You can get folks to roll their eyes just mentioning the Book of Revelation, and mostly they do this because of the utter silliness of so much that is said and believed about the book these days — and, yes, that is a comment about the left behind series and similar observations. The Book of Revelation has been subjected to the highest level of serious scholarship, and I mention five really good commentaries, but before I mention that, here’s a good book on how the Revelation works:

David DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation
.

Now commentaries:

The most extensive, historically-oriented, but theologically disinterested commentary on Revelation is the three-volume set by D. Aune, Revelation 1-5 (Word Biblical Commentary 52a)
.

At the other end of the spectrum because it always has its eye on the church and on the preacher and on theology, see G. Osborne, Revelation (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)
.

A readable commentary by a life-time scholar on John’s writing is S. Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse
.

Now only slightly dated, but one of the first to which I turn is G. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.).)
.

This commentary took evangelicals away from silly speculation to a more serious interaction with the text of Revelation is R. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (The New International Commentary on the New Testament)
.