Revolver (2005)

I got home the other night, content to watch old episodes of Frasier on YouTube, as I often do, until I'd have fallen asleep.  To my delight I found that one of my favorite movies had returned to Netflix instant.  Guy Ritchie's 'Revolver'.

I originally came across this movie, via Netflix, probably around 2007 and I've loved it ever since.  I watched it maybe 3 or 4 times.  Since discovering it's return to Instant this week I've watched it another 3 times.
As far as Guy Ritchie movies go, this one gets pretty universally panned.  On Metacritic it scores only .3 higher than that shitstorm he did with his then-wife, Madonna.  I personally think he's one of the best gangster-shoot-em-up directors out there.  I loved Snatch and I hold Lock Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels in very high regard.  But I don't think either can hold a candle to Revolver.   It has everything that makes those movies great: A flawed protagonist, warring factions with varying characters all with their endearing qualities, and almost vaudvillian stumbling blocks placed in each other's way akin to 1963's It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World;  but what makes this film greater, and what unfortunately leads to the distaste left in the mouths of most of it's viewers, is that it's very deep.

Take a look at the end credits but only if you don't plan on watching the movie.  Slight spoiler. 

And I know Deep is a vacuous word that's lost all meaning but let me differentiate. His movies have always been smart.  Very clever.  Revolver, however, for the first 70% of the film plays out most superficially.  It's not until midway into the 3rd act that you start to realize that something else is at play here.  Atop that there are also moments of misdirection.  For a while you think he's playing one of the more common plot twists which has become popularized by movies like Fight Club and The Sixth Sense (which he may be...).  And even after the movie is finished you're not left with a solid answer wrapped in a bow which we've become accustomed to.  Thusly we have our low ratings and bad reviews.

Ray Liotta shines brilliantly in this flick and more than makes up for Andre 3000's less than great, but well within his range, performance.  Good thing they never had to face off on screen.  I'm not a big Jason Statham fan but he also does a stand up job.  You end up loving a number of the dozens of characters that you'll be introduced to through the course of the 2 hours.  Even if you just want to skim along the top of this hearty study you'll still get a great deal of enjoyment from this movie.

9.0/10

And on a related note you can revisit this post.

Regarding Id Versus The Superego

It was long thought that that which separated Man from the animals was his capability to use tools. We've now learned in recent years that that doesn't entirely hold true. So what now does? It is the ability to ponder the hypothetical. To imagine a scenario without putting it into action. Experts say it's this gift, keener in Cro Magnon Man, that allowed him to inherit the Earth over the Neanderthal. Aristotle may have said it best with "It is the mark of an educated man to entertain a thought without accepting it". But that distinction is not only for the educated man.   

A child is born 'Id-ridden'.  Wanting only for immediate gratification (which to an end is necessary for it's survival at that vulnerable age). It's the parent who first notices, somewhere around the year mark, those wheels beginning to turn. The first synapses of reason firing. The child becoming aware of the conditions and responses of it's actions. Those that result in praise or chastisement. The child now knows that for the desired results there is behavior more conducive to that end.  There lies the birth of Ego.  Personality traits come out as the child gets older.  Motives become apparent.  The child is now an individual with differentiating tastes. The Id is still very much a player in this equation and it is with the aid of the Ego that determines how the Id is satisfied. Or if the Id is satisfied at all because now the Id has a rival.
The third entity in this trinity emerges, or perhaps is molded depending on the case.  From early childhood through usually the early to mid twenties the Superego is identified and tweaked through out the remainder of life. Superego is the moral compass by which the individual carries himself.  The governing code that one chooses to adopt and adhere by.  Usually under the influence of religion or community, it's the portion of the psyche that makes us decent.  If the Id would have us stone our rival and rape his woman it is the Ego which would then have us lure our rival away and seduce his woman under some guise of plausible deniability.  It is then the Superego which would have us do neither because it is 'wrong' to take what is not yours.

The Id wants without regard for consequence or accountability.

The Superego is governed by a code of morality and justifiability.

Then there's the Ego;

The constant middleman charged with catering to both extremes but with the luxury of preference and objectivity.

So there we have the wrestling match.  The game of tug-of-war in which the Ego is the prize and both Id and Superego are constantly trying to pull it to their side.  Of course, depending on the individual and the circumstances, one side may win out moreso than the other.  It is for those instances that man imagined hypothetical ideas like law and standardized education.  Generalized codes of conduct.  But that's for another conversation.  

We have the ability to play out scenario's in our head, taking into consideration the variables and chance, and calculating a percentage of successfully getting what we want.  We also have the the wherewithal to determine if what we want is something we should have or if the actions to get it justify the means.  Some implement this more than others. And make no mistake; In the individual where Id and Superego are no longer at odds there is no safe place about him.