IN: Review: Cannot believe my eyes when read quite a bunch of other comments and reviews. As if it were a mediocre movie of some run-of-the-mill dudes.

The movie is great, funny, crazy, over-the-top violent though with minimum gore, and all the way energetic to the core. Loved every single bit of it. Can't remember anything insane like this made for laughs and martial art showing off. And now the most important thing (at least to me): it is computer effects free. When I watch some Hollywood actors duking it out on screen in modern high-resolution and damn high-budgeted action "fuflo" (a Russian word that means "bull*beep*"), I understand that any *beep* child can do it - you can adjust the wires to the body, add some cute PC effects, and stuff it into the action film. Here it is different. I don't think that there will be even a dozen of physically advanced action stars worldwide, who can repeat the brawl that takes place at the end of the film or the "Chinese football" play. And it is just a little Hong Kong cinema made for fun, not pretending to be "Star Wars".

Having a DVD with English soundtrack is not a problem with this movie. It does not spoil the atmosphere to me.

Can't help mentioning a very neat theatrical play. Some of you, suppose, won't like it. As to me - it's amazing. Have a look at the Dragon's friend who is talking in a brave manner to the criminals and all of a sudden gets a fist punch in his left side of the head. His face expression changes into something whimsical and he comes up to Dragon with a baby expression. And take a look at the menacing size of his mouth - it's nearly from one ear to the other long when he makes grimaces.

This movie deserves a higher rating and a thousand comments from people all over the world. Very thankful to our Russian industry for the releases of classic Jackie Chan movies. His modern ones are much weaker in my humble opinion and do not deserve much hype.

Total 10 out of 10 - a legendary movie in its genre. Thank you for attention.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: The extraordinary Rosemary Forsyth is the main reason to see this flick. Why she never became a bigger store may never be known. But she is exceptional and steals every scene she's in. Garson Kanin directed this piece of fluff and the cast is first rate, with Robert Drivas and Brenda Vaccaro especially memorable. A "9" out of "10."
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: I picked this one up because the music was done by Hans Zimmer, a customer of Metasonix modular synths (made by someone dear to me). The jacket art says "the 2003 version".

I give it one point for a strong female, one point for cheezy dialog and one last point for meg foster's light blue eyes, of which there are plenty of shots of.

It was fun seeing David MacCullum casually swimming (the pool has a plexiglass viewing window!), while his lady love was being chased by a psycho in Greece.

The sets were marginally impressive-that is, rich people's houses in L.A. and Mendanassos (sp?), where the castle was. I found myself wondering how they were able to keep up the cleaning with all the dust blowing around. The wind wasn't fierce enough to be believable to me. I kept thinking that the animal pelts on the furniture must be nasty...etc. and realized that the film must be pretty boring if i am wondering these things when the supposed plot was unfolding. I stumbled over things like why did she light a fire, blow out the match, then throw the match into the fire?! Dumb stuff like that. It was clunky at best. Oh well. Robert Morely got to have a bit of fun with his kooky geezer character and a nice vacation out of it.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: When Ritchie first burst on to movie scene his films were hailed as funny, witty, well directed and original. If one could compare the hype he had generated with his first two attempts and the almost universal loathing his last two outings have created one should consider - has Ritchie been found out? Is he really that talented? Does he really have any genuine original ideas? Or is he simply a pretentious and egotistical director who really wants to be Fincher, Tarantino and Leone all rolled into one colossal and disorganised heap? After watching Revolver one could be excused for thinking were did it all go wrong? What happened to his great sense of humour? Where did he get all these mixed and convoluted ideas from? Revolver tries to be clever, philosophical and succinct, it tries to be an intelligent psychoanalysis, it tries to be an intricate and complicated thriller. Ritchie does make a gargantuan effort to fulfil all these many objectives and invests great chunks of a script into existential musings and numerous plot twists. However, in the end all it serves is to construct a severely disjointed, unstructured and ultimately unfriendly film to the audience. Its plagiarism is so sinful and blatant that although Ritchie does at least attempt to give his own spin he should be punished for even trying to pass it off as his own work. So what the audience gets ultimately is a terrible screenplay intertwined with many pretentious oneliners and clumsy setpieces.

Revolver is ultimately an unoriginal and bland movie that has stolen countless themes from masterpieces like Fight Club, Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction. It aims high, but inevitably shots blanks aplenty.

Revolver deserves to be lambasted, it is a truly poor film masquerading as a wannabe masterpiece from a wannabe auteur. However, it falls flat on its farcical face and just fails at everything it wants to be and achieve.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT:
negative