Revolution, I believe, wanted to create a revolution in casting department. Somebody, probably the director, would have thought, "What if we take history, put all the wrong people in the wrong role and make sure they all don't get the accent right? And, what if we use the handheld technique so much favoured by those European directing gods. What if...." And so on, so forth.

Revolution is known for two reasons. One, as one of the biggest disasters in the eighties. No, not biggest, but speactacular disaster in similar vein as Ishtar and Heaven's Gate, both came out in eighties. Secondly, it was Al Pacino's last film before he took a small break and came back in Sea Of Love. It was a quiet comeback and he is bigger than ever now. Maybe Revolution was for good after all.

Find me the worst movie and I will show you a supporter. Go to the IMDB.com and scroll through the user comments.You know what I mean. But all that will not stop me from telling you that this film is a big, big freakin' bore. The director should be pelted with rotten tomatoes and ripe bananas. He should know better to use them, than to direct this film. Unfortunately he has a good track record. He had directed Chariots of Fire and Greystroke. But don't let that credit fool you. They had good script and performance that booted the movie. Here, blank, bore, stupid, and plenty of yawn. Also, I don't understand why he must use a lot of handheld cinematography for the movie which could have been shot well conventionally.

I'm not an expert in American history and the same goes to the revolution period before US got its independent. This movie doesn't help, though. 'tis pity! 'tis pity, 'tis true!.

Pacino plays an illiterate trapper and later a reluctant continental soldier Tom Dobb. He keeps repeating, "It ain't my fight." Sometimes I wonder if that is what he feels about this movie. His performance seemed restrained, but most of the time he looks bored. And that 'bore' thing can be infectious mind you. Almost everyone in it looks bored, including two other leads Donald Sutherland and Nastassja Kiski. Nobody seemed to be committed to either the character they are playing or the movie itself. Helloooooo, are we watching arthouse French movie?

Okay, Dobb gets enlisted because his belowed son signed in first without his permission. Soon after that, the father and son gets separated and reunited for umpteenth time. Sutherland plays a badass British officer and Kinski is a patriotic sympathiser who falls for Pacino. On and off, you get poorly shot war scenes involving muted explosion and a lot of mud. In fact, the whole movie has a lot of mud. Probably that is what it looked like back in the late eighteen centuries. Who cares? The movie is not interesting enough for us.

I bought the movie (Berjaya HVN's VCD which is horrrrrrrrrible in quality) mainly for Pacino's sake. I will still watch it one day, when I am running some sort of Pacino retrospective. This is not his worst performance. It is neither memorable. Too bad.