I cannot say that the film has morally produced any philosophical reflection, or that it can be disassembled into quotations. My completely unsentimental husband was delighted with the film because he loves the depressive, hard and melancholy. action dramas. In this film there is no sophisticated corporate stylistically verified Guy’s line: it is dialogue, sparkling humor and evenness. narrative. But the film with a plot and a good sound in an instrumental way - did not lose. Observe parallel installation and branching "Human Wrath" - not fully understandable remake of the French film 2004 "Cash collector" but with his own A logical twist. I haven't seen a new game at Statham. It's all the same. frowning eyebrows, tension, brutality, certain stiffness in Look. But here, with this whole emotional set, it fit perfectly. In my opinion, Scott Eastwood has finally left his famous surname. He did his best. Action scenes are shot on a high bar of professionalism. The final is over. Movie more for male audience And Richie's fans. The critically acclaimed King Arthur’s Sword, I personally liked much more. More monumental. For the idea, the play of absolutely all actors, flashbacks of high quality. "Human Anger" gets 8 out of 10 from me. I recommend it. 😎
And again, a movie that managed to escape to the cinema. This time with my mother, because every solo film of Jason Statham is a holiday, plus double luck - the film was directed by Guy Ritchie. Recently he made us happy with the Gentlemen of McConaughey, now he's angry. We took seats in a well-filled room and prepared to get acquainted with the picture. Next, I will share my impressions of what I saw, and some thoughts on this work.
A narrative criterion or narrative. H is a mysterious and cold-looking gentleman, but within him is a thirst for justice. In pursuit of his motives, he infiltrates a collection company to reach out to the accomplices of a series of multimillion-dollar robberies that rocked Los Angeles. In this intricate game, everyone has a role, but everyone is under suspicion. The guilty will be punished by the wrath of man. It is worth saying that if you watch any movie, you immediately recognize the creative handwriting of Guy Ritchie by the presence of cool dialogue and a kind of humor. Each caustic comment gets into a situation, helping the viewer tune in to the correct perception of the tape. Guy Ritchie had never really pedaled the revenge motif in his tapes before, but here he put it at the heart of the script. The compositional solution (partitioning into chapters and arches) is clearly taken from the teacher of Quentin, but is used in some special way. At the same time, a lot of vulgarities, mothers and other charms of a truly male movie. Everything is strictly dosed and concise. There are no literary claims.
Visual criterion or technical support of the tape. Operator Alan Stewart skillfully works with the camera, snatching sometimes unexpected and bold angles, plus in dynamic scenes follows the characters, additionally loading the tape with dynamics. Staging shootings and self-harm is also good here. When you come to the movies tired and angry from work, you only want to see someone get their skull pierced. And it does not seem necessary this pretentiousness and aesthetics of creating a new film language. It doesn't smell like it here. This is a beautifully staged and famously shot film, which, for all its narrative potential, also shoots well as a straight action movie. Musical accompaniment also works to create an atmosphere. The soundtrack has songs worthy of a place in your playlist, especially the final theme mixed with blood and gunpowder.
Acting is good, but Statham puts everyone on the shoulder blades. He doesn’t need to play the emotion of just one expression to express his desperate determination to punish the guilty, plus he looks stylish even in the company of ordinary hardworking people. Vladimir Zaitsev’s voice in such material is more organic than ever, pleasant to see and hear. In the background, in addition to Holt McCallani and Lance Alonso, who played their roles well, Josh Hartnett played the role for the first time in a very long time, before that he became familiar with not the most noticeable tapes, was in some TV series. But in such a big movie he was not in a long time. Scott Eastwood, the most annoying character in the film, was played by his father’s son. Its distinctive feature is sophisticated cruelty and embody one of the moral lessons.
This is not a typical Guy Ritchie film, in spirit it is closer to his films like Sherlock Holmes, when he began to probe the niche of Hollywood cinema and began to occupy abandoned male action films. Cinema, despite its directness, is not stupid. I advise you to go to the movie and support it with a ruble. A rare guest at our box office. All health, peace and good cinema.
Human Anger (2021) is a feature film in the genres of action movie, thriller, written and directed by Guy Ritchie. The production of the picture was announced in October 2019. Then it became known that the director and screenwriter of the film will be Guy Ritchie, and the main role in the project will be played by Jason Statham.
The film begins with the scene of a robbery of a Fortico collection van, during which collectors and a casual witness die. The whole film can be divided into four parts or chapters: 1 - Evil Spirit; 2 - Scorched Earth. 3 - Like animals; 4 - Liver, lungs, spleen, heart. Moreover, each of the parts deserves separate attention and its analysis.
The film looks in one breath, which cannot be said about some other films of these genres. Each chapter complements the previous one, even though the end of the film seems very predictable. It is also worth noting the idea of the author - the transmission of human emotions. In particular, human anger, desire for revenge, and what they lead to.
This film can be considered one of the best Guy Ritchie. He managed to interest the viewer so that he in turn wanted to see this film, because he will get a lot of emotions from the scenes of battles and fights.
In conclusion, I want to say that this film will be interesting to fans of Jason Statham, as well as fans of action movies and detectives.
I got to watch Anger of Man the other day, and I think this opus should provoke righteous anger from any self-respecting Guy Ritchie fan (well, good movie!). The latter not only once again proved that any rise in his career is inevitably followed by a fall - but, it seems, seriously took to hammer nails into the coffin of his career.
It's hard to believe that five years after my beloved "Agents A.N.K.L." Richie decided it was time for him to get into the lucrative genre of serious male cinema. Only here’s the trouble: the British in time did not explain that it is not enough to film the public “Boy’s quotes”, taking the cult hero of such content Jason Statham for the main role. History knows examples of his worthy outputs (remember at least a comedic role in "The Expendables"), but here he, having sensed his native atmosphere, - spoiler - plays himself.
Paphosous titles with wolves fighting in the fire, pathetic faces, jokes of the level “well, pooped, or is the diaper clean?”, then more pathetic faces, dividing the film into chapters with pathetic titles such as “Scorched Earth”. Never before has the action in a director’s films been so dull, and the film itself so slurred and devoid of his signature handwriting. As soon as Richie began to portray seriousness, it immediately became impossible to take him seriously.
It seems that at the moment when men with barbershop haircuts traded ironic pub brawls for a significant fight against evil under the Statham brand, something went wrong in Richie's career. Although the fees show that the viewer easily closes his eyes to such trifles, just to see on the screen the cherished mantra: “directed by Guy Ritchie”.
By the way, now in the plans of the director of the tik-tok musical “Hercules”.
Firstly, it is still adored by everyone genre about the invulnerable and super cool years, for which you do not need to worry every second and you can be distracted by some other plot twists.
Secondly, it is not just a carrier without a soul and history, but a character with feelings.
Thirdly, there is no comedy and there is an emphasis on realism.
The film turned out with a “compact” story, due to which it looks easy and figuratively “quick”. There are short flashbacks that work out their function and don't turn the picture into a mess out of a bunch of other stories. For example, the character of the son was given only 5 minutes of screen time, but this was enough to further empathize and want to take revenge with Stackham. I think neglecting other characters and the overall setting is a thoughtful decision, because the film becomes like a parable. The film generally traces a clear allusion to biblical themes, but not pathetic, hitting right in the forehead. Quite an interesting solution for a film of this genre and class.
The cast and play are a separate kind of enjoyment. Finally, Josh Harnett is back in action movies. It is amazing that at the time of filming he was 40 years old, but he still plays the boy well.
Stackham is everywhere, but with one look and facial expressions he can give his character one or another trait.
Eddie Marsan is cute and funny, without any obvious comic in his role.
But the main villain Scott Eastwood turned out to be caricatured and empty.
As for the technical part, everything is at the level that you usually expect from Guy Ritchie. Action scene in moderation, it is interesting to consider the shooting. It's pretty flattering, even if you watch the kids. In general, the picture is remembered for its aesthetics. Mainly used gray scale + instrumental soundtrack with thick and dark sound strings, which makes the overall picture almost art.
The film does not pretend to be a masterpiece, because there are a huge number of fantastic conventions that do not allow the film to become a truly serious and deep picture. The plot is not new, the finale is guessed, but it was shot well and qualitatively, despite the simplicity of the plot.
Human anger is an excellent representative of the genre of action movie, which has comedic elements. At first glance, the film may seem exclusively genre movies, full of clichés and pop-cultural inserts from Guy Ricci. However, I suggest paying attention to the figure of the main character, played by the inimitable Jason Statham, which, on closer inspection, opens up the abyss of meanings.
In the film H, this is the name of the main character, concise and meaningful, appears as an evil spirit of revenge. This is indicated by his perseverance, ubiquity and occupation. On the surface, it seems that Statham's hero is an ordinary crime boss. He's a tough leader of a criminal gang. However, if you look closely, H doesn't look like a standard gang leader. A real mafia boss should be calculating, not jumping on the fence and taking care of his family. The ideal embodiment of the type discussed in cinema is Vito Carleone, played by Marlon Brando. But H is different. In the film, we do not observe in his actions self-interest, restraint in the choice of means, concern for people. H tends to give more. Like money, bullets or punches.
Despite the large number of Christian symbols in the film, the protagonist embodies a pre-Christian mythological creature. H is more like Erinia, who acts anonymously in favor of a blood-related concept of justice, not distinguishing between good and evil. The moral boundaries of the film are erased. Here the robber punishes the robber, evil beats evil. And it seems that revenge is taking place, which we, people, thanks to the primitive layers of consciousness, perceive with solemn joy, with the deepest pathos. But how much morality is there? Is there a lot of Christianity in this?
The next thing to pay attention to is the adherence to the H. Talion principle (“Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth”). As you know, Christianity abolishes this norm of behavior, replacing love for others. However, this love is not in the film. There is no love in the painting. Only stubborn adherence to blood revenge and primitive ideas of justice. The film should not be called “Human Anger”, but “Superhuman Anger”, for H does things that are in a cosmic perspective.
Another superhuman feature of Hitch is his determination. The main character is completely immersed in his task. H is full of focus and even the painful footage from the security camera is not able to knock him off track. If Aristotle could see the film, he would call the character of the protagonist “divine.”
Thanks to a brief analysis of Hitch’s figure, we can see how much a film that is shot intentionally in a popular key is multilayered if the artist put his hand.
“Human Anger” is probably one of those films that seems to understand from the very beginning – “So, well, here’s Stetham, now he decides everything”, but on the same side, up to 2/3 of the film, you are in the state of “I do not understand who killed whom why, and why Stetham says to himself “Angry Man”.
In part, "Anger" reminds me of Richie's other work. The same Gentlemen. Not a linear narrative, not a direct plot, but the disclosure of every question that arises in the viewer, in the next flashback. Guy's characteristic handwriting is visible, and gives pleasure to watch. There is something to think about + play around with your nerves to the end, thinking 'Will he finish him off or not?!'
Yes, it's a regular action movie, yes, it's a shooter that's well shot. But look, it's not just an ordinary shooter, where the Glavger knocks everyone and everything. It shows the pain of a father who wants to avenge his son. That is why the “wrath of man”
Frankly, I liked the movie. Not the best of the genre, but it makes you empathize with the hero.
Guy Ritchie cheated and took only what audiences definitely love in action movies and thrillers. From the action movie there is a cool main character, who on the right and left falls cartoon criminals, the only motive of which is money, money and only money. The stone face of Stetham in some moments is so amusing that inadvertently there is a feeling that the actor still thinks that he is playing in some Fast and Furious (although even there was more emotion). A typical pathos-cool-impenetrable character, which Stetham has repeatedly played in some Parker or Mechanics. However, in the very first minutes of the film, we realize that the film definitely has a second bottom - this is the very component of the thriller. Seeming at first confusing timelapse to the middle lined up in a certain picture, which immediately says that H (the main character) is much more than a simple collector. Such a symbiosis of a cool, intricate thriller and a pathos-cool action movie definitely succeeded Guy Ritchie - from the first minutes the story catches, I want to understand what is hidden under the mask of a cartoon character (a typical verbose image of Stetham). As a result, it is an excellent and properly fused symbiosis, an intermediate state between a coolly made, but pathetic-dumb action movie like Mechanic and a great-typical Guy Ritchie-style thriller like Gentlemen. Fans of Guy Ritchie and Jason Stetham must watch.
Watched this film and felt a huge dissonance of his "impressions" with ratings on the KP and IMDb (£7.3/10). But I seem to understand why the dissonance is so great, why the high marks are so high, and how Richie got there. (IMHO)
Yes, accordingly, it is worth clarifying that, in my opinion, the film is initially aimed at the mass audience, success at the box office, etc. Everything in the stages of creation is focused not even "mainly" but "exclusively" on this. About "creativity", "freshness", "authorship" there is no question. I don’t know if the new producer, with whom Richie has been working lately, is the case (some Ivan Atkinson) – he filmed Gentlemen, Aladdin and Wrath of Man. But with each of these new films, the sincere creative passion of Richie, which I have always loved in his pictures, is increasingly lost.
Why did people go to this movie and how did they like it?
Many, among the "mass audience", in 2000-2010 grew up / matured on films with Statham ("Carrier", "Adrenaline", etc.) and other, now cult, films and games (I mention games not by chance) in the genres of "action criminal". And then, after 2010, such films (in their form and content) began to be released less and less. And here. 2022. In all theaters! Once again, the alpha stern ultra-brutal ultra-imbo statem, which copes with scoundrels in such a familiar classic setting and situations! It seems a great opportunity to immerse yourself in “nostalgic feelings” just from this. What if you add ingredients like Tarantino dialogues or situations, sounds, scenery à la GTA 5? Collect everything that 100% worked and caused success in popular culture of the 2000s-2010s and beyond. After all, all the elements from there are already there - it remains just to fold all this in competent proportions and feed with a spoon, reminding of the "taste of youth." Would that be enough already? Maybe.
The recipe for a successful movie in 2022
But it's not that simple. After all, in order to exactly like Now, you need to soak up all the “best” from the New Cinema.
So we add
(Write down the recipe):
A) a pinch of influxes of esoteric / religious entourage, as it should give pathos / depth (which in this case does not seem appropriate) and has worked so many times in recent years in games, TV series, films of this genre.
B) Be sure to as many jumps in time as possible (into the future, past, present - and let the viewer sit and count '+ 3 weeks - 2 days + 1 month - 5 months').
B) With these leaps in time, it is imperative to update the “introductory data” that helps to look at the situation “2 months later” from a different angle. The audience likes it.
D) Oh! Since we’re talking about situations from a different angle, why not give a handful of glances at the same scene from the point of view of different characters? The audience loves it!
D) Yes, and let there be revenge as the main motive. He will certainly be impenetrable (literally, too) in his quest for revenge.
E) Well, since we’ve gone for such spot clichés, open the closet with “your man-bandit in the rear of the team” and rethink the scenes with him, when the viewer finds out who it is. The reverse side of one of the killers is where he has a daughter, a beloved wife and a happy life. Scenes of sounding the criminal plan and parallel scenes, over the voice, with its implementation. Stupid melody on the phone of the main villain The main character in the corner of a dark room, sitting with a gun in his hand, waiting for the main villain.
Žijklmn Oh, come on. Sprinkle everything in this closet with cliches! People eat it and they like this fast food. They are willing to give money for him. So why don't we keep feeding them that?
.. . So did Guy Ritchie, I think...
That makes me sad.
What's the problem if it's a set of "best things"?
And the fact that all these "ingredients" are not served under some original "sauce", they are not made a special accent revealing them. They're just as fakely stuffed in there as possible, the basis of a typical crime thriller with Statham and the mission from GTA 5. They took what people loved and missed and stuffed everything that people love now. There's a cash register. Ratings, too. The creative component is zero.
How could this movie be really cool?
If the basis remained the same, tons of clichés remained in place, all the “working” film receptions remained, Statham was still harsh and invincible.
BUT
Less claims are not realism. A little more twisted the degree of absurdity of these clichés, these movie techniques, this basis from GTA 5 and films before 2000-2010. In the age of growing postmodernism, this would be appreciated by the average viewer, film critic, and film aesthete. You would get your cash register, your approval by everyone, and you would also make a creative contribution. The best example of this genre is “John Wick” (here and revenge, and impenetrableness, and criminal aesthetics). “Dead people don’t die” and “get knives out.”
But the saddest thing is that Guy Ritchie could have done this film so well. His past films are permeated with this British spirit of adventure, the subtleties of tragicomedy from what is happening in the frame. Even his author's techniques are so perfectly pleasing to some "youth." That would make a great picture. What was missing was one secret ingredient: irony.
"Human Wrath" Dynamic action movie Guy Ritchie with Jason Statham in the title role.
Fighters are not my genre, they all seem to be alike. The shooting head crumbles everything around, the mafia, weapons, shootings and chases, and the main character is just a killer car, which is surrounded by bullets. I have a slightly different attitude towards the painting being discussed. It contains human drama and intrigue, something that is usually not characteristic of militants.
Mysterious man H gets a job in a collection firm. H. is on his mind, does not let anyone close to him, does not communicate with anyone, he has excellent physical training, even criminals who attempt a huge amount of money are afraid to meet him. What is this dark horse?
The film, as befits militants, is very dynamic in terms of shooting ranges, chase and fights. The number of battles set abound and they are all masterfully removed. The shooting is high-quality, all the action scenes look spectacular. And no one regrets bullets. The picture is cheerful and not boring. Jason Statham, as always, is in great shape and looks mega brutal. The plot is exciting, it is not quite typical for a militant, there is a serious dramatic component in it. The motivation of the main character is strong and his feelings are quite understandable. The film can be called a crime drama. The viewer is shown the development of events backwards, thanks to this, the puzzle of the picture cannot be formed for a long time and the usual plot becomes more complicated, and the intrigue continues to persist almost to the very end.
The film has a good budget and feels the professionalism of the director. "Human anger" is not a typical aimless action movie. Richie tried and filled the film with not only exciting fights and special effects, but also a piece of soul. I even want to reconsider it.
Deep psychology isn't Guy Ritchie's strength. His element is carnival and masks. Character plus 2-3 memorable gestures, plus speech features - and then: a steeply mixed intrigue, temporary inconsistency of the plot, the unpredictability of plot collisions. And the director, and the actors, and the audience remember every minute in his best films: it is just a game, a hoax, a carnival, in which the viewer is led by the nose, and he himself is happy to be deceived. That’s why the first half an hour of Human Wrath is always waiting for all this brutal atmosphere of the collection company to crumble, finding something soft and fluffy. You start to suspect something wrong when co-workers - collectors - go to the pub - billiard room to celebrate the first day of work of a new colleague of Mr. H (David Stetham). That's about the 30th minute. Long and boring conversations, meaningful remarks, all seriously according to the rules of the theater of the school of deep psychological experience. So you didn't have to wait for the carnival, you had to watch the balance of forces carefully. It's not all good in the company. Its crews are ambushed with frightening regularity (as soon as they are still on the market with such luck). Which means that in the ranks of collectors - gunner. Who is this rat – in theory, this intrigue was supposed to hold the first three parts of the picture. Think, says Guy Ritchie to the viewer: here is a set for you: one homosexual, another will not be lazy to raise what is bad, a third can not move up the ladder and therefore envious, the fourth is excessively masculine and demonstrates his supermasculinity in business and without, the fifth, on the contrary, calls not to put their only lives on the altar of protecting other people’s money. By a set of masks, guessing the psychology of the villain is absolutely ungrateful. To the question: who is the traitor, the answer follows: on the drum. When the intrigue is revealed, it will cause neither surprise nor the triumph of one’s own vision. So what? No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Who is he, Mr. H? This intrigue was more lively. Why the hero Stetham goes to collector in a company that is definitely in the stepdaughters of Fortune is really interesting. Moreover, even employers are not deceived: the resume is fake, Mr. H has never worked for any bankrupt collection company in Europe. An undercover cop? A mole planted by bandits in anticipation of a big jackpot? A hero who has been wrecked and starts anew? The absolute impenetrableness of Stetham’s face neither confirms nor denies any of the answers. Who is mister H? This intrigue could have kept the film going until the end. But it miraculously resolves to its middle. Shuffling episodes of the film over time is a long-standing and favorite occupation of Guy Ritchie, and all his fellow genre artists. Human anger is no exception. Robko suggests that the second chapter, which reveals all the motives and answers the question of who Mr. H is, according to the logic of the plot narrative could become the penultimate one, after a big robbery before the epilogue: the final meeting of the hero and his antagonist. Then the intrigue would keep the hall in suspense until the final. Probably, such an installation option revealed some inconsistencies in the plot and temporite. In the end, viewers are presented with a variant of “light” in terms of a temporal linear structure. No dashing games from the series "Time, forward!" or "Time, back!". Two modest flashbacks, which open cards long before the credit “the end of the film”, perform the role of killers of intrigue. One intrigue still remains: robbed - not robbed. But an experienced viewer already knows: Of course, they will be robbed, but they will pay a cruel price.
The second flashback, which introduces us to collector antagonists, namely robbers, cruel and ruthless, is the worst Guy Ritchie has ever shot. The gathering of veterans of the American army, who were left out of business after the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and now the last horseradish without salt is finished, written, staged and played in such a way that it is very reminiscent in its style of the Dovzhenko film studio Cancan in the English Park, where former Soviet citizens, and now employees of Radio Liberty, uttered monologues from the series I am such a vile creature. And no sign of carnival. Artists try to play psychology, which is wretched, one-dimensional and straightforward.
Of course, you can't just run away from yourself. And in "Human Wrath," Guy Ritchie's carnival signature things like "Elvis leaves the building" are periodically flashed at the moment when it seems that the operation has failed. Or an episode when one scoundrel was ahead of another with a fatal shot: “Not had time!” The attraction in chases, attacks, shootings, as always at Richie, at the height. But that's something many people can boast of. But the signature black humor, which is owned by units, Richie wrote off in the archive. In "Human Wrath," he's too serious. And in this foreign territory, he is inexpressibly boring and banal. How important it is not to be serious.
More recently, another film by the famous English director Guy Ritchie - "Human Wrath" was released on the screens. I watched this creation a while ago. As part of this note, I will try to identify the weaknesses and strengths of the picture.
Pros of the film
Firstly, “Human Anger” was shot in a kind of minimalist, restrained style, which very successfully conveys the mood and atmosphere of what is happening. It manifests itself in many ways. And in dialogues, in which, although there is a share of humor, but, as a rule, everything is relevant and without unnecessary words, and in the stories of the characters. The script tells us nothing superfluous about the actors. The visual content of the picture looks very successful and organic: dark, gloomy tones. All of the above is accompanied by a rather painful and gloomy musical accompaniment, which, in turn, very successfully enhances the mood and overall atmosphere of the film.
Secondly, the events of the film are shown from different sides. We see what is happening not only from the side of Statham's hero, but also from the side of the opposing one. In my opinion, this is a very good move, as it allows you to get some idea of the people who are on the other side of the barricades, and brings some variety to the plot, as Jason Statham in this picture fully exploits his usual image of the invincible man. It looks cool, but very familiar. Therefore, the variety of persons, their motives and goals looks very interesting and profitable.
Thirdly, the advantages of the tape include brutality, rigidity. I will attribute this to the pluses, since in this respect the picture does not disappoint expectations. Shooting, hard and concise dialogue permeate the narrative. Although action scenes do not occupy a huge amount of timekeeping, they look spectacular and interesting.
Cons of the film
The biggest disadvantage of the film is the excessive emotional detachment of the picture. By and large, when watching the tape, I had nothing to catch on to, there was not a single “emotional anchor” that would engage in the narrative, contribute to the establishment of an emotional connection between the viewer and the character. There are reasons for this.
The hero of Jason Statham is so invulnerable that it is very difficult to empathize with him. We don’t see any weaknesses in his character. Even the loss of a son is seen as a simple story. The same applies to the main antagonist, played by Scott Eastwood, the son of the notorious Clint Eastwood. It looks quite convincing and natural. But again, there is a lack of understanding of his motives. Why would he kill the main character's son? It seems that he is just pathologically cruel, and this is what dictates his actions. No deeper motives can be seen.
As a result, there is no confrontation between two personalities in Human Wrath, simply because there are no personalities as such. There are types, abstractions, but no people.
The disadvantages include the plot, which, although it claims to be some intrigue, but for the most part, many things are clear from the very beginning. Guy Ritchie tries to keep the viewer in some tension, showing events in different time periods, but, in my opinion, this did not bring much intrigue and mystery to the plot. I do not think that this is a very big drawback for this film, but for fans of intrigue and twisted plot can seem boring.
To sum it up, the film is more good than bad. It has drawbacks, but at the end of the viewing there is no feeling of wasted time. In my opinion, Guy Ritchie through visual means managed to compensate for the weaknesses of the plot. Despite the fact that in the film there is no opposition to “aliens” and “us”, it cannot be said that “human anger” looks uninteresting. In general, if you want to watch a movie about tough and uncompromising men who do not give up a single word for no good reason, then this film is for you.
It's a project I didn't get my hands on for a long time, because, with my love for both Richie and Statham, paradoxically, there was no trust from the start: Ritchie with Statham sounds cool. Very much. But this duo has a peculiarity: it is getting older. And as far as we can tell, people like Richie and Statham age by canning. They seem to be emptying at cosmic speed. What to hide, the fears were eventually justified.
Statham’s face fits perfectly under the entire ideological conceptuality of the tape. Always equally formidable, senile expression, carefully analyzing the world around the eyes. The character himself is a kind of god. Even Clark Kent would be envious of robbers fleeing in fear from the mere thought of his lightning and unconditional execution. No emotions, just dry pragmatism driven by revenge. Of course, he shoots without looking at the sight, he is on the head above everyone else. But what is disgusting here is not even the fact of the godlikeness of Statham, but how artificial the throne created by Richie looks, due to the most banal move: to show allegedly cool collectors who, when necessary, in confrontation it is convenient for the main character to lose their eggs, whether it is obviously a comic Spaniard Dave or the only girl in the collection department who does not look like cannon fodder at all.
Richie deliberately elevates his hero above everyone else. But why? Even the depth of Agent H's character boils down to the disgusting, inhuman and purely formal: "Give them money." There is no question of how Statham’s hero climbed to such heights: watch the director’s previous films. The difference between a bad burglar and a good collector is that he also walks around and kills everyone, but his value system revolves around family, not money. Richie follows the paradigm outlined in Revolver, where the main character escaped from the oppressive control of the mythical Sam Gold, emerged from this system. In its place, Richie built his value system, completely abstracting from the world around him. Richie the rebel became Richie the keeper of the hearth. And at the same time, the director continues to push the usual thoughts about men, about how much they have all become sombre and departed from nature. Of course, because he is a strong, independent, fair keeper. Here even to raise the question of the contradiction of purpose and means seems ridiculous.
In general, in its semantic component, which Ritchie tries to push, and for him it is important, no matter what you see in his films, the tape seems as one-sided as it is toothless. His crumpled comment on global warming also flies aptly and ends up in the trash. As usual, without a specific morality, but Richie embodies it in the characters he wrote and his admiring views on them. This time, he decides to go too radical, and even a gang of robbers does not cast off the stuffy toxic masculinity that makes all the air in the film hide. And seriousness only cuts the eye.
One thing cannot be taken away from this tape: with aging comes experience. And the picture is really stylish. Starting forever tensing even on the most mundane conversations soundtrack, ending clumsy, senile, but still damn aesthetic action. And the whole story, with its simplicity, is told masterfully. Yes, without past lotions and visual sugar, even with some regression in this regard, but still here you can see something new from Richie.
5 out of 10
To the extensive list of film professions Jason Statham now you can safely add another - collector. In 2021, quite unexpectedly, Guy Ritchie, after the phenomenal success of his Gentlemen, released a fresh project - Human Wrath. Unexpectedly, because the existence of the film was not known until the premiere. It's not Marvel with their multi-year plans. Oh, come on. The film somehow rolled, leaving mixed impressions.
A distinctive feature of "Human Wrath" - in the dry remnant is an ordinary action movie with Jason Statham, which is full. Richie's signature style in the tape is almost absent. No, the picture is certainly shot with taste, it is not stamping, but unfortunately, many fans of the director’s unique ‘Richiv’ exhibition it does not offer.
What does the tape boast of? This is a simple and brutal story about a man who takes revenge on someone for something. The characters here do not have much charisma, and exquisite British humor is absent. Instead of all this is the stern look of Statham putting headshots to the right and left.
The story in principle throws up some interesting things. Nonlinear presentation of the story ensures proper involvement, and one scene throughout the entire timekeeping is shown several times through the eyes of different actors.
As mentioned above, Human Wrath is a fairly standard action movie. He works out his entertainment program for a hundred, and he simply does not want to demand something more from him.
Great movie from the favorite Guy Ritchie. I completely disagree with those who say that his hand is not felt in the film, and that if another director shot the picture, in the dry residue the viewer would get the same.
"Human Anger" reveals the talent of Richie from the side of a hard and confident director, who from an average and ordinary scenario can make a real candy. Correctly placed accents in the story and the emphasis on a simple but working conflict brings to a new orbit the acting skills of Jason Statham, who is again formidable and detached not because he is a character of a template action movie with a cheat code of immortality, but because his hero H is a dramatic character who you want to worry about. He is vulnerable, freed from many unnecessary clichés and mostly wins H gets through thoughtful strategy rather than the effect of improvisation.
I really liked Jason in this role. In his gaze there is a sense of drama and pain, behind a stone mask there is a grieving father who has lost the most precious thing in his life, who will do everything to repay the perpetrators of his anger. But not to numb the pain, because it is impossible. But in order that the honor of his son and his memory be avenged. I loved Jason after “Anger” even more, the man is really handsome.
The soundtrack of the film is greatness. Chris Benstead was clearly inspired by Hildur Goodnadottir's cello from the themes of Joker. The music is masterfully woven into the picture and equally coolly immerses both in the criminal showdowns of the outskirts of Los Angeles and in the dark souls of the characters. A couple of tracks immediately flew into the playlist, we expect from Chris even more cool sound.
In general, I am very happy with the new films of the maestro.
God, Save the King.
On an ordinary bored evening with gulls and buns, I was invited to look at the new creation of Guy Ritchie with loud actors and an uncomplicated description. Not expecting much (in the belief that it would hardly reach Gentlemen or Cards, money, two guns) I was still intrigued.
The film begins confusedly, but is accompanied by beautiful opening credits, a pleasant sound, and suddenly captivates the inflating dynamic atmosphere.
What awaits us next?
And nothing - a dummy, a plot sucked out of a finger, an absolutely standard Statham role and a disappointing finale.
Thousands of questions immediately arise:
1) Why should I empathize with the main character of a bastard whose story is very flatly written? What was his relationship with his son at all? Why did he become a mob boss? Why is he such an invincible hero?
2) Who are these people around him? Why these storylines about a frivolous woman thief and coward Melky? Why is the machine gun so emotionless and so easy to help former military comrades? I was waiting until the last for something special from the characters of Hartnett and McCallani, but in the end it went into nonsense.
(3) Why are we showing military families? Where is the psychological background for people returning from the war? They arouse neither sympathy nor interest - just another company of stupid bastards who wanted money.
(4) Why do you need a story about the pervert brothers and all this string of revenge killings? Is this just a timer?
(5) What are the security problems in LA that collector cars are quietly robbed several times a month? Why didn’t the main antagonist get caught in his apartment? And why is he so stupid that with a lot of money decided to just come and have a cool drink in a robe at home?
(6) And most importantly, Guy Ritchie, what do you want to say with this movie? Why would anyone want to see this at all? John Wick against the background of this film looks just a masterpiece of cinema, having a beautiful picture, a great soundtrack and some kind of plot.
I'll bet 1 out of 10 just for well-staged footage and cello off-screen. This is worthy of a clip, but not from Guy Ritchie.
In 2004, the screens were released criminal action film of the French production "Cash collector" directed by Nicolas Buhrif with Albert Dupontel and Jean Dujardin in the lead roles. Not to say that the “Cash collector” became a box office hit or was in demand, but starting from 2019, it could again become in demand. And the thing is that in October 2019, it became known that the world-famous and many revered Englishman Guy Ritchie will undertake the English-language localization of the "Cassator" - this explains a new surge of interest from the public to the original French version. But something else was surprising: Guy Ritchie has not been seen before in reminding himself of a new job almost every year, but recently he is clearly distinguished by his ability to work. So in 2015, there are “Agents A.N.K.L.”, followed by “King Arthur’s Sword” in 2017, and in 2019 there is a premiere of two paintings by Richie – “Aladdin” and “Gentlemen”. Thus, the workload of the filmmaker is noticeable. And it is possible that now he is feeling his new peak and immersed in the favorite process of filmmaking.
After all, the same "Gentlemen" won the hearts of the audience, who were enthusiastic about Guy Ritchie's return to his signature style, which consists in criminal ornateness and black humor, as it was in the cult tapes of the director "Map, money, two barrels" (1998) and "Big jackpot" (2000), thanks to which Guy Ritchie gained world recognition and public love. But the remake of The Collector, which was released under the title of Wrath of Man in April 2021, was markedly different from Richie’s favorite approach to creating movies. And if there is a criminal genre component in the “Anger of Man”, then this picture is completely devoid of black humor. He was replaced by a harsh brutality, more characteristic of the films “Promenade Orfevre, 36” (2004) and “Untouchables” (2011) directed and screenwriter Olivier Marshal. And although the action of "Human Wrath" develops within the American Los Angeles, but still there is a presence of French style, which is characteristic of the genre of the criminal thriller of recent times.
But it was not only Guy Ritchie’s name that attracted a decent number of viewers to watch The Wrath of Humanity, because the film was marked by another bright event – it saw the reunion of Richie and actor Jason Statham. Once ex-athlete and model Statham managed to impress with his acting skills Guy Ritchie and he invited him to his debut film Cards, Money, Two Guns. Then there were two more joint works: “Big jackpot” and “Revolver” (2005), so it is safe to say that Ritchie opened the world to actor Jason Statham, although in the last couple of decades only lazy did not kick Jason for the embodiment of the same type of characters similar to his hero from “Carrier” (2002). And even though Statham is again like a brutality and testosterone machine in Human Anger, his image, which is called H, is markedly different from those characters created as a carbon copy after the Carrier. Admit it, even from his eyes became not at all during the viewing, and his cruelty, coupled with a fearless attitude to armed robbers (and they will) amazed.
Human Anger is divided into four chapters, and Guy Ritchie chose the method of nonlinear development of action. That is, initially the viewer is introduced to the hero of Jason Statham, who comes to the post of collector in the firm Fortico under the name Patrick Hill. This is the beginning of the first chapter, and the more we get to know Hitch, more and more questions arise about this verbose and gloomy personality. The following chapters will help to reveal the mystery of Hitch, but, of course, I will not disclose the plot essence, but I will say that later it will be very interesting, and Guy Ritchie allegedly was inspired by the classic British crime thriller Long Good Friday (1979) when creating Human Wrath. This “transitional” technique from the present to the past, and then to the future is not the first time Guy Ritchie has involved and thereby he gives a three-dimensional picture of what is happening, forcing the viewer to tensely and carefully follow the development of the film. And let not a single greasy joke slip through the “Anger of Man”, but there will be a lot of gloomy brutality, cruelty and blood, the smell of which literally hovers in the atmosphere, thickening it into a fog that can be drawn with a spoon.
Not all recent films with Jason Statham caused a stir among the audience, but when it became known that the actor will again collaborate with Guy Ritchie, everyone was enthusiastic about this news. And Ritchie and Statham didn’t let us down – they got a gorgeous criminal action movie, which makes the blood cold in the veins, and Jason after filming said: “If I had to work for the rest of my career only on Guy Ritchie’s films, I would be a very happy person!” Recommended for viewing to all fans of the genre, fans of Guy Ritchie and Jason Statham, and in general an ordinary viewer who respects a strong male movie with a rich suspense.
8 out of 10
P.S. Note the fact that the film starred Josh Hartnett, who seems to have recently been the first star of Pearl Harbor (2001), Black Hawk (2001) and Slevin’s Lucky Number (2005), and then suddenly went off the cinematic radar. It is possible that “Anger of Man” will be the harbinger of Josh’s comeback.
I want to clarify right away that the film is great, but there are many disadvantages that, in my opinion, were not peculiar to this director. But we are all constantly trying to improve our skills, so it is not surprising that Guy Ritchie decided to do something more calm and moderately dynamic.
Many people believe that he did a remake of the French film Le Convoyeur in 2004, but in fact it was Guy Ritchie who took just an idea and wrapped it completely with his ideas and directorial look.
I also want to note that here the director did not forget about his business card, namely the narrative in a nonlinear style, we are constantly shown different time periods and tell the whole story in bits.
One of the things that catches your eye is how sunny and joyful Los Angeles is portrayed, because in the film it's somber and depressed. Thus, we are given the inner state of the protagonist, which helps us to experience his emotions.
At first it seems, but gradually comes into battle dynamic shooting, which really makes the film easy to watch, although at first it seems that this is another rotten film with boring dialogue.
Unjust anger cannot be justified, for the very movement of anger is the fall of man. Sire. 1.22.
Few directors today manage to simultaneously satisfy the tastes of the discerning public and at the same time collect the box office, paying a kind of tribute to studio bosses. One of the rarest exceptions is Guy Ritchie, skillfully manipulating his giant talents of a hit artisan, but at the same time not forgetting to release an authentic film for the soul, made with love and attention to the smallest details. If you look at his creative biography of recent years, we will see that Disney Studio contracted him to shoot a remake of Aladdin, providing two hundred million dollars. Production costs paid off five times and fees eventually exceeded one billion. Having received a fee, Richie immediately began his author’s project “Gentlemen”, the script for which was ready in a draft version already ten years ago. At a budget of twenty-two million, he managed to create an apparently iconic picture, the characters of which became memes. After Gentlemen, everyone began to talk about the return of the canonical directorial style characteristic of his first works. And indeed, in the elaboration of history and images, in the style and manner of presentation of the material, it was felt that the hand of the master had gained its former hardness, and he was again ready to create great canvases. Therefore, everyone was especially looking forward to the release of the next film with the symbolic name “Human Wrath”, even more heated interest in the participation in the film of Richie’s great friend – Jason Stetham, who only emphasized the mood of the picture to become a new word in the genre of action movie. However, expectations were only partially met.
The intermediate location of “Anger” in Ritchie’s creative biography can be determined based on a selection of initial material. His last grandiose author’s projects “Revolver” and “Gentlemen” were entirely the creation of his own hands. The script of the picture, especially Revolver, was worked out to the smallest detail, and the grandeur of the philosophical idea synthesizing Marxism and psychoanalysis in the form of a criminal action movie gave odds to many examples of intellectual cinema. As for Anger, it was originally a reworking, or rather a remake of French cinema twenty years ago. It should be noted immediately that after making a number of revisions, the film completely changed its focus.
The main change concerned the main character - if in the original film it was a simple man, whom a sense of revenge and retribution pushed to become higher than the "human, too human", then the hero of Stetem initially exceeds the limits of the possible and, in fact, even his own limits, because in psychological and physical preparedness he appears as such a capable fighter who has no equal in the entire career of the actor. Accordingly, the film genre also dramatically changed the sign from a sharp existential drama to a modern high-quality action-fighter. However, Ritchie should dethrone the title of master, if he created an ordinary spectacular craftsmanship, on the contrary, as we will see later, literally from every plot twist, he squeezes one hundred percent of the dramatic tension and hidden meaning.
It is worthwhile to dwell a little more on the character of Stetem. Despite the fact that his acting role actually contains quite similar and monotonous characters, in "Anger" he managed to find some hidden niche in the character of his hero and deepen it to a real realistically mysterious depth. At first glance, it seems that his work in the film is elementary simple, because he accompanies most of what is happening with an absolutely stone face and a deathly silence. But here lies the great talent and titanic work of the Ritchie tandem - Stetham - you need to be able to create a giant tension in the frame through silence, which is available to few creators, because in this situation, not visual mechanisms of perception are already involved, but the hidden, underlying forces of imagination and emotional empathy, which, it is worth noting, today almost atrophied by blockbusters. However, not only the protagonist is brutal and characteristic in his monumental coolness, in the background, the characters are no less impressive. Among others, it is especially noteworthy not so much Scott Eastwood as Jeffrey Donovan, whose career developed exclusively in second roles. His character really deserves close attention, because through him expands not only the emotional, but at the same time the ethical field of perception of the film, which in this respect can be put on a par with the "Fight".
If we look at the film purely subjectively, we can say that, like many big pictures, there is no clear division into good and bad. For the most part, all the characters are just random characters of the play, which is ruled by the same endless thirst for power and money. Cash collectors are not heroes or brave fighters for justice - they are just people trying to survive in this brutal capitalist world and feed themselves and their families. The same goes for robbers. Moreover, Richie’s gangster network is also hierarchical. Collective robbery turns out to be the same highly and professionally organized business that simply brings more profit than a formal job. There are also some united groups that adhere to universal rules of behavior, and some, having destroyed the boundaries of the all-permissive, commit crimes with special cruelty without any second thoughts. The film, in this respect, fully represents the ideological model of The Fight, placing the characters as figures on the chessboard of capital. Half of the time is devoted to the presentation of employees of the collection service, the second half to professional robbers. Ultimately, their confrontation turns out to be a simple game by other people’s rules, the stake in which is their life.
However, not the plot and not the characters are the main advantage of the film. His distinguishing feature is impeccable directorial style. Perhaps it was because of this opportunity to create superb, dynamic, mesmerizing mise-en-scene scenes that Richie chose this material. First of all, we will pay tribute to the camera work - perfectly built angles, excellent work with color, going into some monumental and tragic grayness, perfectly aged suspense - all this can be observed from the first scene of the film. It is shot statically, from one angle, and chosen in such a way that the information for the most part is presented only conditionally, but it already feels some breathing and a unique rhythm of the film. Globally, the tape is replete with long, stretched plans that maintain an atmosphere of tension, but, at the same time, each scene of shootings, worked out perfectly, in the best traditions of Michael Mann’s masterpiece.
Of course, in films of this kind, it is impossible to completely avoid some script inaccuracies or flaws. In "Anger" they also exist, and if you look critically, there are many. But, the general ideological orientation, good plot moves, worked-out characters, and most importantly, the excellent visual aesthetics of the film more than redeem other shortcomings. We can say that the picture certainly does not reach the upper bar of the level of the same Ritchie, but in terms of performance professionalism, it significantly exceeds the prevailing majority of militants of the last few years. A couple of good friends returned to the screens at least beautifully.
The director is characterized by the fact that he removes all nonsense. But if sometimes he was funny or at least spectacular, then in this case - just nonsense the whole film. Fictitious dialogue. The plot is banal: bad offended the superhero ion takes revenge on them. But he can't be killed, and he kills with 3 shots of six. It's like a remake of the movie Nobody.
... What the fuck is that? Your liver... your lungs... your spleen... and just so you know, his name was Dougie! . ?
It’s a pity that I couldn’t see Guy Ritchie’s Anger of Man in theaters, although I was going to, but I just watched it now. In general, Guy Ritchie is good in his style “threw dust in the eyes”, but it turned out not so bad, and for the militant so great.
We will evaluate the film by such criteria as the plot, the acting game that makes up the action movie and soundtrack.
Plot: A frowny man is not a robber, or a civil servant infiltrates the collectors to go out on the robbers of collectors, at the hands of whom his family suffered. I wrote at the beginning that Guy Ritchie in all his films is very good at throwing dust in the eyes. Now let me explain what I meant, as the storyline of this film is no exception. The director introduces artificially and skillfully a certain confusion in the head of the viewer by stirring the scenes in different order, thereby sorcery time. If it wasn’t Guy Ritchie at the helm, but someone else, then he’d be confused about his job. The same director is a professional in his field, and he reveals the main storyline well in such an unusual way of presenting information, but at the same time he is very superficially concerned with the little things in the plot, and there is a lot in the little things. So some of Guy Ritchie's tricks to promote the plot don't look very, very stupid, in other words. For example, the scenes of the protagonist and his wife, the scene of the protagonist and female colleagues. You look at it and you don’t know why it was added. But in general, all this is beautifully covered, the same “dust in the eyes”. Also here is used the classic next trick of Guy Ritchie, namely, a series of events begins to occur, in parallel with this, a behind-the-scenes story takes place, according to which everything begins to unexpectedly reveal, creating the appearance that this was intended. To be honest, I am not a supporter of such tricks, since the artificial creation of a sharp plot twist does not show the genius of the plot, but on the contrary, it undermines it, unlike good detectives or thrillers, for example, “Get Knives” recent. In them, the denouement of the plot takes place with the help of the so-called “Chekhov rifles”. Therefore, the viewer, as a real detective, can himself, with a close look, think about what is happening. But unfortunately, in Guy Ritchie's movies, all this is done artificially. But again, thanks to competent directorial work, the delivery of scenes, in other words, the viewer takes it all for granted and something incredible. You say it's not a detective, it's a fighter. You're right, but why do you want to do this? Apparently, the director wants to show the genius of his plot, so the criticism. Apart from the above, I’d like to say that again, it’s Guy Ritchie-style more than half the movie, it’s one big dialogue, but more on that later. Now I would like to add that the genre of thriller was used to the maximum. Each episode, each scene creates such a not weak tension and thoughts. In other words, the suspense in a film work is very good. In the end, you have some dissonance, you begin to analyze and come to the conclusion that this is another action movie about revenge, thousands like this every day pass by the viewer, but this one somehow flies. Why? Therefore, to call this storyline some revolutionary I can not, this is a typical action movie with a simple plot, which simply thanks to competent directorial work seems something genius. At the end of the day, the questions remain.
Acting: The elaborate characters are a strong quality of Guy Ritchie's films. “Human anger” is not bad either. Why is this director so good at revealing characters? Because Guy Ritchie is very good at dialog, Quentin Tarantino has that skill, and nobody else does. More than half of the timekeeping is eternal dialogue, retelling stories with time travel. At the same time, there is not a grain of unnecessary information in the dialogues. All that is said at the end is one big picture. And thanks to this, such colorful characters of both the first and second plan are obtained. I don't see any point in naming names, unless I mention Jason Statham as myself, but here he was given the name H, they didn't bother. The emotional component as always at the level of 0.0%. Statham went through the entire timekeeping with one facial expression, which he does in every piece he shoots. But I can’t call his game bad here or in any other case. Why? It remains a mystery whether charisma, or a loud name, or a pleasant appearance, or a mix of all worthy male qualities in one person. In short, there are many options. The other caste had everything in terms of the emotional component at the highest level. You believed everyone, and each actor merged with his character.
Composition: What I love about Guy Ritchie’s films is that he uses very little special effects. His films are usually taken in a cool fight, shootouts or chases. Human anger is no exception either. Fight scenes are as realistic and high-quality as possible, shootings as well. There are no clichés by which the most accurate shooter during the denouement of the storyline turns into a person who first picked up a gun. So the component of the action film in this work at a very good level.
Soundtrack: The musical accompaniment is expected to be good. There are no compositions, but simply use melodies from a mix of various musical instruments. All together creates an inflating atmosphere where the influence of the thriller and suspense is directly felt. This is the kind of music I appreciate.
Thus, the thriller with elements of the action movie “Human Wrath” I generally liked. There is nothing revolutionary about this film. This is an ordinary action movie with a simple plot, in which there is no point in looking for a message, since it does not exist, and it should not be in an action movie. This is a normal entertaining movie, but very well shot. Any other director would have done it, too. It's a completely directing project. There are plot holes, there are some misunderstandings, understatements. The film is far from perfect, but from viewing, which you will not lose anything and will not regret, since everything is filmed very qualitatively for the average viewer. I look like a reviewer, and therefore I can not praise the film, it is absolutely not perfect, I repeat. I hope my review was helpful. Thank you very much.
1 Guy Ritchie sort of invented his formula for success long ago. But it still feels inferior at times. Human anger is a good example of this. Richie seems to doubt his viability and shows creative weakness. And here, I worked my sleeves. After the session, it seems that at some point the project was scored and left on its own.
2 Once Jason Statham played by the rules of Richie, now the latter follows the lead of the former. At least conceptually, the movie is sharpened to a typical action movie with a bald swimmer. The classic theme of revenge, which could fit into a standard timekeeping of 1 hour and 30 minutes, was stretched in vain for almost two hours, without compensating for it either with quality dialogues or any inventive plot moves.
(3) Two-thirds of the film is ruined. If at the beginning the picture looks cheerful and promising, then further, it slowly and confidently deflates and turns into a soap bubble. Shootings and robberies could be seen in another movie, in a Hunt for Thieves. In this aspect, many of the paintings can easily compete with Human Wrath, if not surpassed. In principle, there is nothing breakthrough or amazing. Especially since the final action was spoiled and turned into some kind of mince. In general, at the end, the film completely dissolves in its irrelevance and up to the final credits shows a crumpled spectacle. And you can't believe that was all they wanted to show us. Why was it necessary to spray so much and gallop now months ago, then months ahead, if in the end, nothing on the hands.
4 Early on, I was happy for Josh Hartnett, thinking that finally the actor returned to a decent project, lit up with a good director, maybe even showed himself. But no. The actor just hangs around in the background, the character he spelled out poorly, however, as other secondary and even less important defendants. There is nothing to say about episodic appearances, a solid gray mass. And yet some of them try to stand out, but they fail, mostly. It is obvious that the caste is not the most successful.
(5) Jason Statham became a member of the Anchor party, founded by Steven Seagal, and followers of Vin Diesel and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. More precisely, he was already a member, but here officially confirmed that he was not going to think about it. I hope it was not he who so much “finished” the working material, but just the stars symbolically came together.
6 Jason Statham and Scott Eastwood have twice crossed eyes and in one of the close-ups, when Scott Eastwood’s eyes are shown, it seems for a moment that he will light a cigar and take a colt out of his holster and say ‘What is the puppy ready to dance?!’ Unfortunately, this is only fleeting. So, the bullets ricochet or tickle Statham, he rises like the Terminator, shakes off the dust and continues to nightmare the criminal gang.
Bottom line: annoying of course. Somewhere to cut, somewhere to add interesting lines and sketch original ideas, to make Jason and Scott to act properly, it is normal to involve in the case of untalented Jeffrey Donovan and Josh Hartnett. And the picture would have looked very different. And it so happened that the next “Desire to Kill” (2017 / The thirst for death) came out, only not with combat retiree Bruce Willis, but with his more modern, but less productive counterpart.
I am a very grateful viewer and it is difficult not to please me, but it was really bad here.
Going to this film, do not expect at least something original and beautiful. Here you and the worn “who do you work for?”, and a firm walk with a dozen bullets in the leg, and a primitive plot, and a crumpled ending. The film collected, probably, everything cliché that I could find in the entire era of this genre.
You can forgive pathetic phrases and exaggeratedly “cool” characters, but obviously a bad scenario to accept and forgive much more difficult. I really want to see how it was created. It feels like a couple of hours immediately after viewing already existing militants.
If only this movie was a good copy. But no, the script isn't about anything. The beginning was delayed, the ending was crumpled. Drama without drama, action without intrigue. If you want a meaningless show with people flying around the screen and bullets, it is better to watch the same Fast and Furious, at least you do not expect anything good from him, except for bright races, and in this they do not fail.
It would be fine if the author was not Guy Ritchie. There is one question: either a person tripped, which happens (although this bump was too noticeable at the stage of the script), or simply frankly did not do well, because he knew that they would be eaten anyway, because it creates a feeling that the quality here was not originally supposed. Obviously, the money for the project would not be given to anyone else for the initially failed scenario.
I have no excuse for this work, because even an action movie with no plans for something more can be made interesting, and not so primitive, as if we collectively pretend that the movie was created yesterday and the word script is not yet in the dictionary. Or the hope was that the name of Guy Ritchie on the poster and the same in all scenes of Jason Statham will be enough for enthusiastic applause at the end of the session.
The only thing that somehow pulls this picture is undoubtedly a good technical execution, and even then I would not share the rave reviews. For the author’s style and camera art, it is better to turn to Dune, but not here.
I will personally treat the new works of Guy Ritchie with caution, I will not go to the cinema so definitely. I sincerely love Gentlemen for their humor and interesting implementation, and I respect all the author’s cult tapes to this, but the Anger of Man gave birth to that anger in me.
4 out of 10
I like all the movies with Jason. His example clearly shows that the sporting spirit that was born in his youth, this unprecedented fuse, onslaught, the desire to win, he brings us every minute from the screen. They are not those quasi-artists, raised in the walls of higher education institutions, who have absolutely no energy and who can not convey anything to us from the screen. By and large, not many people are able to share anything. Why do we watch movies? Everyone is looking for something for themselves, so we use this energy. Jason gives full force to the desire to live in this fucking world! He's my idol! ... Notice, I said "share" not casually. As a rule, we draw energy through the screen through feelings such as fear! The world is full of energy, but nowhere can you find a drop of free, no-man! Friends, take advantage of this man’s open mind and pure heart, watch his movies, become better than you really are. Unfortunately, "our" cinema was conceived by alcoholic and heroine people. What power do they have? What can they give to the audience!? Nothing! I am sure that in 10 and 20 years, Jason’s volitional movements, even if it’s just the movement of his cheekbones, can fill us with youth and the desire to WIN! Somewhere there were similar roles in someone, but it is Jason who is always able to open up, merge with his hero. I don't know what this is about, but other action movies with other heroes are not interesting. Too far-fetched. Guy Ritchie...is sure of one thing: without Jason, there wouldn’t be many famous names. Known to the extent they are now known with Jason I’m looking forward to new films with this man in the lead role. And let the plot be worn out, it's not a problem, if there are no people like Jason! I saw it again. . . Very helpful before work day. recommend !
Guy Ritchie's "Anger" as a whole is a skillfully glued compilation, where motifs are seen, even, one must think, not so much from the French Convoyeur, but rather from the Combat (1995) with Parker (2013), along with the earlier Staten Carriers and Adrenalines.
I watched this film in the pirated version and immediately saw that the script for the film, along with carefully selected types, was written, with the aim of drawing the design, figuratively speaking, to the wrapper for candy, the contents of which are still under question. And to be more precise, this script was written so long ago, not in our century, not even in our millennium. Those who have eyes can easily read it on eloquent and unambiguous pictures to the credits.
In my opinion, the film, although it sought to please the mass viewer, nevertheless made it its primary task to make him (that is, his viewer) empathize, or rather, so that he was as closely identified as possible with the key characters, and one should think that “Anger of Man” succeeded, although it leaves much to be desired regarding the semantic part.
As for the mediocrity, for which Guy Ritchie was reproached by some dissatisfied viewers, I would say that the film is not at all such, and of course, it will not work. Moreover, “Anger”, in comparison with some really mediocre militants, is not just not meaningless, but simply teems with all sorts of mental images that willy-nilly begins to imagine yourself as the driver of the “Fortico Security” collector, who is trying to rob, whether American soldiers are veterans, or someone else, unknown who.
And in fact, this is not so important, because any non-viable potential is already initially doomed, no matter under what even the most colorful wrapper one or another (cinema) fiction is served. Cinema in any case, you need to shoot, and a good movie is ordered to live a long time and make claims to everything that concerns film production, when the same plot is changed in hundreds or even thousands of intelligible variations, when everything has already been shot and reshot, and films differ only in combinations of combined and not very combined elements, in my opinion simply does not make sense. In any film, even the best quality, there are unsightly blunders that can simply be avoided in the future.
If you imagine the cold-blooded revenge of the fiercely angry 'head of the crime syndicate that controls Chinatown, in my opinion, and do not show, let alone that good in all circumstances wins. And to look for any special meaning in all this (movie) action is superfluous. I got my budget, I got $64 million. That's great. Great movie.
Alas, a completely passable fighter. Guy Ritchie, unfortunately, is completely different from himself.
In the main role is the immortal cyborg (although a man kind of in the plot), previously known to us as the "carrier" in other paintings - John Statham. Bullets do not take him, wounds will not stop him.
The plot is banal: a super-scary, intelligent and determined bandit is offended in a completely far-fetched situation. He goes for revenge. Well, that's all.
If you did not know, then collector cars are robbed almost daily, for millions of dollars, trained guys: qualified bandits almost in line for each car. And if collectors need to transport a dozen or two million, of course, they take them not from the store to the bank, but for some reason to their base. In general, the realism, nonlinearity of the plot is not about this film.
Do you think, having committed the noisy robbery of the century, where should the hero go? Why don't we go on a boat? A private jet waiting? Get lost in cheap motels? Or do you want to go home? I'll leave it open in case you decide to watch this movie.
The characters in the film are not deep, not revealed. The villains are somewhat caricatured, albeit on serious grounds. Only thanks to good actors, the movie looks like this.
In addition to the actors, the pluses of the picture should add a tightly downed picture on the screen, well-shot shootouts. And in general, cinema is not cheap, it is felt in many details. Although boring and predictable, but dynamic and quite looks.
In general, a watchable movie, but completely flat in the plot and characters. There are no bright catching moments. Tomorrow you won’t remember what happened. One-time undemanding action.