For an angry guy, Jason Statham never seems all that angry; he always seems stoic to the point of being aloof. I suppose “wrath” for some is sedation to others. Speaking of angry guys, Guy Ritchie has made another glorification of the lawless, as he has been apt to do for decades. This one, Wrath of Man, is about a dude who sandbags a job opportunity to “fit in” (do you know how difficult it is to get a decent job in this country?) and go undercover among his new pals only to stand out in pretty much every respect one can stand out. The “undercover” protagonist of this film would be more inconspicuous dressing as the clown from It. But when you think about it, he’s no more a detective than an armored car security agent.
At work, he’s called “H,” mostly because the on-boarding supervisor (Holt McCallany) is one of those guys who can’t stand not calling people by a nickname. As H (Statham) is already posing as a new armored car dude under an assumed name, hey, what does it matter? The deal is that months earlier, an armored car was hijacked and three people were killed in the process. We know H showing up is no coincidence, but we won’t find out who he really is until Act II. In the meantime, he projects exactly what he needs to project to get the job — oh if only it were that easy in real life.
In 30 seconds on the job with Josh Hartnett (!), H proves himself completely unsuited and over-qualified. Just know – this is the good part of the film. During his tryout, H made target practice look like amateur hour at the state fair, yet once confronted with genuine bad guys, H dispatches with head shots (and not the photographic kind) so efficient, you’d think he was paying for the bullets individually. And at the end 
of the day, he’s disappointed because none of his fresh kills is the specific guy he’s looking for. Aw.
There are two things I consistently enjoy about Guy Ritchie films. The first is unexpected motivation. If you had a story about a mob boss who wouldn’t bat an eye about an underling bedding their spouse, but would have you tortured and killed over a muffed flower delivery, THAT’S a Guy Ritchie film. Also, Guy is fantastic at ensemble works; he’s simply among the best in the biz at unique, clever, creative identification and interplay. While one director might see a goon squad of interchagables, Guy Ritchie finds a menagerie of individuals with common purpose; there’s a big difference. One is an army, the other is a kingdom.
Never mind; both of these things are missing in Wrath of Man. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing; Jason Statham is the 21st Century Clint Eastwood; you can let him do the selectively-violent taciturn thing and still get a decent bi-product. The problem here is – there isn’t enough of it. Wrath of Man wanted to show clever plotting ahead of character development and the movie suffers for it. For instance, when we see who H really is, we are suddenly much less sympathetic than we might have been. For a guy who’s been wronged, H sure as heck doesn’t have a problem wronging others to get to is personal state of catharsis. I honestly think there’s a better movie here by rewriting acts two and three to focus much more on our slow realization at just what a badass H is and then only the slightest of reveals at the end hinting at specious motivation but not including H’s involvement in the life-changing plot point itself. Close call, but I’m voting thumbs down.
There once was a assassin in disguise
Who –on command – could put one in your eyes
So he posed as a lummox
For fellas with weak stomachs
Well gosh, aren’t they in for a surprise?
Rated R, 119 Minutes
Director: Guy Ritchie
Writer: Guy Ritchie & Marn Davies and Ivan Atkinson
Genre: Vengeance, the long game
Type of being most likely to enjoy this film: People who hold a grudge
Type of being least likely to enjoy this film: People for whom the ends don’t justify the means
