Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

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.

Jonathan Roberts From the first few scenes onwards, I got the impression that Al Pacino really wasn't enjoying his time in 'Revolution', and the aura of apathy which followed the then-recent legend of 'Scarface' more or less destroyed one of the few potentially redeeming qualities of this film. There is a scene towards the end of the film in which the actor seems to muster up some enthusiasm for performance and reminds us that he was the face of Michael Corleone and Tony Montana, and not just a lookalike. The scenes in which Pacino "bonds" with his on-screen son – Sid Owen and later Dexter Fletcher – are near- insufferable, and it becomes very easy throughout 'Revolution' to forget that these characters even know each other. The action in this film felt like a cheap series of re-enactments, common to (but forgivable in) dated documentaries. The first major confrontation between the Americans and the British was enjoyable in places, however, and the score enriched one or two haunting sequences of the irrepressible redcoats, led by Donald Sutherland, marching on the revolutionaries. The attempts to create a drama subplot of Nastassja Kinski's family tensions was not fun to watch, and her pro-redcoat relatives were so quickly introduced and dismissed that they became instantly forgettable. Overall, I do not recommend this film. However, if you have an iron-willed enthusiasm for the American War of Independence, you may derive some minor satisfaction from seeing a world-class actor caught in the middle; but, just as Malcolm McDowell and Peter O'Toole could not redeem 'Caligula' for a less- than-maniacal fan of ancient history, the chances are that you'll still come out unfulfilled.

Leofwine_draca Al Pacino goes all angsty in this film version of the American War of Independence, a film surprisingly made by the Brits (surprising given the content of the storyline). REVOLUTION was bad enough to single-handedly destroy the British film industry in the late 1980s, and it only really got going again a decade later.Whichever way you look at it, this is dull stuff indeed. Pacino's heart clearly isn't in it, and he feels and sounds like a very boring Tony Montana here. Donald Sutherland plays a British villain, somewhat inexplicably, and watching him struggling with a Yorkshire accent of all things is one of the most embarrassing things I've seen in a movie.REVOLUTION's general look and feel is decent, and Norway makes a good stand-in for true American locales. But the battle scenes are cheap-looking and the storyline never really goes anywhere despite the lengthy running time. Everybody seems to be a bad guy and the performances are way over the top; take Richard O'Brien for example. The only fun I had from it was spotting the youthful British stars at the beginning of their careers (Dexter Fletcher, Robbie Coltrane, Sid Owen, etc.), otherwise this is boring stuff indeed.

Fiman This is one of the best historical films I have seen for long. I like the inclusion of children as main characters (usually forgotten in most other films, even though they have always been there ) - and the fantastic recreations of how life was in the end of the 1700s. Presentation of war time, war strategies (as in the British-American battle), the danger of being just ill and sick - or killed, the always presence of death, the dirty cities, the wonderful nature and landscapes. On top of this an interesting description of the interaction with the Indian tribes who in need had to take part on either side in the war. Most important, the story of a man who is forced to take action in his own life. This film is completely underscored in the votes - and I simply don't understand why!