The film begins slowly, enjoy watching every minute, I want this story to continue for at least another 30 minutes.
1) brilliant music. Until now, two days after the premiere, a melody plays in the head, clearly emphasizing the narrative in the movie.
2) the rating of 18+, indeed, in the tape is 100% justified, it is not just numbers, it is also emotions from viewing.
(3) The third plus, without a doubt, is the main character. There can be no better actor than Jason for such a colorful character. Brutality, style, not a word too much. It's very clear and relevant.
And no, in the film, the main hero is neither a superman nor even Captain America, but he will not get into his pocket for a word.
(4) During the shootings in the cinema, in a regular session (not imax), the spirit went down his heels, as the sound was transmitted quite decently during the shooting. By the way, the shots are not drawn, as is the case in some cheap action films.
5) history. Yes, in places you can predict, but there are quite unexpected moments, I would say sharp, but in moderation.
6) the picture would not hurt in some places a little more friendly with logic plot.
As a result: Yeah, I recommend going to the movies. There are more positive emotions than neutral ones. Anyone who loves action movies with a plot and, in principle, respects the works of Jason Statham, I recommend watching. Especially recently, there are fewer and fewer pictures, with a big budget. And most importantly, simple, but intriguing.
Guy Ritchie is rightfully tacitly recognized as a “people’s director” in Russia. His main merit is the fact that he makes a movie about bandits. And in Russia, as you know, this is a special trend, starting, probably, from the time of the famous TV series “Brigade” by Alexei Sidorov. The last film of Guy Ritchie – “Gentlemen”, released on the territory of the Russian Federation in February 13, 2020, collected 1,225,354,747 rubles at 4,047,758 viewers according to the “Bulletin of the distributor”, which is an incredible success for the director.
The new project of the famous English director, which marked a new wave of British style, “Human Wrath”, differs significantly from his previous, famous art canvases, such as “Cards, Money, Two Guns”, “Big Kush”, and the same “Gentlemen” in that it lacks the “Tarantine” usual for his criminal films, if you will allow dialogue. If you don’t know who directed the film in advance, it’s a lie to assume that it was directed by Guy Ritchie. The basis of the film is the character of Jason Statham, around which the entire film is built. “Human Wrath” has a certain narrative intrigue, which the author demonstrates from the very beginning, tightening the interest of the viewer. But Statham's character is quite typical and one might say ordinary. If you’ve seen movies like The Carrier, The Defender, The Mechanic, The Professional, you’ll know what I’m talking about. Somewhere in the middle of the film there is a small plot sag, which is expressed in the tension of the narrative, which can make some viewers a little bored. But it is not very long and quite tolerant. For fans of action-packed shootouts in the style of Martin Scorsese, at the end of the large-scale scene consisting of shooting and death, which is also possibly a couple of minutes long. Statham, without a doubt, has drawn his role and his fans can be pleased with him as always. Fans of Guy Ritchie can not be much and upset, because the film is clearly below its capabilities and falls out of its usual style. But if you come to the cinema just to relax and enjoy the unpretentious crime thriller about revenge, then you will definitely get your dose of satisfaction.
The lights go out and you suddenly feel like you’re caged, a prey that a predator has long hunted. And damn it... it's scary. Very scary.
In the movie rental came a new picture of Guy Ritchie, which I personally learned by accident. Advertising, as they say, has done its job. The decision to go was categorical, because this is Guy Ritchie. That's what happened.
From the first minute, you realize that something difficult and tragic is waiting for you. There will be no pink colors and happy ending. This is the story of a man whose way of life is not right. However, he has a son, a beloved son. I have a wife, but they're divorced. There is a job, it is not clear whether it is pleasant. But everything changes one day when his only child dies before his eyes. It is at this moment that the hero’s head clicks: 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'. And the only way to catch and punish a killer is to become one of the collectors. The father, whose brain is intoxicated by revenge, puts on his armor, takes a small gun and sits in the armored tank. And then we are waiting for blood, gold fever, reckless acts of robbers, which in fact do not even justify the sacrifices made.
Statham did a hundred, no, two hundred. Honestly, it's hard to even imagine someone else in that role. There are no emotions, absolutely stable psyche and most importantly... a complete sense of what you see on the screen. So cool he got used to the role, words, of course, can not pick up to describe the feeling of watching. It is all seasoned with such cold and dark music. The pulse speeds up when it starts flashing against the background. Just sitting in a wild stupor and waiting... now... here’s something coming... But in some places we are deceived, just ridicule the nerves, just bring to the right condition so that at that very moment you realize complete despair.
I love Guy Ritchie, really. His work is always different from other directors. They cut the truth womb like a blade on glass. And you know that in the end there can be absolutely anything. Maybe that's why he doesn't let go until the final credits come out. In general, I liked everything: the shooting (by the way, it is simply gorgeous, especially the first minutes of the film, the feeling that you are there, inside this very car), music, even a break into chapters. Definitely worth a look.
My simple cinematic wisdom says that a movie can be forgiven for many things, but not boredom. And the movie "Human Wrath" brings her from the heart. Boring characters, dull predictable plot, incense breathes intrigue. I never thought I would look at my watch so often. The fact that something unimaginable is happening to the director, everyone noted. Some of his innovations fell to taste, someone, blushing under Facepalm, hardly examined his latest paintings. “Aladdin” and “King Arthur’s Sword” frankly didn’t like me, but for all their shortcomings, they entertained them. Not serious, catchy in its vulgarity, but there was something amusing about their objective emptiness. Then there were “Gentlemen”, which I personally liked very much – strong acting work, drive story, sparkling humor, and also the fact that the director, like, came to his senses and decided to return to his native harbor, to the origins, shook himself off all the Hollywood gloss.
In general, “Human Wrath” is a remake of a French tape that I have not seen, and I do not plan to see after such a diva. I want to warn you, if you have not seen the original, then do not watch the trailer for the film 2021 release, because it shamelessly opened the main intrigue of the film. Although, most likely, a nice dull lady from the back row will tell the whole room at the beginning of the film, why GG was hired as a private in a collection company, and who he is, and what Statham is “beautiful” (we must show that at least she knows something in this life). In general, we omit the discussion of the culture of our people, the protracted introduction, suppress complaints about fabulous ticket prices and proceed directly to the film.
The first thing that is upsetting is the absolutely stereotyped characters: a cold, emotionless terminator (even eggs are afraid to challenge the title), soldiers who have gone, cowardly and incompetent employees of the collection office (why, by the way, they have such dislike for each other?), cool mafiosi (and Al Pacino is still cooler). These mediocrity boiled in a cauldron of unsalted plot, other spices generally forgotten. Not bright, not witty, not too tragic. Humor aside. It is wooden here, and the worst kind of wood (I am not against the mat, but when only one mattress is 90% of jokes it is not good and original), not cool plot twists for a perfectly selected OST - not the level of Guy Ritchie. Who is "beautiful"? I knew Statham, and his participation in the lead role was upsetting, which was not necessary to prove, because this actor apparently simply cannot give anything new. The one who really enjoyed the cast was Josh Harnett. It's been a long time since he's been seen, and resurrecting his career on the wave of Richie's rehabilitation sounded great. But not really. Harnett is bloated, and his hero turned out to be a spineless double. Everyone knows how Josh can look in a criminal action movie (hello, Slevin!), but Richie decided to push the potential of this actor and give him a 100% passing role (yes, do what you want in this framework, do not interfere only with the coolest of the coolest). All the characters turned out to be faceless templates, obediently acting out roles in the well-known play. Who are they, what are they, why are they? Answers are given only when absolutely necessary to somehow glue together the script. Why did you do that to a teenager? - To move the story. Reason to act? Why bother with PTSD? Why rob? - Money. And on such skinny whales the whole film is built.
In general, Richie wanted to play in a serious adult uncle, to shoot a “cool” brutal movie with a cool hero who can not be killed by shots at point-blank range. In my opinion, coolness lies in another – to follow your style and not to change yourself. And not to stamp another movie with "State in the lead role."
I didn’t think that I would go to this film, as I expected Richie’s standard script reception, to unravel the tangle of events and conflicts, as I had with his own “Gentlemen”, but I still got to this film and what a surprise it turned out that the film is something different from his previous work. The film is certainly not a rethinking of the genre, but after watching it, I had the impression that this is something I have not seen in action films.
“Human Anger” is an action movie that should surprise the viewer with cool guys, shootouts and chases, which this film copes with, even more. At first glance, it may seem that this is a rather banal story for the genre - the loss of a loved one through the fault of bad guys, for whom Statham's hero H will seek revenge at any cost. But Kamon is Richie! Every scene is full of events and dynamics. Klesh as if blurred and you do not notice them at all, which also served as a nonlinear narrative. The film is divided into four chapters, which send us to different time periods of the plot, which keeps you constantly in concentration, you always want to guess about the nature of what is happening. In this film, Richie himself does not unravel the ball, but grants this right to the viewer.
The coolest thing about this movie after Jason Statham is the collaboration of music and image. The music works incredible. The music is deep, permeating and always exactly complements what happens on screen. Richie's films have always made me happy with a quality sound, but this time it's a plague! Thank you to Christopher Bensted for making music for him. The picture, even for Richie, is very juicy. Excellent post-processing.
I don’t know what the magic of Guy Ritchie is, but mixing the absolutely ordinary, characteristic ingredients of the genre, he gets a unique and delicious two-hour delicacy. This film is another “experiment.” Richie after Revolver and I hope that he will please us more than once with his research.
Congratulations Sir Guy Ritchie has made a new film and it’s great! He’s just as much in Richie’s style and manner as he is different from anything he’s done before. What do I mean? Like what?
Usually the main characters of Ritchie’s films are comical and ironic peculiar outcasts and outcasts of their own environment, all their actions are aimed at asserting their own authority in one form or another. In “Human Wrath”, the main character is driven by pure thirst for revenge, human anger, which, according to one of the characters of the film, is able to burn the earth with its cleansing fire. Hence the general mood, the atmosphere of the film: rather tense, inflating, but with the necessary dynamics, so that the viewer does not overload and retain interest throughout the film. Dynamics is provided by all components of the film: plot twists, dialogues, rhythm of the picture and of course the sound part.
The pluses of the film add the fact that almost the entire crew of “Gentlemen” worked on Anger. And the people who created such a masterpiece, can not make something less worthy of a wide screen and high ratings of world film critics. Although, of course, Ritchie is not a director who will be guided by the opinion of critics. For him, in my opinion, it is important to preserve the author’s style and approach that make the film a work of art. And then he did it again.
The beauty of Human Wrath is that this film has a clear idea, a strong content and an original form of embodiment. Therefore, the director does not need to add any tinsel to the film in the form of loud tantrums on display, dramas on elevated tones or pathetic speeches not to the place, but for the view. There is drama, but it is much more effective due to the excellent acting acting and accents placed by the operator.
That’s why Richie is one of my favorite directors: he doesn’t make a movie for the sake of world box office records. He shoots a high-quality well-thought-out movie, takes not the most famous actors into it, but works with them so that everyone remains in the positive. And as a result, it receives huge success around the world. That's what professionalism is.
To the performer of the main role of the film ' Human Anger' viewers are different. Someone this unshaven and baldish Englishman with impressive muscles and a daring look is cute, someone is not very, and this is normal, because each person can have his own taste and his own idea of beauty. Someone wants Olivier salad, and some gourmets serve Amich (turkey in Armenian)!
I like this actor. I think he looks confident, convincing and harmonious in American fighters. And the point is not only in the brutal appearance of this Hollywood macho and his ability to dashingly drive cars, accurately shoot different types of firearms and deftly handle all kinds of knives, but also in the fact that he emanates a strong positive energy charge! This is a tough, strong, determined person with good intentions, but with strong fists, by the way, not without subtle humor and self-irony. He can stand up for himself and his loved ones, defend his rights and principles by harsh methods, but he does not attack first. Of course, this pattern of behavior appeals to many viewers, including myself.
What else does your humble servant like this tough guy of British origin?! The fact that his heroes are living people with their own character and destiny. These are real bright personalities, not some faceless characters. That is why it is interesting to observe and analyze their behavior and actions.
I am convinced that today Jason without exaggeration can be called a megastar of Hollywood fighters of our time. It’s not a compliment to him, I really think. And as it seems to me, there is no replacement for him in this genre yet and it is not a fact that it will appear, but this is another topic.
As for me personally. I prefer to watch those pictures with his participation, where he plays the main role, a positive character. It's preferable to be action. Based on the above, it is not surprising that the tape ' Human Anger' I was interested in its relatively spectacular trailer and I decided to watch the movie on the big screen, which I did with pleasure on Friday evening April 23rd.
Plot.
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.
The movie didn't disappoint. On the contrary, I assumed that it would be less spectacular and not so dramatic.
What immediately caught my eye as a spectator? The film is shot in gray-bluish, gray-blue color, which is not typical for American cinema, rather for English. Hollywood movies tend to be more vivid and this color restraint and gloom & #39; Human Wrath' leaves its imprint on the perception of this picture.
The tape itself, in my opinion, is unique in its energy and content. There is a magical spirit in it that makes you perceive what is happening with interest, literally holding your breath. And what is surprising is that you do not perceive a movie as one hundred percent entertainment, because the film, in my opinion, is not limited to the genre of an action movie, there is a thriller, and drama, and criminal noir. That is, it is not quite an entertaining movie, it has a place for philosophy and reflection.
At the energy level and at the video level, you can feel the signature of the director, who, by the way, comes from the UK. The film in a sense depressing in its content and the development of dramatic events, but it has a place for humor and for positivity, the director gives the viewer hope for the best, so personally I was charged with energy from those emotions that I experienced during watching, including positive emotions.
Another important point. The plot of the film is so twisted and original that it is perceived quite difficult. To correctly understand what is happening on the screen, you need to watch the picture carefully, delving into every detail, this is important, given the fact that in the tape we see a periodic return to past events and the viewer can simply get lost in time.
The protagonist. Bold, determined, tough. He has combat experience. The man who lost the most precious thing he had, his son. He is obsessed with revenge, or rather, justice, there are no unattainable obstacles for him, because he does not value his own life, since he simply does not need it without a son. That is why he will destroy his enemies as long as he lives. . .
From my point of view, Jason performed very well in this movie. Not only does he skillfully deal with his bloodmen by various methods, a pistol, a machine gun, cold weapons and even bare hands are used! But his acting clearly demonstrates the triumph of justice and that evil is crushed and must be punished. This causes respect for this character, a positive emotional connection and you, as a viewer, begin to root for him with all your soul. And most importantly, through Hitch’s model of behavior, through his actions, I see the meaning of the film & #39; Human Anger & #39; which consists in the fact that evil and good return to people in a boomerang, and when it is already a matter of time. Don’t put money and personal gain above love, friendship and true human relationships – that’s the message '. I will add from myself - easy earnings and money on blood will not bring happiness to anyone. I became even more convinced of this by watching ' Human Anger', a film project that is worth watching, including attentiveness and intellectual reserve, so that then there is a pleasant aftertaste.
I wish you all a pleasure. I hope, ' Human Anger' will go well in the movie distribution, he deserved it.
I am glad that in the post-Soviet space the film was released not only in Russia.
On April 22 of this year, the theatrical release took place in Armenia.
I love movies with Jason Statham and have seen, if not all, most of his movies. Jason has always played the role of a tough guy, but his performance in the film ' Human Anger' is different from most of his roles.
What I liked about the movie:
1. Let me tell you, this is Jason Statham's game. Here he plays the role of such a serious uncle, with whom he definitely would not want to meet in real life. In the film, his coolness is off the scale, but does not look like something from fiction. I mean, if you knew the boss of all the bosses in real life, that's probably what he'd look like. In previous films, Jason plays like a good bad guy. In the same film you will not see a good guy, this is a film about how the bad guys angered the worst and most evil uncle.
2. Musical accompaniment! It also deserves a separate assessment, without him probably Jason would not have seemed so harsh. Very qualitatively selected to the scenes in the film and immerses in the atmosphere of what is happening. It’s like in a quality horror movie, when the background music is already catching up with fear. There's a full dive going on.
3. Plot. The film is divided into chapters and it feels like you are reading a good book. One that I could read over and over again.
10 out of 10
The film will definitely go to me in the treasury of good films.
Jason Statham (aka Statham) is an amazing person. The actor has 56 roles in the filmography and 90 percent of them are, frankly, similar to each other. And all the same, everyone loves him, they call to act and something I have not heard any special complaints, ala Statham is the same and annoyed everyone, give someone else. In general, Jason Statham is not one of those people who today says and does one thing, and tomorrow another.
He does not change himself in the new action movie from the incomparable Guy Ritchie. The main character of Human Wrath is the same mechanic/carrier/parker in one bottle. Oh, whatever. Comes in, right? It's coming!
Guy Ritchie gives another good action movie in his style. About gangsters, revenge, criminal troubles and the like. The main character named H may be a guy and not bad, and generally in all this madness would not participate, if not for a personal drama. She prompted the main character to show his enemies, and at the same time the viewer, what real “human anger” is. Statham's doing it. With a stone face, he breaks down his abusers left and right and from the very first minutes of the film, you guess who is whom. In general, a classic action movie, with a predictable ending.
But damn it, it's delicious! It's all about old Guy Ritchie. I’ve always said that the feature of his films is in incredible style and frantic dynamics. You sit down to watch and you won’t get up until the movie is over. And your sense of beauty will be overwhelmed with delight. Aesthetics and wobbles, starting with amazing opening credits. Well, where without British humor - which is sometimes on the verge of stupidity, but the line does not cross! Not once! So it's very hilarious.
What is remarkable about this film is the excessive amount of violence. Yeah, get your kids off the screen. There's point-blank shots and brains out there and torture and all that. It's tough on the background of the latest Gentlemen. I am not talking about Aladdin at all.
I really liked the accompanying sound. The intense five-note music throughout the film would seem to be exhausting. But the effect is reversed, it spurs all the actions of the characters, adding them pepper.
Oh, that's it. What's there to say? It's not Richie's best movie, but it's always beautiful.
8 out of 10
If you don't like Guy Ritchie movies, you haven't seen Guy Ritchie movies.
There are only a few directors whose films I fly headlong, putting off all my plans, if possible for the premiere, to see and tell first. The set is motley: Nolan, Allen, Tarantino, Chazelle - three large-format films of all, but each is chic, Richie. The latter repulsed last year by “Gentlemen” so that the noise still does not subside, but the talented Briton does not stop and now his new film has been released in a radically different format. “Human Anger” is full of various cameraman, director, script techniques that favorably distinguish the film from a number of similar ones. Take at least the structural breakdown of the film into parts, which as layers reveals the development of storylines from different sides and ultimately leads to a unified perception of the picture. This is a great move, films from it always win, but few directors decide to take up work with it. For example, it is perfectly realized in “The Favourite” by Lanthimos, in “La La Land” by the same Chazelle.
It is interesting to see how Ritchie does not limit himself to his own usual arsenal of tools, but studies, uses and creates a new one, adding novelty and relevance to each film. This is rare for directors who are used to working in a convenient established format and do not want to change it, as it is too working.
I want to talk about how the director works with the actors. It is impressive that he does not exploit popular faces, but changes them, uses textures that interest him for specific works. Yes, he has worked with Downey Jr., Lowe and other famous actors, but each interaction is so rational and justified that there is nothing to say against it. So statements like "Why Statham again?" are not very clear to me. Yes, Ritchie has already worked with him on two projects, but remember who these heroes were and how the actor revealed himself through them. In “Human Wrath”, Jason’s talent is also revealed from a new side, his strengths are growing.
As a result, it is interesting to see how in the film Ritchie will reveal Scott Eastwood, for which the viewer has a role of a cute cool guy. In “Anger of Man”, the actor’s hero is verbose, he is given a plan, but how much he reveals himself! From his character and smells of danger, something very bad, with him absolutely do not want to get involved, I want to never get in the way of such a person. At the same time, no verbal bravado, isolation and silence, even among their own. This is amazing!
At the same time, a special thank you for preserving the role of Eddie Marsan - such bright and absurd characters as he still looks for. Here, Ritchie thanks precisely for keeping the trend going.
I will not disclose the plot itself, the film has just been released, it is much more interesting to see it yourself and come to me with comments.
I do not regret that I came to the premiere of the film of my favorite director again, because he did not let me down this time.
Angry Statham and brilliant Richie again in the business
Richie, apparently, a little confused tradition and does not leave, and always comes in English. About his fresh film “Anger of Man” information was a critical minimum: a remake of the French “Incassator” in 2004, starring Statham, the shooting will take place in the United States. Post-production was held in the same rhythm and it can not be said that because of the remaining places bans on crowds, because the same situation with silence before the premiere was with the “Gentlemen”. As a result, the poster of Anger was released a month before the Russian premiere on April 22, and the trailer was almost 3 weeks before it. Is that too much intrigue? I'll say that Ritchie might not have run any marketing material at all and you and I would have run to the movies anyway. Daddy is back!
Speaking about the dates of the premiere in the world: whether thanks to the covid, whether it is some personal preferences of Richie, but in Russia the film was released before the whole world! In America, for a moment, the premiere of Anger is scheduled only for May 7, when we will have 3 rolling weekends. So, for the movie. The advantage of Richie is that he never exchanged for small things: chooses only those actors in his films in which he is sure, even if they are not the most famous guys; he will not hype on the topic, will not adapt to public resonance - the absolute masculinity of his works in the age of brutal feminization of all this confirmation. At the same time, this is done again not on display, not protruding, but because this is the aesthetic of Sir Ritchie, this is his style, for which the British rock and role-player is so appreciated throughout the world of cinema and its fans. Here's "Human Wrath" - a film intriguing with its near-biblical title - saturated with testosterone, adrenaline and drive at their peak. No pink ponies and rainbows, only harsh male everyday life.
Supports the effect as always strong soundtrack and the whole sound of the film in principle. You can’t hear unless you’re aesthetically thrilled by the way the soundtrack in Guy Ritchie’s works is built (I only dreamed on King Arthur’s Sword that I could spin the sound to the highest possible level and succumb to this hypnosis!). Soundtracks come in, starting with what's used in the trailer. What pleased my female eye, which does not appreciate action films, thrillers and the like with them: the purity of the genre, the accuracy of the presentation and the lack of cheap pathos dialogue. Have we seen any of the Statham fighters? Those that Ritchie shot with him, shot with such love, with such professionalism and with such care - 3 and almost 20 years ago in the heat of youth, the time of tough guys living on daily adrenaline. Now both have grown up, gained experience, became mature professionals and this is evident. “Human Wrath” is rid of garbage and includes a well-motivated drama, layeredness in revealing the plot from several sides, from different angles, giving the viewer a complete picture of what is happening, a script without – hallelujah! – holes in turns and stupid dialogues.
No, I didn't forget the actors. And I will not sing praises to Statham, because the man is already in his place and everyone knows about him for a long time. I want to point out those who somehow got off the radar of the big movie. Like Josh Hartnett. In the days of Pearl Harbor and Romcoms Zero, he was an obvious star, but gradually disappeared under dubious credits like Slevin's Lucky Number. Not so long ago, the actor recalled himself in the genre of TV series beloved by the modern viewer: in 2014-2016, the project “Scary Tales” was released with him. The company Hartnett in the lead roles were wildly attractive Eva Green and Timothy Dalton. It turned out stylish, atmospheric, beautiful and fascinating. And now the role of Richie is well-chosen and well-played.
Next up is Scott Eastwood. I would not say that the actor uses the name of the legendary father, because he and the charisma is enough to not save in front of Statham (with whom they are familiar on the 8th Furious), and also actively oppose him - a duel worthy of Harry Potter and Voldemort. 10 Gryffindor points! There’s also Eddie Marsan, who’s pretty disgusting in roles like this and his character from Gentlemen.
Taken together, all of the above, under the careful guidance of a professional Richie, allows us to once again saturate ourselves with the magnificence of the action genre and see how an experienced director can show the actor in his place, forcing the viewer to feel them again.
It’s nice to watch the story of the monohero in the real world, with everyday problems and questions a la ' What am I worse than them?' It's all around us.
The main character (H, Ash, H, in short: GG) is a dark horse, gets a job as a collector. Along the way, revealing his skills as a trained fighter and thus attracting unnecessary attention, he waits his time. For what? Of course for revenge. There is no better motivation for a good fighter than revenge.
And at first it really seems that the frame is only for our GG, and the whole world revolves around. But fortunately, that's not true. Each character of the film carries a purpose and function, they are all cogs of the model of modern society.
The motives, goals, background of each person, each side of the conflict will be clear and understandable. No, not chewed, you'll see for yourself. More importantly, who's to blame? Everyone is suspicious, even partners are simple collectors.
As a result, the main antipode is not so different from our GG. But is that obvious? Importantly, GG is not a superhero, every action he takes has consequences, not Mary Sue. GG blood and sweat goes through all the vicissitudes, and helps us to understand everything shown past, future and of course present. Where all the arrows converge and wait for the denouement.
Before going to the movies, I didn’t know what a strange name it was. But if you draw biblical parallels and fantasize - which of the heroes is guilty of what? This is a film about human vices and in this case, anger won.
In theaters released a new film “Wrath of Man”. Guy Ritchie shot it. The credits indicate that this is a remake of the French film Le Convoyeur (Le Convoyeur) in 2004, but in fact the British director completely rewritten the script. Only the basic plot has survived - this is the story of robberies of collector cars.
A brutal man, played by Statham, gets a job as a collector in a private office, where he is nicknamed H (H). H looks like a decent man - he first worked in Europe, and now he moved to America. There is no family, ready to give everything at work.
But some of his colleagues are beginning to feel that H is not who he says he is, his biography is fake, and he is a murky type. And H, it must be said, is a source of suspicion -- he's too good at fighting off criminals.
Before I went to the session, I watched French Le Convoyeur, but it didn't really make sense. “The Collector” is not a bad movie, but it was shot in a completely different manner than Guy Ritchie’s film, and with different accents.
Those who expect a Gentleman-style movie from Human Wrath or Cards, Money, Two Guns may be disappointed. Before us is more of a classic action movie with a slightly worn-out plot. But Guy Ritchie is not only the director of the movie “Big Kush”, but also “Aladdin” and “Sherlock Holmes” – films aimed at a wider audience.
“Human Anger” is built nonlinearly – the director sends us back to the past and back to the present. Moreover, at some point the character of Statham fades into the background, and in the first comes Scott Eastwood, the son of Clint Eastwood.
The trick is that the story is told from several sides at once. First we see the incident with one eye and then with another. It’s well thought out – a significant part of the film is devoted to deepening the story, adding detail and personal motivation to the characters.
Statham plays an emotionally stingy man who can express everything he feels just by looking at his enemy. This is the role he plays in many other films.
The film is filmed in a gloomy scale, as if we see events through a filter, where the colors are muffled. Statham's face is often left in the shadows - a technique designed to emphasize the mystery of his character.
Los Angeles is shown here in a slightly depressing way, this is emphasized by the extended melody on the cello, which will follow the viewer throughout the film.
So what happened? It turned out a good action movie with a touch of psychologicalism, perfectly played and shot.
Due to the dynamic editing, this film looks easier than French, so you can safely skip “Le Convoyeur” and immediately start “Anger” Statham. And he can be angry, believe me.
It’s a rare case of Jeson Statham holding the audience’s attention throughout the film without waving his arms or legs. It really does shoot well.
The negative part of the review. Aesthetic characters after watching the film immediately begin ' torment': ' well, why did the master and genius (Guy Ritchie) decide to go into the orthodox action sea? It is boring, does not make any new discoveries, does not give the sensation of arthouse or surprises'.
And fans of the unburdened action genre will remember the French film 'The Collector'(2004) and even make claims about excessive balancing between everyday life, psychology and action scenes in 'Anger'.
No matter what, this is not ' pure action'. There are mysteries and questions here that eager viewers will want direct and immediate answers to. Why did the hero become a collector? What kind of intelligence is watching him? Who is robbing collectors and why are guards killed? The long wait for easy answers can tire some of the audience.
Where's the joke? Or is there any 'perversion'? That's not in the movie. It's too serious. Only domestic male hamstrings. They are best heard in the original language. In Russian dubbing, their flow disappears.
So, the main controversial statements of the film: money is not important, do not trust anyone, any stupid and independent event can throw your life in the trash. Are these things popular with the public?
The positive part of the review. Simple rustic rocker Jason once made Guy popular. Or vice versa: Guy launched the English village of Jason into world orbit? Through their imagination twisted criminal London of the late 90s. And now, twenty years later, just like the Musketeers, they meet again and work on a new turn of their careers.
What has this movie become? Repeated? A nostalgic poem about long-lived emotions? Neophytes may not understand. In fact, Statham in ' Human Anger' the collective image of many action movie heroes of the 90s.
How can I talk about this movie without spoilers? You just have to watch it. Not high expectations. Let the attitude be: ' well, another opus from Richie and Statham' Then you'll see that ' not another'. And the skill of the director is not worth discussing. In this case, it is taken for granted.
Interestingly, right now, Richie and Statham are busy shooting a new thriller. They say one of the locations is the Emirates. Spy topics.
When you watch a movie with Jason Statham - you expect a good action movie, you see the director - Guy Ritchie - you expect a good plot. Already after the credits you feel a pleasant aftertaste, from the non-banal presentation to the pain of a simple story.
Anger is a fire that burns everything it touches to the end. His destructive line is traced throughout the film, quickly moving like a chain reaction from one character to another. At first, the motive of the main character, a collector named H, becomes clear to you and even in solidarity with him, but then comes the realization that not everyone is able to get so angry. To agree, condemn or rejoice in actions is an open question.
This picture is a vivid example of the fact that the action movie can be loaded not only with a bright picture and a dynamic plot, but also with the deep drama of many characters, whether it is a simple soldier or a hired worker. The director managed to reveal the event from at least 4 different angles. each of them reveals the motive and consequences in its own way.
The film is single-mindedly recommended for viewing by lovers of Guy Ritchie’s work and Jason Stetham’s acting – she plays back, as always at a height. After half an hour of watching the picture, time flies by. . .
Objectively the new Guy Ritchie. This is not an English movie anymore. It's clearly an American movie. From color correction to the story itself. But how about in the film of the favorite director in Russia without a pinch of English style.
Interesting editing, not at all like the previous work of the British. Something from Villeneuve and his "Assassins" clearly. Camera hits, the eye of God, slow turns, broad general plans: the operator has outdone himself. Before that, he participated in such projects as “Aladdin” and “Gentlemen”. This film is clearly progressing for him.
Very capacious dialogue. In a movie like this, they're usually stupid, but this time they're not. In parallel, with a very confident suspense-holding soundtrack, the few words of the characters look appropriate. The music surprised me. Again, it seems like it already was, but it sounds interesting and not a bit boring. The whole film is one musical theme, but it keeps the viewer in the right condition.
Aptly and meaningfully presented characters, even not at all banal.
Statham is, of course, a superhero again, but he's not one of those superheroes who drive cars in the Fast and Furious, he has something like motivation. In some places even full of adequate drama - you can feel human anger.
Clint Eastwood's son began beautifully, even seeming very intriguing in the first few appearances. Finished as usual. Maybe better.
Full of quality 18+ scenes. It's not about action. Again, hello to Villeneuve. In the middle of the film, there are some very high-quality videos. Together with the parallel development of the storylines and closing, in the end, in one – was the peak of interest in the film and pleasure from it. Hello, Dunkirk.
With the ending, unfortunately, did not press, everything rolled down to a banal action movie. But still, some conclusions can be drawn. Maybe we can revisit it someday.
Jason Statham and action movies are synonymous. Since the beginning of zero, this bald head shoots, runs away and gloomyly looks into the soul of his enemies. Guy Ritchie, although he opened this famous actor to the world, never shot him in action films. Now is the time to correct this misunderstanding.
Guy Ritchie conceived to shoot not just a linear action, where Statham's hero will take revenge on someone, but to swing for a whole remake of the French film "The Collector". As in the original, in Anger of Man, a man named H takes a job as a collector at one of the firms. It endures hard times: recently robbers intend to take another million evergreens more often. H. copes with its tasks hurriedly, so the team ripens quite a natural question: who is this new guy? I will not run further - a minefield of spoilers, it is very easy to explode, and to nothing.
"Human Anger" is a model action movie, very, very complex. The script fits individual episodes very carefully, divides the picture into equal chapters. This approach allows you to keep simple intrigue to the final credits.
As for the fighting scenes, Guy Ritchie honed his skills as a battle director in previous works. He's not trying to play realistic here - the wrong kind of movie. If you want to see dynamic shootings, then compliance with all the laws of physics is not necessary.
Perhaps for the first time in his career, Richie made a very traditional movie without any editing tricks. Everything is based solely on the narrative, Statham’s brick face and the general oppressive atmosphere.
This picture is certainly not a new stage in the work of the director and, especially, Jason Statham. However, it is a good and twisted action - moderately brutal. “Human Anger” is a high-quality genre work and a directorial experiment. Such an orthodox action movie in his filmography is not exactly seen.
Imagine this situation. You sit in a comfortable chair, and before you a huge picture with a bunch of things. So you sit down and start looking at this picture. Every minute you see something you haven’t seen before. You change your viewing angle and position and keep finding something new. It is full and multifaceted and you look at it for 2 hours and never tire of finding new angles. So with this movie, plus minus the same story, except you don't have to think and search, it's simple, here you will be shown and told everything. Here's the situation. Robbery of collectors. Now, here's two hours for you to see how it really went for each of the participants. I think it's a pretty exciting experience.
When I came to see this film, I knew it was going to be something like Gai Richevskoye, but I also knew it wasn’t going to be the classic British filmmaker you’re used to seeing on screens. It is, and it is felt from the title credits of the film. They tell you straight: "The film is going to be serious, you don't have to giggle about it." Although the first 15 minutes of the film diligently say the opposite, but no, it is really serious.
Location: sultry Los Angeles, but Guy Ritchie brought his own London to California. The color scheme of the frame is very reminiscent of a cool British morning, even if it happens in the daytime. Gray shades and a persistent feeling that a small rain is about to start drizzling. Here's the British take on L.A., no Hollywood hills, no yellow sand beaches, no bikini girls. But there is a port, cool men and a persistent feeling of morning coolness. Only oatmeal, a little fog outside the window and a football field are missing.
No clips instead of a movie. It feels like Guy Ritchie put a screensaver on his phone during the filming of this picture, because there will not be (possibly loved by you (as well as me)) the corporate style of the director, these cuts and frequent changes of frames, these angles and close-ups, these timelapses and the soundtrack, which can be listened to after watching the film a dozen times. This picture is about serious men, from serious men and it is shot quite seriously and tells a serious story with a serious ending. And in general, everything is so serious that I want to quote the famous character Heath Ledger.
And now what I remember most about this picture. Around the middle of the film there is a close-up by Jason Statham shot in timelapse. It’s literally a few seconds, but it was in those few seconds that I felt like I was in slow-motion mode with the main character of the film. The oil picture: Statham's close-up, timelapse, Guy Ritchie, me... and then I'm 14 again and I'm sitting back and watching Maps, Money, Two Guns and the same Statham and the same timelapse and the same Guy Ritchie and the same me. I don’t think that Ritchie flirted with the audience with this shot (although if it is, it is great), but he managed to awaken something nostalgic in me and I even fell out of everything for a few minutes, remembering my favorite moments from Guy Ritchie’s films.
Overall, it’s not a bad movie (by the way, the special effects and the last shootout really looked very cheerful), but it’s definitely not Gentlemen or Big Kush. Hardly one night, when I get back from work, I'll say, Hmm. Shall I not watch the Wrath of Man?
P.S. The fact that the title of each chapter is pronounced in the dialogues of the characters in its turn, just as the title of each film from the Lord of the Rings trilogy was pronounced in each film, it is fun.
7 out of 10
The film is divided into several chapters. I almost jumped from the first chapter. Statham is handsome, like everyone else in the picture! Continuous male hamstrings. Even the censorship wasn't annoying. The picture, literally, with the go interested, and you sit and want only one thing – continuation!
But it ends and chapter number two begins, then three, four, and so on. And the high that was in the beginning, gradually disappears. It's a shame after that.
The main fault of this is the script. He tries his best to surprise, but does not surprise. He's tiring. Weary that he is oversaturated with his time jumps, in order to try to uncover both sides of the conflict. It may work out, but, here, they decided to score on secondary and neutral characters. Many extra scenes were shown that could be combined into one and spent timekeeping on something else.
There is also a problem with the disclosure of these conflicting parties. It makes it clear that our protagonist is not just a Terminator, he is God himself. He's better at everything. He has no weaknesses. He's got everything! After that, the ending is not predictable, it is not interesting.
The devil is starting to happen with dialogue. They show me grown men, some of them who have passed Afghanistan, and I hear “young morons,” and I even see two. It was said several times, loud and clear, “We are soldiers!” What soldiers are you?! I don't want to believe that Guy Ritchie wrote the dialogue. In the first chapter, it is immediately heard even with our censorship.
Sad to know that Guy Ritchie is not Quentin Tarantino.
7 out of 10
9/10 - after all, "Gentlemen" was a thunder among the clear sky, after them the bar is raised incredibly.
I already wrote in the review of “Gentlemen” that it is stupid to talk about the quality of the film in the context of personal expectations: I was waiting for Richie 20 years ago, I wanted him to shoot again “Big jackpot”, and then climbed new actors, some new plots and motives, the music is strange and it’s all wrong. I want to repeat it here, to make it clearer: every new film of any director is a new stage of his development, an indicator of what he caught new in everyday life and his environment, what his muse suggested to him, if you will. Not how well he can copy himself.
What did I think and feel while watching Human Wrath? First of all, as not a special fan of detective thrillers, action and similar to them, I was surprised at how much Richie mastered his craft! He showed how neat, calibrated and attractive the genre can be, if you just work a little more carefully on the script and do not try to stuff nauseating self-assured phrases into the speeches of the characters. Every expression of anger is pure organic. There is no question why Statham is absolutely not funny when he pronounces the phrase “I am an angry person” quite seriously and brutally. You don’t even think about it, you just learn and believe.
The story that Sir Ritchie put into the film is simple enough to understand, but it’s something new in his work. Previously, there were no family stories in his films, his father’s attachment to his children, the motive for revenge for loved ones appeared recently in Gentlemen. I think these facts reflect just the growing up of Richie-man: he has long been a deeply family man, he has a wife, three young children, who, I think, opened us such a fatherly awe in relation to children and in the work of the director. As, by the way, this is reflected in the game of Statham, who recently became a father and he very much understands the pain of his character.
There are no questions about the motivation and actions of the main character: once in a similar situation, a person with the capabilities of the main character would not “moderate” and restrain himself in expressing his righteous human anger. And here no one has the right to tell a parent how to love his child, how to show his love.
By the way, biblical references in such a seemingly non-religious film look very relevant and curious. For example, Richie himself says that the film purposefully shows at least 5 deadly sins. And the name “human anger” brings certain associations. By the way, it should not be perceived one-sidedly, as the definition of the feelings of the hero Statham. The same human anger is experienced by the main antagonists of the film: they literally went through hell in their past life, and received nothing as a reward for this, there was no lot left, forgotten by both God and the inhabitants of the earth. And so their anger turned not into revenge, but into greed, blinding and destroying.
Of course, Ritchie can’t make a film with deep content without the appropriate form. The picture is verified no less than the script, the opening credits in the Bond style look spectacular, again in the style of Richie, and the signature sound of his films is again above all praise - both soundtracks and sound montage are good.
You can include internal critics as much as you like, express your fi, doubt what you see, but to deny the Director’s skill, his professionalism and ability to work with the material he chooses for himself, to deny it is ridiculous, but also sad and sad.
The new film of the unique Guy Ritchie is waiting for us on the big screens.
1. Did the movie turn out well?
I can't say this is Richie's best work. The film turned out to be as Hollywood and minimally English, if you know what I mean.
However, for action fans, the film will definitely go, two hours pass in one breath.
And the persona of Guy Ritchie, of course, adds a typical action movie with Statham (or Stetham, if you are so familiar) a kilogram of raisins:
Excellent dialogue.
- Humor and irony!
- Nonlinearity of time.
- A twisted plot.
- Excellent camera work.
- An amazing soundtrack.
Perfect selection of actors.
- Development and disclosure of characters.
I can also mention many biblical and philosophical references: about the meaning of life, about courage, about revenge, about the ability to be strong.
I’ll stop there so I don’t spoil it!
2. Is it worth watching a movie?
Here is the unambiguous and uncompromising 'DA'.
The movie looks great in the movies! Continuous action, chases, robberies, chic sound – all this is difficult to appreciate even in a well-prepared home theater.
On the big screen, the film looks incredibly impressive. Thank you 'Kinomax Samara' for such a great opportunity!
3. Did I like the movie personally?
To avoid spoilers, I will answer this question like this.
Let’s say there are 10 parameters for evaluating films of this genre. And for 9 parameters, I really liked the film. One by one, no. If you’ve already seen the movie, guess which one?
In fact, I would be very interested to know if I was the only one who caught the eye of this moment, or are there many such connoisseurs?
7 out of 10
Guy Ritchie is a talented clipmaker and director with a worldwide reputation, who does not need special introduction. The last ten years of his career, Richie devoted himself to studio projects, which brought him not only solid earnings and connections, but also experience. So, 15 years after Revolver and about the same time since the premiere of Rock and Roller, Richie has finally returned to work on his films primarily as a writer, not as a director for hire. And if last year’s “Gentlemen”, which overnight became a cult hit, demonstrated the entire current arsenal of Richie’s skill, then with “Wrath of Man” the situation is very ambiguous.
“Human Anger” is the most predictable and banal action film about how one person takes revenge on another for the death of his son. Yes, brutally, yes, the whole action is presented very realistically, which makes screen violence look naturalistic in some places. But the plot itself is as hackneyed as possible. However, as practice shows, with such a plot can work and submit interesting. As an example, in 2010, director Kim Jin-un released the film “I Saw the Devil”, in which the author presented revenge as a phenomenon that can bring nothing but pain, showing the main character in tears in the finale of the tape deprived of satisfaction from revenge. This can be regarded as an author’s view or a comment on the topic, but Richie has the opposite – he does not comment on what is happening, dryly and very schematically showing the path of the hero moving towards justice, like a machine.
The plot literally looks like this: a calculated, concentrated and very executive middle-aged man is arranged in a collection company under the pseudonym H. His main task in his new job is to protect money, which he successfully does. However, the mysterious image of the protagonist gradually begins to collapse, and the viewer reveals the true motives of H. One fateful day, his only and beloved son went to the wrong place and at the wrong time – he unwittingly witnessed the robbery of a collection car, which resulted in the murder of two employees of the company and his son H.
There are no questions to Jason Statham himself - the actor ate the dog a long time ago on the images of cool guys who can single-handedly carve out half of the metropolis if desired. Looks and plays Statham to become a hero - looking around angry. However, from the duo Statham-Ritchie, the viewer expects something more than another domination of the unkilled protagonist over the bad guys. Still, Statham played his best role in his career with Richie. Waiting for another art house in the manner of Revolver, of course, is stupid. But to see how Statham crushes right and left scoundrels through the prism of the author’s vision of Richie would also be interesting, right?
The most important problem of the tape is its playful seriousness and attempts of Richie to make a picture in the manner of the action movie of the 90s without a share of irony. "Human Wrath" takes as a basis the familiar plot of any B-category tape about a cool hero and does not play with him. As an example, Ilya Naishuller in the recent “Nobody” did not bring anything new to the genre, but he was able to breathe life into the film due to the same irony, humor and references to classic action films, skillfully mixing them. Richie tries to walk the trodden path from the past, not adding anything from himself, as if he himself did not care about his own work.
Especially hardcore fans of Guy Ritchie, of course, will be able to get a certain pleasure from the clip editing of the director, but episodes in which he would show those very chips, in the tape the cat cried. But Ritchie grew up in terms of staging action scenes – he very competently places emphasis on locations, for example. In "Anger" there are enough one-frame scenes shot at a wide angle from the stedicam. Their main task is to guide the viewer through the locations so that he clearly understands where a particular room is, who can sit there and what is behind this or the next door. And even though there is only one major shootout in the film - it looks great.
The last 30 minutes of the film are able to keep the viewer in such tension that he will hardly breathe while watching. It’s like Richie grabs the viewer by the throat abruptly, and then slowly squeezes him with every minute more and more, not letting go to the very credits. And all because Richie competently throughout the entire timekeeping brings the viewer to the final clash of the good and bad. In this regard, there are no special claims to the picture regarding the motives, goals and tasks of the characters - everything is literally laid out on shelves. The viewer understands both those and others, which means he has only one thing left to watch what is happening and enjoy a qualitatively staged, skillfully mounted and filmed action.
But the picture seems to gnaw its way through the tones of boring and similar scenes to the climax. Statham's hero, obsessed with justice, does his best to find his son's killers. Dos as meditative and cold as possible, mostly waiting for fate to finally throw his main enemy on a platter. And the viewer at the same time is endlessly waiting for the beginning of any action, because the film is not able to surprise somehow from the point of view of the script. Even Richie's signature sharp dialogues are gone, and the characters mostly talk about nothing. And not like Tarantino, whose people also talk about nothing often, but very exciting.
"Human Wrath" is not a bad movie, but it's not a good movie either - it's stuck somewhere in the middle. The film is more like a restoration of the main clichés of action fighters from the late 90s and early 00s than a meaningful work of art. Often it even seems that he was shot on the script of the character Hugh Grant from “Gentlemen” – so the movie turned out to be plastic in places. In a very crumpled, raw and very narrow scenario, in which events go one by one without any logic. Here is a scene in the bar: the heroes are resting, then gluing: a collection car goes down the highway, then another gluing and now the heroes are thinking how to save a comrade who was taken hostage.
Perhaps Ritchie himself could not decide what movie he wanted to make in the end. Stupid action fighter? Too serious and with an attempt to go into drama, pulling the blanket over himself in action scenes. An author's drama about the antihero and the problems of the working class of Americans? Too stupid, flat and crumpled. But Richie can work in both genres. "Human anger" was more of an unfortunate picture than a bad one.
6 out of 10