We are all accustomed to the fact that Guy Ritchie is the creator, first of all, of aesthetic cinema. A movie with elegant script twists, witty dialogues, and its own special atmosphere. And then he suddenly took and filmed a standard action movie. About how a tough guy takes revenge for his dead son. And with Jason Statham in the title role. 
In his usual role as a lone hero.
The audience was divided exactly in half, judging by the reviews of the film. Some considered “Wrath of Man” the director’s worst work. Like, how could a film aesthete film such a hack? So simple and frankly commercial. Especially after such a masterpiece as “The Gentlemen”. This is not a Guy Ritchie film, but an action movie with Jason Statham. Other viewers, on the contrary, did not skimp on their praises. Richie, they say, re-thrilled his signature director's cocktail. I made it accessible and created my best movie.
In fact, neither one nor the other is right. The film is far from the best, but by no means the worst in the director’s career. This is a strong crime film about revenge and justice, which has its own style and a clear author's handwriting. And Guy Ritchie has made commercial films before. And he did great.
And who better than him to star Jason Statham in his films. After all, it was he who discovered this wonderful actor to the world. So why don't they work together again? And why not use him in the role in which the actor looks best. Moreover, Richie also directed him in his next film, Operation Fortune: The Art of Victory. By the way, stylistically more familiar to the director’s fans. 
“Human wrath” is far from being as simple as it seems at first glance. The film is a remake of the 2004 French film The Collector. However, Guy Ritchie radically changed the script and presented this story in his own way. The first half of the film was generally beyond all praise.
A brutal, taciturn man, Patrick Hill, nicknamed H, gets a job as a cash collector. He looks like a completely ordinary person. He worked in Europe, and now moved to America. No family, completely ready to devote myself to work. But his colleagues categorically do not like him. Somewhat muddy. Cocky, uncommunicative. And when the cash-in-transit vehicle is attacked by robbers, he copes with them too well. Too cool for a simple collector. 
This is the plot of the story. Further, the linear narrative takes a sharp turn to the side, crumbling into separate plot chapters. And the director seems to reassemble these flashbacks, fragment by fragment. Until all the elements of the mosaic are assembled into a single puzzle.
Guy Ritchie deliberately complicates the plot. And he does it in a foppishly cool way: in his signature machismo style. He fills the initially simple, predictable and straightforward action with plot overtones and nuances. For example, the scene of the robbery of cash collectors is shown from three opposite sides. From the inside - from the point of view of the collectors themselves. Then we see the same scene through the eyes of the main character. Finally, we are shown it from the robbers' side. The motivation of each character becomes clear. 
Scott Eastwood, who looked so much like his father in his youth, looked great as the antagonist
The final part of the film is somewhat disappointing, representing a sharp contrast with the dramatic first part. On the one hand, there is a lot of action here, and the adrenaline is off the charts in every frame. But on the other hand, the plot, which is catchy with its twists, sharply straightens out like an arrow in the finale. And a spicy, spiced genre dish turns into outright meat. 
However, this did not make the film any worse. Hasn't lost any of the passion. Guy Ritchie simply used accessible artistic means. Skillfully juggling cliches, he created a living human story. Of flesh and emotion. Showed how attractive the action genre can be. And he proved that he is still a master of his craft, masterfully mastering the material. Player of the highest director's league. Whether someone liked his new movie or not is a matter of taste.
0 comments
