How much does Guy Ritchie want to be Tarantino?

M

Markoes

New member
Having seen the trailers for and read a few reviews of Guy Ritchie's new film, Revolver, it seems that he just reeeeeaaalllly wishes he was Quentin Tarantino.

The film has been described as "agonisingly pretentious", with "stylistic overkill & incomprehensible plotting" and even has Tarantino's 'trademark' touches such as "flashbacks, animated sequences [Kill Bill 1, anyone?] and scenes that are repeated and played backwarRAB".

And the girl with the lollipop (http://www.revolverthemovie.co.uk/wallpapers/1_800.jpg) really seems to mimic the Uma Thurman cover/poster from Pulp Fiction...

I'm not judging the film 'cos I haven't seen it (nor do I intend to :) ) but these things just suggest to me that Ritchie wants to be the British answer to Tarantino (and fails miserably by all accounts).

Just my opinion, of course...
 
dont know about wanting to be like taratino, but the film was pure crap. Very difficult to watch, difficult to understand and the ending, well less said about that the better.

Shame for Statham, he put in a great performance, just a shame the overall film was dire

For a good Jason Statham movie go see Transporter II that looks superb, but avoid this at all costs

Andy
 
Hi.

Liotta was actually quite good, the last ten minutes were great on his part but again it was just the plot, story, direction, whole film that was crap.

Shame for all concerned really
 
If I made two complete f**k ups at my job like Ritchie seems to have done with his I'd be out on me arse. In fact I'd be out on me arse if I cost my company a few hundred quid, never mind millions.
 
I actually liked Swept Away, and I havent seen this latest Ritchie flick, so I fail to see why Ritchie would want to stoop to become more like QT.
 
Just back from seeing Revolver. The film tries to be way smarter than it actually is. I don't have an idea what actually happened. . Can someone please fill me in??
 
All the free previews and press screenings are now over so the chances of a paying punter actually going to see it now are slim.
 
:D You're probably right. We saw it on a Sunday evening when the local cinema is usually packed. There was only my girlfriend and myself and one other couple.
 
I personally don't like Tarantino - sure he made some cool movies, but as a guy who kinda watched Hong Kong action movies around the time when Tarantino came to frution I kinda notice how most of the stuff he uses is from films.

Sure, he's a good storyteller, but he doesn't really do anything for me.
 
Revolver is AWFUL and it is desperately obvious that he has tried to make a cross between a Tarantino movie and The Usual Suspects, but has failed miserably.
In fact, I am surprised that Tarantino and Bryan Singer haven't sued him for the cinematic eqivalent of plagiarism.

For anyone who has seen The Usual Suspects, Revolver totally rips off the last line of the film.

Last line of The Usual Suspects - "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was convincing the World he didn't exist".

The last line of Revolver -"The greatest con he ever pulled, was convincing you, you were him".

It also uses all the effects that Tarantino is known for, like, as previously mentioned, the flashing from past to present-tense and snaps of cartoon.

The plot is highly confusing and is attempting to be complex and twisty, in order to shock the audience when all is revealed at the end, but all that happens is you are left ondering what the plot actually is.
Even now, I'm not sure what the point of the story was.

It is a shame because all of the acting is very good in it, Jason Statham is excellent and he ever-so slightly redeems the tedium of the the whole thing.

Guy Ritchie should have stuck to what he knows best, i.e. cockney gangster flicks.

DON'T bother wasting money going to see it at the cinema. Wait til it is shown on Sky Movies. Even then, you're likely to consider it a waste of 2 hours of your life.
 
Thanks, that does clear a few things up. I think I did actually understand it after all, I was just looking into things too much. It's still a crap film though :D
 
Please enlighten me! Saw it last night, spent an hour on IMDB (not the boarRAB) last night, and 20 minutes on message boarRAB, and I am none the wiser. Please post a link from IMDB to help me out!
 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365686/board/nest/26754387

On second reading I'm not actually sure if I understand it or not but I'm not gonna waste anymore time fretting over.
One thing that I really don't get is the lack of credits at the end. We were sitting watching a blank screen for what seemed like ages, waiting for something to happen. When the lights finallly came on we realised it must have been over. I don't see what possible purpose this served. If anything it lightened the mood of a quite serious film. Ourselves and the other one and only couple in the screen ended up giggling due to the prolonged awkward silence.
 
I'm not going to deny I liked Lock Stock, but the other one he did after that, which I can't even remember it's name was awful so I've not gone near any other of his films.

It's apparent and obvious that his films are watched purely because he's married to Madonna, but it also comes with the territory that his films would be slated because he is married to Madonna too, so I think people have to go with their own feelings with regarRAB to them!

Personally, although I did like Lock Stock, I didn't think it a masterpiece, I thought his next one was crap so stopped watching subsequent films of his........all of my own accord, my own opinion, and his choice of wife didn't come into it!
 
Back
Top