Wrath of Man (2021)

A new Guy Ritchie movie? And we’ve got Jason Statham? Color me intrigued! (With a light shading of skepticism).

In their newest collaboration (after many years apart) Statham plays the mysterious “H” a newly hired security guard for an armored truck company. What they don’t know (same as the viewer) is that he isn’t quite who he seems. If you’ve watched a Statham movie, like, ever- you’ll know that he means business. His business here? Revenge.

But, we’ll get to that.

One Crime, Two Crimes, and a whole lot more

As the film opens we’re shown a robbery, one that is inevitably the catalyst for the story, delivered to us in pieces over the course of the film. We’re merely spectators here as the camera immerses us inside the armored truck, feeling the tension, but still being limited to what we can ascertain. The opening credits are akin to a Bond film visually, (which makes me wonder what that particular team up would look like) and it immediately sets the style for the rest of the film. There is also the use of chapter names, which- while at first- seemed unnecessary, somehow won me over. Specifically the last. In many ways, despite a thin plot, the movie was overly heavy-handed with its intentions (and especially the… dialogue- which tickled my gag reflex on more than one occasion).

Yet from the very beginning the tension is present, festering, as we slowly understand the motives of our lead, and well, his full wrath.

source: Paramount Pictures

Jason Statham is no stranger to a character like this, but it’s one of my favorite performances of his in some time. His cool, icy demeanor doesn’t falter, strutting into danger with the collectedness of Terminator and a firearm efficacy that’s chilling. As a grieving, anger fueled man on a rampage, Statham does drive the lean plot with evident rage.

What are his intentions?

“A Dark Spirit”

“H” is a man with power in the criminal world and when a heist goes wrong, his teenage son is killed. This sets him upon a mission to find his killer. Eventually he finds his way to Scott Eastwood (channeling some serious Waingro from Heat, a far superior film- watch it if you haven’t) who is part of another crew. He’s a hothead, clearly making impulsive, selfish decisions; the kind of guy you somehow hope is responsible. It makes rooting for the antihero at the center a lot easier. Also, for screenwriters Guy Ritchie, Ivan Atkinson, and Marn Davies, a stock antagonist requires less imagination.

The Mystery of “H” doesn’t take long to decipher, but the film unearths his story at the right pace. It takes its time to build. The score by Christopher Benstead permeates throughout, teetering between frustratingly insistent and understandably pestering. There’s something rather sinister underlining the film, with some sequences reaching a disturbing height, but there’s also a sense of grief in H’s intentions, that’s evident, and clings to Statham throughout.

source: Paramount Pictures

We get answers in different ways, from H’s dedication to finding those responsible, to meeting those who are. It, of course, culminates in a big bloody final heist.

The supporting roles work, but are pretty by-the-numbers, with appearances by Holt McCallany, Josh Harnett, Jeffrey Donovan and Laz Alonso (to name some). Suffice to say, primarily a male-dominated picture.

When it comes to Ritchie movies, they tend to be hit or miss. I can tell this will divide audiences (and it has) especially fans, with his decisions here. So, what was is that made me lean (streettchhh) towards favor?

so much wrath

In this instance I tried to go into this without expectation, after all- I had enjoyed his last outing, and being reunited with Statham– it seemed like it could be promising. In some ways it was like my first theatrical experience post-pandemic. Though it wasn’t, it sure felt like it, and maybe that tinged this experience with an extra level of enthusiasm. However, I admittedly did enjoy Wrath of Man. Is it perfect? Hardly. Problematic at times? Eh, yes (gulp). But, is it entertaining? Absolutely. It’s a full-throttle thrill ride that manages to mar dark intensity with an action-filled narrative. It is one of the more serious notches in Richie’s recent belt, and I was surprised by that.

Wrath of Man is really Statham‘s, what I’ll call, “Symphony of revenge” featuring many bodies falling, and bullets a blazing. With a killer (in all ways) ending, it’s about as joyful as one can expect from a movie like this. However, there’s a level of escapism through cinema that can be found here, with some compelling sequences and great action, but temper your expectations.

It was a moody piece, one that could have been much better with the right cohesion, writing, and less concern for being “cool” and more for striving for originality. I think there could have been an even better film if it had shed some of its concern for excess. Still, if you can disconnect from that and from the overly masculine intent, you’ll find Wrath of Man to be a entertaining, thrilling, ride.

Have you seen Wrath of Man? What did you think? Let me know!

Currently in theaters.

Can the finale of THE STAND save the entirety?

If you are going to have an entire section devoted to an icon, why not have it be Stephen King? A personal literary hero of mine, I’ll be tackling some of the best and worst of the adaptations (and let’s just say- there’s a lot) with more to come. All hail the King of horror.

I reviewed the series for Film Inquiry recently, and the trajectory of my enjoyment went from thrilled to disappointed. This was one of my favorite novels, and so the bar was already high. Unfortunately, it didn’t quite hit the marks I was hoping for. When I wrote the review I had only seen the first six episodes and as they were released, I was really excited to see what was to come next. Would it be enough?

Can the finale of THE STAND save the entirety?

I know it’s a common remark (and even a joke made in the most recent It: Chapter 2) that King has trouble with his endings. Well, for me, in this particular novel, that wasn’t an issue. Still, this series seemed to have been filled with amazing content, terrific casting, and lots of potential- so why wasn’t it working? There were three episodes left to go and I was filled with anticipation, trepidation, and a mess of curiosity.

This is the End, My Only Friend, the End.

Stephen King wrote the finale (Coda: Frannie in the Well) which changed the ending of the novel (and also subsequently the previous miniseries). There were aspects of the new close that I liked, so, overall, it left an impression. Mostly? A yearning for more.

Frannie (Odessa Young) is one of my favorite characters, especially within the miniseries, so I was thrilled that it was shown that she wanted to brave the roads again to head back to her hometown in Maine. As the finale (spoiler) showed, the focus of the episode was their trip across the country, and her eventual run-in with Randall Flagg (Alexander Skarsgård) as she is faced with a choice. Without spelling out what that was or pointing out some of the more ridiculous elements of Flagg’s request, I’ll just say that she proved to be exactly what we thought she was: resilient and strong.

In its closing moments, which finds us also getting another perspective from Mother Abigail (Whoopie Goldberg) we also see, what was one of my favorite aspects of this new take, was the potential future for Flagg. That fascination made it worth it, for me, in the end. What else can/will he do?

But was it enough? Did it save the miniseries that had so much initial promise? This is a story (and I feel- still, It is another that could benefit from a longer form) that needs more time, that needs more backstory, that has so many weaving tales and intriguing characters. Therefore, this truncated version of this massive undertaking, just… isn’t enough.

It breaks my heart, but, this is one adaptation that wasn’t saved, even by the King himself.