Sonic Cinema

Sounds, Visions and Insights by Brian Skutle

Operation Fortune: Ruse de guerre

Grade : B+ Year : 2023 Director : Guy Ritchie Running Time : 1hr 54min Genre : , ,
Movie review score
B+

Guy Ritchie has always excelled most when he’s dealing with crime and spy craft. He got snatched up- pardon the phrase- by the studio machine after his “Sherlock Holmes” films for things like “Aladdin” and “King Arthur,” but “The Gentlemen” showed just how much more engaging he is a filmmaker and storyteller when he’s giving us a comedic piece of action escapism. His delayed “Operation Fortune” is more in the vein of “The Gentlemen” and (from my understanding) his “Man From U.N.C.L.E.”, and I enjoyed the ride every step of the way.

Jason Statham has always been one of those action stars on the fringe of blockbuster success rather than being a megastar himself. You can put him in a film like “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels,” “The Italian Job” or the “Transporter” films and he’ll add something to the film, but you shouldn’t expect him to be a big draw. Ensembles is ultimately where he operates best, and Ritchie has shown that several times over the years. Here, Statham is at the center of the action as Orson Fortune- a secret agent who is tasked to stop an arms sale of new, dangerous technology- and while he’s ultimately the muscle, he’s not doing everything alone. His handler (Cary Elwes, having a blast) has put together a team including JJ (Bugzy Malone) to help support matters and Sarah (Aubrey Plaza), an American computer expert who can get him in the door when he needs it. Why do they need a Hollywood actor (Danny Francesco, played by Josh Hartnett)? Because he’s a way to get them in with billionaire Greg Simmonds (Hugh Grant), who might be a part of the sale.

Part of the reason this film has been delayed was because Ukrainian mobsters are the villains of the film, and the studio wanted to put some distance between the film and the start of Russia’s war against Ukraine before release. It’s hard to imagine that anyone will be thinking about that as they watch the film, as Ritchie basically flies by the specifics of the plot and lets the cast just chew the scenery and look great- and sound funny- doing it. I have to admit, I love that Hugh Grant has become a suave asshole for Guy Ritchie rather than just leaning into romantic comedies. He’s clearly having a ball, and seeing him play a billionaire bullshitting his way through the arms trade, and bouncing off of Plaza and Hartnett is one of the great pleasures in this film. As much as I enjoy the movie as a whole, those three just take things up a notch.

It’s interesting that Ritchie hasn’t made a James Bond film- though some people floated his name after “Man From U.N.C.L.E.”- because he has a real sense of set pieces that follow the mechanics of plots that follow a specific set of conventions. I wouldn’t mind him doing one, as I think he’d bring some juice and personality that might be necessary after the self-contained Daniel Craig era. In Statham’s Fortune, he’s created a character that is suave but also is believable in a fight. In Elwes’s Nathan, we get a great M-riff as the person just responsible enough for things moving smoothly but also capable of diverting responsibility when necessary. The team is more in the “Mission: Impossible” formula than Bond, but the ways everyone fits in would makes you think the key relationships for 007 would be just right. I wouldn’t put “Fortune” with the best of Bond, but films like this and “The Gentlemen” make me excited to see what he could do with the franchise.

Ritchie is one of those filmmakers whom I’ve always tried to keep one eye on over the years. Yes, his early films like “Lock Stock” and “Snatch” felt like British Tarantino riffs, but they showed a voice that even came out loud and clear in a studio franchise like “Sherlock Holmes.” I didn’t dislike “Aladdin,” but he wasn’t able to bring anything unique to that studio retread, and what I have seen of his I’ve really liked has felt like a natural evolution from those early films albeit with a bit more polish. I hope to catch up with some of his I’ve missed over the years, and I hope that- moving forward (once he’s done with “Hercules” for Disney)- he continues to lean into the voice that made me pay attention in the first place.

Leave a Reply