Fans of British filmmaker Guy Ritchie have come to expect certain defining traits to be present and accounted for in every one of his movies: visceral gunplay; cheeky, irreverent humor; a flashy, attention-getting visual style; banter laced with quips and Cockney slang. After all, those elements led to the surprise stateside success of the writer-director’s first two films, “Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels” and “Snatch.”

But, as Ritchie has discovered over the last five years, the problem with being hailed as a Tarantino-esque gangster-comedy specialist is that once you step outside of that genre comfort zone (as he did with the misguided romance “Swept Away,” starring his superstar wife, Madonna), you’re bound to alienate many of your most devoted acolytes.

Ritchie’s latest, “Revolver,” reunites him with Jason Statham—the tough, stubbly anti-hero of “Lock, Stock” and “Snatch”—while the basic story of a con man (Statham) seeking revenge against a crimelord (Ray Liotta) returns the filmmaker to his gangland roots. However, beneath the familiar surface lies an unexpected streak of philosophical inquisitiveness. Ritchie, usually a kinetic conductor of action, now yearns to provoke deep contemplation.

The response has been, to put it kindly, mixed. After screening at the 2005 Toronto film festival and opening in Europe, “Revolver” inspired more confusion and hostility than profound reflection.

Ritchie defended his leap into a cerebral realm in an interview with Metromix, in which he also discussed directing a Speedo-clad Ray Liotta and his imminent return to “fun and easy” filmmaking.

Since ‘Revolver’ is a change of pace for you in many ways, was it a strange experience to make it?
It was definitely a [new] experience in the fact that it’s hard for people to initially get the premise. So you could find members of the crew sitting around reading the [script] and they sort of wanted to laugh. They wanted it to be a ‘Snatch,’ right? But that’s simply not what this film’s about. So it was tricky in the fact that you need to talk to people about the film before they go and see the film. What we don’t want to encourage is people to go and see this film and think they’re gonna get a ‘Snatch,’ or something that’s light, because it ain’t. It ain’t light and it ain’t funny.

Why the delay in a U.S. release?
This is a slightly different cut than the one we released two years ago or whenever it was, because [audiences] just found it too complicated. I expected some people to understand what the theme of the film was really about, and there weren’t many that did. So we thought, ‘well, what we’ll do is we’ll cut [in interview footage of] a bunch of psychiatrists at the end that could explain it actually was about something.’

So then, what is the film really about?
The film is tremendously simple. It’s simply that the thing, the entity that you’re battling is an internal one—that voice that when you’re running keeps telling you to stop just when you start getting tired. It’s the ubiquitous voice that stops you from enjoying your life, essentially, and it tricks you and seduces you and tells you, ‘this is a good idea,’ and it later transpires that it’s not. We tell [the audience] three times in the film [that] the film is about the fact that there is ultimately no major external enemy. We say that three times, and then some people are like, ‘well, what’s the film about?’

Did you enjoy reuniting with Statham on the film?
I like working with Jason, because I have a shorthand [with him]. And by the way, I had this conversation [on what the movie’s about] with Jason [before shooting]. And I said, ‘listen, try to get your head around this,’ and he didn’t get his head around it. And then he called back two days later. And if you speak to him about it now, two years later, now it’s his favorite film [that he’s done], because gradually the concept percolates, and when it does, you think, ‘oh, hello! This is interesting!’

It’s strange to see Statham with long hair in the film, considering the shaved chrome dome he’s had in most of the movies he’s done.
The funny thing is Jason actually has hair and he makes himself look bald. And so I actually let his natural hair grow out.

Another strange sight in ‘Revolver’ is Liotta playing his character’s most threatening scenes while wearing only a Speedo.
Well, I think that was just because Ray didn’t want to be too conventional, and the idea was that he was supposed to be an extravagant character. Inevitably, that [leads to] wearing your underpants while pointing a gun at someone.

How involved do you like to get with your actors’ performances? How much is your guidance and how much is collaboration with the actors?
If you’re comfortable with what’s being manifest on the other side of the camera, then you keep your mouth shut. It doesn’t occur to you that you should interject. But if you feel as though in some way your opinion could assist the vision, then it happens instinctively. So with some actors, I never say anything, and some actors, I say rather a lot.

What kind of film is your next project, ‘RocknRolla,’ due out next spring?
It’s a commentary on how London is now, and it’s all to do with Russian oligarchs buying up the city and then the shenanigans that take place in the underworld because of that. So it’s fun and it’s easy.