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.

'The Expendables 2' is very much expendable

The Expendables 2 (2012)
Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren, Nan Yu, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lliam Hemsworth, Jet Li, and Chuck Norris
Director: Simon West
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

When a CIA operative Church (Willis) forces The Expendables to escort a security expert (Yu) in a mission to recover stolen state secrets, they unexpectedly find themselves up against a Satanic group of mercenaries and their leader (Van Damme) who are persuing the same objective.

"The Expendables" was a decent homage to the action films of the 1980s and 1990s. It featured faces familiar from those days, in a story that made sense in an action-movie world kind of way.

"The Expendables 2" is a spoof of the action films of the 1980s and 1990s, and not even a good one. Its script is less of a story and more of  a string of catch-phrases and cameo appearances played more for the laughs than action and drama. Even the final showdown between the heroes and villains is played more for laughs than drama. In fact, it's such a spoof of action films that Chuck Norris's role in the film is basically a cinematic presentation of a few "Facts About Chuck Norris".

While every featured player gives the exact performance you'd expect them to give, and everyone is obviously in on the fact the movie is a spoof of action films, there's really little else here besides the aging stars that's note worthy. Average Willis, Average Schwartzenegger, Average Van Damme, Average Stallone, and Average Self-Mocking Post "Facts About Chuck Norris" Norris, all appearing in a disjointed and weakly written action comedy. Since I like all the featured actors, it's hard for me to hate this movie, but as it wore on the illogical of the story, the random way characters popped in and out of the plot, and ever-growing number of "wink-wink" moments started wearing on me.

The best thing I can say about "The Expandables 2" is that it's a far more effective spoof than anything that's ever come out of the creative team behind things like "Spyhard" and "Epic Movie"--but that's damning with faint praise, because I'm not sure it was intended to be quite as much a spoof as it turned out to be. I think it's just a badly conceived movie.

'Crank 2': Among the lamest sequels ever?

Crank 2: High Voltage (2009)
Starring: Jason Statham, Bai Ling, Amy Smart, Efren Ramirez, and Dwight Yoakam
Directors: Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor
Rating: One of Ten Stars

Chev Chelios (Statham) wakes up after three months in a coma to discover that his heart has been stolen. He goes on a rampage across the city in an attempt to retrieve it while using any means necessary to get enough electricity to keep the mechanical heart he's been stuck with functioning.



The original "Crank" was a crazy, ultra-violent film that unfolded like a live-action video game. The sequel is more of the same, but with an emphasis on truly ugly and gory violence and twisted, off-color humor. Both of these were present in the original film, but they have been emphasized even more here.

So, not only is this an ugly film full of ugly violence--such as the loving close-ups of a character cutting off his own nipples--but it lacks the originality of the first film. The humor isn't even as funny, with the filmmakers seeming to think that a Chinese hooker who can barely speak English and characters repeating over and over and over "Fuck You, Chelios!" is the height of hilarity.

I can't even really comment on the acting, since, much like the original, it is secondary to the crazy violence on screen. However, Jason Statham once again gets to do what he is best at--projecting menace, jumping off things, and kicking stunt-men in their faces.

But Statham giving us Basic Statham isn't enough to make this film worth your time. A more pointless and disappointing sequel will be hard to make. If you've had the misfortune of viewing it, I feel your pain.

'The Mechanic' remake falls short of the original

Well, "The Expendables Week 2" didn't really get off the ground, especially since I haven't even had the time to see "The Expendables 2" yet... but I'll be posting reviews of films featuring the cast of the latest assembly of Action Movie Greats for the next few days anyway. Hell... Life might even cooperate to the point where I'll get to see the Big Movie this Thursday.

But first....

The Mechanic (2011)
Starring: Jason Statham, Ben Foster, Tony Goldwyn, and Donald Sutherland
Director: Simon West
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Bishop (Statham), ohe world's foremost assassins, is tasked with killing his long-time friend and handler (Sutherland) after it appears he has betrayed their employer. Bishop reluctantly performs the hit and then, motivated partly by guilt, takes on the friend's son (Foster) as an apprentice hit-man, teaching him the tricks of the trade.

The deep regard in which I hold the 1972 "The Mechanic", of which this is a remake, may be coloring my estimation of this film.

From beginning to end, this film is fairly solid. It's well-paced, the action scenes are all well-staged, the effects are nicely done (including the computer-generated blood-splatter... I only noticed it because I've developed a bad habit of looking for it; kudos to West and his special effects crew for being among the few filmmakers to know how to use that kind of CG effect properly on the screen), and the actors pretty much all deliver the type and quality of performances that we expect from them for the parts they are playing in a film like this.

Everything here is adequate... unless you have the misfortune of having seen the 1978 "The Mechanic." Then, you have the sense that you're watching a pale imitation based on a dumbed-down version of the original story.

It's not that Jason Statham is bad as assassin Arthur Bishop--it's just that his version doesn't come close to touching the icy cool of Charles Bronson's portrayal. It's not that Ben Foster is bad as Steve, the apprentice assassin--it's just that Jean-Michael Vincent made you so want to punch him in the face over and over. It's not that Donald Sutherland was bad as McKenna--it's that Keenan Wynn was dead-on perfect for the role as the doomed fixer.

And it might be that all the actors in the remake of "The Mechanic" would have come off better if the script they were working with had been as intelligent as the one in the original--it's as if they decided to trade flash for substance when they set about to make this version--and if the direction, cinematography, and editing would have been as perfectly artistic as in the original instead of just serviceable as it is here.

Finally, the filmmakers here manage to screw up the perfect ending of the original, muting whatever might have remained of the original film's tale about two violent men in a violent business.

If you're a Jason Statham fan, I'm sure you'll like this movie. It is very entertaining, and Statham does his usual solid job. However, if you want to see a more intelligent (if less action-packed) film about hitmen and the dangerous, amoral roads they travel, you need to check out the original.

'Crank' is chaotic but not all that exciting

Crank (2006)
Starring: Jason Statham, Amy Smart, Jose Pablo Cantillo, Dwight Yoakam, Efren Ramirez, and Carlos Sanz
Directors: Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Professional hit man Chev Chelios (Statham) wakes up to discover that he has himself has been the target of an assassination: He has been poisoned with a slow-acting drug that will kill him if his hear-rate drops. In order to survive long enough to reach the doctor who might save him (Yoakam), he goes on a chaotic rampage across Los Angeles to keep his blood pumping and adrenaline flowing.


"Crank" may be a case of "too much of a good thing." I found the first 45 minutes or so of Chev's quest to stay alive at least long enough to kill those who killed him very amusing and very entertaining. It was a little like the classic "D.O.A." but on speedballs and a gallon of coffee. Statham has many amusing one-liners, and the situation his character is in is both funny and nightmarish in the way it's presented.

But then I started looking at the clock and wondering if the film wouldn't get to some sort of point.

Basically, this is a one-gag story, and the gag starts to wear pretty thin after the third time Chev almost dies and needs to find some other way to keep his excitement up. Yes, there are laughs and plenty of action... but there is no substance. Like the video games the film references on several occassions--characters are playing them, doors are decorated with icons from them--the film keeps looping through the same type of encounters and situations but on different "levels". This is great if you're actually the one playing a video game, but not terribly interesting if you're just watching, as I was with this movie.

I do applaud the filmmakers for creating a film that unfolds like a video game, even if I wish there had been more substance to it, and even if I don't particularly care for the nonsensical, dreamlike ending. It's out of step with the rest of the movie, and fails to take advantage of the ending that was pefectly set up. I suppose they were trying to avoid the pat and obvious "happy ending," but I would have appreciated it.

On the other hand, there is a sequel to this film, featuring Statham, as improbably as that seems given the film's final moments. Maybe the ending I thought was being set up was the actual ending and the dreamlike stuff was just a dream.

So... as much as I don't like the ending, and as much as I wanted "Crank" to bring more than it does--or wanted it to be about 15 minutes shorter--I will probably been seekig out the sequel. I enjoyed it enough that I am curious to see what happens next.

The Complete 'Transporter' Series

As part of "The Expendables Week," I'm re-presenting my reviews of the movies that elevated Jason Statham to the position of action super star--the Luc Besson-produced "Transporter" series. Like many of the reviews found on the various Cinema Steve blogs, these originally appeared on my blog at rottentomatoes.com between the years of 2005 and 2008.


The Transporter (2002)
Starring: Jason Statham, Qi Shu, and François Berléand
Director: Louis Leterrier and Corey Yuen
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Frank Martin (Statham) is the underworld's chief courier, and he can deliver anything and anyone to any place, no questions asked. But when one particular package turns out to be a bound and gagged Chinese girl (Shu), Frank is forced to take on the mantle of hero.


I think I saw something in this movie that most reviewers did not, and I think that caused me to have an even more favorable impression of this film than they did.

Frank Martin and everything about him reminded me of Bean Bandit from the classic "Gunsmith Cats" graphic novels, and the film felt like an unauthorized live-action version of a Bean Bandit adventure. That character, too, is a hard-bitten rogue with his own never-compromised code of honor, drives a ultra-costumized car, will deliver anything anywhere against any odds, and can kick the ass of those he can't outdrive. In every detail that matters, Frank Martin is Bean Bandit. And like "Gunsmith Cats," this movie is more concerned about guns, fast cars, and action than about tight story logic.

The echoes of "Gunsmith Cats" and Bean Bandit aside, this is also just a fun ride of a movie. Frank Martin is a cool action hero in the mold of an Old West cowboy or an 1980s/1990s Sylvester Stallone or Arnold Schwarzenegger character. Unlike the characters portrayed by them, however, Frank is a man of style and refinement--his car is always spotless and his black suits and ties are always crisply pressed. Even after an extended fight, Frank looks sharp.

The biggest flaw with this picture is that I had the sense that filmmakers didn't have the guts to take the film where it needed to go. The film occupies a middle-ground between an early 1980s action film with a bit of a Dirty Harry vibe coming from its detatched-yet-heroically minded central character, and the over-the-top crazy comic-book-action rampage... and more than once is swings to one extreme or the other. The end result is a film that's mildly frustrating to watch, because it ends up being neither fish nor fowl. It's got action and plenty of it, but it's so inconsistent in its tone that it's hard to sit back and enjoy it.

And this is a shame, because Jason Statham plays a very good Bean Bandit... sorry, Frank Martin. If the vehicle had been just a little more soundly constructed, he could have taken us for a spectacular ride instead of a merely okay one.


Transporter 2 (2005)
Starring: Jason Statham, Katie Nauta, and Allesandro Gassman
Director: Louis Leterrier
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

Frank Martin, a worldclass driver and killer (Statham), is hired to chauffeur and protect the son of a high-placed US government official. The boy is kidnapped, but that's only a prelude to a far more devious and far-reaching plot that only Frank (and a whole lot bullets and fancy driving) can stop.


When I saw the original "Transporter," I viewed it as an unauthorized movie based on the Bean Bandit character from the "Gunsmith Cats" graphic novel series. Its only real flaw was that its creators couldn't make up their minds whether they were making a serious, down-to-earth crime drama with fast cars, or an over-the-top comic-booky action film.

With "Transporter 2," the filmmakers came to a decision, and we are treated to one outrageous, thrilling, and waaaay over-the-top action sequence after another. What's more, the plot is clever and complicated enough that it keeps delivering unexpected twists almost up to the very end. (This is another step up from the first film, I suppose... the plot there was pretty straight-forward.)

Jason Statham is great as the always calm and coldblooded Frank, but, as someone once said, a hero is only as good as the villains he fights... and in "Transporter 2" Frank is up against some very nasty bad guys. The lead heavies are played by Allesandro Gassman (a druglord who puts every letter in EVIL) and Katie Nauta (a psychopathic sex-kitten who fires more bullets in 30 seconds than are fired in the entirety of most major wars), and they are both a joy to watch. The actors, the plot, and the action sequences all blend together seamlessly to make this a great movie experience.


So, why am I only giving it 8 Stars? Well, that is because there are two major flaws that made me sigh with irritation.

First, there is a pretty nifty scene where Frank uses a firehose to beat the living tar out of a bunch of gun-toting bad guys. It's a Jackie Chan sort of scene, although I suspect much of it is done with computer animation and clever editing rather than actual props. Unfortunately, the climax of the scene completely breaks continuity with the entire fight that proceeded.

Second, there is the final dispatching of Nauta's character. It's too easy and too coincidental for a character that has been built up the way she is during the film. I'm not spoiling anything by stating that she dies--if you've seen more than two of these kinds of movies, you know she's too evil to make it through the story alive--and it needs to be mentioned because that character's death is badly done both from a storytelling and a action movie staple perspective. There isn't even a touch of irony in the way she dies... it's just an "oops... she's dead" ending.

Nonetheless, I think this is a move worth seeing if you love over-the-top action films (doubly-so if you're a fan of "Gunsmith Cats".)


Transporter 3 (2008)
Starring: Jason Statham, Natalya Rudakova, Robert Knepper and François Berléand
Director: Olivier Megaton
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Professional driver Frank Martin (Statham) is a man with a reputation that he'll deliver anything to any place a road will take him and his souped-up Audi, so long as his clients accept a few simple conditions that Frank insists upon. However, when a would-be client won't abide by Frank's rules nor take no for an answer, Frank finds himself forced to drive a mysterious package and an equally mysterious and totally obnoxious young woman (Rudakova) across Europe toward an ever-shifting destination... and if he tries to abandon the job, he'll be blown to bits by an explosive bracelet he's been fitted with.


"Transporter 3" is a step below the wild comic book action of the film immediatetly preceeding it in the series... and even a step below the film that started it all.

I suspect the filmmakers thought they were being topical with a half-assed environmental theme and oh-so-global-community-relevant-and-respectful with the films villains. They are eeeeeeevil American industrialists who are using any means necessary to force a righteous and pure-hearted Ukrainian politician to let them turn his nation into a chemical dumping ground. The truth, however, is that I don't think I've seen an environmentally-themed action flick this stupid since Steven Seagal's "On Deadly Ground". At least this film never gets preachy.

It's also not particularly logical or even intelligent in the way it's executed. The bad guys have grabbed the daughter of the pure-hearted politician in order to force him to do their bidding and they somehow feel the need to move her across Europe using a guy who doesn't work for them. A stupid plan that is doomed to fail. Why even move her anywhere in the first place? And why do the eeeeeeevil industrialists insist on having their cargoships full of toxic waste unloaded in the Ukraine? Why not just let Somali pirates hijack them? Or just dump the waste in Somalia where no one will be able to oppose them? (Or some other equally corrupt and disorganized hell hole... the world is full of them.)

But being stupid isn't the worst aspect of this film; I can forgive a certain level of stupid in a movie series that's evolving into a small-scale James Bond-type deal. The worst aspect of this film is that it never gets really exciting. It features some nice car chases, some okay fight scenes where Frank opens many cans of whoop-ass on hapless mooks, and a couple of cool action set-pieces, but the material that exists between them is poorly written. Not even Frank is very interesting in this film.


This is one of those pictures where the cast is let down by a weak script and a less-than-talented director.

Statham plays his usual laconic I'd-as-soon-kick-your-ass-as-talk-to-you character, but the lines he does have lack punch and the fight scenes he is placed in are ineptly choreographed.

Natalya Rudakova has a different look to her than most actresses that appear in films like this, and I think she might be an okay performer... but it's hard to tell because her character was so annoying throughout the movie. I can't for the life of me understand how the romance that developed between her character, Valentina, and Frank was supposed to have come from. (I was further annoyed by her character's tendency to wear too much eyeshadow. One of the evil characters did it in "Transporter 2" and now we have the heroine doing it in "Transporter 3". Will this become a signature of the series?)

All the flaws present in "Transporter 3" make this a movie that all but the most hungry-for-an-action-film viewers can skip.

You'll wonder what 'War' is good for

War (aka "Rogue Assassin") (2007)
Starring: Jason Statham, Jet Li, John Lone, Mark Cheng, Devon Aoki, Ryo Ishibashi, Sung Kang, and Terry Chen
Director: Philip G. Atwell
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

FBI Special Agent Crawford (Statham) tries to corner the assassin known as Rogue (Li), finally hoping to get revenge for the murders of his partner and his partner's family. Meanwhile, the killer is attempting to start a war between the Yakuza and Triad gangs in San Francisco for reasons known only to him.


For most of its running time, "War" is a slightly below average action film. The fight and gun-play scenes are okay, the chase scenes outstay their welcome a little, but nothing is too terrible. It remains in this mode, until, literally its final minutes... at which time not one but two surprise twists are introduced, one of which in particular goes a long way to undermine everything we've just sat through.

I don't like spoiling movies in my reviews, so I won't go into details about the twists. If someone out there wants more information, or wants to discuss them, please open a conversation in the Comments section. However, as far as the twists go in the most general of terms...

The first twist relates to the nature and identity of Rogue and what his motivations are. Early in the film, it's established the Rogue is erratic, has changed allegiances at least once in his career, and so unpredictable that some even question whether he exists or not. As we see Rogue in action throughout the movie, we come to see his erratic nature first hand, as whenever we think we know what he's up to, it turns out that it's really something entirely different. It works for the movie, as the "A Fistful of Dollars"-type plot-line with Rogue setting the Yakuza and Triad gangs on a path of mutually assured destruction while both sides think he is working for them while betraying the other is one of its more entertaining aspects. However, it seems extremely contrived--beyond even the point that is acceptable for a film like this, where everything feels contrived to one degree or another when the all of Rogue's secrets are laid bare at the last minute.


Then there's the film's second twist, the one that costs it an entire ratings point all by itself. I don't mind movies of this type having thin plots, nor do I necessarily mind lots and lots of contrived and convenient circumstances to keep them going, nor to I necessarily mind some degree of incoherence and/or illogic in the story-telling; if I did, I doubt I would like any of them. What I don't like is when the filmmakers think they are being clever/dramatic/Shakespearean-level-tragic when they throw in some "surprise revelation" that is badly set up (if set up at all) and which either fits poorly with everything that's gone before, or so transforms our impression of the characters the revelation is related to that it sours us on the entire movie.

In "War," the "clever surprise revelation" is so badly executed that it doesn't quite sour the viewer on the characters, but it will annoy the heck out of anyone who is paying attention. But it is illogical in the extreme and it ruins what might otherwise have been a strong ending--and even a set-up for a potential sequel. Perhaps even worse, it feels like half a twist, as its main set-up comes during the final confrontation between Rogue and the Yakuza. It grows out of what seems to be an obvious lie, and it still feels like a lie even its being confirmed during last two minutes. It's a twist that leads to a turns into a spoiled ending, due to incompetent writing and directing.

As for the acting, nothing here is too terrible, but nothing is all that remarkable either. Jason Statham and Jet Li were both better in their previous teaming--"The One," I film I wished I'd watched again instead of taking the time to see this one--but they do the best with what they have here. Their characters don't demand a whole lot of acting from them, and the fight scenes are pretty standard for the film's we've seen them in.

When "War" was released in 2007, I ignored it, because I felt the previews made it look uninteresting. I should have stayed with my first instincts and ignored it on DVD as well. It's a mediocre action film that's ruined by plot twists conceived by writers who weren't talented enough to properly pull them off.

'The Expendables' is a great action flick

The Expendables (2010)
Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Eric Roberts, David Zayas, Giselle Itie, Terry Crews, Randy Coutre, Mickey Rourke, and Charisma Carpenter
Director: Sylvester Stallone
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

An elite team of mercenaries (Li, Statham, Stallone) turn down a contract to overthrow the military dictator of a small South American nation (Zayas). They change their minds when when the drug-runners who are the power-behind-the-power (Austin and Roberts) abduct the dictator's kindhearted daughter (Itie), and they set out to overthrow a government and kill every bad guy they come across--free of charge.


Forget the race-baiting self-consciously referential "Machete" that's coming out later this year. This is the film that captures the real mood and spirit of everything that was great about the explosion-laden action movies of yesteryear, without any posturing, preaching, or pandering.

Like "Predators" from earlier this summer, "The Expendables" is a throw-back movie that succeeds at what it sets out to do--to evoke the feeling of a 1980s action flick and to the movie days when men were men and every day brought another suicide mission. It does this with all the fight scenes, gunplay, car chases, and macho banter than even the most discriminating fan would want. It also does so by reviving a common 1980s villain (the corrupt CIA operative whose gone into the drug trade), by providing us lead characters who can be chivalrous when damsels are in distress, completely coldhearted and unforgiving to those who put them there, and forgiving to their friends even when they betray them.

In "The Expendables," Sylvester Stallone gathered such an array of stars--several of whom have cameos, such as Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger--that I was afraid the film would collapse under the weight of egoes vying for screentime and recognition. Thankfully, I was wrong.

Stallone, who is also the co-writer and director of the flick, retains complete control of the straight-forward action narrative in the film, with every character and actor portraying it, playing their part in the story with no allowance for star-status, past or present. It goes without saying that three of the biggest stars appearing in the film--Stallone, Statham, and Li--also get the most screen time, but the rest of the almost equally famous cast play their parts without any particular acknowledgement beyond what any other actor might get. The only exception to this is the scene featuring Willis and Schwarzenegger. While it is needed for the plot, its execution feels a little forced, with the dialogue between Stallone, Willis, and Schwarzenegger being just a little too cute and too aware that it's an exchange among movie super-stars and one-time box office rivals.


Aside from that one minor misstep, Stallone keeps the film centered around Barney Ross (played by Stallone himself) and his friend and main partner Lee Christmas (played by Statham), men of violence who nonetheless hold to a strong code of honor and chivalry that they expect everyone who works with them to obey as well. This is established in the film's first scene, and it is carried throughout, as Ross and Lee's honorable natures are ultimately the motivating factor behind every event of the film. They are a pair of cool unapologetic tough guys with the sort of strong moral center that one wishes all such tough guys had both in fiction and reality.

Technically, this is is also an excellent film. It's well-written (aside from the aforementioned scene between between Stallone, Willis, and Schwarzenegger), expertly paced and edited, with every action scene being lean, mean, and exactly what is called for in order to get maximum impact. The only drawback is that this film makes the mistake that so many other action films have done of late--they use computer graphics to add blood spatter and gore to scenes. Unfortunately, it's no less obvious and fake-looking here than it was in the low-budget films that originated the practice, nor any better looking than in the other big-budget film I've recently seen that made use of the unfortunate practice ("MacGruber"). It's a shame really, because those obviously fake bits of CGI were very distracting during the otherwise exciting and fun climactic orgy of explosions, death, and mayhem.

'The Bank Job' is a fine caper flick

The Bank Job (2008)
Starring: Jason Statham, Saffron Burrows, Stephen Campbell Moore, Michael Jibson, Daniel Mays, Richard Lintern, David Suchet, James Faulkner and Gerard Horan
Director: Roger Donaldson
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

When a childhood friend (Burrows) approaches smalltime conman Terry Leather (Statham) with the perfect scheme for a bank robbery, he assembles a crew and goes for it. The end result is that they pull off the bigest bank heist in British history... but then find themselves hunted by serious criminals and even the British intelligence agencies.


"The Bank Job" is based on a number of true events that happened in and around 1971, such as the robbery of the Baker Street branch of Lloyd's Bank; the arrest of a murdering drug-dealer and extortionist pimp who hid his operations behind the cloak of a black power movement; the sudden resignation of a number of long-standing members of Parliment; and the quick and extensive purge of entrenched corruption in London's police department. How many of the details of the film are true, and whether all the events depicted as related are truly related we won't have even an inkling of until 2057, as much of the documents relating to the case have been sealed as government secrets until then. Whether the details are accurate or not, the film itself should entertain any fan of caper movies.

At least it should entertain any fan of caper movies once it gets going. The first half hour or so is a bit messy as a whole raft of characters and plotlines are introduced and no seeming connection exists between them; the connections become clear later, but as they are introduced you'll find yourself wondering why we're bothering with them. Some of the characters are actually so minor that I think the film had been stronger if they had been left out entirely in the interest of stream-lining the start of the movie. However, when things coalese and the robbery gets underway, any trying of the viewers patience at the film's beginning is richly atoned for.

"The Bank Job" gets off to a shakey start, but it ends up in a very cool place. It's definately worth checking out.