Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre review: Guy Ritchie delivers exactly what you’d expect
Jason Statham, Aubrey Plaza, and Hugh Grant bring the laughs and play to their strengths in the director's latest spy caper
Film Reviews Guy Ritchie
Guy Ritchie’s movies are recognizable for a few things. A team of some sort groups together for a mission. They could be gangsters or spies or a combination of both. The team’s comprised of mostly men, though sometimes a woman or two is included. Some or all on the team are British with some distinctive accents and they like to spar verbally with each other. Their adventures take them to some exotic locales, there’s some nifty choreographed action and a few car chases. Everything is light, sprite, and a fun ride. No one gets hurt except the bad guys, and our heroes always win and continue to snap jokingly at each other. With the exception of some forays into big studio movies (Aladdin, King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword), Ritchie has followed this formula in all his movies, starting with his debut, Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels (1998).
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Ritchie doesn’t change much in his latest, Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre. He brings back his merry band of actors he’s worked with before: Jason Statham (Revolver, Wrath Of Man), Hugh Grant (The Man From U.N.C.L.E., The Gentlemen), and Josh Hartnett (Wrath Of Man). He also adds two newcomers to the Ritchie company who are well versed in quick-witted repartee, Aubrey Plaza and Cary Elwes. The plot almost doesn’t even matter; Ritchie’s fans know exactly what they’re in for. For the record, the story involves Statham, Plaza, and Bugzy Malone (The Gentlemen) as operatives in a shadowy British government agency who are tasked by their boss (Elwes) to infiltrate the inner circle of an international arms dealer (Grant). To that end, they recruit a movie star (Hartnett), who happens to be the arms dealer’s idol. Chaos ensues henceforth.
All the ingredients are here. British accents abound; from Elwes’ clipped English to Grant’s over-the-top Cockney. The snappy dialogue is full of sexual innuendo and mildly threatening one-upmanship. Throw in a couple of silly character names (Statham’s eponymous Orson Fortune and Hartnett’s Danny Francesco) and the laughs come easy. Nothing and no one is serious and that’s all intentional and fun.
The comedy comes from the quick dialogue and the expert delivery of the actors. But it’s also in the characters. Take Statham’s Fortune, for example. He has many phobias and is particular about how he travels (only on private jets). He also loves very expensive wine. He’s so extravagant that he threatens to bankrupt the agency. The script gives Fortune these characteristics so the other actors can tease him about them while he maintains his deadpan facial expression. Imagine if Statham had been called upon to have an accent other than his own or to actually emote; the film would’ve been in deep trouble. And this is part of why Statham works so well here, he’s here to deliver his persona, not an actual character.
Grant, on the other hand, delivers a fantastic character performance. He works from the outside in, giving his nefarious arms dealer a rather frightening tan and that aforementioned accent. His line deliveries vary from genuinely scary when he’s threatening his adversaries, to earnestly admiring when talking to Hartnett, to flirty when he’s with Plaza. Grant is so committed that he throws off the balance of the ensemble because no one else is as good as he is. Everyone else understood the assignment correctly as light and easy.
In addition to the fast dialogue, there’s fast action. Ritchie knows how to shoot a foot chase through a labyrinthine location: the way he cuts from one operative to the other in their pursuit of the mission builds tension and provides thrills. However, as the film barrels on, things do get repetitive, and it doesn’t help that the “McGuffin” being pursued needs a convoluted explanation. Ritchie also resorts to too many of the requisite car chases and shootouts when that’s not what distinguishes his movies.
For the most part, Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre is a fun time at the movies. There’s laughter, action, and movie stars playing to their strengths. It’s exactly what audiences expect to see from Ritchie and that’s its main selling point. If only the second hour was tighter, maintaining the film’s fast rhythm.
56 Comments
This was trailed heavily in UK cinemas many months back, implying an imminent release, and then it was pulled from the schedules entirely because the bad guys are Ukrainian.Weak.
It was scheduled to come out days after Russia’s invasion. Releasing it then would have been pretty awkward.
Oh I don’t necessarily blame them for pulling it. What is annoying though is that it’s not getting a UK cinema release at all.
Oh, well, that’s surprising and worth complaining about.
That’s actually in all likelihood, false. This movie’s distributor was bought out by another company in November, and the film was floating in space until Lionsgate came along and bought the rights.
It was the reported reason, but in fairness it was reported by The Daily Mail.
C’mon, if you’re going to pull examples of previous collaborations for Statham how do you not go with Snatch, Ritchie’s best movie??Anyway, I’m always up for his work when it’s NOT one of those big studio productions so this is definitely going on the list.
How would they expect readers to remember Snatch instead of… Revolver.
Revolver is the only film to stump me when it comes to describing what the plot is. Truly the worst film Guy Ritchie has made, which is pretty amazing considering he also made Swept Away.
Snatch is GREAT movie.
Pitt’s best work as well.
Completely agree.
Snatch is great but I prefer Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. I like both but Snatch is like when a punk band makes a heavily produced album and Lock Stock was more DIY.
I won’t argue with that, it’s a great caper movie that relies a bit less on quirky characters than Snatch. It also used an unknown cast that included Statham’s first screen appearance so that’s hard to beat.
Yeah, reasonable people can disagree about which order to put them in. Personally, I have to give the edge to Snatch because Alan Ford is in both, and Brick Top is one of those indelible villain characters that elevate a decent action/crime drama into a phenomenon you tell all your friends about, whereas his character in Lock Stock is just kind of there.
Lock Stock is Definitely Maybe to Snatch’s (What’s The Story) Morning Glory?.Both are good, but the first one has a rawness that the second lacks.
Which is a bit ironic, considering Lock Stock is the one that has Sting in it.
“The Gentlemen” is up there, too. It looks like it’s properly well rated on IMDb, but it’s one that I don’t feel a lot of people have seen.
I enjoyed it, but it felt a bit like an imitation of an early Richie movie. Tremendous cast.
It’s worth it to just watch Hugh Grant chew the fuck out of the scenery. If “Playing A Cartoonishly Douchey Hollywood Producer” was the draw that got such a great performance out of American actor Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder, “Playing A Massive Slimeball Fleet Street Tabloid Reporter” is what got Hugh into the role. You know they were both channeling the same sorts of experiences.
Grant felt a lot like a couple of his characters from Cloud Atlas, especially the nuclear power company CEO. That’s not a complaint – I love how he’s subverted his floppy, awkward nice guy persona with these kinds of roles.
His role in The Gentlemen made me think of him more as Brad Pitt: the character actor stuck in a leading man’s body, and thus pigeonholed. “No, no, Mr. Grant, that- that take’s…fine. But maybe for this one we could try being a stammering, awkward, floppy guy. You know. The kinda guy who would just die of pure English embarrassment if you asked him what the time was and he realised his watch was broken. Someone less threatening than a deflated beach ball in a glass case in a museum that has a security guard standing next to it.”“We’re not using the first take, are we?”“We are not. Stopped the camera rolling halfway through to save film, in fact.”
Its great, and worth it purely for Colin Farrell ‘s scenes .” C’mon lads!!’ are you going to try to stab me , or bore me to death or what??’ alone.
Absolutely; you get a really specific (if twisted) sense of place and culture in Snatch. Haven’t seen that in his work since if I’m being honest. He reached for but didn’t find it with RocknRolla.
Guy Ritchie directing Aladdin feels like a fucking fever dream. And I watched it.
we all did. And it was not worth our time.
Some day, Disney will consign the live-action remakes of classic cartoons to the same dark hole where “Song of the South” is kept. Some day soon.
One can hope. With the exception of the jungle book, that one just worked for me.
I know that Paul Rudd is sort of the standard for ageless, Dorian Gray-esque actors, but Jason Statham appears not to have changed in any way for at least 20 years.
Dude’s got lotsa quarters, he keeps using that dang face-off machine.
His turn in Spy is one of the most hilarious things ever to happen in a Paul Feig movie.
Also, this following film clip may be – I’m not entirely sure, hard to tell, they totally don’t make it obvious – about shrooms:
Kinda the opposite to Rudd in the sense that Statham looked 40 twenty years ago and hasn’t changed whereas Rudd still looks 30.
They let Josh Harnett be in movies again? That’s cool I never really had a strong opinion on him other than I kinda liked Lucky Number Slevin.
He was in Ritchie’s Wrath of Man as well, which was also not bad.
Josh Hartnett pretended he quit Hollywood, then he slunk back and has been making mostly (more) garbage ever since…boring himbo
Hartnett was oddly charming in Penny Dreadful. I mean, yeah, hard to notice because Eva Green was there, but he did fine.
Penny Dreadful really brought me around on Hartnett.
Same here. You look at that fantastic cast and wonder what he’s doing there, but he acquitted himself quite well.
Hartnett says two words in that movie that have stayed with me ever since: “Bad Dog.”
I think Ritchie fucking sucks and is a hack, but I am wondering how Plaza is in this because she has been on such a tear lately.It was around the time that Hugh Grant started playing cads instead of milquetoasts that it became apparent how good he is (might have earlier if I’d been paying attention). I saw Paddington 2 recently and his commitment to the part really makes a tired trope brand new again (also fun in the “could never be made today” Cloud Atlas)
The answer is almost certainly a combination of $$$ and “it would be fun to work with these actors/director” and “it would be fun to be in a movie like this”. “This movie will be good” probably didn’t enter into it.
I was asking “how” not “why”…she’s getting paid to run around shooting guns…I’d be in a hacky Guy Ritchie movie, what do you thing internet anonymity is for :PPlaza has clearly been working to expand her perceived range in her recent projects and has been doing a good job of it
The real question is not “how” or “why”, but … uh … “which”?
well, I suppose it was “how was her performance in this” not “how was she in this” which could have meant “why”
He’s also great in The Undoing, opposite Nicole Kidman, as a charming potentially murderous, potentially insane, cad. Has that great “this guy is just forcing his considerable charisma on everyone, who knows what he actually wants or is actually capable of” energy.
I mean, yes, but everybody knows what the problem with that series was so I won’t bother possibly spoiling it for anybody
I liked it! It was a little pulpy, but filled the same craving as Big Little Lies.
“I think Ritchie fucking sucks and is a hack”I wonder how someone say that about a man who directed and written movies such as : Lock Stock and a smoking barrel, Snatch, Rock n Rolla or the Gentlemen.And directed big budgets movies like both Sherlock Holmes, Man from Uncle or King Arthur.Directing a movie is a very hard job, and to get there, even a mediocre director needs to have more talent than 99% of the directors who are trying to make it in the industry. Ritchie has his own distinctive directing and writing style, which you obviously dislike (which is totally okay btw), but it is not something to overlook, as most directors barely manage to copy what others do.So I guess for people like you anybody can be a Spielberg or a Scorsese if they try hard enough, and should be considered a hack if they don’t.
That’s completely inaccurate. 99% of movies and TV could have no director (as in the DP would set up the shot and the 1st AD would control everything) and there would be no difference. And Guy Ritchie sucks and is a hack.
It sounds like you know a lot about Hollywood and filmmaking, clearly more than me despite my experience, I should defer to your suppositional supremacy.
My theory: this film flopped because Plaza is a fappening hag.
I’m not watching no ‘sophisticated’ French movie with no subtitles, no way.
“British accents abound”I don’t understand why this is thing. Of-fucking-course “British” accents are gonna be in this; the actors are fucking British, playing British characters.Genuinely, this is the most randomly inconsequential thing to warrant even a second of deliberation as to whether to make it part of a review or not.“American accents abound in ‘Heat’, Michael Mann’s latest movie full of American actors playing American characters”.It’s just such an odd thing to decide to bring up.