Revolver (Guy Ritchie, 2005)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#1 Post by Antoine Doinel » Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:03 pm

So Ritchie's attempt to return to form arrives in theatres two years later on the heels of middling reviews.

Trailer.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#2 Post by colinr0380 » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:24 am

Antoine Doinel wrote:So Ritchie's attempt to return to form arrives in theatres two years later on the heels of middling reviews.

Trailer.
I think 'middling' is understating the reaction in Britain - the only way it could have been more reviled would have been if it starred Madonna!

It is supposed to be unintentionally hilarious though with a lot of serious talk about number and colour theory!

I remember Adam and Joe doing an episode of their Xfm radio show last year in which they played extracts from Richie's hilariously pretentious commentary. From the sections I heard, where he tries to explain his philosophy behind all the symbolism, this is a prime candidate for a Commentary Track of the Damned feature at The Onion A.V. Club!

User avatar
Awesome Welles
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:02 am
Location: London

#3 Post by Awesome Welles » Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:46 am

When Ritchie tried to get distribution for the film in the UK he had a very hard time, it ending up going to Redbus (who are now owned by Lionsgate), a distributor who favoured bad horror movies and lightweight Euro fayre. It's not surprising that it has only just found distribution in north America. I didn't bother even seeing the film after the awful reviews and the terrible trailer.

Incidentally Ritchie's new film sound equally ridiculous and cliched. It always astounds me as to how he manages to assemble a semi-decent cast. It is also rumoured that Ritchie will be directing the new Dirty Dozen remake.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

#4 Post by MichaelB » Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:57 am

colinr0380 wrote:I think 'middling' is understating the reaction in Britain - the only way it could have been more reviled would have been if it starred Madonna!
Well, Swept Away never opened theatrically in Britain, so most British critics never had the chance to put the boot in - which I suspect is why they seized their opportunity when Revolver opened.

This is Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian:
Those of us unfortunate enough to have seen Guy Ritchie's previous film, the straight-to-video desert island romance Swept Away starring Madonna, comforted ourselves at the time with the thought that it couldn't get any worse. As we watched Madonna sing "Come on over to my house" in that film, we thought: OK. This is on a level with 18th-century dentistry, but at least this is the lowest it can go. Things have to get better now, not only in western civilisation generally, but surely in Mr Ritchie's own once exciting career. Oh how wrong. How very wrong. Because after Revolver, Swept Away now looks like Citizen Kane...
Here's the rest.

DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#5 Post by DrewReiber » Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:47 pm

colinr0380 wrote:I think 'middling' is understating the reaction in Britain - the only way it could have been more reviled would have been if it starred Madonna!
I think they were aware, hence her scene(s) being cut from the film.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

#6 Post by domino harvey » Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:50 pm

This is on a level with 18th-century dentistry
Amazing

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#7 Post by Antoine Doinel » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:36 pm

You see, it's not that the movie is bad, it's just that it's too smart for us:
Guy Ritchie on "Revolver"
By Aaron Hillis
IFC News

Strutting his pomo plumage with 1998's "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" and 2000's "Snatch," English writer-director Guy Ritchie proved then that Quentin Tarantino wasn't the only player on the field who could kick out a witty, whizz-bang crime flick. And because two out of three ain't ever bad, you can almost forgivingly laugh off his "Swept Away" remake in anticipation of what could've been a welcome rebound, until high expectations felled the rising fanboy giant. Finally seeing a U.S. release, Ritchie's hyper-kitschy return to Gangsterville, "Revolver," unloaded upon the 2005 Toronto Film Festival to a notoriously damning critical reception, and the British theatrical run didn't fare much smoother. (Rather than read the hometown reviews, check out this curious investigation into the film's poster-campaign controversy.) "Revolver" stars frequent Ritchie collaborator Jason Statham as a greasy-haired con artist who — after seven years in jail for a crime he didn't, well, you know — has come to exact revenge on Speedo-wearing casino boss Ray Liotta and his quirkily named henchmen. Slather that with countless quotes from the likes of Julius Caesar and Macchiavelli, Kabbalahist symbolism, three days to live from a rare blood disease, sphinx-like thugs André 3000 and Vincent "Big Pussy" Pastore, monologuing over chess, an anime interlude, a metaphysical rug-pull of a climax, and well... it's probably better to let Madge's hubby do the explaining.

If you don't mind, I'd like to cut to the chase. What took so long to get "Revolver" to the U.S.?

Well, I don't think anyone understood it. I don't think it's any more complex than that. I mean, one of the cons of the movie is that your mind won't accept a game this big, [nor] accept the simplicity of the concept. But your mind's sort of geared up, that's what the film's about. It's geared up not to understand the premise that you are your own con man, or the con man is hiding in your own head. The reason that we fall for adverts and so forth is that our mind is conditioned to understand illusions. It doesn't understand truth. In fact, it's repulsed by truth.

But tangibly, what do you think wasn't being understood? There are plenty of successful art-house films that deal in abstracts.

Absolutely, and incidentally, once you understand something about this film, it's sort of dramatically simple. I can't remember [its title], but there was a movie that I saw recently that I thought was so fucking complex and I thought, "Hold on, I'm having a hard time thinking mine's complex, and this..." I mean, you're right. There are so many movies that are so abstract. There was a line in the previous [version of "Revolver"] that is "If you try to save them to destroy him, they'll destroy you to save him," which is the idea that you're protecting your own pain. So in proportion to how close you are to exposing your pain, that's proportionate to how much you'll be despised for it. I mean, I don't know what I can tell you. It's the movie that I made, and it's a niche movie. It was never made to be massively accessible. I wanted it to be sort of an intellectual gangster movie. There's not many of them.

That's a bit different from what you say in the press notes interview, where you joked that you never expected to "end up talking about high-flatulent concepts" and that you got into filmmaking because you were "interested in making entertaining movies." How do you find that balance?

Ironically, the premise behind this movie is the most exciting of all premises, but it's hard to see it. I mean, if you speak to Jason [Statham] about this, he'll tell you that it took a while for it to dawn. But when it does, it's "the" premise. It's what all other movies are about. The last three movies I saw are about the same thing. You feed your demons at some point. They start off as infants, and they grow into fucking great dragons in the case of "Beowulf." Or in "Michael Clayton," the corporation got consumed by its own consumption and then tried to deny that someone would do all sorts of nefarious activities in order to deny that it was a nefarious institution initially. So what was all that? The mind was playing tricks, both individually and collectively. The mind's a fucking trickster, man. That's not news, but there's some ambiguity about it. I didn't want to be ambiguous. I wanted to be very specific about the fact that we're at war with our own fucking minds. There's no beating around the bush, that's the reality of the situation. I just want to be really clear about that. [laughs] So that's why it's entertaining, because all narratives are based on that premise. We're all hard-wired to be interested in that.

So who do you see as most guilty of not acknowledging that, general audiences or critics?

There were two things: One, I think the film was marketed in the wrong way, in the respect that it looked like it was just going to be an accessible gangster movie. It looked like we were advertising oranges and really selling apples. I don't think that was too smart. Secondly, you have to be really specific about this movie. From my point of view, let it do what it says on the tin. If it says this movie is gonna fuckin' tax you intellectually, be prepared for that. And in that way, I don't think you're going to be disappointed. It's important that you do know what it is that you're getting into, don't you think?

Sure. But I have to admit, I don't know what I'm getting into because I haven't actually seen this new U.S. cut. I've only experienced the original version that screened at Toronto two years ago. How different is the re-edited film?

It's about ten minutes shorter, maybe a little bit more. We've just made a few points clearer. I mean, we've deliberately made it more complex than the first one because we wanted people to have a hard time working it out. But we found that, once you fuckin' spell it out, people still have a hard enough time trying to piece it all together, even when you tell them what it is in the first three lines. I think there's a line in there now, which is: "There really is no such as an external enemy," which is from the first page of some book on suicide. It just tells you, but people still say, "What's the movie about?" So there's no question that the mind doesn't want to understand. There's a gang of psychiatrists at the end of this, as well, sort of telling you what it's about.

Had you taken this universal premise you speak of and put it into a genre you're not regularly recognized for, do you think maybe the reactions might've been different?

No, I don't think so. It would've been good that "the Guy Ritchie thing" — which in the U.K. is kind of a brand, right? — if that hadn't gotten in the way, it would've made life easier. But you're not going to get around the fact that it's a square hole and a round peg, you know? Either people will suddenly get into that and like it for that, or they won't, and there's nothing really I can do about that. If a film's good, I think it comes through in the end. I can't be the judge of that; it'll percolate or it won't. It's out of my hands.

"Revolver" opens in limited release December 7th.
Last edited by Antoine Doinel on Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

#8 Post by MichaelB » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:41 pm

We had exactly the same "you ignorant fools have misunderstood my masterpiece" rant in Britain two years ago.

Cde.
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:56 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

#9 Post by Cde. » Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:57 pm

Guy Ritchie wrote:Ironically, the premise behind this movie is the most exciting of all premises, but it's hard to see it.
Guy Ritchie wrote:The mind's a fucking trickster, man. That's not news, but there's some ambiguity about it. I didn't want to be ambiguous. I wanted to be very specific about the fact that we're at war with our own fucking minds. There's no beating around the bush, that's the reality of the situation. I just want to be really clear about that.
Guy Ritchie wrote:I think there's a line in there now, which is: "There really is no such as an external enemy," which is from the first page of some book on suicide. It just tells you, but people still say, "What's the movie about?" So there's no question that the mind doesn't want to understand. There's a gang of psychiatrists at the end of this, as well, sort of telling you what it's about.
Absolutely breathtaking.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

#10 Post by domino harvey » Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:19 am

Are we sure he doesn't post here?

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#11 Post by Antoine Doinel » Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:37 pm

Ebert tears the film a new one.

Some choice cuts:
It seems designed to punish the audience for buying tickets.
I would urgently warn other directors to stay clear of Kabbalah. Judging by this film, it encourages you to confuse hopeless confusion with pure reason.
Actually, the film stock itself is better than the film deserves. You know when sometimes a film catches fire inside a projector? If it happened with this one, I suspect the audience might cheer.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

#12 Post by domino harvey » Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:45 pm

I wonder if there's some sort of Bad Director Foreign Exchange Program, where we would get Guy Ritchie and the UK gets Richard Kelly.

DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#13 Post by DrewReiber » Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:58 pm

domino harvey wrote:I wonder if there's some sort of Bad Director Foreign Exchange Program, where we would get Guy Ritchie and the UK gets Richard Kelly.
Joel Silver has rescued Ritchie and the Weinsteins did the same for Kelly. Nobody is safe for at least the next few years.

Cinesimilitude
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:43 am

#14 Post by Cinesimilitude » Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:53 pm

I watched this last night, and I thought it was incredible.

User avatar
Barmy
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:59 pm

#15 Post by Barmy » Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:57 pm

I saw it during its brief NYC run. Very entertaining.

Mike 9.5 Miles From Leigh
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:38 am
Location: Haydock

#16 Post by Mike 9.5 Miles From Leigh » Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:33 pm

Hi. First post here.

I caught this on its release in the UK and I said that I would go back to watch it again because it was complicated. Whether it was complicated and interesting to go back to, well I'm not sure. I think the reviews were fairly harsh over here and it's not a stinker but it didn't make me feel like I wanted to know what it was about which is where the disappointment came in.

Cinesimilitude
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:43 am

#17 Post by Cinesimilitude » Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:15 am

I think it spoke to me mostly because I am an over-thinker, so I have a pretty intense inner voice, and sometimes decisions feel like they are depicted in revolver.

Mike 9.5 Miles From Leigh
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:38 am
Location: Haydock

#18 Post by Mike 9.5 Miles From Leigh » Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:26 pm

I kind of got the point of what was happening, it just wasn't enticing me into exploring it. I'd compare it with something like There Will Be Blood which cranks open the discussions almost immediately after watching it whereas with Revolver I thought about it for a bit and then didn't.

I'll probably go back and watch it again to see if it was a victim of the Guy Ritchie Is A Tosser campaign or not.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#19 Post by colinr0380 » Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:16 pm

I'm not sure whether it is worth starting a new thread on this, but just a warning that Guy Ritchie has a new film out! Here's the Kermode dissection of Rock n Rolla. I don't know if the video is playable outside of the UK but I'm sure the BBC podcast is available, and is just as scathing about it!

It might only be a Mamma Mia! hangover but I also can't stop humming along to this unreleased ABBA song whenever I hear the title of the Ritchie film.

Post Reply