people who are not keen on interlectual movies, this is not an insult, but many people expected a more “easy viewing” moviem admittedly this was deffinately more art house. Oh, and i must add, i think Layer Cake is a decent movie, although the layer cake thing is a weak link, as a movie unto itself, its more than watchable, and makes a deffinate statement about the culture of drug dealing; you only leave one of 2 ways, dead or prison.
P.s this film is alot easier to understand after you’ve when you can play it back, and figure things out yourself, i do admit however i am a person who likes to think…so this may not suit everyone.
Richie could have produced another Snatch or Lock Stock, but is this really what we would have wanted to see? He would have been criticised for not being innovative or original. I’m glad he tried something new and I appreciate the fact that he was willing to take that risk (unlike alot of other film producers).
I think there are two ways in which this film could be watched. A ‘what you see is what you get’ perspective is the most confusing as the film lacks a solid storyline after the second half. What makes it difficult to understand is by taking what you see literally, and trying to piece that together so that the storyline makes ’sense’.
The way the film should be watched is by approaching it with the symbolic meanings behind the characters and the plot in mind (fighting our inner demons, good vs. evil etc.).
I myself tried to piece the storyline together when I had finished watching the film for the first time and I was wrong to do so. When I actually thought about what the film was trying to represent I realised it wasn’t so complicated after all.
This film is certainly no Snatch or Lock Stock, but I still enjoyed it. I just hope that in Richie’s next film, he will still be willing to try new ideas. It would be a shame if he were forced to revert back to the old ‘tried and tested’ Snatch and Lock Stock formula. Although for most, this film ended up being a bit of a flop, I personally feel it was refreshing to see something new, even if it was a little confusing.
This seems to be splitting opinion the same way the last two Matrix films did. I thought the first Matrix film was good. It made me think which is something I like. The second two Matrix films FORCED me to think because they didn’t make sense otherwise. This made them bad films.
This film is like the second films because it makes little sense without a lot of thought. I’ve very broad taste in films, my dvd collection ranges from Metropolis (Fritz Lang) to Metropolis (Osamu Tezuka)(he he) so I do get symbology.
I’ve been up for 26 hours now so I appologise if I come across as an idiot.
I like the beat, the actors, the photography and to some extend the way it all blends in with the story. Unfortunately the story is too clouded, and though with a little effort we may give it some kind of meaning, it is just not good enough.
I like the idea of Mr Gold being the devil, and the two guys being like angels. Im watching it again and it makes more sense. I dont buy it as a Fight Club type movie, though there is some mind conflicts.
I hope that it will turn out like Mulholland Drive, a flim which grows as you put a little effort into it after watching it, but I’d rather watch Revolver again than Mulholland Dr..
I havent read all of the replies myself but it seems that a lot of people dont like this film because they simply dont understand what Ritchie has done, he’s created a completely unique film that allows the audience to interpret it in their own individual way and that’s why it’s a love it or hate it film.
In my opinion this is simply a masterpiece of a film.
Guyatt very true it is a masterpiece. It is exceedingly stylish. Most people hate it because they can’t understand it. And the reason for this is that if you no nothing of Buddhism you won’t get the film. Guy has been interested in Buddhism for a while and this film is an expression of this.
In a nut shell. Our lives are suffering through the illusions we create for ourselves. it is a struggle for jake to remove is ego I find his true self to realise that it is himself that is getting his life into so much suffering.
Gold is the ultimate mind, avi and zack are just part of jakes mind but the part that is guiding him to self realisation. he confronts his own ego in the lift. He wins against his own ego whereas macca can’t beat his own ego and kills himself. this is an exceedingly clever film unfortunately to intellectual for most filmgoers to enjoy, especialy as most wanted another snatch or lock stock.
Check out some buddhist ideology and you will get the film
sorry I meant to say that gold is money not the ultimate mind, it controls the real world even though it doesn’t mean anything if you take humans out of the equation.
Oh please!
I;m fully conversant with Buddhist, Hindu, Existentialist and Taoist thought and knew *exactly* what this film was *trying* to do – and it’s so obvious about it that you don’t NEED to know about Buddhism to work it out.
But, sadly, it FAILED. It’s a big piece of shit. It’s boring, it’s stupid,the dialogue is appalling, it has no real understanding of the concepts its flirting with, it does not offer more than one perspective on the issue, and it does NOT succesfully blend the ‘real’ level with the ‘metapyhsical’ level of storytelling (i.e. the basic surface story is nonsenical).
This film wants to be ‘Casino as done by Paul Auster’. Instead it is ‘Hard Men done by some New Age cunt’.
Not only is this a bad film, but more enragingly it spoils a fantastic concept.
Avoid, unless you want to get drunk and laugh at it. A very poor man’s fight club is an accurate condemnation.
I loved Snatch and Lock stock, but I’m afraid I thought this was a stinker.
Now you may class me as stupid or unable to grasp concepts, but from my perspective, I shouldnt have to have google on hand to work out what the hell just happened in a movie, nor should I have a background in Buddhism, a true piece of art should speak to you, no matter what level you are on.
I admire the director for trying a new formula, however I dont admire him for making a pigs ear out of it. Its all very well to congratulate him on doing something new, but he has to at least make a decent job of it to gain kudos. Its like a swimming champ trying to race cars, if he is shit at it then everyone will say ‘what an idiot’.
I did watch it through to the end however, so at least it keeps you interested, it has some great potential, but misses the mark. Good luck on your next try Mr Ritchie, we learn from our mistakes so your next movie will hopefully be a cracker!
This movie is just a game of chess.
Mr. gold is the player who plays against him.
It’s black against white.
Green and his 4 companions are black, and macha and his 4 companions are white.
Green and macha are both kings. That’s why green couldn’t kill macha.
In the chessgame, a king can’t “kill” another king.
Another clue is the number of floors in the building of macha (the elevatorpart):32 . on a chess board are 64 squares. 32 for black and 32 for white. the number 29 is the number of the king, …
To understand the movie, you have to know the rules of chess.
I could explane it more clearly, but my knowledge of english is too bad.
If you understand these rules and you watch the movie again you wil see it’s really brilliant!
Alright, I’ve read through most of these comments and people’s attempted explainations, however it has to be said, although they may work in some weird way, they are not in context to the film, and could easily be dismissed as bad theorys because of this.
Ok I just read what Alex said, like a lot of people I’ve only played chess a few times and only know the basics.
However nce again although it might be true for the overall ‘thinking outside the box’ plot of the movie, and especially the king/king thing you mentioned, I have to say again it really doesn’t fall into context.
For those who deem themselves intelligent enough to grasp the symbolic meaning (with angles and the devil etc..) althought like i’ve said out of context to what actually happens in the movie, I just hope you know to beleive in such things makes you pretty stupid in the first place
Personally I think the movie itself is the con. As we can see if there is a meaning or an exact ‘word for word’ plot behind film, it doesn’t even matter, as every other person just makes up a different meaning that they understand anyway. Here is a good summary of my thoughts;
“Throughout the film he refers to the fact that the art of conning someone relies on you making them invest some time in what you are doing. The more time they invest, the less likely they are to feel that they’ve been conned, because that would mean that they’re stupid – and noone wants to feel that they’re stupid. So, by wrapping the film up in a very polished and distracting exterior and making it ’seem’ deep and meaningful you don’t have to actually create sufficient plotline etc as the ‘conned’ audience will do that themselves so long as they’ve invested a small ammount of time in it in the first place (ie tried to like the film). This is common place in many art forms, (particularly modern art!) and so films should be no different.”
I just viewed the movie for the first time and didn’t find it that difficult to understand. Towards the second half the flim definitley suffered from excessive and cloudy dialogue but it didn’t ruin it for me.
Although not as good as Lock Stock and Snatch I’m pleased to see Ritchie doing something different and I certainly don’t regret watching it.
I can understand that people are entitle to their opinions. I didn’t think that voicing said opinions can cause so many people to become enraged over a movie. Movies are made, some movies people enjoy, others people will pan, for their own reasons. One persons opinion is not the same as another, it may be similar in some respects, but never the same. I can say that I throughly enjoyed both Revolver and Layer Cake for different reasons, I am not prepared to get into a slagging match to defend my opions because I feel I don’t need to justify my opions to other people. I can understand people who prefer very simple plots so as they don’t or can’t get lost when watching movies.
With regards to Hopleton Brown who is apparently “fully conversant with Buddhist, Hindu, Existentialist and Taoist thought”, but obviously does not practice any of them. I would like to know: What concept are you referring to?, I know about Buddhism and didn’t apply any of it’s teaching to this movie. Please explain.
Can I enquire to what you Top Ten Movies Of All Time would be. I realise that it can be hard to place movies in order, so I guess I should ask: What movies, in no particular order, would you have in your Top Ten Movies Of All Time?
thanks
GS
Revolver is an awful, pretentious movie. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is entitled to their opinion, but they are WRONG. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. Ritchie took all the ideas from Fight Club, The Usual Suspects, Kill Bill (stupid animation sequence), Seven, and many other much better movies, stirred in a load of Kabbalah-based bollocks and under-cooked for 2 hours. Avoid this dogshit film.
you’re wrong of course. The film may be flawed but it’s entertaining on a surface level and has enough going on beneath the surface to sustain this debate for some time. Check it out.
revolve;8. to turn over in the mind; consider; ponder.
revolver;2. a person or thing that revolves
Right on Rich. This has to be the trickiest film ever. I can hardly believe Guy Richie even wrote this GAME! That’s right haters (hate!), this movie is actually a game that has to be watched on screen and then (later) played in your head. Careful, it loves to set you up for failaure- don’t trust the narrator. For those who believe this to be a relegious, your a just little off. Religion is used like a reminder of a source of power- Louie XIV type ” I am the state” type power. The main (obscured) plot is actually about the supplantation of an economic system by another- period. I’ll show the steps to my conclusin next entry in case the curious want to give it a try on their own. Please do.
Keep up the great work on your blog. Best wishes WaltDe
I agree with jt’s comments.
I thought the scene in the elevator was Jake confronting his own ego, which is a product of the thinking mind and not really our true selves.
I also thought that Zak and Avi were different aspects of Jakes mind.
Although I was still a bit confused at the end of the film.
Why did Matcha kill himself? Don’t know.
For a bit I also considered the possibility that Matcha also represented an aspect of Jakes mind?? Maybe vanity?
Mr Gold money, perhaps still I’m not sure. I like ultimate or Budha mind.
I think it was brave of Ritchie to come out with a film like this and I did enjoy it.
I watched it with the folks and they both gave up saying it had all gone a bit “nutty”. I imagine this would be the reaction of 90% of people.
It reminded me of “The Fisher King” by Terry Gilliam which I also think was about achieving enlightenment and confronting fear.
Movies are entertainment, but they can also be designed to make you think, I don’t think it’s a bad thing.
Misquoting ‘The Fly II’:
“He’s not getting worse, he’s getting better”.
Of course the simple (and brilliant) cartoon characters and plotlines of ‘Lock, Stock…’ and ‘Snatch’ are more popular and easy to digest, as are the ‘Teletubbies’ more popular to students than Shakespeare.
HEY CHILL!!! Revolvers not Shakespreare by a long shot…
BUT…
It asks you to think and as the saying goes “You can lead a horse to water…”.
An irony is that within the script a point is made that the ‘victim’/'mark’ (read: viewer/critic), would find it easier to believe they are not the fool/victim/mug/thicko/dunce/etc. than face the cold hard truth (which can be cynically construed as a smug plot insurance policy, who knows?).
Admittedly for a moderately well known director to try this is odd, but rather brave than anything.
On ‘Reservoir Dogs’ initial UK release (after little U.S gross) there was a buzz but nobody were busting a gut to see it – oddly the initial UK Gross doesn’t tally with the amount of people in the Pub/bar who swore they’d seen it in release. ‘Tino was a newbie who we expected nothing from.
Anyhow, if this makes a person Google then good for them. Hey, try out that ‘book reading’ thing too.
Rather than insulting the negative posters I’ll just say that the more knowledge you have, the more you get out of it.
If your references are only previous films well… H’mmm.
Forget the biased thinking of: Mr Madge/Kabbalah/Mockney.
Try researching history, numerals, religions, colour theory etcetera.
Go on, do it. You’ll find some of your most beloved movies have ripped ideas from there (from the Godfather to ‘Suspects ad infinitum) and you’ll love your films more.
An expensive experiment possibly, but 2nd gen Kermode (critic Mark) should never really hold sway on what you see.
So Kermode did not like the film. Why should his word be taken as absolute, this is after all from the man who hails that “The Exorcist” is the greatest film ever made. While Ritchie has made controversail decisions as of late, what he has done is taken a more experimental and philosophical route. The man is obviously reading more and been watching a lot of David Lynch. The film is not intended for a mainstream audience which is why all you blokes are sulking at the lack of black humour and violence. The scene with the nail was a particularly sickening and gruesome one and the scene with the reformed gangster was overly stylised and out of place, yet they are the only things common with Ritchie’s past. Otherwise he has clearly grown up, the rest it seems hasn’t.
Id have to disagree with steve about jake shedding his bad influence in the elevator because he wasnt bad to begin with. all he did was gamble, he didnt hurt anyone doing that not even himself. but what he did do was preoccupy himself with material goods, cash, Mr. Gold. so did Macha. but what jake did in the elevator was recongnizing the insignificance of materialism and therefore conquering it while macha couldnt.
zack and avy saved jakes life, because he was going to end up like macha if he let his material obsession get the best of him. zack and avy were untouchable by mr. gold because they already conquered him while others cant.
what i couldnt get, though it might be a petty detail, was the symbolism of chess master and top con artist.
kareem, Jake (or Jacob the supplanter) should not be thought of as a person but rather as the economic system of free trade. i guess that would be the whole trick to this film- our sympathy to Jake’s troubles. Naturally, to sympathize for someone is we most feel some sort of equality to that person (this could happen to me). Our own sympathy is the tool used against us to help obscure the motives ( and nature) of Jake.
so, if Jake equals Free Trade what does Macha and Lord Tony represent? for help, scroll up an entry or two and refer back to Mr. Jade’s entry- that guy is dead on. the whole brilliance of this film is that every scene says a thousand words. remember the scenes that that felt awkwardly interesting and replay them back in mind when you are doing some menial task. Sooner or later something will stand out and then it’s google time!!!. Thanks Guy.
ps. Mr. Gold is the comsumer.
Take a look at the car driving scenes; what country is outside the car?
Guy Ritchie is a Kabbalist. This is a Kabbalistic film. Study the Kabbalah particularly the tree of life and the meaning of this story will become clear. Or don’t study the Kabbalah or any similar path and do not understand. The door is always open, never forced. Hate him or love him it makes no difference. All must return in the end.
really liked this movie….going crazy over the end piano piece that plays instead of the credits….does anyone know who is the composer?
can i just clear up for the people that think this is a fight club rip-off, Zach and Avi are not made up. When Avi says “we are you” he means metophorically, all 3 are in the same position, they have broken out of golds control. They are real people and are not some sort of schizofrenia. Jake and Macha are the same, neither are good or bad, they are puppets, Jake fights the voice because of Avi and Zach, but Macha gives into the voice, This is trying to show the two different paths in life. As Macha says “one question that drives us all… Whats in it for me?” Jake learns that its not just about him. Macha shoots himself because he is the opposite of Jake in the film, and when Jake gives the powder back, he becomes truely free, and what happens to one side must affect the other, and Macha has to become free too, but on the other end of the spectrum.
This film is a piece of art, and needs to be watched multiple times, and it is what you take from the film that is important, there is no one answer, I love films with complex plot lines because they make you THINK and make you ask WHY. Revolver does what donnie darko did, but actually has a underlying point. Thats what was so saddening about Darko, because it was built up in the film right to the end, and then there was no reason that I could take anything to better my life from. Revolver DOES have reasons, it makes you think about the world, could it be that the voice we all hear in our heads isnt actually us, its impossible to comprehend or fight against so how do you know. Its like saying if the universe was created, what was here before it, or if time isnt linear, then how did it start. We dont have the ability to answer these questions and Revolver provides another.
As for the quotes, I think they are brilliant myself, it works so well with the “only smarter by playing a smarter opponent” and “best place to hide” because these are TRUE! They set the “play” in a world where our laws of games apply and therefore u can take all of whats sed and apply it to you’re own life. Dont say this film is crap if you A) didnt understand it first time, cuz i didnt, ive seen it 12 times now. B)u feel that you cant take anything from it, thats fine, just dont hurt it because of that and C)if it wasnt wat u expected, because it wasnt what i expected, as fight club wasnt, but there is no reason to say that it MUST be like snatch and lock stock, because they are different films!
Fear or revear Me but please, Think Im special
I have just watched this film for the first time and, like many of you who may or may not read this, immediately looked to the internet in hope that there was some distinct, unanimously agreed upon explanation for this film. i then read all the above posts and realised that this was not going to happen. in terms of the film a major question that must be asked is whether or not this was intended, as although some people have said individual interpretation was expected to be elicited, how can they actually know this is the case. if this is so then i suppose i can only congratulate guy ritchie on achieving what he set out to. if however, as my always cynical mind tends to believe, he had in mind a set explanation, then by the lack of general concensus it is a clear failure.
It is clear ritchie very much wanted and needed to steer the efforts of his career away from the lock stock snatch ‘duo’, though i don’t see that any praise for this necessary act is required, and with this film he clearly has. it still contains similar features, obviously the violence, most especially so when the gang sets upon jake’s brother, and the use of different aspects of the same situation, however in trying to create a sense of culmination to a point a lot of unnecessary vague explanations of that which need none clouded the ideas enough to make the end of the film seem premature and also lacking a sense of conclusion, which, no matter what the aims of the film, is NECESSARY to the audience.
I have not elaborated into any of the specifics of the ideas of this film as the above posts do in many varied ways, and i must admit that my initial understanding of the film is pretty much totally defined in a combination of a few of them. in closing i will however say that as an uninformed viewer this film was over-directed, convoluted and lacking in a defined version of reality, but ultimately worth watching if just for the fact (a fact that many have rebuked) that it made me have to think about the meaning of the film, as i personally am bored by films that are wrapped up neatly and on the whole immediately forgettable.
The first time you see it, this film will annoy the hell out of you. For sure. It appears to be pretentious, yes, but after repeat viewings I think it actually does have some real substance to back up the ego.
The guy above said it best. Even if it does turn out that you can derive no meaning whatsoever from the film, in the end it is enough that it made you think – regardless of whether your thoughts lead you to a dead end. Most films don’t even do that much.
The movie doesn’t try too hard. The audience does. The reason there seems to be so many unanswered questions is because you have to fill in the blanks for yourself. They aren’t going to come right out and say Gold is the Devil, because for a lot of people the Devil is a ridiculous concept. The reason they don’t spoon-feed every single thing to us is so we can project our own beliefs and feelings onto the film and derive our own meaning – without bursting a blood vessel wondering what the filmmakers had in mind.
Essentially, for me anyway, it is a story about someone attaining enlightenment. Attaining it by battling with his own worldly nature. Evolving instead of just revolving, going through the motions, playing by the rules. Only when he has controlled and rejected certain aspects of his nature is he free to ascend beyond the confines of this game we’re all playing. It holds a deeply spiritual message – regardless of religious persuasion. Although I dislike using the word spiritual.
To answer Nick’s question from waaaaay back: Macha didn’t confront Gold*, because Macha never knew he existed. Realising that he exists and that we are programmed from a very early age to obey him is the first step toward being able to control him.
*When I refer to Gold here I don’t mean Sam Gold. “Introducing” the character of Sam Gold was simply the easiest way to introduce the idea of this side of our nature. The side that will always tell us to choose the easy option. And always cause us to fall for the con for that matter, loud, proud and stupid as we are. It’s not ideal, but by making him a character in the movie they were able to discuss this idea (at great length!). But by listening to Gold, in the end we are ultimately only defeating ourselves. Because you can only get smarter by playing a smarter opponent. And what more worthy opponent can there be than the oldest of them all? Our own nature.
I have to say that I’m beginning to really admire Ritchie for making this film. He knew that a lot of people would hate it. Because, essentially it is a bit preachy. All the same I’m glad he made it and I’m glad I watched it… four times.
Further to my comment above, I just wanted to comment on some other points raised by others.
Avi and Zach: Are they real? The first couple of watches through I assumed they were products of Jake’s mind. On the third watch I began to wonder if possibly they could just be two guys who shared prison time with Jake. Although I am 90% convinced they existed in Jake’s own head, there is evidence to support both theories.
Evidence that they are real:
-Although never by name, people other than Jake do acknowledge them throughout the film (Horowitz, arguably Fred, Billy’s informant in the bar and also Jake’s mates in Macha’s casino at the beginning).
-The car Zack drives while saving Jake was nowhere in sight at the beginning of that shootout scene.
Evidence they are not real:
-They vanished without a trace from solitary.
-They appear to be able to read Jake’s thoughts. Of course this could be explained by the fact that they simply know exactly how Gold will play Jake in any given situation.
-Doreen never acknowledges them. Her “Good Morning, Mr. Green” line would have made sense even if Zack hadn’t been there.
-Jake was locked up in SOLITARY for seven years. It is very plausible that he created them to save himself from going insane. Strange as this sounds.
Why did Macha shoot himself? Because he was check-mated. In his mind, if Jake hadn’t gotten him then someone else (Gold) would have. Although, in Macha’s mind, Jake probably was Mr. Gold at the end. What does Avi do in earlier games of chess when his King is in check-mate? Lays down his king, effectively committing suicide rather than be taken by the opponent, as is traditional in chess games.
none of the characters are real. they are just personifications and allusions to something else. to think of them as you (a person) is the con. as i mentioned before, i am (now) POSITIVE that this movie is a about free trade finally becoming the new ruling economic system of the world. i’ve been googling around and i have found what mr. gold is. if you guys google up the economist Adam Smith and his book ‘Wealth of Nations’ , you’ll find another piece to the puzzle. SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER mr. Smith had a theory that, “the INVISIBLE HAND of the market would guide people to act in the public interest by following their own self-interest, since the only way to make money would be through voluntary exchange, and thus the only way to get the people’s money was to give the people what they want. One does not get one’s dinner by appealing to the brother-love of the butcher, the farmer or the baker. Rather one appeals to their self interest, and pays them for their labour.” i’m sure the book goes further into depth but doesn’t that INVISIBLE HAND really bells with mr. Gold? what do you think mr. Jade?
several weeks back i metioned that Jake Green was the personification of free trade. i just figured out that he was not Jake was not always free trade. now guys, do you remember the beginning of the movie when the main henchman warned Macha that Jake had gotten a lot better but the arrogant Macha dismissed the warning? well guess what, i googled FREE TRADE and learned that the earlier form of free T was called laissez-faire. In the US, laissez-faire was used, abused, and eventually emasculated by Sen. Henry Clay and various speical interest groups. Macha (AMERICA) believed that it was dealing with the old Jake ( laissez) and found out too late in the game that Jake (free T) had really really changed the rules of the game.
now here is the moral of the story. do you remember first the first conversation between macha and the henchman? something about, ” how deep did bury that shareholder (economics), paul?” do you also recall macha placing the gun to girls (economics) head? now if macha (America) attacks the poor (the girl) and the middle class (the share holder) then it has obviously killed it’s (idea) self. macha gun to head!
“The second two Matrix films FORCED me to think because they didn’t make sense otherwise. This made them bad films.” – Stephen
I suppose, on that count, that Kubrick’s 2001 or Scott’s Blade Runner are “bad films”, too.
I think that, like The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions, Revolver will go down the path of Kubrick and Scott’s definitive masterworks.
The incredible thing about Revolver is that it actually makes perfect sense if you understand the central concept. Yes, chess has something to do with it. But beware about ’staying on the chess board’. You have to ’step off the chess board’ to get the bigger picture. Only then will you see ‘the con’, or ‘the concept’, reflected in everything you’ll do from now to the end of your life.
Remember, chess is derivative of ‘the concept’. ‘The concept’ is not derivative of chess.
Watched this film for the first time last night. It’s a Directorial treat, and certainly doesnt explain itself. In fact it makes no attempt to explain itself.
Manfred powell;- i believe the ‘con’ refers to ‘confidence trick’, as opposed to concept, although i suppose that there is an overall concept to both the ‘con’ and chess.
very clever film, wouldnt call it pretentious, certainly artistic, and definately different. i now have to watch it again!!!
Yeah, I know that “con” refers to a “confidence trick”, but “THE con” is also “the concept”, if you see what I mean…?
Anyways, if you’re having any trouble at all decyphering the movie, feel free to ask any questions you have. I’d give you a clue, but all the clues are already in the film, hehe…!
To the non-constructive haters of ‘Revolver’… get a life. If you think a film is poor when it doesn’t explain its plot then you will probably be disappointed when you are laying down to die and wondering what it was all about; if you’re so lucky. The writer of this film had no intention of spoon feeding you anything. The little information which was provided about ‘gold’ was there for the viewer who likes to have a + b = c. The problem with this film (for the haters) is its outside the framework of the traditional story/formula. It leaves one thinking what the @%&# was that? As it should. The possible solutions/meanings exist simultaneously and this along with the straight up entertaining qualities, makes it a film worth watching. This my fellow movie critics is a good thing. Why should you be fed the same pab you have always been able to digest? Why must the two ends meet. Because it makes you feel good about yourself – you understood, enjoyed the ride, a certain way which you have become accustomed to feeling. Step outside your safety net for a few moments, and be spacious thinkers.
“This movie should really have been like…” – you didn’t make it. If you want directors/writers/actors, to make better films, then write your comments to them directly, and save the blogging space for constructive conversation.
The film has many layers, positives and negatives. ALL films do. Please think and don’t just watch – or it will all pass you in a hurry – and please stop eating the same old crow; this is what Ritchie asks of the viewer.
Ok here is what I think. Mr. Gold is a part of the sub-conscious. He is the dark side in all of us…some might call it instinct, others the devil! It is IMO natural in all of us for some part of us to want to get on, to make more money, to become more powerful. Mr.Green slowly but surely as the film progresses realises that his life is being run by the darker side. He and his lifestyle are a product of this “force” as it were and he realises this is not the life he wants to be leading. He wants to forget about making endless amounts of money and living a vengeful life. The elevator scene near the end is merely the final straw, where jake confronts this dark side and finally supresses it and banishes it to the back of his mind.
Now onto Avi and Zach. Again IMO they are products of his imagination. He spent 7 years in solitary confinement and created two alter ego’s/personas whom he could interact with. He would not have been aware of this and would have thought them to be very real indeed. Of course as a few chains above mentioned there is evidence which makes this point of view flawed….most obvious is at the start of the film when zach delivers the first message and jakes gang tells him to step aside..ie acknowledging him and also in the scenes with horrowitz etc. It is a hard thing to get beyond but my interpretation of the film implies that in any scene where we see avi and zach, we are merely seeing visual representations of how said scene plays out in the mind of jake. in the scenes where he gives away his money, it is really him who gives it away, but he imagines both avi and zach as being there so this is how we see it. I think Ritchie drops hints throughout the movie for us to come to this conclusion. One scene which I found brilliant was when they were on the roof top golfing. as the camera moves out, avi and zach become nearly invissible. coincidence perhaps but it is something which happens again and again. they seem to blend with the background, as if not really there!
And how it all ties together….well Jake uses his alter ego’s (unaware to himself) to convince himself that his life will soon end unless he starts to live it in a better fashion. His brilliant mind plays itself against itself in order to bring the good side to the fore. his mind knows he is not capable of just turning good and needs to be pushed into the decision, so it uses his alter ego’s to create a situation where in the end he has no choice.
Of course I’m 99% sure I am completely wrong but thats what I liked most about the film. I have my own interpretation, and to me at least it makes sense.
As for whether it is a good film or not…who knows but I loved it.
I live in Shanghai, so I just got wind of this film. I saw it was a Ritchie film and thought we’d have a good black-comedy evening. IMO you were dead on with your review from a typical viewers perspective. I’m a bit of a filmmaker myself, and I see it as a marketing problem as much as anything else. People will expect a Richie film in the absense of any other info (which admittedly there could have been), so they are bound to be let down. Last night was St. Patricks and I met a fellow who just moved here. He’s an abstract painter and I asked him about his work. Rather than show me something he said he would have to take some time to explain it, and that most people didn’t ‘get’ his work. Right. If I see something in a painting that moves me, I want to look closer and think about it more, but it has to really grab me first. This film did grab me, or at least I was willing to wait for it to grab me. But if I need the artist standing next to me to help me make connections it’s simply too much work for the payoff. Perhaps there is a rich, deep message here that would blow my mind but by the time it’s presented to me I’ve already switched to autopilot, waiting for the pieces to fit somehow. This film simply expects too much from the audience it was mistakenly marketed to. Thank God for popcorn.
Ben hit the nail on the head, it isnt as complex as everyone thinks,
“Throughout the film he refers to the fact that the art of conning someone relies on you making them invest some time in what you are doing. The more time they invest, the less likely they are to feel that they’ve been conned, because that would mean that they’re stupid – and noone wants to feel that they’re stupid. So, by wrapping the film up in a very polished and distracting exterior and making it ’seem’ deep and meaningful you don’t have to actually create sufficient plotline etc as the ‘conned’ audience will do that themselves so long as they’ve invested a small ammount of time in it in the first place (ie tried to like the film). This is common place in many art forms, (particularly modern art!) and so films should be no different.”
The whole concept of the con is central to the movie, by claiming that the movie is rubbish, you have been conned out of the time and possibly money spent on it..either way you are conned……..likewise if you spend time analysing it, you are conned.
Also if we look to the man himself…..a quote from an interview with Ritchie.
“I’ve always been surprised that no other movie has ever been called Revolver because it just sounds cool. So I like the name but I also like the concept that, if you’re in a game, it keeps revolving until you realize that you are in a game and then maybe you can start evolving.”
Everyone, please please realise, “you are in a game (con)” so start evolving!!!!!
Some more quotes from the man himself…….think what you please but you will just keep revolving!
It’s about not letting the internal enemy, the real enemy, have his way because the more he does the stronger he becomes. The film’s about the devastating results that can manifest from the internal enemy being unbridled and allowed to unleash chaos.
Guy Ritchie
Jake Green isn’t just Jake Green. Jake represents all of us. The colour green is the central column of the spectrum and the name Jake has all sorts of numerical values. All things come back to him within the film’s world of cons and games.
Guy Ritchie
Jake’s on a journey of how to play the game. He’s very good at playing games and he’s done very well out of playing by a certain formula but he didn’t realize how big and consistent that formula is. He only saw the formula in its microscopic form and didn’t realize that it could be macroscopic.
Guy Ritchie
So it’s based on the formula that you can only get smarter by playing a smarter opponent. Who is the ultimate opponent? Yourself.
Guy Ritchie
We can all be conned but at what point do we realize that we’re being conned and to what point do we allow ourselves to be conned?
Guy Ritchie
Not sure i’f they’ll ever check back, but to the person (Hemanshu) wondering what the piano music at the end is is is Gnossienne Nr. 1 by the composer Erik Satie
this film was shit. really really shit
I just watched this film for the first time, and googled for an interpretation of it, because for me the film was just too ambiguous. Additionally I have to admit that I type-cast Richie as a director that would resolve the mystery of what the hell is going on at the end of the film (ala snatch & lock stock) but was left unsatisfied. I’ll have to watch it again some time to see if I appreciate it more in light of your above interpretations, however I do feel that more could have been done to communicate the meaning and obviously I’m not alone in this.
Just the other day I had the pleasure of watching this movie. A friend of mine had watched and highly praised it though he wanted me to watch it to see if he derived the same meaning of the film as I did. So thinking that it must be a movie where you have to think was awesome. So proceeded and watched the movie.
At first I tried not to think about it but I did so I kept on coming up what the story was about or the meaning before it ended and of course I came across all the things the movie was indeed about.
The movie is about the con. He is conning the big guy (Ray Liotta) to do all the work and he gets all his money or at least embarrass him or seek revenge since he killed his brother’s wife. It doesn’t work though in the end and he just gives up and gets his Fatherless (I am guessing. They don’t say) niece back from the big boss. A lot of other stuff happens though that it doesn’t ever directly talk about.
That is basically what the main movie is about which isn’t complicated at all but it has many elements in it and when you see them if you don’t recognize them they are defiantly hard to miss or be confused because of all the symbolism.
Guy Ritchie isn’t spoon feeding us the story, or what he means by it. He wants us to form our own opinion so that his creative work can have all kinds of meanings. Sometimes people do this subconsciously (Lord of the Rings) or intentionally (Revolver) in there work of art. Or they can add it and hope it doesn’t look intended. For example, The Ents from Lord of the rings, a lot of people like them because they represent the environment and they take on Sarumon who is the industrialization of the world. This could be intended for us derive this meaning or it could have just been added to the story. It may also just be some tree looking people taking on people who kill there fellow people. Or it maybe just there for us to derive whatever meaning we want to from it.
So that in mind I will continue what I think is “the chess game within a chess game within a chess game” which what Guy Ritchie said about the movie. The first game is the basic story. But we must evolve our game to a second level. Obviously our friend Jake seems to having some troubles with his mind and it looks like he is going crazy. The two guy’s in prison are his subconscious self manifesting them selves into reality making him do good since he was bad before, and getting rid of the evil one inside his head.
The evidence
7 Years locked up in solitary confinement with 2 cons. We don’t know if this is true or not because we don’t see them or have anyone to confirm. But we do know they supposedly just walked out of jail one day and were gone but they promised they would take Jake.
The scene in the elevator, when he gets his evil self out of his head by just ignoring him and not letting him control his ideas anymore.
The Flash back when he is doing all his charity work there is no one there just him dropping off the money.
Meaning this could mean that he has schizophrenia and is dealing with it. Which is kind of funny because he throws Ray Liotta for a right spin too as he is caught up in Jakes inner turmoil.
But if we look deeper we can see other meanings. If or example instead of saying that the 2 in prison were just in his head, because there is no way to confirm they are real which probably means there not. They could also be angles sent to help him evolve his game to the final level. And that he isn’t dealing with his own evil self inside (elevator scene) but in fact he is dealing with the devil which is hiding inside him. Which gives light to the entire idea is that he movie is very well done Good vs Evil (God Vs Devil) Movie. We also see Jake first deal with the devil then we see it on a much larger scale with Ray.
The Evidence
Both his inmates escape just one day and never are heard of again until Jake realizes who they are. So they could be viewed as angels also apposed to just people in his mind.
He is going to die in 3 days if he doesn’t change his ways. But after 3 days of changing and become good he is miraculously cured.
The devil is inside Jake because the as the bible says “the greatest trick he ever pulled was making you believe he didn’t exist” But in fact he is doing it by making you think he is in fact you. At one point was almost shown in the elevator with Jake. But Jake decided to stop listening to him because he realized that he thought he was doing his own thing with his life and in control while in fact he was letting the devil control him. Until he decided to evolve himself, he was just doing the same thing over and over again almost like a Revolving door.
I believe these are the 3 games which are played in the game to keep the viewer guessing. Also Guy Ritchie ties in a lot of symbolism into the story which leads to all kinds of different conclusions because we are made to think in the movie because nothing is completely explained. Which leads us to take on our own ideas to what things mean, which I think is what Guy Ritchie is trying to do.
Quotes from Jake
“There is something about yourself that you don’t know. Something that you will deny even exists, until it’s too late to do anything about it. It’s the only reason you get up in the morning. The only reason you suffer the shitty puss, the blood, the sweat and the tears. This is because you want people to know how good, attractive, generous, funny, wild and clever you really are. Fear or revere me, but please, think I’m special. We share an addiction. We’re approval junkies. We’re all in it for the slap on the back and the gold watch. The hip-hip-hoo-fuckin’ rah. Look at the clever boy with the badge, polishing his trophy. Shine on you crazy diamond, because we’re just monkeys wrapped in suits, begging for the approval of others”
Oh, I know you’re still there… cause I can feel you dying. I can hear you tapping me… for a little nutrition. Now who’s looking for a fix? It gets a little tight in here, do you? Well, you’re not wrong… cause the walls are moving in. No food here. Not today, sunshine. My eyes are open and the restaurant’s closed. Jog on. Slide off. Find someone else to fill your pipe. Someone, who won’t see you coming… or know, when you’re there.
Other Ideas are the movie itself being a con movie may in fact be trying to con you into thinking more than you need to.
I watched this last night and I have to say that this is the worst movie I have seen in a loooong time.
I loved Snatch and Lock Stock. This one however, is a shot in the dark.
The plot is this: Some killing, 50 seconds of cartoon(??), two or three pairs of tits combined with pretentious music and recaps of what was said earlier in the movie. The recaps are not a sum-up, they are just empty phrases about opponents and so on.
I agree with the fact that Guy Ritchie took a chance and tried something different for once, just a shame it took a turn for the worse. I have never been so disappointed and bored by a movie. I’m going back to the videostore to get a full refund, and then some.
Heres a clip of book BURTON AND SPEKE original book for script of romantic adventurous movie Mountains of the Moon by William Harrison –
search with wealth of nations as well but dont study statistics.
“Speke is attacked by beetles that crawl into his ear and nearly drive him mad. Burton’s legs swell up and need to be lanced, which Burton does himself when Speke becomes fainthearted.
Then, suddenly, while Burton is in a delirium of fever and being nursed by Speke, the younger man, carried away by his feelings, covers Burton’s face with lover’s kisses.”
Did you see how ray liotta doubble eye peeked in beginning with one guy sitting at his home in chear and he was in drobe. I tought it was the weed but it seems that my imagination as well.
subliminal message. then i realised it’s everything buddhist or anything that we have two sides but because of cultural and moralistic expectations operate only with one.
Only that nature of human mind is dualist that can feel and have bad feelings -mentioned with the sharpist killer- so it’s ok to to love any man and woman equally not necessary sexually…shit man..spent 2 hours just resting my case and going happily sleep next to my girlfriend:)
What a con…
Just not to state out for all friends of ganster& plot movies with machos see how the people are acting out as in real life not to show out them fear and feelings. Ray liotta is soft, in sorry guys but this made me feel bad not only pothead.
Also chess and many other clues have their say, but as Richie said: i simply tried to make 5 movies in one movie and took me 3 years..
read those movie reviews and seek for more if not agreeing
hmm,
I posted here something that I did find after detective work of 2hrs.
It was not posted so is there someone dumbass who is being moderator and not letting the truth come out??!!!
So check with the “Mountains of the Moon”
originla script from the book made by Sir Richard Francis Burton. Scandals in the life of Richard Burton:Allegations of homosexuality dogged Burton throughout most of his life.
The film Mountains of the Moon (1990) (starring Scottish actor Iain Glen as Speke) related the story of the Burton-Speke controversy. The film hints at a sexual intimacy between Burton and Speke. It also vaguely portrays Speke as a closeted homosexual. This was based on the William Harrison novel Burton and Speke.
Is this too real shit to publish???
In movie you can see the softness ow Liotta..IN beginning man is in his mansion in drobe and some of his small timers sitting in a chear front of him. Ray gives the man a weird doubble eye thats too long..I felt it was weard and some sensitive part of me thought it was something between to men..See for yourselves if this is being published here.
I will keep on posting until something happens.
Hi, I have a clue. Please see more in Mountains of Moon and Sir richard burton: Burton and Speke.
this is a masterpiece. some people made good comments. Is a masterpiece in its own category. Its a great movie, and I learned a lot of that movie. Believe it or not this movie made me smarter.
Thank You Guy Ritchie For CHANGING MY LIFE.
hey and another thing. If Mr. Gold is Evil. Who the fuck is Lily wolker (the woman with sunglasses)
Absolutely loved this film, could stare at Ray Liotta, all day! How fantastic is that man, has the most amazing eyes i have ever come across. That suit at the end…… Stunning!
you men have forgotten what true power is is,
mr. ritchie tried to teach you how to grasp and understand, again,
to those who have decided their own fate, i welcome you,
“You never actually left”
Its all of the above The chess game, good versed evil a con movie. It’s “5 films in one”
The plot
Avi is invented by Jake and does not exist, though within the fantasy of Jake’s mind (in prison) other characters know of his existence. The Eddies, his bother neice, Liotta, Lord John do exist in the real world and are incorperated into this ” day dream”. Jake is still in prison and has played out a fantasy to gain revenge. During this fantasy he wins and Liotta shoots himself.
Hey tovey you fucking idiot, you call the writer of this article “to dumb” well its “too” you fucking moron. Why don’t you learn how to fucking speak English before you start bashing on professional journalists dipshit. This movie was not good what so ever. I understand it entirely and it is very cool and creative but that doesn’t make it a good movie. I would still much rather have my 115 minutes back.
I enjoyed the movie, I just watched it three times in as many days. Important plotline points:
1. Zack and Avi are really the two inmates that Green served next to. They really materially exist, why? they really interact with the other ‘real’ material characters. They conned their way out of prison. GR is not dumb enough to make anything sloppy like an intended imaginary character interacting with a real one. His attention to detail is too high.
2. Mr. Gold (the one with the big dining room who has a ‘real’ presence in the world, not the metaphor of the Ego in the mind) is a creation of Zack and Avi. He is, by their creation, both immaterial though very real and a metaphor. Mr. Gold the metaphor (and real enemy within) is ego, greed, anger, lust, or ‘the voice’ that pushes you to them. Zach and Avi hired Lily Walker, who bears a striking physical resemblance to a queen on a chessboard.
3. Zach and Avi perpetrate the entire plot to save Green, who they befriended in prison two years after he is released. As Green said he would die for them, apparently it was mutual dedication since they concocted this massive plot to save Green from himself, they did not want green to become Macha. In freeing Green from Macha’s fate, they also free Green from Macha himself by leading Macha to destroy himself in a war with a rival organization. (I don’t think they were Yakuza, the language didnt sound like Japanese (I live in Japan at the moment), more like Thai or Chinese.)
Everything else has been covered, and I did make a few extrapolated assumptions, but the entire film makes sense from this perspective, no holes.
This movie was brilliant, in my opinion. In the last 3 days I have started trying to become more aware of what is my ego reacting and what is my true nature. No movie has ever done something like that for me. I intend to try and stay on that path.
Sorter is my favorite character in any recent film I have seen. I love the idea of a studdering geek being a perfect shot. He did not have to draw the line somewhere and gain redemption, I still would have liked that character. (He never shoots an ‘innocent’ person that I saw, so redemption necessary in my opinion.)
The film was nothing like “Snatch” or “Lock, Stock…”, two of my other favorite films. I will definitely buy this DVD.
The only part of the film I absolutely did NOT like was the animated segments. All 3 times I watched it removed me from the movie instantly. (A Scanner Darkly used it brilliantly, this… not so much)
As a side note, I had the extra features on the DVD to help me along. There are a lot of deleted scenes that were cut for being too overt, and watching them I agree. I think had I seen it in the theater, I would have been pissed off until I had the chance to rent it and analize it. I still don’t think it would have prompted me to jump online and flame others for their opinions, however.
well… just to comment on one of the last things that was said – the easiest job in the world is to be a “Professional” critic. I wish i could sit back and decide whether or not someone elses work is “worth it” without actually being able to do it myself.
anyways, fuck the critics – watch the movie for yourself and if you like it, great. if not, who cares?
I loved it. My favorite movies are the ones that leave me confused in the end.
Favorite scene – Liotta on the floor in the restaraunt.
Gotta watch it again and try to wrap my brain around it… and one last thing – how can anyone on this damn site dare to say that there’s “no deeper meaning” or “Substance” or whatever the fuck they all said. have you sat down with the writer/director and had an in depth conversation about all the metaphors and such in the movie?
What’s all the hate about? Some people will understand this movie, some won’t. Some will love it, some won’t.
Personally I think it’s a great movie, but I can see how it might be challenging to understand, but really, is it that hard to just say you don’t understand it and therefore can’t appreciate it? So you say that Ritchie’s lost it instead. Yeah and if you trip over a rock it’s the rock’s fault and if you fail at math, then math is just stupid. Sad to see how hostile people get when they have to face their own lack of intelligence.
Wow, I’ve seen a lot of people on here really close, and I mean really close to the answers they seek. Others don’t even try, but that’s because they seek only entertainment in movies and don’t realize that every great director or writer in the history of time has used their work as a metaphor. There are so many topics I wish to talk about, so I’ll try not to digress.
This movie is about transcendence from imprisonment on a universal level. A man gets out of prison in the beginning and spends the rest of the movie getting out of his own imprisonment. It is about how most people blame everyone else when they should be pointing that blame towards themselves. People don’t like this movie because it tries to show them that they are being conned. I saw that someone almost touched on this earlier. When Green says, “the more time they invest, the less likely they are to feel that they’ve been conned…” he is talking about the universal con. The con is our egos not only making us believe we are it, but also that the material things we gain in this life actually matter. This concept is a bit hard to wrap your head around. It is the same concept as Fight Club, The Matrix, etc.
This movie does deal with Buddhism, Kabbalah, Christianity, and some Egyptian religions. Avi is short for Abraham, Jake is short for Jacob, and Zach is short for Isaac. Macha represents an oppressing Pharoe, and the whole movie they are exiling themselves from him and Gold, who controls him (a lot like a bible story I’ve heard). The whole ego theme is greatly tied in with Buddhism. Look here
http://world.std.com/~aditya/BB/Defeating%20Our%20Ego.htm
The movie involves Christianity briefly but does not ever directly acknowledge this. We are made to believe that Mr. Gold is the devil. In all actuality the devil is a tool used by the ego to make you believe it does not exist. A tool that we can blame instead of blaming ourselves, which would hurt our ego. The ego does whatever it can to survive and trick us into thinking that we are it. Also he is in a purgatory of sorts, and I will get more into depth on this in my next paragraph. The reason I believe there are so many ties to so many different religions, is that Ritchie believes that if everyone had a better understanding of this subject, no matter what religion, race or creed, if we could all become a little more universally aware of this nemisis, we could be closer to peace. We could be closer to realizing that it is our own faults that keep us from looking past everyone elses (sound like something that Jesus Christ would say to anyone?).
To the question of which city they are in: They are in a few different locations. They shoot in Hong Kong, England, and some in the states I know of for sure. They shoot a lot in a studio in front of green screen also. Ritchie does this so the viewer doesn’t get any exact location from the backgrounds and it looks like all the locations meshed together to create a whole new reality. This is a metaphor for purgatory. That’s right, our protagonist, Jake Green, is dead, and his guides, Avi and Zach, are trying to help him transcend. ]
Please, re-watch this movie. I seriously have learned so much from inner-debate and reading about this subject. If you are still having trouble understanding this concept this site helped. http://home.no.net/rrpriddy/P/9ego.html I know Ritchie was planning on making a documentary, but I have not found it. If anyone knows where to find it I would love to know. I’m pretty sure he didn’t release it to the public because of the mass rejection of the film. I guess people aren’t willing to hear that they are being conned.
You can love or hate this movie, regardless it has a lesson to teach you if you are willing to learn it.
I recently watched Revolver and I can not say that I understood it however I did not think it was a bad film. I actually enjoyed it.
I see after reading this blog that some of the people here hate the film because they do not understand it. Hating because you don’t understand something is foolish. Those people are the sheep that crawl through life and are happy with the simpleness of living in the box.
I invite you to dare yourself to step out of the box and open your mind to the complexity of the world we live in. You might just enjoy things more.
in order to understand this movie, we have to divide existing system into subsystems. It is a complicated but a delicate game of realizing one true self, that can be understood only by too many assumptions of a simplified mind. Either that either Gey Ritchie got drunk.
Actually the “solution” to this film is simple.
This is the “Sane man solution”, where a person tries to rationalize the irrational.
Notice the interaction between Zach, Avi and the others, you will notice that there isn’t any direct interaction when Green isn’t here. The point where this is best shown is when he first time he enters the Paramount City building and when Doreen says “Good morning mister Green.”. One of the other points are when Avi and Zach are in the pool, and somehow nobody notices them. Also when they are doing their usual loan shark business, it is never shown exactly to whom are they looking at (the victims i mean).
Any way it all boils down to this simple point.
There are no Zach and Avi in real world. When he was in prison for seven years in solitude he came up with the ideas, somehow (was i the part of his mater plan, or just him being insane) he developed a multiple personality (In other words, he him self was the one who has devised the formula). Also he is the one who created the myth of MR.GOLD, that could be done very easy with the amount of money he had.
If you watch the movie again with this mindset you will understand the movie allot easier.
So, what about the Macha. He broke under the pressure. Why? Because of MR.GOLD, there was no escape from that situation, except suicide or “horrible punishment” by MR.GOLD
This means that he is playing chess against “himself” the whole movie.
The Ego is also one of his personalities.
So the question to ponder upon is who is the real Green.
That also can be easily seen in the movie, i will tell no more…
I just noticed while reading the comments that I’m not the only one who thinks this, cool
Best Film he has made. One of the best ever. I have a greater respect for Mr . Ritchie
Fuck this is insane…lol sorry im not as smart as everyone here..but i try to understand the meaning of the movie and it just makes my brain hurt..lol great movie though..loved it