Wrath of Man

I am quite a fan of Jason Statham so I am perhaps a bit biased when it comes to movies he is in but, to me, this was a great action thriller. I very much like Statham playing the silent, mysterious tough guy role. He is perfect in this role. The movie builds up somewhat slowly but it does not take very long before Statham shows that he is not an ordinary security guy when he takes down some wannabe robbers with nothing less than extreme efficiency. A very cool scene. On one side I like that the movie takes some time to build up the suspense and reveal the plot. In articular why Statham is there in the first place. On the other side the way the movie does it irks me somewhat. There just to much flashbacks for my taste and some events we are forced to watch from no less than three different perspectives. Felt a bit like a filler to me. Still, Statham’s passed and presents weaves together in a story that, to me, is quite good and not the everyday, run of the mill, revenge story. Quite well done actually. Not entirely surprising the movie builds up to a big showdown in the end. I very much liked it. Lots of action although I would have liked that they let a few more of the good guys actually survive. The death count on both sides was somewhat excessive. The ending was satisfactory although from a point in the showdown, about twenty or minutes from the end, it was rather predictable. The reason this movie gets four and a half (or 9 out of 10) stars instead of the full five out of five is only because of the flash backs which. Some of them contributed to the movie but some of them actually bored me a bit.

Definitely Guy Ritchie's best in quite a while. Also, nice to see a director take his Disney dollars and return to making something original. Is it a great film? Not really. But, it's really well crafted, the story is interestingly told, and it rekindles the vibe that made Ritchie the UK's version of Tarantino when he first emerged. My only complaint isn't necessarily about this film specifically but more it's "type" by which I mean it's yet another film about a guy with a secret badass background who goes on a revenge spree. John Wick, Taken, Nobody, The Equalizer, and so many others have done the same thing. Apparently bullets don't do permanent damage to lead characters? Seriously, with the damage he takes in this film he should have spent the runtime changing a colostomy bag and being wheeled to the TV to watch cartoons while drooling down his chest. But, again, that's not unique to this film. It's kinda the standard now days. I guess when so many films seem to have the intention of being a franchise a character's mortality only becomes an issue if the actor doesn't renew their contract. If you don't mind this issue, it's a really fun film. I enjoyed it a lot. I'm just getting tired of invincible heroes in films.

If you want an evil militant and criminal drama at the same time, then you will get everything at once and even more. Just consider that the "Wrath of Man" is not only about shooting and unrestrained action. If someone from friends ask me to advise a good thriller, I would recommend the "Wrath of Man" along with other movies of Guy Ritchie.