Secret to understanding this movie - Revolver (2005) Discussion

[–] BombayBadBoy 16 years ago

...or you can just cut the bulls--t and get straight to the point and say that Mr Gold is money and greed

"And what am I supposed to do while you're on a yellow brick quest for a brain?"

reply

[–] Flunkstar 16 years ago

Yeah, i'm watching it to!

reply

[–] DiabolicalJC 16 years ago

(MSN addy [email protected] Feel free to add me!)

Well that was a good film. Go channel 5.

reply

[–] cambioni 16 years ago

Mr. Gold is ego, not money and greed.

reply

[–] SiPayn 16 years ago

I really liked the film, although I do think it is flawed.

The concept of the movie though is very interesting, and all those who are just saying it makes no sense are either willfully ignoring a great deal, or simply too stupid to understand some of the subtly. I'll leave it up to you which category you fit into.

The secret to understanding this film is that it is like a fable, or old morality tale, dressed up as a "gangsta" movie.

As with old Hans Christian Anderson or Brothers Grimm tales, or even Aesop's fables, you need to look past some of the fantastical elements to the core of the film. There are OBVIOUSLY fantastical bits to the film, the $12 bills, the mysterious medical illness, the reality of certain characters.

To understand most of what the film is about, all you need to do is fully understand these rules that are repeated throughout the film :

1) The only way to get smarter is to play a smarter opponent.
2) First rule of business, protect your investment
3) The greatest enemy will hide in the last place you would ever look.

The first is telling you, you aren't as smart as you think you are, the second is telling that your investments, both monetary and emotional are things that we cling to, even when we ought not to. The third is telling you that you are your own worst enemy.

Once we realise these things, as human beings we can start to grow out of them, and we are not trapped by the material. It is this materialistic, greedy side of our nature that is represented by Mr Gold. The reason why Gold has so much power is that we give "him" this power by wedding ourselves to the material. This is why Jake needs to give away his money, and let go of it all, before he can grow.

At the start of the movie he is consumed by revenge. By the end, he has let it all go for the sake of the little girl, and moved on, no longer controlled by Mr Gold. Whether Avi and Zach are real or not are effectively irrelevant, although I do like to think they are real, and are actually the two guys who were either side of Jake in prison. It is they who have freed Jake, not from actualy prison, but from the prison he has created for himself in his own mind.

I realise that going from Snatch to a pyschologically complex film that explores the nature of reality, and our human responses to it, as well as the nature of greed and how we can escape from it is a stretch. And I think that if Ritchie had made it a little less gangsta, and a little more arthouse, he might have succeeded in getting his message across better.

However I do think he should be applauded for TRYING to make a movie like this, as so few filmmakers try to stretch their limits, and even though this film is ultimately flawed, its is gloriously flawed, and very interesting in its own right.

To deny that is being deliberately obtuse or unintentionally revealing a singular lack of understanding.

Allow me to introduce myself. I'm a man of wealth and taste......

reply

[–] zarch-3 16 years ago

yawn...most people aren't interested in figuring it out because it's too boring, there is nothing to make you care about the characters. These concepts about ego, money, power have to be the most assininely dull ideas to ever enter Ritchie's mind probably brought on by his ridiculous marriage and the kaballah meetings...

reply

[–] SiPayn 16 years ago

ofc you are entitled to your opinion, but actually I thought many of the characters were interesting if a little crudely drawn. Also a lot of people can't be bothered to figure out stuff like this because they are too lazy and want their movie plots spoon fed to them....

Allow me to introduce myself. I'm a man of wealth and taste......

reply

[–] lastgreatman 13 years ago

that's what's so stupid about this film...because it was trying to be too metaphorical...people who can figure it all out are the ones with brighter minds, in the end of the day, they don't need the lesson since they are already wise enough to know it. the people who need this are those not too bright individuals, hence the need for spoon-feeding...

reply

[–] csully0230 13 years ago

What is your point? Smart people don't deserve an intelligent movie? If you understand this film then do as I did: show other people and explain to them the concepts. Now a smart film can be enjoyed by dim minds too!! Yay for having a thought process!

reply

[–] jumpmuffin 9 years ago

Perhaps, since what is real is one of the questions of this movie. People who consider themselves smart think they understand it. Is what they understand real? Are they fooling themselves as they think they are smart and able to understand a confusing film.

People who don't understand the film may think the film pointless, confusing and the longer it goes on the more frustrating it gets to find the point.

Are they right? Perhaps.

Or perhaps everyone is right as everyone perceives things differently.

And reality and what we perceive to be reality is often unique to an individual.

Since the characters behaved in ways that were not consistent and and did things that made no sense, they movie wasn't about reality and could be interpreted in innumerable ways.

I think the simplest explanation is often the most correct and the post about Ritchie s involvement with Kabbalah seems the one that reflects Ritchies interest at the time into his desire to reflect in a movie. Successful? for those who liked it, yes. Kaballah is filled with things that don't make sense and.... this post is over as someone just shot themselves in the head for no point.

reply

[–] tomservo00 15 years ago

Boring, or is it really that embarrassing to have to admit how far over your head it is.

These concepts aren't Ritchie's own, but had you bothered to actually read where they came from, you would know that.

Stick to Adam Sandler Films and Michael Bay Films with BIG Explosions, thin characters, and mindless plots.

You'll feel better, and won't have to respond so angrily when you are out of your depth.

reply

[–] platonic567 13 years ago

In order to demonstrate our superior intellect, are we suppose to make up crazy interpretations from this pointless movie with no story and a whole bunch of useless characters, stolen quotes, etc? Why don't you start by telling everyone the point, if any, of this movie?

reply

[–] omnimutant 13 years ago

I enjoyed the movie, but the message, of course, like most movies similar to this falls a little flat. Richie's own ego allowed him to make a movie telling others how smart he is that "he got it right" or is on some higher path. Maybe he's just trying to spread the word of his "enlightenment". But in doing so he's being egotistical in his own right. His ego tells him that the message he's sending is important enough to make a movie about it. Just like mine is telling me that my opinion holds just as much weight as his. And who's right? Neither of us are. Because in the end, Ego doesn't really matter. It's what guides us through our decisions in life and without it, life would be kind of boring. It's what gives you pleasure and pain in life and makes cohabitation with other humans beings somewhat bearable(sometimes).

I'd hardly call the core idea of the movie original, but the execution of this common idea was very entertaining. Fight Club has the same basic message in a more abstract way, without having to explain itself in the ending credits. Another great Movie with the same message is PI. Again no need for PHD's in psychology to tell you what the movie was about. That's where I think this movie fails. If you cannot convey your message with in the confines of the medium in which you have portrayed it, then you've simply given the world some lengthy eye candy to ponder until you slap them in the face with the message after the movie.

reply

[–] barry-j-kelly 12 years ago

There is no explanation at the end of the movie.

(You've watched a butchered version.)

reply

[–] douglas_goodall 10 years ago

The last scene of the version I just watched has Jake entering the casino and D telling an aid to invite Jake up. This ending seems butchered since there is no resolution that I can make out. Can someone tell me what I have missed?

reply

[–] BanduDandu 15 years ago

this is perhaps the best analysis I have read of this film on this board..thanks dude

reply

[–] ChristinaZee 15 years ago

I have to say your review is amazing... Loves it!

"The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent" - Revolver

reply

[–] Kurt_Pearson 15 years ago

I agree wholeheartedly here. Ritchie should be applauded for trying to make this movie.

But I do understand why it is more gangster than arthouse...Ritchie's diehard fans have come to expect a certain raw edge that only the gangster/crime genre allows. To do an arthouse might have suffered by comparison to "Swept Away."

By putting Statham and Liotta in the film and setting it in a gangster/crime setting, he pulled the ultimate con of getting his die hard fans to go and watch a more philosophical piece.

Those who just want to down it because they have to think about it are pretty much what's wrong with cinema today. So...the heck with movie makers who make us think, let's just have another remake of a 70s or 80s sitcom or another video-game-turned-movie. That's just what we need.

reply

[–] djkaspar 15 years ago

Brilliant, clear and perceptive. What I find so flawed is that the narrative fails to be coherent mostly because of the over metaphoric use of a "character" to personify materialism. This makes this film much harder to follow, because you always try to find a way to find this Mr. Sam Gold in persona as a real narrated character.

The elevator bit at the end, reveals another level of the movie's intention: the release of fear, the detachment of ourselves from our ego - a construct of desires and tastes that is supposed to project our soul into our consciousness. As Monty Python put it : the little voice inside your head when you read. The voice of your thoughts. The thoughts that are verbal, are indeed ego thoughts, and the ones that are in tune with your truest identity are intuitive, logic and unspoken in your mind. Green abandons the fear, the suspicion and the neurotic antics, in order to embrace a clear-cut perception of himself.

What happens after that is that by quenching his ego, he also removes himself from his position as an enemy of Liotta's character. The egos fight, not the men that have them. The masks... the symbolics of it all is beautiful... but it's not very clear in the movie. As a musician, I believe your ideas might be wonderful, but the economy of the message is essential in trying to make that message come across. I learned this from Italo Calvino's "7 resolutions for the new millenium"

hope you agree with me

k§

myspace.com/djkaspar

reply

[–] Huump 12 years ago

I agree with you...

reply

[–] anastasiyakurdina 15 years ago

God, you're the first person by far that has just expressed my own impression about the movie, that Mr Gold is ego. I have heard so many things, but none seems to completely understand it, thought for me it seems so evident. I am really glad someone else has got the meaning this way (as I am sure, the right way :)))

reply

[–] AlexEvensen 15 years ago

Correct. Mr. Gold is everyone's ego. The clue is to realize that your ego's fears aren't your fears. The hard part is to ignore your ego's fears. And it's really really hard.

This is a very underrated movie. It's very different from Snatch and Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrells, so it's not really fair to compare them. I love all three, but this one is definitely the better of the three.

reply

[–] KenMishima 15 years ago

You guys...just wow. This is straight from Wikipedia:

"Guy Ritchie was, during the time of conceiving and executing the film, known to be involved in the philosophy and practice of a form of mysticism known as Kabbalah.[2] The film itself is laced with references to Kabbalic ideas, symbols and numerological references.[3]

The trinity of Zach, Jake and Avi are representative of Kabbalic right, center and left pillar energies, respectively. Avi is a Black man who is somewhat effeminate in his physical appearance, clothing and mannerisms. The 'left pillar' or 'left column' in Kabbalic traditions is often associated with 'the feminine' and with the colour black. Jake's surname is "Green", and the colour green is associated with the central column or pillar in Kabbalic traditions. Zach is a hefty, gargantuan, white man who 'dresses down' in a very archetypically 'masculine' way. Both masculinity and the colour white are associated with right column or right pillar energies in Kabbalic traditions.[4][5]

The trinity of characters are named after the Patriarchs. Avi [short for Abraham], Zach [short for Isaac] and Jake [short for Jacob], being names with letters from beginning, end and middle of the alphabet.[citation needed]

The number 32 comes up repeatedly. "The chess game has many mystical meanings. The Temple of Solomon was chequered like a chess board, which has 64 squares and 32 pieces."[6] The elevator that Jake enters near the end of the movie has buttons for 32 floors. In numerology, its 'opposite' is said to be the number 23, which is commonly associated with 'The 23 Enigma' (which is the idea that everything in the observed universe is somehow related to the number 23).[7] In the Kabbalah the number 13 represents the year where a child becomes a man and thus Jake was stuck on the 13 floor when he finally understood."

Not difficult to understand at all. The film is complex but only if you think too hard about it. It's really simple and might require more than one watchthrough, but you can easily get this.

reply

[–] moosefeathers 15 years ago

I thought that Mr. Gold was really the Id, while the rest were part of the ego.

reply

[–] TerryOPants 16 years ago

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

"What is real?" is not a basic philosophical question.

The "secret" (sic) to understanding this movie is that there is nothing to understand. It's vacuous, misogynist and crude as well as being idiotic.

Please stop with your flagrant half-witted attempts at philosophy, as you come across like a retard, just like Guy Ritchie.

reply

[–] Danny_Campbell 16 years ago

Clearly the above poster didn't understand any of it,

<Quote> there is nothing to understand </quote>

http://www.futuremovies.co.uk/filmmaking.asp?ID=139 will explain it for you.

It's not philosophical, misogynistic, good, evil, or trying to be anything it isn't. It's about a game, the players who play it, and what they represent. Nothing more, nothing less.

reply

[–] TerryOPants 16 years ago

Again, that's just the typical condescending, patronising argument that accuses anyone who sees through Guy Ritchie movies - and indeed has problems with Guy Ritchie movies - as "not understanding it".

You obviously haven't heard Ritchie speak about this movie. He says "this is a movie about ideas and the human conflict". Direct quote. Utterly meaningless drivel.

Indeed, if the movie is about a game and the players who play it (which makes no sense by the way) then you have just proved my point about there being nothing to get.

I most certainly will not look at your half-witted link.

reply

[–] yerbamatte 16 years ago

Wow
You're an idiot

reply

[–] geocpapadopoulos 13 years ago

I am sorry to be disappointing some of the members of our community when stating that I am in agreement with TerryOPants.

As Plato mentioned, leading a simple life, is the best way to leave your ego behind.

This is best displayed through David Lynch's "Straight story". Never in my life, have I been a simpler movie about unconditional love and acceptance, even for those you once considered foes.

Mr Richie, fails royally in his effort to appear philosophical in the manner that he treats philosophy as an elitist.

Hidden messages, perverse ideas dressed up to appear as well thought make the film tiresome and the whole meaning of abandoning your ego for the sake of a simple life or at least that of humility gets lost in a condescending game of convoluted scenes and characters.

That is my two cents at least ...

reply

[–] bhg311 16 years ago

Just have to point out that the question of reality... or "what is real?" is absolutely an important philosophical question. Some would consider it THE fundamental philosophical question upon which everything else is based and therefore, by definition, "basic".
Never heard of Descartes?
Might want to learn a bit before you speak so confidently. Then people may respect your opinion of films.

reply

[–] minimontana 10 years ago

I love when someone makes a comment like this. Movie is obviously based on Sam Gold being the ego in the human psyche.

reply

[–] FortySecondStreetFreak 16 years ago

SHUT UP!!

I can guarantee that YOUR (though I notice you give none) theory about this film will not agree with anyone elses.

Because the film makes no sense!!
Even Ritchie can't make sense out of it!! That's why we have 3 different versions of the film!!

ALL the supposed big brains on here who have given their opinions on what happens in the film NEVER agree with each other! So in fact NO ONE, literally no one, actually understands this film.
Not the audience OR the makers!

reply

[–] bevisjl 16 years ago

How about this guys...

Some movie makers leave their movies open to interpretation. Just like if you ever paid attention in Literature class or at least heard people discussing literature, you would see that people have different feelings about what the author was trying to say. None of them are necessarily the wrong answers and none are necessarily right. Maybe the author knew that, and maybe that is part of the fun of something like this movie. If you are intelligent enough to give it a chance, then you can come up with a meaning for it all your own. Who cares what its original intent was or what other people think it means. The sign of true art is when different people can admire (or dislike) it for their own personal reasons.

-----------Just a thought----------

reply

[–] imdb-7521 16 years ago

Guy Richie very much understands his movie, if you don't believe that, watch the movie the commentary track on the DVD, it's quite good.

That being said, the main theme in this film is that the greatest enemy/opponent of every person is his/her own own "conceptualized self" or ego - this is the "game of all games" or the "con of all cons". Mr. Gold is just a metaphor for the ego, that's why nobody can ever see him. And that's why Mr. Gold cannot touch Avi & Zack b/c they have become masters of their own conceptualized selves - and Mr. Green (Jason Statham) becomes a master over his own ego in the elevator scene.

One of the claim is: "The greatest enemy will hide in the last place you would ever look". Isn't the last place you would look for an enemy... inside your own mind?

Another claim is: "the more sophisticated the game, the more sophisticated the opponent" - now do you think that can mean that the smarter you are, the smarter your ego is & thus your game is more sophisticated? Afterall, can't a reasonable man reason his way out of anything? Just a thought.

Now I don't pretend to understand all of the layers & symbolism in the movie that Guy Richie constructed painstakingly over a period of 3 years, but I have been figuring a few things out a little at a time.

I cannot figure out why Jake Green was dying of a "blood disease". Can anyone help me with that one?

reply

[–] Sheik-Yerbouti 16 years ago

you're right imdb-7521 , thank you taking your time to explain this. and to all of you idiots in this thread that says there's no meaning in this movie ; what about the 10 minute explanation in the credits ? it clearly states states that this movie is about fighting the ego. so, you loose! haha! weeeee

reply

[–] TerryOPants 16 years ago

If you can't tell the difference between "lose" and "loose" then it's no wonder you think this is an intelligent movie. If a movie has a ten minute explanation, then it doesn't mean the movie is deep and intellectual, it means it has failed in every conceivable manner. Equally, just because Guy Ritchie says his movie is about "fighting the ego" doesn't automatically make it so.

But I hated Revolver, so obviously I don't understand it. *rolls eyes*

reply

[–] Sheik-Yerbouti 15 years ago

i don't speak english so i'm doing the best that i can. one spelling error isn't that bad when I compare myself to most american kids on this forum. at least I know how to write in my own language which is eskimo.

this movie IS about fighting the ego,and it's a brilliant twist.
if you think aboutit ; how many action movies have tried to portray the ultimate enemy?

well,this movie have it and it's not a terrorist.

an unhealty ego is the voice in your head trying to protect you from everything,wanting fame and power,giving you fear etc.

so it's kinda like Unbreakable. you think it's an ordinary thriller,but it's really a realistic super-hero movie. just a way to do something new with the genre. this movie tries to debate psychological and philosophical issues and at the same time giving you action that are easy to consume....

matrix allready did this i know,but it's still a good movie

reply

[–] theotherrob 15 years ago

That's about the dumbest comment I've ever heard. First you tell people to shut up, which is just rude, then you claim that simply due to the fact that you believe the film makes no sense you try to back up your egoic statement (Poeple will do absolutely anything to defend their ego, lie, cheat, steal and even kill) because you cannot stand to hear that you might in fact be incorrect.

This movie makes more sense to me than I've experienced in movies in a long time. Read Eckhart Tolle's "A New Earth" or The Kabbalah and then re-watch this movie.

And don't get TOO mad at me for my comments about your statement, after all... I am you.

reply

[–] FortySecondStreetFreak 15 years ago

LMAO!!

-----Read Eckhart Tolle's "A New Earth" or The Kabbalah and then re-watch this movie. ------

LMAO!!

So you have to be a tragic fantasist/cultist to truly 'get' this movie then do you!?

The Kabbalah?? No thanks. I have common sense and freedom of thought.
YOu might as well ask me to read such delusional tomes of hate as The Bible or The Quran! Once again...No thanks.

Kabbalah! Woot!

reply

[–] srinath_r_htanirs 10 years ago

Guy Ritchie got this one over your head. You lost... To your ego.

reply

[–] Naoyusimi 15 years ago

ALL the supposed big brains on here who have given their opinions on what happens in the film NEVER agree with each other! So in fact NO ONE, literally no one, actually understands this film.
Not the audience OR the makers!

You don't see a piece of art and interpret what you see with someone else's experiences and knowledge, do you? No, you interpret that art with your own. In that way, it can become personal to you, and you absorb a bit of it. Sometimes you grow to love it, because it has become part of you.

Art is not paint-by-the-numbers. No one person is going to explain something the same way. They've had their OWN experience with it. Just like witnesses at a scene: numerous different interpretations.

But those who pan this movie are really close-minded. Their ignorance of the concepts involved should be their own shame--they are not the shame of the makers of the film. Even if ignorant of the intriguing concepts raised (not new, I know) in this movie, they should at LEAST pick up on something that piques their interest and makes them think. IMO, anyway.

OTOH--if you just want to say, "Hey, I want movies to entertain me; I don't want to have to think that much." That's fine, too. It's not that the movie "sucks", however, it's that it's not for you.

One of the main--most absorbing for me, anyway--concepts in it was the rule about the enemy being in the last place you'll ever look. When that is finally answered in the film, it's done so with more than one different method. The idea that Gold is Ego I think is correct. I think that is one major way that one can get in one's own way.

To me, I thought of Buddhist & Taoist concepts as I was watching: the idea of letting go, because to hold onto anything holds you back. Ego, money, possessions; overly powerful emotions like revenge, which can control you . . . the only way to be powerful is to not be tied to these things.
[What sprang to my mind just now? Of course: "A Jedi cares not for these things!"] It's also a Kung Fu sort of philosophy, isn't it?

Anyway, that was the central theme of the movie for me. I don't disagree with the even more esoteric notions raised by an earlier poster, but this is what stuck with me long after I shut off the DVD player . . . the real test of a movie. Whether or not I really enjoyed myself during the movie, if it made me think, or disturbed me enough to ponder its questions for days afterwards, it has to be something special. It's more than just entertainment.

reply

[–] FortySecondStreetFreak 15 years ago

"""I thought of Buddhist & Taoist concepts"""

zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Sorry I live in the real world. Not some religious dross fairyland

And as for the movie being deep and thoughtful and full of 'concepts'. NO, it is not. It's just a bloated, confused, mess.
there are indeed many movies that ARE deep, thoughtful and full of those concepts. This isn't one of them though so stop using it as an excuse and defence.

It seems YOU are the one not truly understanding what you are seeing. You see a magical crystal when in reality it's just a sloppy dog turd.

reply

[–] srinath_r_htanirs 10 years ago

The irony is that the 'Real' World you seem to live in is within the crystal ball. A world where subtle ideas go above the head, a world where ego wins over the self and a world were one is not open to ideas, dismissing them as nothing.

Beliefs maybe up to an individual, however having a closed mind as yours is pretty dangerous. To the self more than others.

reply

[–] BoudreauxO76 16 years ago

You are right Avonfoust I think this is what the film is about, though I might not have caught all the layers if I'd not viewed some of the extra features. And yes this is a very important question "What is Real?" However where I think this film failed is that it provided no external framework upon which to hang the various metaphysical questions. For example, in The Matrix these questions are hung on the Matrix itself this fake world manufactured for us to live in. In the film What Dreams May Come it's hung on the concepts of heaven and hell. In this film there's too much shifting between characters to get a firm grasp of those deeper questions in relation to the story. An astute viewer will realize that there are two distinct realities present in the film but we never sit on anyone thing long enough to guess what it is. I think this could have been easily remedied by having Jake Green playing chess at the very start of the film, give us that visual cue from the start, hang the whole thing on that game. I think it takes them too long to get to that game. Another thing that makes it difficult to grasp is the quotes throughout. There were too many of them and didn't really frame the visual storytelling very well. At least not on a first viewing. I will say the visuals in the film were beautiful which is why I will watch this film again. And the emotional pull to protect that little girl is just wonderfully done.

To sum up the two improvements I'd add to this film are first to provide one solid visual and narrative framework and second to place the text in more strategic places. I almost think a chapter format like Tarantino's Kill Bill would have made it clear, as in

Chapter One: The Only Way to Get Smarter is to Play a Smarter Opponent
Chapter Two: First rule of business, protect your investment
Chapter Three:Your greatest enemy will hide in the last place

I know this might have made him look like a copycat of QT but my point would be to place these headings in clear spots to identify that you're starting a new part of the story. This adds to the further clarity that Jack is really trapped by his own ego.

Just my thoughts...this is why I'd only give the film a 5 out of 10. Great concept, great visuals, badly pasted together.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tardesdete 15 years ago

I thought it was a Beatles album.

reply

[–] hbadra2885 15 years ago

I thought while watching this film over and over that although it's clearly well shot, amazingly edited and painstakingly complex, that it's a bit like staring at a Dali-Picasso-Van Gogh painting drawn by Frida Kahlo in chalk and trying to figure out it's meaning. I mean it's really trying to be so much all at once, that it becomes fruitless to try to peg any one definition to it. I think Ritchie sums up this movie best when he sais that's ultimately up to the viewer to make sense of it for him/herself.

I watched the Guy Ritchie commentary BTW..and in case you're reading this Guy, I am a huge fan of all your movies mate. But for once...my Noggin really really hurt trying to make sense of it all.

reply

[–] kingrh 15 years ago

This thread was more entertaining than the movie. Hey, I watch movies to be entertained. If I wanted to be confused I'd read The Bible.

con·fused (kn-fyzd)
adj.
1. Being unable to think with clarity or act with understanding and intelligence.
2.
a. Lacking logical order or sense: a confused set of instructions.
b. Chaotic; jumbled: a confused mass of papers on the floor.

reply

[–] Darknessviking 15 years ago

i think the best way to understand this movie is to take it for what it is..a movie

reply

[–] ChristinaZee 15 years ago

Amen to that!

"The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent" - Revolver

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nikkiten1979 15 years ago

movie was entertaining the first hour... then it started falling apart and forgetting the beginning, thus leading it to become flawed and stupid... then they tried to revive it by making sense of it with psychological attributes, explaining you what we are or what Jake Green and the men around him are ( a whole lotta bullsheet )...

i love movies that make you think, but this one was just all over the place and kinda got stupid towards the end... and Ray Liotta is just NOT as good as he used to be!!! what happened to him?

i love me

reply