Ritchie and Statham go dark in 'Wrath of Man'

Wrath of Man (2021)
Starring: Jason Statham, Holt McCallany, Josh Hartnett, Jeffrey Donovan, Scott Eastwood, Niamh Algar, Chris Reilly, and Laz Alonso
Director: Guy Ritchie
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

A new hire at an armored car company (Statham) is far more than he pretends to be and has taken the job to find out who was behind the a violent robbery that led to the death of his son.

"Wrath of Man" is a grim, action-oriented thriller that surprised me in several different ways. All of them good.

First, I thought I had figured out the general gist of the movie, based on the preview and prior experience with Guy Ritchie and Jason Statham films. I was convinced that it was going to be a mix of action and comedy--even if perhaps a little darker--than their previous films together; I was fully expecting to see "Undercover Boss, but with Guns and Explosions". Instead, what was delivered was a deadly serious, unforgiving tale of corruption and revenge, with a side-dish of heist action, where everything is bleak, what comedy that is present is mean-spirited sarcasm, no one is innocent, and everyone comes to a bad end. It's all so well-done, however, that while is wasn't the movie I expected, it was still entertaining.

Second, although I was wrong about the the nature of this film going it, once I realized what I was watching, I guessed almost everything about who the bad guys were and where it was going. (It was about halfway through the movie before I had EVERYTHING figured out, because the story is told out of order). In just about every way, this film is a throwback to the dark crime dramas of the 1970s, storywise, stylewise, and so on. Everything here is so well executed by the director and technical crew, and so well performed by the actors that it didn't matter that things kept going where I thought they'd go. I was watching such a perfect homage to old-time crime dramas, crossed with more modern cultural sensibilities, that it might have been frustrating if things didn't go as expected. 

Third, the unrelenting bleakness of the didn't bother me in the least. I can't go into too much detail without spoiling the story, but when I said above that everyone comes to a bad end, I am no exaggerating by much. One character who appears to die was even in the middle of a redemption arc, and, if I was watching a lesser movie, I might have been bothered by that, but here it just seemed in keeping with the darkness of the world and let me tune more strongly into the anger of the Statham character. I'm one of those sappy people who likes to see the good characters in a story come away with something of a future (even if it's not a bright one), and the bad characters getting the punishments they deserve (and perhaps even more), but the excellent pacing and acting and everything made me feel okay about the outcome. (It might also have helped that I got to see more than a fair share of street justice being meted out against the most vile sorts of human beings as the film unfolded.)

Although it is almost two hours long, "Wrath of Man" feels much shorter. There isn't a single moment in this movie that's wasted, nor a single scene that feels padded or drags on; even the 20-minute plus gun battle that's part of the film's climax remains fast-paced and tense, which is something of a rarity. The universally excellent performances of the cast members also helps to keep things moving. Jason Statham is excellent, playing his usual tough guy but far colder and with more understated lethality than I've ever seen before, but we also have Josh Hartnett in a role that he was far more effective in that I initially thought he'd be--that of a weaselly armored car driver who likes to talk tough but is anything but; Jeffrey Donovan as the charismatic and detail-oriented leader of a military until turned armored car robbers; Holt McCallany as the perhaps a-little-too-friendly training officer at the armored car company; and Scott Eastwood as the ultimate scumbag. The film revolves around Jason Statham's character, with Jeffrey Donovan also occupying a key point in the story, but as perfect as both these actors are, neither performance would have come across as excellent as it is if it hadn't been for the equally brilliant performances by the supporting castmembers--or, for that matter, an attention to detail that's rarely seen anywhere. It's rare that I feel like I need to watch a movie a second time--there are just too many films and books and graphic novels I need to get to--but this is one that I think I should watch again, just to see what I may have missed.

I went to see "Wrath of Man" in the evening on opening day. There were only 12 people in the auditorium, which, even by the Covid-19 standards these days was light. I hope it's not a sign of the box office to come for this film, because I think it deserves to be seen. And if you enjoy Jason Statham and brutal 1970s-style heist films/crime dramas, I think this is a film you'll love.

Sherlock Holmes goes over the top

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)
Starring: Robert Downey Jr, Jude Law, Noomi Rapace, Jared Harris, and Kelly Reilly
Director: Guy Ritchie
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (Downey and Law)track and fight anarchists and Holmes' nemesis Professor Moriarity (Harris) across Europe in a desperate bid to stop them from triggering war on a global scale.

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" picks up where the Downey and Law's first outing as Arthur Conan Doyle's legendary characters left off and carries forward along the trajectory of that first movie--the action is wilder and well over the top, and the scope of what's at stake if Moriarity bests Holmes has likewise been ratcheted up. Basically, if you hated the first movie because you felt it wasn't "Sherlock Holmes", you're going to hate this one.

Me, I hated the first movie, because director Guy Richie didn't seem able to tell a story, which is odd because he seemed pretty good at it with his early films like "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels". And then there was the moronic way he and the script-writers chose to establish Holmes' prowess as a boxer and thus showed Holmes to be a bit of dolt at the same time--which he possessed in the Doyle stories, as those who paid attention to them rather than old Universal Pictures films or British TV shows would know--and the painful overuse of slow motion action sequences.

While Richie still made an obnoxious overuse of both slow motion and still-frame shots during action sequences, his story-telling was a little less muddled because the story really wasn't all that complicated and he didn't inadvertently paint Holmes as an idiot by having him engage in self-destructive behaviors beyond what we're used to from the Doyle stories and other films.

The acting was serviceable all around, and neither Holmes nor Watson were the exclusive butt of jokes; like the first Downey/Law pairing, one can actually understand why Holmes keeps Watson around... although I did find myself wondering sometimes why Watson puts up with Holmes. The comedy in the film was balanced nicely with action sequences, and it a very entertaining movie over all.

It is, however, an action film and not a mystery movie. There is really no mystery that Holmes is trying to unravel, but he is instead trying to outmaneuver Moriarty and the evil genius' master plan. The exact nature of that plan is hidden for a time, but it's not really relevant what Moriarity is up to when it comes right down to it. All in all, it's a film that is probably more entertaining if you watch it with the attitude you might watch a Jean Claude Van Damme vehicle, or maybe a James Bond movie.

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" is a rare sequel that's better than the film it follows. But if you want "classic Holmes", you're better off with almost any of the Holmes' films I've written about here.

Sherlock Holmes as action hero

Sherlock Holmes (2009)
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, Mark Stone, Eddie Marsan, William Houston and Kelly Reilly
Director: Guy Ritchie
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Sherlock Holmes (Downey) and his sometimes-reluctant colleague Dr. Watson (Law) most solve the mystery of a Satanist (Stone) who has seemingly returned from the dead to continue a killing spree. Meanwhile, Holmes old adversary and lover Irene Adler (McAdams) has reappeared on the scene with a mysterious agenda of her own.


The most famous of all consulting detectives gets the big budget, CGI-generated "stunts" action movie treatment in a film with actors who give far better performances than this flabby movie probably deserved.

Some reviewers have been upset by the "action movie" feel this film has, even commenting that Holmes shouldn't be an action hero. I don't quite agree with that sentiment, as Holmes always seemed like a man of action and quite willing to resort to violence when necessary. What annoys me is the pointlessness of much of the action and some of the stupidity of it.

I don't know whether it's the gigantic budget he had to work with here, or whether he's devolved as a director over the past ten years, but Guy Ritchie seemed to have a far better sense for how to make an exciting movie when he did "Snatch" and "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" in the late 1990s.

The flow of the movie, and therefore the attention to the viewer, is repeatedly disrupted by pointless side treks and plot detours, such as a long sequence with Holmes in a boxing match (a very stupid thing for a genius like Holmes to engage in, even if he is a thrill-seeker), or one where he is tricked by Irene Adler and ends up handcuffed and naked in bed (an scene mostly there for a single feeble gag). These irrelevancies might not be so bad if they added some definition to the characters, but the traits shown in these scenes are already introduced and reinforced in other far more relevant and important scenes, making the filler material like the above-mentioned sequences that much more annoying and boring. The end result is that the film has a flabby, drawn-out feeling to it.

Then there's the asinine slow-motion and absolutely annoying jerky/blurry camera work during the action scenes. It's not artistic, it doesn't enhance the suspense... it's just irritating and stupid.

The script is also not all it could have been. I've already mentioned pointless scenes, but a far bigger problem is the case that Holmes is working on. It's so much that he is squaring off against what seems to be a supernatural menace (even if that is more in keeping with Doyle's non-Holmes tales than this one) it's that the bad guys are of the "trying to take over the world" variety. What's next for Holmes at this point? Battling Professor Moriarty after he teams up with Ming the Merciless to conquer the Universe? A smaller, perhaps even more petty, motivation for the villains would have been far more suitable.

It's too bad this film wasn't helmed by a more competent director and based on a more solid script, because the approach taken by both the script and the actors to the characters of Holmes and Watson feels very much in keeping with the stories from which they originally sprang. While the nature of the adventure is pretty far removed from anything Doyle included in the Holmes stories, but Downey and Law portray a Holmes and a Watson that I think Doyle probably would have appreciated. They are far better than the celebrated team of Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce, slightly better than Jeremy Brett & Edward Hardwicke, and standing nearly equal with my favorite on-screen Holmes & Watson team of Peter Cushing & Andre Morrell.


All in all, file this Holmes version with the Hammer "The Hound of the Baskervilles" starring Cushing and Morrell. It gets the characters right, it's very entertaining, but the storyline is a bit far from Conan Doyle. Not as far as some of the Basil Rathbone films, but pretty far nonetheless.