Wrath of Man

Last year's The Gentleman, was an interesting film for me. 

Likely partially due to COVID ensuring that hardly any big movies hit theaters after March, The Gentleman (a January release), felt like one of the lasts. 

But it also grew on me throughout the year where I remembered less and less what problems I had with it and more and more what I really liked about it - along with the fantastic and fun cast. 

It was for that reason I was excited for a Guy Ritchie film - perhaps for the first time - in his Jason Statham-goes-ballistic film, Wrath of Man. As I explain in my Gentleman review, I'm not a Guy Ritchie hater, I just dont find that his films ever WOW me. 

Unfortunately, Wrath of Man is no different and is yet another "good", but not great/exceptional effort from Ritchie. Perhaps even more painfully is that Ritchie's trademark style and energy are heavily downplayed here, almost to the point you wouldn't know it's a film from him. That's like Christopher Nolan making a film that has nothing to do with time! Egads!

Wrath of Man starts out strong enough, carefully setting its stage by introducing "H" (Statham) as a new, mysterious employee of a cash truck service in LA. As the trailers show, there's an attempted robbery on his cash track (complete with a fun cameo I won't ruin here) and he goes "John Wick", murdering all of them efficiently. It's here - and the trailers - where I was bummed with Wrath of Man. To be fair, it's completely my fault but I did believe this was a Statham/Ritchie team-up where Statham = Keanu and seeks revenge for 90+ minutes. In my opinion, that's a film I want to see, even if we've already gotten one [pretty darn good] Wick knock-off this year. Instead, Wrath of Man is far less action and far more revenge-thriller/heist movie. 

About halfway through the film, where I hadn't seen Statham with a gun in his hand since the initial scene that appears in the trailers, I realized this narrative shift of what type of film we were really getting and, while disappointed, was still excited from my experience with The Gentleman last year. But as the mystery unravels and the film unfolds, it becomes clear that it's a very standard film, told out of order for maximum effect, but also overly complicated (read: convoluted) with some scenes that don't make a whole lot of sense by the end. As it all wraps up with a nice bow, the story is fine - if not surprisingly basic once all the pieces are laid bare - and it's clear the storytelling method, out of order and pushing mystery, helped to make the straight-forward tale more compelling. But it's also disappointing in the sense that A) it's not a Statham-goes-ballistic film and the action is actually rare throughout until a very generic finale and B) there's at least 20 minutes of unnecessary scenes that I still don't think they fit into the story at all. 

"So you did see Pearl Harbor, right? Whatcha think of it?"

"Who's this other Rath I keep hearin about?!"

Wrath of Man does have its revenge/gangster vibe going for it though, and Statham as the lead is fun. I wouldn't go so far as to say he's irreplaceable - I could see several other high-profile, action-oriented men leading the show - but he's entertaining to watch and his own demeanor adds to the mystery around his character. Holt McCallany (from Mindhunter) does his typical excellent work here as "Bullet", H's trainer for the cash trucks and eventual ride-along buddy. Josh Hartnett and Scott Eastwood are along for the ride too, the former giving a funny, small performance and the latter completely over-doing the "villain" part. The rest of the cast does fine, even if some of their characters are completely unnecessary. 

I feel like I've gone long in some of my reviews this year - likely due to the excitement of being back in the theater for some - but Wrath of Man represents one of those films where I liked it enough to watch it one-time, but am struggling to say more about it. Even if I was enjoying my time with it, it's Ritchie's most forgettable film in quite some time (even if it's better than some others) and it was probably incorrectly marketed as a John-Wick-esque but with Statham at the center. It's mystery and ultimate showdown is intense enough to merit a viewing, but I have a feeling this won't be one of Ritchie's films that his die-had fan base returns to over and over again.

CONS

• Handful of unnecessary plot lines and scenes that, for the life of me, I can't understand why they're still in the film
• Not as much Jason Statham going balls-to-the-wall as I'd hoped and the finale's action is generic
• Guy Ritchie film with hardly any Guy Ritchie style? Feels weird
• Not taking points from it for this, but it's a one-time view
• Take it down a notch, Scott Eastwood

PROS

• Statham leading the way works well and there are some other fun characters along for the ride. Holt McCallany's Bullet gets my MVP award
• Early action is riveting and fun
• Moody and tense, it strikes a good tone
• The story is straightforward, but organized non-linearly which builds effectively on the mystery

Rath's Review Score | 7/10