The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare

Is The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare a good movie despite lower than expected box office results?

Featured image

The Good: The first thing that stood out to me while watching this movie is how well the casting was. I just loved how each actor was able to make their character so interesting and unique in a way that I don’t think another actor could have. Henry Cavil being the rebellious leader was perfect, Alan Ritchson playing the bloodthirsty warrior, and Eiza González being the seductive spy. The casting was perfect, and it made the movie so much fun to watch

Besides having a very stacked cast, this movie has one of the most interesting stories behind it. The fact that this movie is based on events that happened in WWII that didn’t get declassified until the mid-late 2010’s when Churchill’s notes/diaries became more widely public is incredible. This is the story that I would have loved to have learned about WWII in school, and I’m so glad the decided not only to make a movie about it, but that they made a great movie about it.

What I love about Guy Ritchie movies is that he is able to create a movie that is not only enjoyable story-wise but also one that is visually distinct. Ritchie knows how to shoot on location and make it extremely beautiful to watch. The opening scene they are on an actual boat, and by the end they are shooting in an actual remote town. He is able to not only know how to use each location to his advantage, but he also knows when it is good to put in a wide shot to show how beautiful the shooting location is as well. All of this compounds when you see how he uses color in his shots too. Each color pops so much, this may be one of the best looking movies I’ve ever seen in regard to color.

The Meh: There was nothing in the movie that made me dislike it, rather it was the R rating. After having a lot of fun with the movie, I really wish that I could tell other people to go and watch it. The problem is, it’s rated R, and it’s barely rated R at that. The R rating is for strong violence and some language. Language wise, there really isn’t much with only 2 f-bombs and a few other curse words here or there. As for the violence, there is some, but it’s mainly centered around the beginning and end of the movie. I have seen PG-13 movies with more violence, so I assume that the reason it got the R rating is (1) because of blood, which usually is the key factor in changing ratings, and (2) that Anders (Alan Ritchson’s character) holds a human heart in one scene. The only issue with that is, there wasn’t really much blood in the movie and you could barely see the heart on the screen. The scenes that would have shown the most blood are shown from afar or are obfuscated by other objects, and the only time blood is really shown is on clothes. If they would have cut down 1 of the f-bombs and not show Anders holding a heart, I think they could have fought for a PG-13 rating. With a PG-13 rating, this movie and story could be so much more accessible, especially for the youth. This movie is a ton of fun, and fun that tells a very unique story about WWII, so why not make it more accessible so more can see it.

The Bad: This movie is not bad in the slightest. It is so much fun to watch.

Overall: Besides wishing this movie had a PG-13 rating, this is one of the most fun movies that I have seen this year. It is very funny, visually beautiful, and the actors do such a good job at bringing each character to life. It is action packed, and this is definitely Guy Ritchie at his finest.

Rating: 4.5/5