SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Whitech It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Wyatt There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Eradan I rate "Revolution" as a '3' because in IMDb's weird rating system '1' equals zero and there are only two good things about this movie, thus making it a three. Al Pacino gives one of the worst performances of his career in this movie. Supposedly he was sick for most of the making of the film; if so, it shows. The only scene where his character comes alive is the very last one: Dobbs' "We're the war debt" speech is brief but memorable.Nastassja Kinski's performance is absolutely awful; she wrecks every scene she's in. The only excuse for it is how badly written her character was. The script has no sense at all of 18th century family structure or gender relations so basically everything it says or shows us in those areas is nonsense. Since delving into that is pretty much the dramatic point of Kinski's character, her role was doomed from the beginning.The only things that work in the movie are the battle scenes which are epic and Donald Sutherland's strong performance as a grimly-fascistic, British sergeant-major. And that's the bottom line: "Revolution" is only worth seeing if you're either a big fan of Donald Sutherland or very interested in 18th century history. Otherwise, don't waste your time or your money.

allyatherton A New York trapper and his son get caught upin the American battle of independence.Starring Al Pacino and Nastassja Kinski.Written by Robert Dillon.Directed by Hugh Hudson.This movie could have been great but instead it was a let down.On a positive note the cinematography, period costumes and attention to detail was wonderful. And I found it quite educational and interesting from a historical point of view. Although I'm sure many experts would be able to find a few historical errors.What let this movie down was the quality of acting and the plot which didn't really go anywhere. Al Pacino and the two actors who played his son had bizarre accents which didn't help. I think he was supposed to be Scottish but it came out as rather a weird combination of Irish and some other made up mumble language. In fact I couldn't hear half of what he was saying which kind of ruined the big movie moments! And there were more bizarre accents amongst the many actors in this ensemble. Maybe Al Pacino was a victim of bad casting or bad directing or perhaps his heart wasn't in the movie.I didn't mind Nastassja Kinski's performance. It was probably the best of a dodgy bunch. And she was pretty good to look at too. But on the whole Revolution was a bit of a borefest. There is a big scene towards the end where the main character and another guy are chased by a pack of dogs. That's exactly how I'd describe the plot of this. Like a pack of dogs chasing something but never quite catching it.6/10

Rodrigo Amaro The movie "Revolution" is a small portrait on the American War of Independence seen through the eyes of New York trapper Tom Dobb (Al Pacino) who was forced to participate in the revolution against the British for the U.S. independence. Through the look and descriptions of this unwilling individual we get the notion that the movement from independence got stronger and won the war and the battles because of the gathering of forces that didn't want to be there in the fight but in a way got hooked in it and decided to do their best. And to think some books and some scholars suggest this movie to be used in classes...Now what I've seen was something quite messy and disruptive, ignoring facts, dates and historical moments, leaping from time to time making the audience confused. Worst than that, the drama involving Dobb fighting every one to stay out of trouble but always getting into it, trying to rescue his young son from the war, wasn't so interesting. Weakened even more after the rescue part with the Indians, then the tragic sequence where he cries and cries in a painful long shot that only showed how bad Pacino can get. And since I'm talking about the acting, almost no one got saved. Pacino isn't good because the script isn't that good, he's miscast, acts too much and the whole voice-over Dobbs has to make hurts the ears and ruins the story. Donald Sutherland has nothing to do with the few lines he's given while playing a cruel British major; Nastassja Kinski lights the environment, gives some presence without helping anything. Joan Plowright and the young Dexter Fletcher are the best in action."Revolution" is indeed poorly developed but manages to succeed in some sort of beauty, some poetry, enchanting in bits of its presentation. Looking at "Revolution" now one has to be mesmerized and fulfilled with the images director Hugh Hudson has to present in the battlefield scenes, the nature, the costumes, the visual. The editing, the hand held camera effects and the story progression reminded me of a Terrence Malick film but without his profundity. Greatest moment has to be when Pacino and another prisoner are being chased down as substitutes in a scary fox hunt, tied to a corpse. It's a poor film in many aspects but it's gorgeous to look at. Still, considering that this was an epic project by Irwin Winkler with many resources, directed by at the time a great director (Hudson made "Chariots of Fire" and "Greystoke") and with a good cast, one must have in count that movies like this can't afford to just be beautiful. They need to inform its audience and in last case just entertain it. "Revolution" fails quite a bit in both. "The Patriot" still is the greatest film on the issue of the American Independence.It's a film of disastrous proportions in terms that it wasn't a hit at the box-office but far from being an massive unwatchable thing. There's goodness in it but the problem is that it doesn't make us feel anything even with all the casualties, tragedies and fights. It's not that bad but even so Hudson's career never recovered. Watch it out of curiosity, with low expectations and you'll enjoy a little. 6/10

JohnnyFrench So. What do we have here ? A decent movie, well served by a solid international cast. Good production values, impressive but realistic sets and locations. Very good historical accuracy : the XVIIIth century military fans will find their happiness, maybe as well as in "Barry Lyndon".The only real weakness of the movie, IMO, is the very 80s "stylish and over the top" direction of Hugh Hudson (the same can be said about his "Greystoke" classic).Therefore, why does this movie have a so poor rating ? I think it is the script's fault, but not in the sense it is uninteresting. Actually, the movie shows people living in difficult times, having to make decisions about political questions that are far beyond their comprehension (excepting the Kinski character), and "choosing" their way forced by circumstances. If Pacino really becomes an insurgent through the movie, it is much more because he has personal resent against the "Brits" than by feeling himself "American". Unfortunately, this film was released in the middle of the eighties, when the American public was not receptive to this point of view. The "America is back" mainstream of the time just didn't want to admit that a "normal" guy living in 1774 wouldn't care much about the American independence, just because this independence or the maintain of British rule don't affect his everyday life.But, be serious, it is the way most of people work, isn't it ?