By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=67212645

I have liked Jason Statham since first seeing him in Ghosts of Mars. Not a great movie. Not a terrible one. But there was something about Statham’s performance that appealed to me. The very next year, I saw him in The Transporter. Incredible aciton thriller. Low to moderate budget. Not the greatest editing. But the story and action were amazing.

Since then, I have seen 29 more of his movies. So how did his latest rate? I really liked it. Directed by Guy Ritchie means it is going to be a little off center in its telling. Which wasn’t a problem. The story builds. Then it jumps back to get some history. Then it goes foward with a different focus. All these parts merge into the central storyline. If you’re not paying attention, I can see how it can be confusing to some.

Over on the movie review-aggregration site Rotten Tomatoes, the film comes in with a 66% rating—just above passing for them. However, the audience score (which is what I am always more interested in) came in at 91%. In other words, it was found to be enjoyable and entertaining to 9 out of every 10 dentists—wait a minute…that’s another product line, isn’t it?

That is how I judge a movie. Was I entertained? Did it keep me from talking to my neighbor in the theater and disturbing their evening? Yes. It did. And I think I only reclined my comforatble seat in a nearly empty theater once. The rest of the time, I was sitting up, paying attention. I will sometimes read a movies critic’s review of a film and wonder if some of those people are just bitter because they didn’t make it in the movie business.

When I shell out $26 for two tickets (not including soda and a popcorn), I am not going to a movie to feel some existential connection or to discovery the meaning of life. I don’t even care if it is believable. I just want to be entertained and feel like I didn’t throw away my money. And Wrath of Man aptly filled that need.