User reviews

Some good performances and a good story but it's let down by poor pacing and an almost complete lack of flair. It's feels like an 'action movie by numbers'. It doesn't have the charm of Kelly's Heroes, the dignity of The Guns of Navarone, the credibility of The Longest Day or the sheer star power and likeability of The Great Escape. If you're bored and want to watch Alan Ritchson play a Scandinavian Jack Reacher going on a nazi killing spree with the help of some friends then you might enjoy it. The fact that it's based on true events doesn't make it feel any more believable than any number of b-movie war films. It *could* have been great but it's a misfire. Perhaps a director who approached the subject more seriously would have had more success. Guy Ritchie seemed torn between doing a 'proper' war movie and doing his usual stylish blokey silliness, and the result is that this is neither.

The absolute worst thing about it is Rory Kinear who is horribly miscast as Winston Churchill. He's shocking. He looks nothing like him, despite mountains of prosthetics and he sounds like a northern comic doing a bad impression.

This movie was kind of what I expected it to be. As of recently guy Ritchie has had a habit of frequently pumping out mediocore action films. But this one takes the cake. There were good elements. Henry Cavill was really good and without a doubt carried this movie.

And he worked really well with his co-actors, most of who were extremely unremarkable. This movie also gives us what is probably the worst Churchill preformance ever. It was kinda predictable but at the same time its "based" on a true story. But my god it was horribly written. When Churchill said "what are you, some sort of ministry of ungentlemanly warfare" I felt my last brain cells die. 6.3/10.

The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare is directed by Guy Ritchie and stars Henry Cavil. It is (very) loosely based on a true story of a British WW2 covert operation called 'Operation Postmaster'. And the film is advertised as a 'Spy Action Comedy'....

I have to admit I'm not a huge Guy Ritchie fan (except for the Sherlock Holmes movies, which Robert Downey Jr. Really brought alive). And the fact that they messed around with what was already a totally remarkable TRUE story, I find strange. Personally, I would have much preferred a straight up historical action / drama / thriller than what is essentially an over the top gorefest. This is as much a WW2 movie as 'Overlord' (think zombies on D-Day). Stranger is that they show the true actual heroes at the end of the movie, goodness knows what their families think of being linked to this fantasy.

It's really not awful, it's a mindless action romp with a huge body count. As some have noted, the dialogue is smug and annoying in equal measure. The shots of sets and extras are all done well though and as you can see from the extremes of the reviews it is the kind of film to polarise opinion.

I enjoyed it, but was just disappointed it veered so far away from what is actually a truly remarkable historical event. But the fashion at the moment seems to be away from this type of movie making.

6/10.

Let me start with the positives.

Like most Guy Ritchie films, the ensemble has great chemistry. Henry Cavill doesn't disappoint, he keeps the pace going and interactions between everyone fun to watch. Alan Ritchson does great as a force of nature, dude is built like a tank. Babs Olusanmokun is slick, he has a very smooth demeanor to his performance. Lastly, Eiza Gonzalez is absolutely beautiful, however her performance was hit or miss for me. But she hit more than she missed.

Now, the negatives.

The movie doesn't feel like it was even made by Guy Ritchie. Instead it feels like someone else were trying to make a "Guy Ritchie" film.

I would watch it again, but it is not in my recommendation list if I were to convince someone to get into Guy Ritchie films.

And it honestly should have been. With this nice ensemble and decent budget, great production design, and a director who in theory definitely should have the chops, THE MINISTRY OF UNGENTLEMANLY WARFARE had everything it needed and more.

And yet, it misses the mark. Much of it has to do with the direction, I'm afraid. A lack of spirit and inspiration can be felt throughout the film, sometimes worse than other times, but neither the shots he called nor his direction of the actors are worthy of Ritchie's potential. The script could have used a bit more polishing, especially concerning the dialogue, but it's really mostly the practical aspects where this falls flat.

If you're a native German speaker, you will also notice how bad the fake Germans actually are. They should have been dubbed, but nobody seemed to care. Even Til Schweiger messed up some lines in German (probably drunk on set, as usual) - nobody cared.

What also made the film worse than it could have been is the score. Someone told the composer to go for "Schifrin meets Morricone", I guess, and what he delivered was a weak attempt at copying both. No swing, no drama, no feeling whatsoever. Just flat and boring, matching the direction perfectly.

That being said, you can still kill a bit of time watching this, since Cavill, Ritchson, et al are very likeable and have a lot of charming presence. Locations are nice, the DoP did a great job with the lighting, and Eiza González has a great singing performance (refreshingly with no audible pitch correction, but as a professional singer with an amazing voice she really doesn't need any), even though the arrangement and interpretation of the famous "Mack The Knife" is quite horrible.

But if anything, this has made me wish for a more silly WW2 comedy with Cary Elwes in the lead. I'd buy that for a dollar.

Guy Ritchie's "Ungentlemanly Warfare" is based, kinda, on the true exploits of Britain's Special Operations Executive (SOE) during World War II. Unsurprisingly, given Ritchie's involvement, liberties have been taken with the story.

The SOE existed to operate behind enemy lines, committing sabotage and various other acts considered ungentlemanly by the upper crust officers who ran the conventional army. In 1942, England was starving and its army could not be resupplied because German U-boats owned the seas. With the blessing of Winston Churchill, the commander of the SOE sent a team to destroy the Duchessa d'Aosta, a supply ship that supplied all the carbon dioxide filters for the U-boats. These filters permitted these submarines to remain submerged for prolonged periods. By disabling the supply ship, the U-boat fleet would be effectively sidelined. The mission was labelled Operation Postmaster. It took place in January, 1942. This story centers on the real characters - Gus March-Phillips (Henry Cavill), Anders Larssen (Alan Ritchson) and Geoffrey Appleyard (Alex Pettyfer) - who were sent to complete this mission. In this film, some totally fictitious characters and other amalgamations of real-life participants also tagged along.

"Ungentlemanly Warfare" contains all the satisfying flourishes of a film by Guy Ritchie ("Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels," "Sherlock Holmes," "The Gentlemen"). This film is cool and stylish. It's filled with swaggering characters spouting cheeky dialogue. There are flashbacks to keep the moviegoer off-balance. There are first-rate set pieces/action scenes. Oh, and there's violence - lots and lots of violence, most of it gratuitous. Did I mention the violence? The entire package is delivered with a manic gleefulness that's contagious.

While the story is "based on true events," reality is just a jumping off point. This film suggests that a major role of the operation was to persuade an officially neutral US to enter the war and begin helping Britain. Pearl Harbor occurred the month before, so the US was already fully engaged. The film also suggests that by disabling the supply ship, the SOE's mission could change the course of the war. While the events depicted in "Ungentlemanly Warfare" were not unimportant, a bigger factor was the development of RDX, an explosive powerful enough to sink the U-boats in the open sea.

The film offers an interesting side note. One of the staffers for the SOE depicted in the film is a young officer named Ian Fleming (Freddie Fox). Yep, that Ian Fleming. His boss was known as M. In his James Bond novels, Fleming incorporates the character of M. Fleming has noted several times that the character of James Bond was based on Gus March-Phillips.

To summarize, the cast here is charming and appealing, in no small part because they appear to be reveling in their madcap roles. Some of the location shots (much of the movie was filmed in Antalya, Turkey) make the film as worthwhile as a NatGeo documentary. The "true story" is a muddled mess. And there's the violence, lots and lots of violence. (Historical note: no one was actually killed during Operation Postmaster, although one Nazi soldier fainted at the sight of the intruders.) Guy Ritchie's energy and enthusiasm, which permeate this piece, will win over a lot of the folks in the seats.

As a fan of both Henry Cavill and Guy Ritchie, I was thrilled to find an early access showing of this movie at a nearby theater.

Ungentlemanly Warfare looked to be a good time, and indeed it is! It's a neat story and they made the telling of it fun. Thankfully it isn't goofy. It's not nonstop jokes, but it has a good sense of humor and I heard a good bit of chuckling in the theater throughout the movie, much of it coming from myself.

You can tell Cavill had fun with this role. He shows off some range as his character is very different from the brooding muscle man that many people associate him with. It was delightful watching him do comedy. I haven't seen much of Alan Ritchson's work, but it was easy to see why he has such a growing fanbase. He's the muscle in this movie and proves to be a great action star. The whole cast is great and they give us a lot of fun characters.

Action-comedies seem to be Guy Ritchie's specialty. He maintains a good balance of action and comedy and works so well with large casts as he lets every character feel like they matter to the story.

I guess when you set out to make a film based on a true story-- not inspired by, but actually based it-- you're constrained by events.

Unfortunately, there wasn't much tension or ever a sense of our heroes having met their match.

The dialogue was occasionally clever, and the acting was ..fine. Not a lot was asked of this talented cast. Also, as often happens with ensembles, we really only get to know our characters on the most superficial level. (Ensembles need franchises to tease out individuals' personal stories). Hard to be invested in their survival.

And finally, what a waste of Henry Cavill. Cavill has a great face for this sort of role. Smirks, frowns and grins were swallowed up in a curiously overgrown mustache and beard. Why hire That Face and then hide it completely? Similarly, he spends the entire film, bundled up in multiple shabby layers of clothing. We're they trying to hide his physique so he wouldn't look too much like his costar Ritchson? Not a problem as Ritchson has at least 3 inches and 25lbs of muscle on Cavill any day of the week.

They could have hired any one of a dozen other actors for the role if they didn't plan to let us SEE Cavill. And paid a lot less for them.

I came away annoyed by the promise of Cavill unfulfilled and by a storyline that wouldn't have made for an interesting episode of The A Team.

But Alan Ritchson was great. He clearly had way more fun with this character than he gets to have with Reacher.

The movie is a beef cake sandwich crammed with testosterone and rippling biceps-- Henry Cavill and Alan Ritchson have wonderfully comedic and sincere chemistry as they chew their way through Nazis.

Guy Ritchie's sensibilities are on full display-- sharp transitions, character introductions, banter worthy of Tarantino, and charm. Spiritually this film feels like a violent successor to The Man from UNCLE despite it being set decades prior. The plot is straight forward and allows for a talented cast to stretch their legs.

I certainly hope this movie leads to larger action roles for Ritchson who has been stellar to date.

The movie is fun for the most part, but not the strongest Ritchie film. The trailer is a great representation of the film - the cheekiness, costumes, violence, and Henry Cavill's twirly mustache. If you liked the trailer, you'll probably enjoy the film.

I do think the movie could've been a lot more but was bogged down by the "true story" aspect. There are a few scenes that felt very Tarantino-esque in its hyper violence or intensity, but likely couldn't be taken further because of the limitations of a true story. While not mad at the casting, they could've skipped on giving Alan Ritchson the crappy danish accent. And when Eiza Gonzalez's character's ethnicity is introduced, you'll probably raise an eyebrow considering she's a Mexican actress.

This is a fun, over the top film about a part of Britain's history that had remained secret until 2016. I've watched this film at least five times now, and I don't think I would have done if the film took itself too seriously. The actors all gave excellent performances.

The film could quite easily lead to sequels.

It's lovely to see a film portraying Ian Fleming. The real life heros, who are depicted in this film, must have been the blue print for Bond. May be Guy Ritchie could next do a film or series based on Ian Fleming's war record. That would be another great watch, I am sure

I have recommended this film to many of my friends, who have all agreed this is a great film.

It's the true WWII story of Operation Postmaster. This Guy Ritchie movie is most definitely highly fictionalized. It's 1942. Britain is in its darkest hour. The Blitz is destroying London. U-boats are cutting off the Atlantic supply route. America remains on the sidelines. The Nazis' main U-boat supply ship is located in a neutral Spanish colonial west African port. British parliament refuses to attack a neutral country. Winston Churchill secretly orders the unauthorized mission led by imprisoned soldier Gus March-Phillips (Henry Cavill) with his motley crew of outsiders.

This is one of those real fake history movies. It's more than the normal fictionalization. It's got the wild sardonic Guy Ritchie humor. These characters are rather one dimensional with a few exceptions. It feels more like a comic book movie although that's fine since that's the intention. A highlight is the insanely gorgeous Eiza González. Alan Ritchson and his giant muscles seem to be popping up everywhere. I like this, but I don't love it.

I really wanted to like this movie. It's based on a true story, I'm a WWII history buff, and it had an amazing cast. The over-the-top silliness just ruined the movie for me. It removed all suspense, drama, sense of danger, etc. Why do they have to take stories that need no embellishment to be exciting and dramatic and turn them into a quasi-comedy? Even that was a failure...the comedy was not funny. I waited until the rental price for this came down to somewhat reasonable and decided to purchase it on amazon, believing that with the subject matter and cast, I would likely want to watch it more than once. Nope. To be frank, I found it boring. A 6/10 is generous.

"The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare" feels like a 2014 movie released in 2024. It boasts one of the most stacked (and jacked) casts in recent years but fails to deliver the promised fun.

Inspired by the glorious "Inglourious Basterds," one would expect this Guy Ritchie film to be fast-paced and action-packed from the get-go, with a generous sprinkling of cockney humor. However, the jokes are few and far between, the characters are cookie-cutter, and the plot is simplistic at best.

The cast tries to lift the movie with their charisma and screen presence, but they are bogged down by a weak plot and boring dialogue. The protagonists have all the fun, while the villain feels like an afterthought, making the film bland and uninteresting.

I started watching this one without much expectation and yet it managed to disappoint me.

Guy Ritchie, obviously fancies himself a great auteur of film making and this is one of his feeble attempts at greatness (and an Oscar would not hurt ;)

I found the movie hard to watch, characters not relatable (did not know Churchill was such a hero by the way ;) and actors untalented. Especially the broad was a complete eye sore.

Long story short, this movie is no better than this humble review of mine. It deserves a 4/10 at best.

Yeah buddy, you have made a WWII movie. You will get your well-deserved place in the hall of fame of great film makers. Pathetic!

Firstly I should say I would've enjoyed this film a whole lot more were it fiction. But this is not fiction and therefore it should've been handled with an awful lot more respect than is on display here. This is a cartoon, a comic. It's a disgrace.

Secondly, the casting is problematic, there is simply no need to employ steroid injected muscle men with appalling fake accents. Telly Savalas back in the day was far more convincing as a menacing sociopath than Alan Ritchson ever could be.

Thirdly, the "spot of bother", "hello ducky", "get her" campness on display in the script is cringe worthy.

Guy Ritchie has taken a tremendous true story recently declassified and turned it into a 'Carry-On' film with an extra serving of 'it ain't half hot mum' and a faint touch of Allan Partridge. He should be ashamed.

Disregarding the patchy script, the miscasting, the incongruous CGI glossiness, the expensive cheapness it's not a terrible film and for a younger demographic they might not even notice these obvious shortcomings. However, for me, the film does not do the history justice and that is impossible to ignore.

Should've been grittier, should've been an 18, should've been better. Not a 5\10 but not a 6\10.

Saw this movie last weekend. No complaints here. Acting was great and the movie moved at a great pace. Overall I thought the movie was very fun and couldn't believe it was actually a true story. Great Britain needed to do something desperate to get the United States to commit to WW2's European Theater in the worst way and found the guys needed to get the job done. We might be living in a very different world if they failed and Churchill was put out and the appeasement faction got their way. Thankfully, we don't have to live that alternate history because these guys rocked and did what they had to. Don't go see it if watching military men kill nazis bothers you or violence because there is a lot.

This was a very fun movie with satisfying action scenes. The action scenes can be over the top at times but it does not feel like a movie you need to take super seriously. I enjoyed every scene with the core five actors.

The movie does drag a bit in the middle of the movie. This is based on a true story so I get why it's important to see all the parts of the operation. However, there is a lot of dialogue and slow pacing in the middle. It focuses a lot on what I would consider the B plot.

By the end of the movie it ramps back up and you get a satisfying climax with all the parts coming together. Overall very fun laid back movie, especially if you are interested in history and WW2.

Just an enjoyable ride based on a story not that well known of the World War 2.

Cast is perfect, music and action scenes have Guy Ritchie.written all over them. A ton of action but not only, Henry Cavill fits the role like a glove.

Was entertained the whole runtime and it was even enjhoyable for my wife who despises war movies usually but it really is made like an action flick more than a war movie.

I highly recommend it, totally worth watching , not only to learn about that pan of history but also to spend a good time doing it, I wish history lessons would have been as entertaining, I would have retained more.

Cinemark has brought back its Secret Movie Series, and having never been to such an event before, I found myself intrigued and, for the low price of $5, I simply couldn't resist buying a ticket. I was one of six people in the theatre - clearly, a secret movie experience is a hard sell. However, I was excited at the prospect of watching something without knowing exactly what it would be. And after the trailers concluded, the lights dimmed and the film began to roll - to my delight, the secret movie was "The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare."

As a Guy Ritchie fan, after having seen the trailer for this movie, I knew I wanted to see it - although, admittedly, I didn't think the trailer was especially striking. However, I like Ritchie, and I love Cavill, so I was pleasantly surprised at the reveal of this film being the secret movie. And you know what? This is actually a pretty fun flick.

Yes, there is nothing too innovative at play here - this is standard Ritchie fare, except more nuanced and less extreme in its directing and editing choices than, say, Ritchie's King Arthur film. "Ministry" plays out more like a typical action adventure movie with flares of Ritchie's signature style coming out here and there; and this more subdued approach actually works to the movie's advantage to highlight some of the more dramatic and intense moments. But if you're going to see this film, you're most likely going to see it due to the action that the trailer promised you. And how is the action? In a word: Great.

My only complaint about the violence in this film - not to sound too bloodthirsty - is that it is surprisingly bloodless for an R-rated movie. I was really expecting something akin to Quentin Tarantino, with huge spurts of blood and gory deaths, but Ritchie, once again, takes a more subdued approach, choosing not to showcase a lot of blood or grisly images. That said, the action in this movie is still FANtastic, playing out an intensity that is simply missing from most modern action movies. There are plenty of shootouts - both with guns and with arrows; there are knife fights and axe battles; there are hand to hand combat sequences; basically, all of the WW2 action you can imagine is in this movie, and it's filmed wonderfully, without shaky camera or quick cuts. Sure, I would've preferred a bit more blood when Nazi's were punched or shot or sliced, but I can't knock Ritchie for choosing not to include that for the sole reason that the action is filmed so freaking well. It's nice to watch an action movie that has two things: 1) a lot of action and 2) clearly filmed action. Luckily, "Ministry" has both of those things, and because of that, will be sure to satisfy even the most jaded action junkie.

In Ritchie films, both the plot and the actors are always standouts, and it's no different here in "Ministry." Cavill and his band of ungentlemanly warriors are all super entertaining to watch, their chemistry leading to many laugh out loud moments. Additionally, the plot - as IMDB puts it, "a small group of highly skilled soldiers strik(ing) against German forces behind enemy lines during World War II," offers a lot more meat to chew on than you might expect. There are a lot of things happening concurrently, which leads to storylines converging in a pretty satisfying way. There are also a few unexpected moments that force the plot to go in directions I didn't expect, but certainly enjoyed watching. The plot isn't anything phenomenal, but it kept me engaged and was a great vehicle for its characters and action.

"The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare" is a good time at the theatre. This doesn't necessarily offer something that you haven't seen before, but in a genre as tired as WW2 action is, "Ministry" shakes things up just enough in terms of its colourful characters and explosive action that you can't help but have fun watching this. And if you're a fan of Guy Ritchie? Then going to see this is really a no brainer.

It sucks that this is the direction in which this true story is told. This is essentially an action comedy with no hints of drama during a time of war. Everything about this film is very generic, from the way the plot is laid out to the way the characters are introduced.

This film felt like a parody of what actually happened during this mission. At no point in the film was there any tension or the feeling that there were high-stakes. All of the characters seemed indestructible as they fought and shot their way to the ending of the film. The characters are not developed beyond the names and skill sets they were given in their two second intros. There wasn't any chemistry between any of the characters. There isn't much dialogue or exposition. There are some decent action sequences in this film but that's not enough to carry the story in any meaningful way. This film felt like a story written from the imagination of a child playing with their military action figures.

Saw this at an early access showing. It was not what I had hoped, but more or less what I expected. If you like movies based on Historical events, that seem to also show the connection between new film franchises, and old, this is a pretty good film for that.

You have Henry Cavill walking through the entire film, with zero sense of urgency. You have the poor man's Gal Gadot, who does nothing but act as eye candy and a distraction to both the on screen talent, and the audience. You have Alan Ritchson who more or less steals the entire film as the lunatic killing machine. Honestly everyone does a decent job but frankly you could have cast anyone in this movie and it would have turned out the same.

I like some things I have seen by Guy Ritchie, but this movie is a little less interesting because everything is so bland and safe. Visually, it's okay. It's not great. There were some good moments in the movie and some funny things that happen, but you can see where the moment lingers and the tension is not there at all. That's the thing. I did not feel one bit of tension for anyone at any time in this movie.

That's the real sad part about this film, as you don't care about anyone before, during or after things get rolling. There's no air of menace to any of the bad guys, there's no chemistry between any of the characters. You see some glimpses but it's one scripted scene after another and there really is no acting.

Why should I expect more? It's not like anyone is producing any really compelling films that make history interesting.

For a true WW2 special ops story this on could have better with a more Guns of Navarone- style tension and peril. Here the heroes merrily joke and easily slay endless streams of Nazis. Even as a Guy Richie Flick it's not as gritty as some of his earlier London gang films. As a comparison the recent Land of Bad for a similar audience has more consequential results for the characters. The FX and CGI are a little low cost, 1940s vintage ships are few and far between for props. Ritchson has a big scene at the beginning then does mainly reaction scenes. Cavill is subdued as the leader of the pack. Gonzalez does , and looks, well as the spy.