Guy Ritchie is not always a folding plot, we do not expect him to be too deep, but all that connects his paintings with a silk thread is a sense of style. In 'Cards, money, two trunks' - the feeling of watching a house of cards, from under the foundation of which the card was pulled. In the film ' The Sword of King Arthur' several spectacular directorial techniques in not the most intriguing picture. ' Gentlemen' generally made entirely ' in style '. But after watching the film ' Human Anger' there was a feeling of disappointment. I wanted to ask: ' Is that all?'
I really wanted to write a negative review, but I realized in time that this is not entirely fair. Before us is a good action movie, not inferior to the usual pictures with Jason Statham. As Andrei Arshavin put it very correctly: 'Your expectations are your problems' In the picture there is no humor, neither situational, nor ' stupid American'. Guy Ritchie's famous humor isn't there. The musical accompaniment is rather reminiscent of the films of Quentin Tarantino, as in essence and ' chapters ' into which the film is divided.
Intrigue in the film is absent, the plot, although it leaves trivial mysteries at the very beginning, by the middle of the film appears in its pure uncomplicated form.
So, in the center of the plot is H, played by Jason Statham. A cold Briton gets a job in a collection company, led by unknown motives. From day one, he clearly stands out among his shy colleagues. Inside it boils ' righteous anger' where it came from, you will find out when you look. In addition, H is going to take revenge, who and for what will also be clear pretty soon.
If we talk about the aftertaste, it does not leave the feeling that you touched something secondary. It seems that such films should already be in demand, but this is not true. And therefore you should not play aesthetes, this is a quality primitive action movie, perfectly made, devoid of humor, not revealing anything new in the image of a bald big guy and not telling us anything interesting about the great and beautiful Guy Ritchie.
Who should go to this movie? Fans of the action movie under popcorn, fans of brutal Jason Statham, as well as those who do not particularly reflect on the theme of Guy Ritchie.
6.5 out of 10
Is the idea and the plot trivial? But to make it simple and brilliant for any creator is a super task. There is a master of his craft here and it can be seen. The accents are right. You can imagine the dialogue between the director and the producers of the films: ' I want to take the lead role of Stetham, as he is the coolest person I know and he is also my best friend. '
The director gives us as much as we demand and does not limit us in visual pleasure. Would you be upset if you went to the shooting range and were given five rounds instead of fifty? Richie understands this and acts from the perspective of the viewer, analyzing the mistakes of other directors, abandoning his own style and adjusting it to the correct plane right on the go. Moving in the plot maze simultaneously avoiding dead ends, Ritchie, being a fundamentally independent director from the beginning of his activity refused to stamps, here he rethinks the idea of the genre ' Fighter'. In what way? Reinventing it. As Besson already did with his 'Hostage'. This is the beauty of the plot, everything is set flawlessly, even theatrically and at the same time simple.
The film is pleasant to watch, in the film a pleasant picture and timekeeping in two hours not only does not spoil the film, it is simply necessary. During his directorial career, Richie acquired tools and learned to use them, and being quite experienced, he takes on new shells and quickly learns the principles of their work.
Richie made a movie for himself and for us, running to watch!
7.7 out of 10
Critics laughed, who wrote that in this film Guy Ritchie addresses the themes of fatherhood, religion and revenge.
In this film, Guy Ritchie stamps cardboard.
Richie is a director who has two types of projects. The first is the author, for which we love him. And the second is commercial (Sherlock Holmes, Aladdin), for which we are also, in general, not offended, because these were colorful adventure rides.
But something strange happened here. It feels like Guy Ritchie just came to the playground, stood at the entrance with a cup of coffee, exchanged a couple of phrases with an old friend Jason Stetham, they say ' as a family, like himself, everything is fine, glad to see, buddy' He waved to someone, signed the papers, allowing his name to be used in the credits and left.
And the film remained to shoot and mount the neural network, which uploaded a couple of dozen samples of the genre.
After sitting for two hours with a face as still as the plot of this film, I still don’t know what the idea is. If not to put plastic consumer goods on the market with minimal effort, connecting, like Lego cubes, several simple elements.
It is also funny that all this stream of helpless banality is served with such pathetic ambiguity. A deep crease on the hero's brow desperately depicts anger. The accompaniment of a mourning cello, as if it were a Shakespearean tragedy or the passions of Christ. And the more the film tries to appear adult, mature and imbued with real grief, the more inappropriate it looks to develop a story in the style of Commandos or early Stephen Seagal.
Commandos, like early Stephen Seagal, with their conditional unnatural shootouts in the style of peep-puff-war-over-garages, were products of their era, and looked fresh in the 90s. And had the unique charm of films category B, in which everything is possible, even the most unnatural, conventional and stupid. Yes, even passable fighters with Statham, such as a mechanic / carrier / plumber, beat the Wrath of Man in terms of interest and dynamics.
The verdict. Completely unnecessary and optional to view wooden non-dormake and non-combatant. Look, if not sorry for the time and still not tired of stamped semi-finished films about robberies.
The loud name of Guy Ritchie in the title helped not to get into any film debris in the next room.
About the plot. ' Human Anger' will tell the viewer about a gloomy bald man who makes holes in the heads of bad guys without looking, paralyzes his eyes, and if suddenly he turns out to be a leaky aki Grigory Efimovich Rasputin - he will not make a sound, he will not let seizures, he will not say words, his eyebrow will not move. Intrigued? Then let's go.
With his wife and child, H comes from London to the States to work as a collector. His choice falls on the company Fortico, where serious guys guard serious money. But H for this job is too dangerous and serious. His colleagues look at him with caution. However, they have grounds for this, because everything is not so clean in the office and the harsh H must ' play a special role in this story' (L.S. Kanevsky). Whether H will be serious enough to defeat evil is a rhetorical question.
Compared to Maps, Money, Two Guns and similar film masterpieces, Human Anger balances between a digestible action movie starring Denzel Washington (select yourself) and a film from the first category of crime for geeks, which in my opinion makes the film both interesting and easy. According to the feeling of immersion in the life of the heroes, in their experiences and their world, it reminds of the “A scam of the Century”. Note: It is not a biographical nudity for 3 hours. Even though the action is not much, it is enough and it is delicious.
' Human Anger' this is a popular criminal action movie, without the subtleties of the criminal world. It will appeal to both adults and children. With sustained seriousness, precise and rare humor - not of the level ' d'Ezart, fuck it, Needle' but still - does not leave the sense of naturalness and its inherent attraction during viewing.
Guy Ritchie has always been “his kid” for the Russian audience, who shoots simple, understandable and accessible criminal films. They are watched with pleasure by both male and female audiences, of different ages and different social status. Men like Richie’s films for objective reasons, the abundance of fast scenes, brutality and everything male. Women, however, due to the fact that despite all the brutality and masculinity of the films of Madonna’s ex-husband, they can safely be called an excellent example of modern cinema art. After all, Richie works always neatly, filigreely, without slipping into the category of banal militants, preserving some intellectual and aesthetic components in his works.
Ritchie applied his usual approach to human anger, for which it is impossible not to thank him: the corporate style, aesthetics of personnel, absolute compatibility of the musical accompaniment, in principle even sound design and visual solutions, the setting of the frame and the structure of the film were preserved. It turned out something stunningly linear, flowing from one another, very clear and easily perceived not only by the senses, but also by consciousness in its broad sense.
The actor’s bundle this time, unlike Gentlemen, is not so stellar, legs on the other hand and the legendary Rock and Roller, who became the director’s business card, at one time combined far from stars even then Butler, Strong, Hardy and Elba. And Eastwood, Hartnett and McCallani managed to earn fame and recognition.
The plot itself is quite simple, but the way it is implemented artistically and technically is admirable. Operator and directorial ideas raise the film to another level, distinguishing it from a number of similar ones. Special effects, computer graphics are clearly at the level, again pleasing bundle of sound-picture. Together, the effect is just wow! But an even more impressive effect is produced by very honest frank scenes, which are few, but their concentration in certain parts of the film does its job: it becomes uneasy, I want the main character to finish his job and the world would reign good, order and justice.
I was personally pleased that from film to film, as different as they are, Ritchie remains himself, retaining his style and his habits. Hence the quality of the material that the mater gives consistently, delighting its fans.
A man with a face to which the photo is asked to sign ' wanted' gets a job as a collector, getting the nickname H (by the surname ' Hill'). He shoots a lousy target, but he drives a car and a cart full of money well. The team treats him suspiciously and wary - the character of the beginner is closed, the face is unkind.
A couple of months later, the car is attacked by robbers. H shoots the bandits, and the last one who tries to escape takes a headshot at point-blank range. For premeditated murder at work, he is thanked. The FBI also closes its eyes, but is already deliberate: 'Let the artist create' H has a dark gang history. He specifically got this job to calculate the scoundrel organizing raids on collectors, during one of which his family accidentally suffered.
Statham plays for H for himself an even more ordinary role than ever. To my taste, the film is too serious for action and not serious enough for drama. There is almost no humor, irony, even sarcasm - the best joke in the whole film is shown in the trailer and is associated with the title.
Speaking of which. One might think that the character is driven by righteous anger, a thirst for justice and revenge. But if you look deeper, all this is just an excuse, and H just does what he's used to: killing people who crossed his path. Think about it: What did he do before the movie? What will he do after? It's the same thing as handing out headshots.
Visually, everything in the film is good, whole and stylish. The characters are textured, little is said about them, but they are shown in such a way that it becomes clear who and what is - and this is a separate art. One of the important roles is played by the son of Clint Eastwood - he looks like a legendary dad.
I found the story boring, obsessively serious. There is a slight intrigue in who the snitch is, but even this is poorly played.
In general, it turned out to be a good action one time.
"Human Wrath" now goes to all theaters and collects the lion's share of rave reviews and praise comments. I would have missed this movie, but the genre of the picture is mine. How many criminal dramas have I seen, where intelligence and tactics come to the fore, and the heroes themselves are forced to follow a clearly thought out plan of action, because any mistake will inevitably turn the hunter into prey.
After 2 hours of watching, I never understood the genius of this film. Before my eyes passed a standard clichéd action movie with a template protagonist and ending, typical and banal for paintings with Jason Statham. But let’s first start with a spoonful of honey:
Tactical Thriller. The basis of "Human Wrath" is the confrontation between two intellectually developed sides, where not everything is solved by fists and weapons. It is this move that adds realism to the film and tries to pull it into something interesting. Unfortunately, Jason Statham with his appearance in the frame every time tries to return the picture to his usual genre - an action movie of one actor.
Detective line. The plot of the film is teeming with riddles and puzzles from the very beginning, but by the middle of the picture almost all of them dissolve and there is only one unsolved question, the answer to which we get closer to the final.
Darrell D'Silva. A colorful and charismatic uncle who plays bosses in this kind of movie. It is a pity that here he is assigned only the role of an assistant.
And now let's move on to the more sad postulates:
Secondary plot moves. "Human anger" does not shine with any originality. This is just a mix of "Battles" and "Hunting Thieves" to a greater extent, "City of Thieves" and other collection films to a lesser extent. That's only the advantage of the films I've named is that the main characters there are alive and endowed with human weaknesses, while the character of Jason Statham is a robot without feelings and an implausible killing machine.
Characters without a middle ground. The picture is divorced from reality because it is impossible to find an ordinary person in it. Either this is an unmistakable and brave daredevil with a stone face, or this is a collection of emotionally unstable gorillas who like to brave, but at the crucial moment they get lost and fall out one by one.
If we go back to the point of platitude of the plot, we can say about the primitiveness of 90% of the characters, who seemed to be pulled out of other similar films and moved to the conditions of “Human Wrath”. Here comes like the main character in a new serious team, and there all so “cool and original”, that through each sentence and strive to joke about the small genitalia of the interlocutor. And then they will certainly want to provoke you into a conflict and look at your testosterone in the case, somehow hurting or calling you. And where without a notorious thug among the bad guys, who is the only one of the entire organized gang does not know how to keep emotions under control and necessarily “swims” at the sight of big money.
The number of robberies of collector cars per city. A raid on collectors is a phenomenon in itself not very frequent. And then there are at least 3 groups for the whole city, which almost every 3 months this trade. It's too unreliable.
Cardboard and trivial finale. If the main role in the film is assigned to Jason Statham, then you should not count on an intriguing and unpredictable outcome. But I have a lot more complaints about the ending than just the predicted final. And I will have to write these claims in the commentary under this review because of the possible presence of spoilers in them.
Result. If you want to watch a high-quality film on such a topic, then I recommend you the incomparable "Fight" of 1995, which has already passed the test of time.
6 out of 10
I love Guy Ricci very much, his films are really interesting, whether it is 'Big Kush' or 'Sherlock Holmes'. Yes, for the most part, Ricci is remembered by viewers of films about the gangsters of London, as well as a couple of blockbusters in the person of Sherlock Holmes and agents A.N.K.L. All these films are full of jokes, intrigue and a bit of action. But among these films stood out the drama 'Revolver ' but now it has joined another film Director – ' Human Anger '
The film tells the story of a seemingly ordinary gentleman named Patrick Hill. He gets a job in a private collection company, in which he is friendly and sarcasmously accepted. But one day the car is attacked by robbers and in this moment Hill shows his true face, killing all the robbers, thereby saving the cargo.
I didn’t retell too much, but I must say that the film is a remake of the French film '. The difference between Ricci’s film and the original is the main character. If in the French picture it was a man who was clearly not intended for this work, because he even can not shoot, then in ' Human Wrath' the hero shows himself as a killing machine. And you know, it was interesting for me to watch both characters, each in its own way. In addition, the new version shows the plot on behalf of the robbers, but not quite successfully, because the characters remain undisclosed, but interestingly shown scenes came up with a plan for the robbery, in the style of the director. The film is about seven deadly sins, revenge and justice. Memorable clip editing in the film is not so much as the action, but it is and executed very well, especially remember the ending of the film.
In general, as a result, it turned out, a kind of “smart” & #39; an action movie that raises serious problems, but does not develop them very much. If you’re waiting for something like last year’s ‘Gentleman’s’ ', then it’s not there, and if you want to see another revenge movie, and also with Stetham, then this movie is for you.
He broke into the movie theater again. This time with my mother, because every solo film by 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.
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, good and good movie!
9 out of 10
If in a nutshell - take the average high-quality action movie with Statham (level 'Mechanic', ' Professional') and turn it into a masterpiece - this is ' Human Anger'. The recipe for success of this tape lies on the surface. Guy Ritchie! A world-renowned British director who flashed brightly at the start of the nils. Lost tenth position. But retaining its legendary and style-forming name created as close to the ideal serious action movie in the best traditions of the old school, but for our time.
Guy Ritchie in a similar passable genre is, imagine, Christopher Nolan or Quentin Tarantino in a musical or in a children's cartoon. The bar of greatness of the director seems to have fallen, but, nevertheless, something else is important to us - the film is chic. Neither take away nor add.
After the trailer, there were concerns about the fact that the film about one collector car will be boring and boring. Screw them!! The movie is great! Almost the entire two hours are very interesting! Only charismatic characters! That sounds great! Good picture (I will note separately the removal and approach of the camera)! What else does a real man need?
Statham is Statham. You don't need anything else. That's what he needs. The only difference is that now he is much more serious and angry. It makes sense. . .
I personally find it difficult to find faults. By and large, this is the standard of a modern male realistic action movie. And considering that the new action movie with Statham is already filmed and the director... Guy Ritchie again! Stock up, friends, popcorn! There's another beautiful sight to see! And God forbid, not one!!
8 out of 10
p.s. I still can’t believe that apart from the close-up plans of the city, the film was not shot in Los Angeles. Old London is here! This is crazy! .
. . When in our time there are practically no real men left, and among the youth there are only handsome half-gays, IT specialists, mother's sons, and tick-tookers ... The old guard of 40-55-year-old men enters the arena and leadership positions, who are the image of those very men who are worth something and always in value!! .
This is a passing action movie that brings as much pleasure as disappointment.
"Mercy of the Spectator"
The film is depressing from the first seconds, and the further it goes, the deeper it plunges into its hopeless darkness. This mood is skillfully created thanks to the correctly delivered light, intense music (which does not stop, it seems, for a minute), fast clip editing and camera kulbits.
Statham’s performance is also worth noting – few people in the current movie are able to play anger and repressed rage at his level. He plays a cruel, strong-willed and devoid of emotions antihero, embodying an angry occult deity on the screen rather than a living person - people fear him, and he despises them.
The plot threads are intertwined, as in the best films of the director. In Ritchie’s past work, it was absolutely impossible to predict the outcome, and therefore his films were so catchy. “Anger” works in the opposite direction: there is no doubt about how the story may end, on the contrary – the bloody ending is predictable, but you anticipate it with all your heart.
ANGER AVIATION
The film is divided into chapters. Each chapter increases tension and anger, flesh and blood literally breaks off the body of the film, baring the nerve. You expect that this nerve will be broken in the most cruel way, but the long-awaited satisfaction does not come.
The climax slides into a passing idealess shootout, devoid of the usual anger for this film. The whole plot of the viewer is prepared for the triumph of revenge, and on the output they give a disappointing reprisal of conditional good over unconditional evil. Guy Ritchie with a manic smile loaded a gun to shoot in the air.
As if that weren’t enough, the film has other problems. The dialogues are too far-fetched, unnatural, and the timekeeping is stretched frankly with unnecessary scenes that alternate with each other according to the logic of the music video. The narration because of this turns out to be ragged, and if at first it seems like a chip, then by the credits you understand that the director simply retouched a weak script behind a lashy editing.
After all, there’s criminally little action movie in this action movie – it’s unlikely to have at least five minutes of decent fighting scenes in two hours. There is not much to remember at the end.
What would an average non-Ritchie fan see? Just a gray area of cinema where the director failed. This movie is not bad, not good, not remarkable. How many people are watching this today?
Apparently, Ritchie does not rest the fame and success of the trilogy about Ocean and friends - Guy borrows both the actor and some plot schemes from there. There's nothing exciting about Richie's dark version. The plot is flat and battered by an entire decade of the militant era. I mean the '90s. That's where Richie's pointing and doesn't get in. No atmosphere, no sincere drive, no interesting action. And Statham alone just doesn't take that boredom out on her shoulders. From 2021, this movie looks like a novice director for Netflix.
Critics say there is no idea. When did Richie have any ideas? With an emotional world that requires depth, an understanding of psychology, Guy is in trouble. This is evident in all his films. All the characters are testosterone-inflated cardboards. And here is another shock content: the wife of the killer, who has 2 hours to live, at the suggestion of Richie, bears the name of his wife (Miss Ainsley). He probably thought he was doing her a favor.
The ending becomes a catharsis for the protagonist, but what exactly he feels, what he came to, we will never know. It doesn't matter. After all, this is a film for a tick, ' another action movie with Statham'.
After reading about the Biblical references in the film, I wondered if Richie had made sense of anything. But no. Guy is 52 years old, and he still removes the void.
A one-time movie with a beer.
The role of Guy Ritchie in the professional career of Stetham is known to us. But their union began even before Jason became the embodiment of a brutal superhero, which, incidentally, is very significant for this work.
And so, ' Human Anger' is a classic Hollywood action movie with an English look and a touch of style. Stetham, already in the classic, acts as a tough man (cooler only eggs, as they say), but at the same time remains grounded, compared with his last incarnation in the film ' Furious: Hobbs and Shaw'. Guy Ricci clearly demonstrated that for such a pepper you need not spare the control shot, but it is better to release a whole clip for insurance, if you multiply it by two - genius! Well, what about without real male humor? - Of course it did not do, American toilet humor in contrast to the unflappable British face - BRAVO!
Guy Ritchie can only be seen by a true admirer of his work. Take, for example, the division into chapters with notes of mysticism in their title.
What can be said about the acting: Stetham, Harnett, Eastwood - played their fee in full, McCalani never came out of the image of Bill Tench & #39; Mindhunters'.
What about that anger? This is demonstrated in the scene of H talking to his wife. Anger is a man's tears.
The film, of course, is good, but there is no desire to revise.
7 out of 10
Love of the flesh is replaced by love of the father
If you pull the dragon’s tail, someday he will surely bite off your head.
A collection of common sense
Good. It’s good when the movie is so good that you just can’t get away from the screen. So captivated by the plot, so organic actors, such a devil in the shooting at our strangers that breathtaking. And also? And then? Can I continue? New ' film ' Guy Ritchie ' Anger of Man' just from such a series. Automatic queues - people in tatters! Moans of the soul - in crying for the blood of the native, just to tear! And surprisingly, an action cocktail, this time without such a potent drug-ingredient as female charms, marriage bonds, bed flips, flirting, flirting, flirting or what is even worse - a morning hangover with a scratched face. How! Where are you, ladies? Where are you, Madonna? Where did the Mater of Cinema go? Simplified, abolished? We didn’t even notice your absence. Oh, shit! No women, no women, in a word. Well, almost. That's intrigue number 1. It's hot, squabbling.
What only superheroes we did not have to see in his lifetime, good-young and muscles played in bravado, and the techniques of martial art mastered perfectly, and the weapons were controlled, almost closing their eyes. It's the same with technology. The car? Bike speed foam? Chopper ride? Why, really? Simple. It's not a donkey or a horse to run. Gas to power and, let's go! It was like a two-wheeled scooter in the yard between the old neighbours bends. You can't help it. It's their bread. Training and experience, experience and training in the infinity of press-repeats. Guy Ritchie has the main character from this test. What kind of dough is it? It's made of tendons, ligaments, muscles, knots. So in ' rocking ' taught that even a smile can not squeeze. Or she doesn't. Two hours iron iron. I can't say too much. Ticks to the tongue. What a kid! What is the mystery of this boogie? This is intrigue number 2. It's the only gyrus in the head that catches on.
Yes, there were people in our time,
Not like the current tribe:
You are not the rich!
They have a bad share:
Few people have returned from the field.
Vaughn 'John Wick', for example, - part four next year with Keanu Reeves will please the audience with the eccentricities of the exploits of the boy. Only the fourth? Well, he's still ahead. However, the age is far from youthful. And Tom Cruise - isn't it special, what else to look for? As much as six parts 'Mission impossible' in us 'bubbled'! What is he doing? Running, jumping, jumping, climbing, diving... At least hens. No scratch, no cut. That's good health! Horse! 'Jason Bornov', that is, Matt Damon - there are not enough fingers on the hand, count in series. You get confused, you get lost. And the first two of them are very small. What is God’s will and what is God’s will? Too bad!
Unwitting comparisons with the classic ' killers of people', suggest themselves. Y 'our', here and now, gut, probably ' not weaker' A machine with a belt discharge one or two to the cleanliness of the store, a pistol flurry with an outstretched arm without a squint, a knife & #39; writes & #39; as if in a sausage shop on cow carcasses in the cutting of a year or two trained. Give me a bazooka, won't it fail, machine gun? So ' Machine gun & #39; here in the partners. How so? Here we go! Intrigue 3 is ready. Compare 'heroes' and enjoy the score scale.
All right, all right. We've ruined the bikes and will... Jason Staten is on hand today. It needs to be talked about. Not about the different pensioners and old people. ' John Wick' - 56. ' Ethan Hunt' - 58. ' Jason Bourne' - 50. And ours is ' thug' how much? So is he in their time. He's 53 now. What is it? How is it? Well, the boys are in good health. What distinguishes them from the human race is immortality. Or Conspiracy. Otherwise, how to explain that they are like in Russian bikes - the bullet is afraid, the bayonet does not take ... Or perhaps the protection of the higher forces is provided for them, for good deeds, which are poured out to the right and to the left daily? They are being protected.
Of course, because H in Guy Ritchie ' Virtue itself'. Sixty traded and thoughts of only one - collector in Los Angeles to live to retirement. Yeah. Right. Every day ' foreign grandmothers' back and forth, back and forth. When will they shoot? When 'crush '? What's all this for? A piece of bread? Righteous man! Righteous man! Righteous man! No, it can't be! With a face like that and a collection? There, something is wrong... Intrigue? What's the score?
Perhaps we could continue to dissect this picture. Eviscerate her. Juice out of her. They say, look at this, look at that. But should I? It is better to see once than to hear a hundred times. And feel the beauty. And enjoy it to the fullest. And understand the plan. And clap your hands on tricks.
In my opinion, this is a beautiful roll call with the high-class work of Michael Mann 'Fight'. And then, and now the beginning began in a repetition of 90 percent! Collectors, ambush traps, unforeseen circumstances... The size of the gang is somewhat different. And drive, chase, recitative, energy like a piggyback. . .
So what about love? Really without her? Carnal love one ounce? How come? In American cinema and ... ni-ni? It turns out that Guy Ritchie’s carnal love grew into his father’s love and this is the main intrigue of this film. The master is growing. Or getting old... That's who it is.
P.S. And Hitch should remember. If you pull the dragon by the tail, someday he will surely bite off your head.
9 out of 10
Guy Ritchie’s new film, Anger of Man, is very serious and harsh. So much so that at the end the tension can be cut with a knife. Even greasy male jokes, causing a smile at first, in the future only knocked out of the general tone.
Jason Statham is playing himself again - and he's doing just fine. Harsh and unspoken characters actor succeed in fame. But this is just the problem - it is not possible to fully penetrate his H, even given the dramatic personal tragedy, which, frankly, in cinema is already quite worn out. Surprisingly, however, I became more or less attached to the team of collectors (thanks to the actors for that), and I was even sorry when unpleasant things happened to some of them throughout the plot. Maybe because they are ordinary people doing their jobs, and not a retribution machine, as Statham's hero is literally called, ' the evil spirit'.
In general, the picture has an interesting narrative - constant jumps in time (in terms of storytelling) do not let you get bored, and a look from several angles at one fatal robbery even manages to keep intrigue, despite the fact that all the key data we already know.
The shooting is juicy, the soundtrack catches up with horror and an atmosphere of despair. Stylish opening credits. The final long showdown is probably one of the best action scenes in recent times that I have seen.
In general, this film is a harsh and uncompromising, but at the same time predictable from the trailer, a male action movie, which, however, is unlikely to want to watch later to just have fun and relax, but it is definitely worth watching at least once.
P.S. Jason Statham deservedly can enter in the workbook a new profession - collector.
H. infiltrates a collection company to investigate a series of robberies that occurred in Los Angeles. He has a difficult past, about which others do not yet know.
H is a mysterious and cold-looking gentleman, but within him is a thirst for justice. H (N) is like Hiroshima or Christ. 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.
Wrath of Man is an action thriller written and directed by Guy Ritchie. The film is a remake of the 2004 French film "The Collector".
'Evil spirit', 'Scorched earth', 'Liver, lungs, spleen and heart' - chapters into which this brisk, cheerful and 'cruel, criminal noir' where there are ' predators' (raiders) and ' extraction' (collectors who carry money) and between them - 'thirst for money'' In general, the main conflict of the film is not ' traditional confrontation' police and bandits, and ' Brothers in arms' against ' packs of wolves' in the best traditions of Scorsese, where ' apostates' there are on each side.
The main role in the film was played by Jason Statham, who is here in his repertoire & #39, but at the same time we have a brilliant, deep, dramatic work. Also worth noting is Scott Eastwood, Holt McCalonney, Jeffrey Donovan and slightly ' cartoon role' Josh Hartnett. The camera work of Alan Stewart, the music of Christopher Benstead and the editing - before us - is not a film & #39; category B' but a deep and authorial reinterpretation from Guy Ritchie. There is even a screensaver of the opening credits in the style of the series ' True Detective'.
The original French film I have not seen and will judge from the point of view of pure coin.
Let me start with the good – first of all, we have a good and thoroughbred action movie with shooting, drive and other attributes of the genre. Such a movie is not quite the element of Guy Ritchie (in my opinion, he is closer to the crime drama), but the famous director shows us a very beautiful action and a visual solution.
In some places there are jokes and visits (unfortunately only visits) to the legendary dialogues from Richie.
I liked the mix of action movie, thriller with interspersion of noir.
The cast is very good - the return of Hartnett and the beautiful performance of McCallani, which I liked in ' Mindhunters' are impressive.
I have a big question about Statham. No, his brutality and harsh look are good, but he can’t play anything more to my humble taste. He's not Tom Hardy. He's missing something. It's not enough for a noir hero.
And honestly, I did not leave the feeling that the picture lacks depth and zest. Not necessarily the author's highlight from Richie, but at least some.
However, the film is more than worth watching and enjoyable.
Your expectations are your problems. How Guy Ritchie blew up again
At the very beginning of his career, the British nugget was unlucky to make two of his best films. For the next 20-plus years, any new Guy Ritchie film is compared to CDD and Big Buck. The director for some reason does not want to please the audience and work only for her, shooting about small (and not so) gangsters scurrying through the lush places of London in search of easy money. Instead, Richie takes on the role of a kind of resuscitator of tacit plots - whether it's a Disney classic or stories about iconic characters for British culture. It turns out not always successful, quite ambiguous, but all with an easily recognizable style of Richie.
Sometimes, of course, the director gives himself a slack and removes what is always expected of him - a crime comedy with sharp humor, cool characters and brilliant in its simplicity dialogue. Spectators rejoice, critics again erect monuments, and Guy our Ritchie again makes a 180-degree turn and is looking for himself in a new genre.
Guns and criminals (even Alladdin!) have been key elements in Richie’s film structure before, but Human Wrath is the most canonical action movie. The director does not knock out the door of someone else's temple from his foot and works clearly according to the canons: a primitive plot, an easily explainable motivation of the antagonist and clear morality.
Some people may think that Ritchie did not direct a Richie movie, but an ordinary film with Jason Statham, but this is a big misconception. To begin with, it is worth remembering who in general opened this actor to the world and saw in him not only a primitive dubolom. And in "Human Wrath," Statham is different from his "Carrier" characters and others. Through the main character, the director subtly trolls the genre, deliberately making pathetic dialogues even more bombastic, and the floor lamp in a dark corner acts as a sign “Laughter” on evening shows.
One way or another, "Human Wrath" perfectly copes with its main task - keeps in suspense and does not let you get bored. The film certainly won’t rank among the best in history, but that doesn’t make Ritchie a bad director, nor does his desire to find himself outside the frame of a crime comedy. And if someone doesn’t take out your expectations, that’s your problem, as one prominent speaker says.
8 out of 10
Just from the session. The first thing I want to say is disappointed, very disappointed.
But in order.
Guy Ritchie. The atmosphere of Britain. In ' human anger ' it is not, even though most of the film was shot in London. A couple of minutes of the formidable Statham in a tuxedo do not make you feel this (it is strange that the action takes place in California, the first nail in the lid of his coffin is scored by Guy Ritchie himself).
Plot. Ritchie’s movie is a confusing story that keeps you in suspense until the very end, and sometimes doesn’t even say how the film ended: smooth or bad. Here, all cards open by half. There's a bad guy who killed his son. And there's Statham. How it ends, I think, is clear. The plot of the stars from the sky is missing, but not depressing (absolutely not the plot from Guy Ritchie, here his failure and the second nail).
And it would seem that the requiem will already be forced to sing productions of shootings. I am sincerely offended by the fact that the Director succumbed to the trends of new afterburners about bulletproof costumes (for Statham, of course, there is no obstacle, he just chokes them).
Too bad, too bad. With the role of the film Guy Ritchie ' human anger ' can not cope with the word at all.
And if you look at it like a new super-fighter with a cool Statham, it's a good eye. The plot is, as usual, just a reason to shoot, cut and tear everyone up for the Skinhead Englishman.
The movie is two. As Statham's action movie, he's good, better than the ones listed. And as Guy Ritchie's movie is just past the box office, you can't even close compare with any of his works (in quality, of course).
I have the honor.
When I went to the movie, I didn’t expect anything special, as the trailer wasn’t particularly impressive, but I’m a fan of Guy Ritchie and Jason Stetham’s films.
In Richie’s films, I always liked the atmosphere, the final mix, the color of the characters and the music, light, creating an atmosphere for the stage.
I would call this movie "almost like Richie." It is a little short of other famous works of this director.
Atmosphericity. No questions asked. The film is atmospheric and even too, perhaps, for the whole film there is one atmosphere - gloomy, depressing, even when the characters of the film joke that something gloomy is constantly nearby.
Final batting. I haven’t seen the old movie, though I know the plot is similar. The mix in the finale, characteristic of Richie's films, although it was, but it could be made larger, not even to the detriment of the coolness of Jason's character. Understood.
Character color. It's bad, but not everything. I liked the character Holt McCallani (machine gun), and as for the main character, I can say that he is a typical Jason Stetham, the rest of the characters are faded and memorable, even immediately after watching I can not remember anyone's name.
Music. That’s the only thing I really didn’t like. The reason is simple - the music in the film is always the same agonizing, dark and depressing. In a word, the music in the film is a weak spot.
Over. Watchable, especially for militant lovers. For fans of Guy Ritchie’s films, it’s not typical.
Guy Ritchie loyally loves his directorial work, no matter what happens in his career, he does not give up and continues to work zealously. Having declared himself to the world along with the extraordinary criminal thriller ' Maps, Money, Two Guns' in the future, Richie decided not to depart far from his favorite subjects and repeatedly returned to the shadow world of illegal earnings and serious showdowns, since he always had something to tell the viewer in a given direction. It is also interesting here that for a long time the director’s constant companion in his criminal artistic adventures was none other than Jason Statham, whose career in big cinema essentially began with an acquaintance with Richie, who just began to shoot ' Maps, money, two barrels'. After a successful debut collaboration, Richie and Statham continued to pleasantly surprise their audience along with the masterpiece 'Big Kush' which became almost a genre example of an ironic black crime comedy, and then a couple got involved in the philosophical 'Revolver' which may not have become a big event, but turned out to be a very noticeable film. However, it was after ' Revolver' that Richie and Statham parted ways for many years. The first went to conquer big budgets and major blockbusters, and the second finally entrenched himself in one of the toughest heroes of the militants, who eventually was invited on equal terms in ' Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis. Of course, both Ritchie and Statham’s careers have had both ups and downs, but they survived a volatile fate and decided to work together again to the delight of frankly waiting fans.
So, the plot of the fourth joint film of Guy Ritchie and Jason Statham, called ' Human Anger' revolves around a modest, silent man named Patrick Hill (Statham), but all friends and acquaintances call him nothing but H. So one day H quiet, measured gait arrived in a company that deals with collection transportation. Claiming that he knows his business and will not be unnecessary problems from him, H thereby received a position and immediately went to perform his task. Having received all the necessary instructions from a senior colleague nicknamed the Machine Gun (Holt McCallanney), the hero clearly made it clear that his shift would take place without much incident and did not lie. Faced with well-prepared strikers, H without much trouble dealt with them and proved that he is an openly valuable employee and jokes with him bad. However, this professionalism of the collector raises great suspicions among colleagues, since no one suspected that the humble H actually turned out to be a real killing machine and it is generally unclear why a person of his talents is engaged in banal protection of other people's money. However, the answers to these questions will have to wait, since H is in no hurry to tell the details of his biography to everyone he meets and he clearly has his own special plan, which he will be faithful to the very end. There's no need for words. In such circumstances, it is necessary to focus primarily on actions.
Interestingly, for most of his films, Guy Ritchie wrote his original scripts, and yet sometimes he has to take on remakes. And here the result is not always homogeneous. 'Gone ' 2002 with the participation of Madonna were absolutely mediocre and did not add points to any of the participants in the shooting process. Slightly better things were already with 'Aladdin' which collected more than one billion dollars at the box office, but it practically did not feel the corporate style of the director, and therefore in place of Richie could essentially be anyone. Further, the director took up a remake of the French crime thriller ' Collector' and just on this basis and grew ' Human Anger', which became perhaps the most original and memorable film of Guy Ritchie of those that were inspired by other people's works. Of course, to shoot the classic predictable action movie Ritchie did not want and ' Collector' gave him the opportunity to work great on the story, transform it, make it deep and partly even philosophical. And, of course, the director did not miss such an opportunity, creating a formidable, frowny and far from primitive genre canvas that does not play games and once again does not joke with its viewer.
Of course, Guy Ritchie’s frankly serious approach to the work on “Human Wrath” is worthy of attention and respect, but here it is also worth admitting that the film does not look as easy as his previous works, including “The Legend of King Arthur” 39, which fell victim to the ruthless hands of shortsighted producers. In ' Human Anger' there are almost no glimpses of light, because Richie decided to make the toughest, most serious and unsmiling movie about revenge. There are no bright conversational jokes here, as well as ironic characters that dilute the general tension. For the main character, it is important to calculate those who took the most important thing from him and he will not be exchanged for extra curts. And here on such a wave, in fact, the whole story flows, because of which, after the end of the viewing, it is no wonder to feel a slight fatigue. Of course, this suggests that Guy Ritchie shot not the most iconic movie in his career and in some places too much heaped the weight of the crime drama on the backbone of the simple story about the place, and nevertheless it is worth admitting that ' It turned out to be a stylish and lively film that will easily please fans of the good old action movie, multiplied by the commitment of modern cinema to special artistic cruelty.
In his rightful place here is definitely Jason Statham, who is not used to playing the role of tough guys, and the chin of which you can easily break your hand. The actor is verbose, he will reveal his story much better through active actions. A similar image of Statham in Ritchie’s films has not yet appeared, and it is all the more interesting to see how the director will deal with him. Of the secondary cast, I want to highlight the catchy and memorable Josh Hartnett, who, fortunately, began to appear again in more or less high-profile projects, but it is impossible not to admit that he needs a little more screen time to fully reveal his talent. Also, Scott Eastwood received his moment of mad fame, who played one of the most unusual and slightly creepy characters in his career. It is better not to expect romantic revelations and heroic deeds from him here, but he will make a lot of ambiguous deeds.
As a result, I want to say that ' Human Anger' was reunited by the cult creative duo Guy Ritchie and Jason Statham, and although their joint work is unlikely to become as popular as the same ' Maps, money, two barrels' and ' Big Kush', but in its genre it will also not become superfluous.
7 out of 10
Thrillers, detectives, action films to date shot an immeasurable number, as in principle and films of other genres. Therefore, a separate and special work is necessary for the team to create a memorable movie. Remembered not only in a certain circle of fans, but also in the film industry as a whole. So the films of such iconic directors as Guy Ritchie never pass by the audience and film critics.
Human anger came out in a very topical and greedy for quality cinema period of the post-pandemic. It came out as possible to dilute the flow of dramas, melodramas and passing indefinable something. Hopes for the film are considerable, the rating of expectations up to the release did not fall below 97%, and against the background of the resounding success of Gentlemen, the release of Anger is a human event for the entire team of creators even more responsible. In my opinion, all the expectations of the creators and, first of all, the head of the gang Guy Ritchie fully justified.
The first thing I want to say is that this is the second film I want to go to again, knowing what will be there to see and hear it differently. Because every word here is meaningful and stands in its place. Especially when the same actions are shown from three different angles. You comprehend all this and in every possible way begin to applaud Master Richie for his brilliant ideas and no less brilliant embodiment.
The actors showed themselves at a height, this time the composition is strong, almost purely male, masculine, which will be interesting for the female sex, because Richie decided to return to his favorite familiar faces and filmed the star of Pearl Harbor, Obsession and Black Orchid Josh Hartnett. The role turned out to be different from what the actor played before, the hero of the romcoms of the 2000s is no longer recognized in it. How not to know the characters of the melodramas of recent years in Scott Eastwood. This time, women will be more afraid of him than they will love, but the attraction to a dangerous guy will definitely take place.
What never disappoints in Ritchie’s creations is the muted, but still unrealistically colorful picture, active colors, or only accents with these colors. And the sound, the work of sound operators is very powerful, it is stupid not to admit.
In general, a very clean, elaborate thriller with elements of a detective, which is interesting to watch, the tension persists until the end of the film, and all actions are logically connected, explainable and obey the laws of cause and effect. And this can not but rejoice in an age when cinema is often shot on the idea of “I am an artist, I see that.”
Just from the cinema and on fresh impressions I write my opinion about the film “Human Wrath” directed by Guy Ritchie.
As expected, the film was strong, thoughtful and solid. Divided into 4 logical structural parts, it is easily perceived, but it retains the necessary tension. First of all, this effect is achieved by musical design. The music doesn't let go throughout the film, it's really some magic in Richie's hands, because the same thing happens to me when I watch every movie of him, but especially strongly in King Arthur's Sword, Sherlock and Rock and Roller. In general, the music very much resembled the atmosphere of Sherlock, gray London, although on the screen and was bright Los Angeles. Stressed and sensitized. Some scenes were very direct and tough, however, Ritchie usually does not gloat with the viewer, but shows and tells him the whole truth, without embellishing.
The cast this time was no less honest than the director. I was surprised and surprised by Scott Eastwood. No one expected that one of the many children of the legendary director, actor and screenwriter will be able to surpass him or at least come close in talent and scope, but it seems that Scott Clint can be proud of. His character turned out to be bright, charismatic, and most importantly, he causes strong emotions in the viewer, does not leave indifferent. I was impressed by his play with his eyes: from a self-confident, arrogant, cruel killer to a truly frightened and ignorant person who looks into the eyes of his death, literally finds himself in the place of his victims.
Also good is already expected Holt McCallani, whom an experienced viewer could remember from the Fight Club and the Miracle on the Hudson. His character goes a rather interesting way in terms of disclosure to the viewer.
Jason Statham consistently perfectly copes with his acting task, without stumbling and not giving reasons to be disappointed in him.
What's interesting: Anger is not about the evolution of the characters in it, not about their changes, but about their statics. In this case, the director was able to maintain a balance between this static character of the film and the dynamics of the plot. The film turned out not boring, but on the contrary exciting and retaining attention. And it is definitely worth watching in the movies, because on the home screen you will not get so much emotion and all their subtleties.
Well, my bloodthirsty ones, have you waited? Finally! Among all these drooling husks, all these sluggish, half-dead ' Land of nomads ' and the parish ' Chicago Sevens' there was a hard, like a chancre, ' Human Wrath' By the end of the session, my heart was pounding so fast that the crazy drummers of the thrash metal bands would whine shamefully with envy! After all, I know how it will all end - Statham will tear everyone to shreds, for this reason I watch, but still the motor is pounding, and somewhere deep is sitting such a shitty, treacherous idea - what if Richie decided to kill the main character?
Forgive me for the annoyance, but the title of the film was poorly chosen. 'Anger'? Where is he here? Where is this unrestrained, uncontrollable rage directed at villains? Statham doesn't look like a man in anger. He doesn’t look like someone who has strong emotions. His teeth hurt, or constipation -- he squeezes his jaws so tightly, and strains his inflated, embossed forehead, as if he had taken a purge, and there was no toilet nearby. Calculating vindictiveness, serpent malice is in his actions, anger is absent. Over the years of filming in the movies, the London kid never learned to play anything but a frightening expression of the eyes, which reads as - if I hit, you'll jerk off!
This is a remake of the French film 'The Collector' but Ritchie has emasculated all anti-capitalist pathos. The main message of the French film is that the poor carry the money of the rich, and pay for it with their worthless lives. The main character performs revenge, he symbolizes the victory of good over evil. In Madonna's ex-husband's film, evil defeats a weaker evil. Statham's hero is neither Mother Teresa nor Mahatma, he is from another world, a repulsive, vile type. Richie turned the French film inside out, and shot an independent, moments similar to ' Fight' cinema.
Shootings, bloodshed, Jesuit calibrated plans, cunning, meanness, venality - all this good in the film is enough. Watching people being tortured and killed filled me with ferocious joy, and I struggled with the burning desire to give the father of the family sitting in the front row into the ear, crunchy popcorn. That's how great the power of art is! Richie skillfully escalates the tension: the gloomy sky, unshaven, robber faces, disturbing violins in the background, outbursts of violence - all this presses, and makes blood run faster through the veins. The adrenaline is really raging!
It turned out this masculine, male movie, injection of testosterone into the brain. A translation that smooths corners. Castrated dubbing jokes sound poor and orphanish. It's like an excellent eyeglass trying to swear. I was embarrassed. This film should be seen in the voice of one St. Petersburg, the one who categorically welcomes everyone.
Infinitely pleased with the nostalgic whimper of American freedom fighters - ' that's when we urinated the Arabs', ' now I would shoot the Arabs'.
Same type and most cliched militants come out with enviable regularity. A simple script is trying, of course, to diversify with an amazing original of characters, the deepest drama, a love line (which simply should be, and at the same time be attracted by the ears), these turns, etc. But still, the action movie is not the most refined genre, and extra elements often knock down the degree of sharpness, delay the film too simple in its essence, make it not only predictable, but also boring. You watch it once and you forget it.
This film will also not become a reference, like some other creations of Guy Ritchie. I don’t think it’s going to be looked at like the same 'Big Kush' or 'Cards, money, two barrels'. It's not going to be taken down for quotes. But he's still good. There's nothing superfluous about it. Why did Maestro Ritchie make a film that is obviously controversial for himself, when after the success of "Gentlemen" & #39, something is expected from him that is not inferior in quality? Because he can. Take a fairly simple scenario and shoot almost pure action movie (percentages on 75-80), without any water, lyrical digressions and other things. In the old style 'One came out with a gun - ten supostats fell and died' Put on the main role the most brutal actor, who most of the screen time in many films walks with a stone expression. And not even crammed into the plot a heartwarming explanation of why GG is so stone, brutal and insensitive. He's just like that, take it as fact. And it was like that before the events of the film, well, maybe a little softer, and even then not with everyone.
From ambiguous points, I would single out music. On the one hand, it quite well fits the film in general, on the other - for action (very not stupid) I would like something more cheerful. And here's the performance. Dividing the film into chapters is quite chic, it helps to keep all the details of the picture in mind, which is why the whole narrative retains integrity until the end. There was a place for branded unexpected transitions and returns from the scene of the rapid development of events and the scene of commenting on these events in a calm atmosphere. Well, as a remake of Le Convoyeur, this film is not perceived absolutely. Anyway, it's just an action movie. I expected it when I watched the trailers and ran to the theater, and I got exactly what I expected. For that and a great appreciation.
Guy Ritchie again worked with Jason Statham, the man he brought to the movies in his full-length debut (as well as hello to Revolver). This work might have seemed like a typical “Statham movie” that Ritchie didn’t even put ragged, clipped footage into the film, but not quite so. The British handwriting is visible from under the pathos of Jason, and the loss of the same event from several angles just blows the atmosphere of nostalgic London at the end of the 20th century.
Time has changed. Cinema has acquired new realities, so now we need to solve problems in a different way. This was understood by both the creators of the film and the director himself, so Guy took a seemingly ordinary story and added to it a non-linear editing, a predictable but amazing ending, and also paid tribute to the collection activities.
At first, Jason Statham did not cause a storm of emotions. Everyone has long been accustomed to his brutal images and constant success, so the exposition attracted understatement. Robbers operate in the streets, robbing collector cars. The director takes it to a permanent level, so to speak, systematic attacks. This causes enhanced training, where the dark horse arranges the main character H. When asked why they simply do not strengthen the convoy, do not organize escort cars, the film pokes the serious face of the main character.
The musical accompaniment is delightful. Jason's introduction to the case looks too funny. Again, the image of the actor does not affect the character H. You can’t take the inept Jason in the role to make a twist in the middle of the picture – everything is obvious. The film perfectly demonstrates the first trips of collectors, tracking systems, and teamwork. Returning to the beginning, we recall the first attack, where the viewer only heard the sounds of gunshots, but Jason began to unleash this case with his actions towards the attackers. Unfortunately, the trailer has already spoilered the motif of the character, but this does not slow down the dynamics of action.
The film is divided into chapters that characterize certain actions in the future. Temporary jumps penetrate the film unnoticed, which causes some confusion. Answers to questions follow immediately. After showing one side of the coin, the plot returns to the antagonists, attributing both the robbers and Statham. It seems that you have already solved the mystery of the film, that the middle of the timekeeping already shows the culprits, but Guy Ritchie does not solve the issues so easily, covering the opposing parties with a third wave of force, about which we knew nothing but saw the consequences.
Bad guys versus bad guys to protect good guys. Solyanka came out noble, but the director shot it in his own style. The same incident from different angles, under the perception of other characters, the eyes and actions of the opposing forces. It’s a bit confusing at first, but the film explains everything. Once you know who is who, the final details of the plan and the supposedly last case are laughable. As if the next part of the “Fast and Furious” ends with the last race, but soon preparations for a new business begin.
The film catches up with violence and unexpected denouements with the characters. Unexpected murders, betrayal, change of plan and revealing the true cards. It turned out well, quite demonstratively, ostentatiously, but almost all the details were predictable. The traitor, the retaliation, the pursuit of justice, you already know who will face whom in front of the credits. Guy Ritchie surprisingly did better than expected. It's a collected story that jumps through flashbacks and gives you a general idea of the story.
Jason, he's also in Africa, Jason, although it's clear that Statham is already over half the price. The role is ordinary for him, the circumstances are simply different. Surprised Josh Hartnett, who amusingly matured. Las Alonso shared his mother’s milk. Jeffrey Donovan has gained considerable age. Scott Eastwood finally started squeezing something interesting out of the supporting roles, probably a strict conversation with dad was. The epic Andy Garcia decorated the work, and the irreplaceable director Eddie Marsan was here like this. Nice to see Post Malone.
Guy Ritchie changed with London. He shot the actual tape, which is really lost in the huge list of militants who came out earlier. The director works for himself, not for the studios. “Gentlemen” gave a reboot after the failures and work at Disney, but the status of the British allowed to take on “Wrath of man”.
(Spoiler-free review). It was with this feeling that I left the cinema after watching. The film got so deep that I decided to publish my first written review.
Guy Ritchie needs no introduction. In his arsenal there are high-quality paintings that set a special bar in his segment.
The bundle of Jason Stetham and Guy Ritchie is associated with the bar ' Big Kush' and ' Maps, money, two barrels' - the presence of a non-linear plot with a share of madness and surprise, interesting characters whose actions are impossible to predict and, of course, hard English humor.
Plot.
What does the viewer see in ' Human Anger'? Absolutely linear, understandable and not intriguing plot, in which the viewer is not allowed to think because of the obviousness of what is happening.
At some points, the obvious illogicality of actions slips, ' sucked out of the finger'. By the way, this personal illogicality ends the story in the film, in which the viewer asks questions '. When did you get there?' But the answer is only the final titles.
Insufferability must have prerequisites, but here they are completely absent.
Humor.
Just one scene that made the audience laugh and was appropriate. Otherwise 'jokes' were either flat or not properly disclosed and were local.
Characters.
There are no special claims to the little-worded character of Stetem. The leader of an organized criminal group, a professional with clear actions. His confidence and making the right decisions, of course, convince the viewer of one thing - the main character will achieve his goal at any cost. Unfortunately, the character does not cause any other emotions. He does not use any extraordinary methods, he does not demonstrate ingenuity, resourcefulness and unconventional tactics. All we see is a manifestation of honed (linear) actions and physical strength - accurately shoot at enemies and in a couple of cases, when the situation itself allows, to engage in hand-to-hand combat.
The secondary characters were charismatic, but nothing more. No ' highlights ' in character, thinking and actions to observe.
Main & #39; villain & #39; trying to show us as a cold-blooded and bloodthirsty fighter. He gestures, bullies in dialogue with his comrades and causes distrust with all his appearance. But this does not confuse anyone and in the climax he demonstrates his greed, cunning and greed.
But the final scene again demonstrates the illogicality of his actions and the lack of response to how it came about.
Overview.
It turned out, linear, well shot, extraordinary action movie. Dynamics, twisted plot and memorable characters are not here.
This time, Guy was, unfortunately, primitive and obvious.
6 out of 10
Guy Richie and Jason Statham. Any of these names is enough for me to run straight to the cinema on the first weekend in the morning. Well, when both ... But something didn't work out this time. Instead of the expected charming crime, we were presented with a rather dreary crime. Even the carnage wasn't impressive. Some oops. No, no, no, I'm not saying that's a pretty watchable action movie. Go ahead. You won't leave in the middle. But if you're a fan like me, I don't recommend lip rolling. Let's hope that this is not old age, but just an accidental failure - it happens to everyone.
You have no idea how bad I feel about Richie's work. But honesty comes first. Just as I was thrilled with Gentlemen, I was disappointed with Human Wrath. The movie isn't terrible. I'll even give him a 7 at the end. But it's a pass for me. So I will not be reviewing it. That means I didn't.
Is it the director’s fault that the movie turned out like this? Perhaps the culprit is covidistery, which has called into question: will people get into the cinema? Will you be able to recover the money and effort invested? Or is it better to save them for the next project, for a more peaceful time? And you can’t always shoot brilliant pictures, after all. But of course I’m going to defend Richie, because I’m just biased, because in spirit and style it’s my director.
First about the good: beautiful makeup, chic title, exciting shooting from the air, epic music, acting, replaying scenes already shown. What is good is the re-show of the scene: after the plot disclosure, the same scene takes on a different meaning. And the viewer looks at it with more compassion.
Now for the bad: characters, story. A little, but weighty. The exciting beginning was replaced by sad scenes to that epic music. It feels like the director has forgotten the base: feed the viewer new information about the film so that the viewer does not fall asleep. Neither shooting scenes nor sharp turns saved here. I think they should have saved the jokes. But whether they were unsuccessfully translated, or they were not initially funny, the dialogue failed. Think of the same "Gentlemen", any dialogue, but at least in the diner.
What is this, Coach?
I wonder who the coach is. And what is so famous for this phlegmatic man, who with a kind face knocks the knives out of the hands of a minor. And here's...
Some scenes made me itchy. Hands itch to take scissors and cut them out. They literally add nothing to the story. I wanted to shout: “I understand, I understand!” Our hero is a harsh, but fair man! Land for peasants, factories for workers, money for prostitutes! Kind to his subordinates, but does not consider it necessary to devote them to his plans and puts them in awkward positions. A burnt-out mobster wearing rose-tinted glasses who thinks going on business is like having a picnic at Disneyland. So we can take a child, a wife, a housekeeper and a beloved dog. By the way, do not forget the old axiom: if a hero is an idiot, you do not want to sympathize with him. And the hero, sorry idiot, and Duncan MacLeod in one person. Why? Look, you'll understand.
About the plot holes is just a hand-face. So one mobster doesn't know what the other mobster and his kin look like? Yeah, I'm sure they have a hefty dossier on each other with pictures of not only children, but also their favorite dog, so as not to accidentally shoot a flea dog and give birth to Vendetta. And if one mob shoots another, then it will be impossible to hide such a stitch in a bag. And the offender will not build Napoleon's plans, how to steal new millions, and send to bow someone is not a pity.
Immediately, the shooting of a criminal authority passes unnoticed, like a May rain. I’m not saying that if you shoot someone in your life, you’ll probably remember that person’s face. Well, at least some trace in the memory should remain, at least the feeling of "somewhere I have seen it before." The heroes of this film with a memory like a goldfish manage to forget the face of the one they shot in 5 seconds. And the appearance of a hero with a face similar to the one killed does not raise any questions. Every movie has an assumption. It seems that the heroes are stupid. Maybe they were just trying to get closer to the people. But overdid it.
Shtosh. A moment of philosophy. There's another good thing about this movie, other than the posh plans, which is that it doesn't have bad morals. Makes you think. Can a scumbag for whom other people's children are expendables adore his family and be a great father? Spoiler: Maybe. Even scumbags have a moral gradation. Noble scum: you can rob, but children, both your own and others are taboo. "Gray" scum: with other people's children you can do anything. But your children, your friends’ children and your comrades are taboo. Bastards at the bottom: do not pity anyone but yourself. For the sake of these thoughts, which like a pile of butterflies rose into the air after the film, and it was worth going to it.