Revolution (1985)

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

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.

The first motif for see it is the feeling after its end. like the taste of the coffe grounds. because it is not a patriotic film, not exactly a historical one but eulogy of small and fundamental things, from the love of a father for his son to the love for a woman and the status of part of a great cause. Al Pacino does a great job. sure, it is far to be surprising. but in this film, he gives more than a remarkable performance. because he has the brilliant art to propose the rhytm, the force, the message, the bitter atmosphere and the wind of hope to the story. a film about sacrifice. one of films remaining, for a long time, in your memory. for its strange, freshh, authentic beauty. and for its truth behind the words of characters, from the middle of each scene. so, one of the impressive films for see it. again. and again.

After the Academy Awards, the most important awards ceremony is the Golden Raspberries (known as "Razzies") – the "worst of" counterpart to the Oscars. The thing about the Razzies is that they don't go for the literal worst movies of the year – otherwise they would give prizes to a load of trashy B-movies. Instead they bestow their honours upon the high profile flops, the movies that could have been so much more, the casts and crews who should have known better. Revolution stars Al Pacino, one of the greatest actors of his generation, and was directed by Hugh Hudson, he of 1981 Best Picture Chariots of Fire. And yet, in a stark "Oh how the mighty have fallen" scenario, it recouped less than two percent of its budget at the box office and was nominated for four Golden Raspberries.Revolution is not without promise. In contrast to the usual gung-ho attitude of pictures on this subject (cf. The Patriot), this takes an approach rare in historical pictures on any era, showing not the makers and shapers of change, but those unwillingly caught up in it. The Robert Dillon screenplay still ultimately comes down on the side of the revolutionaries, but it shows the conflict with the minimum of political emotiveness, and a storyline whose occasional poignancy comes from its even-handed intimacy. Director Hudson has excelled in creating tableaux that are full of believable bustle and period dirt, even if they were entirely shot in rainy England. There's a realistic melange of accents to be heard here; not just clipped British and broad American, which didn't really exist in any recognisable form at the time anyway. The credibility of some of the bit parts is very effective, such as the bolshy soldier who prods Pacino when he's chosen for the fox hunt, a slappable face if ever there was one.And yet the movie's the biggest flaws are on the same grounds. There are some woefully unrealistic and downright silly characterisations here. Chief among these is Nastassja Kinski's. While no means badly acted (in fact she does very well all things considered), the character as written is in no way believable. Not that you can't have rebellious and resourceful women, but stabbing a man in the nadgers at a soirée is a bit hard to swallow. It would probably have warranted her a stint in an asylum, and certainly more than just a telling off from her mother. And giving the Englishman in question a stupid nasal voice and cartoonish demeanour was a huge mistake. It all seems totally at odds with the realism elsewhere in the movie. There are problems too with the over-earnest attempt at a documentary look. Hudson's constant use of hand-held camera quickly becomes tiresome. Pacino's performance is heartfelt but there are times when he appears to break into improvisation yet comes across too much as the modern New Yorker.In response to its poor reception, Hudson would later revisit the material for a 2009 special edition appropriately titled Revolution Revisited, and it is this version of the movie which I have seen. Apparently around ten minutes of footage was shorn off (I don't know what this was so can't comment), and they added narration by Pacino, written and recorded ad hoc. This latter was to my mind a mistake – it adds nothing, basically spelling out the character's thoughts at any given moment, even though the essence of them is already there on the screen. It somewhat spoils the taciturn moodiness of the character, as well as the chaotic wordlessness of some scenes. It's nice however to be able to enjoy a decent new transfer of the picture, because it really isn't as bad as its reputation (and those Razzie nominations, all of which it lost to Rambo II, I hasten to add) would suggest. It is incredibly moving at times, a high point being Pacino's desperate comforting of Ned as his foot wound is cauterized. It's also beautifully shot. This is ultimately a movie of two sides – the very good and the very bad, with no middle ground of mediocrity. And this is very frustrating, because you can see just how easily it could have been a masterpiece.

With a subject as fertile as the American war of independence and four outstanding actors how could anyone blow it to such catastrophic proportions. I think both the script writer and the director must have gone out of their way to produce something as empty and boring as Revolution. What a waste! Money first, a glorious subject which would deserve more respect, but also waste of actors' talent. What a goofy idea to expect Al Pacino to act and sound as a Scott. Why not pick a Scott? I felt sorry for the three main actors because I don't think that with a script like this they were given a fighting chance to shape a specific character. So from the writing, to the shooting there is little in this movie that I would recommend to the public. For Fox TV to air it now (May 2010) laced with commercial also shows how little this network cares about their audience.