A WORKING MAN. Statham Running on Empty [REVIEW]

MGM Studio makes me think of a specific type of cinema that it has been producing for a long time. And I really mean a long time—after all, it has been around for nearly 101 years. I’m talking about the broadly understood genre of “tough guy” films. Their roaring lion logo has been associated with James Bond movies from the very beginning. They were responsible for shaping the prevailing archetype of unrestrained masculinity. Their raw action films from the ’60s and ’70s, such as Get Carter and Shaft, only complete this picture. Not to mention the countless revenge-driven westerns, especially those starring Clint Eastwood, which for years have defined masculinity on screen. Soon, the MGM logo will appear at the beginning of The Accountant 2, yet another “manly” action film about a rebellious tough guy with a gun, this time played by Ben Affleck, captivating audiences with his velvet-deep voice. I bring all this up because a new film produced by Amazon MGM is now premiering in theaters, and it fits right into this mold. The movie clings to outdated, old-fashioned stereotypes. A Working Man, directed by David Ayer, is just another generic action flick starring Jason Statham. And the question is: can we really expect anything from the “boom-boom” genre? I believe that smart audiences will recognize the sheer mediocrity that this actor and his really weak director are serving us. I hope that in the coming years, viewers will demand more from the genre. Otherwise, we will be drowned in a wave of stale, forgettable action films that fade from memory the second the credits roll.

Here we go again…

There is one novelty compared to The Beekeeper. This time, the script was co-written by none other than… Sylvester Stallone. Not long ago, people were saying that action cinema was undergoing a revolution. There was a trend toward clear action sequences, readable editing, breathtaking, well-thought-out choreography, and a strong visual style. It seems that the man who played Rocky has arrived to set the entire genre back by decades. Without a second thought, he rehashes the same tired revenge stories from the ’80s. He steals bits and pieces from various productions without even trying to create anything that might, even for a moment, evoke a “wow” effect.

And what did this seasoned action veteran come up with? Well, a former soldier is now working construction. His bosses ask him to help them rescue their kidnapped daughter. Of course, he refuses at first—cue the classic plot structure from any Rambo sequel. Then, the “reluctant hero” agrees and sets off on a chase, uncovering a devious human trafficking ring behind the drug cartels. That’s it. There’s nothing more to it, not even real spoilers. I should add that the plot is completely unengaging. There’s barely any space for relationships between the characters.

If you ask Ayer how to make a spectacular action movie, he’d probably tell you that you just have to shoot anything and edit it however you want—it really doesn’t matter. The only thing you must do is throw in very loud music every second scene—someone out there will fall for it and feel like the action is truly intense. Add some heavy, booming sounds, and the illusion of a good action movie is complete. You’re done. To call this a cheap trick is an understatement.

Long takes and carefully planned choreography like in John Wick, Nobody, or Atomic Blonde? Forget it. At this intersection where great action movies are made, Ayer and his team make a U-turn—blowing a tire in the process.

At one point, there were rumors that Statham has a clause in his contract stating that he cannot lose fights in his films. For me, great action movies feature heroes who do incredible things but still stumble at times and face the consequences of their mistakes. We like them precisely because they aren’t perfect.

Take, for example, Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible 2 (2002). In every scene, he meticulously ensured he looked as handsome and impressive as possible, without a single flaw. His hair billowed wildly in slow motion, and with each new sequence, he had to do something even more spectacular, pushing the film to the edge of self-parody. That was the lowest point of the series—almost unwatchable. Over time, Cruise wised up and gave his films a more balanced tone. Now, we appreciate him because he has a sense of humor about himself and is willing to mock his own masculinity. In Dead Reckoning, he allows himself to get hit, to fall, to succeed by sheer accident. He proves that he’s not all-powerful and sometimes needs his friends to help him because they simply do a better job.

Jason Statham has no desire to evolve. He’s stuck in 2007, convinced he still has to be tougher and stronger than all the other action heroes.

Right now, theaters are showing Novocaine, a clever and well-executed comedy. Compared to that film, A Working Man could use some self-awareness, humor, and humility. If you want to have fun without falling asleep in the theater, go see Novocaine instead, starring the charismatic and stylish Jack Quaid. A pain-free thirty-something in a flashy suit, barely able to handle a gun but full of sincere determination—that’s the kind of action hero we need today.

Statham is entering the late-era Steven Seagal phase. Words like “humility,” “restraint,” or “letting go” mean nothing to him. Behind his stone-cold expression hides an insecure actor with an inflated ego, terrified of losing his tough-guy status. His eyes reveal his fear that he won’t always be the strongest, the best. I hope that one day, he tones it down, and the arrogance stops going to his head.

Let’s move on to the technical aspects of A Working Man, because an action movie without solid execution is like chicken soup without the chicken. The opening sequence already signals trouble: some vague, military-themed brownish-gray visuals that amount to nothing. The beginning of The Beekeeper was more thoughtfully designed—it set a cohesive tone and hinted at the themes it wanted to explore. In hindsight, I now see The Beekeeper in a slightly better light, despite all my criticisms of it. That alone shows how carelessly thrown-together and bland A Working Man is.

To avoid beating a dead horse, I’ll sum up the technical side quickly: at times, the visuals are on par with the low-budget films of Patryk Vega. So if our Polish “director” wants to make it in Hollywood, it looks like there’s an opening for him—all it took was for someone to lower the standards.

The Beekeeper at least had a clear theme—it showed an ordinary hero uncovering layers of corruption and government conspiracies that secretly destroy those at the bottom. The metaphor was heavy-handed but somewhat effective. In contrast, A Working Man still revolves around the world of bad guys, but its core theme is supposed to be family loyalty.

In one scene, a drug cartel member asks Statham:
– “Why are you hunting us?”
– “Do you have a daughter?”
– “No.”
– “Then you won’t understand.”

If A Working Man has any redeeming qualities, they’re in this dialogue—it’s relatively clever for a film of this standard. They tried to give the hero a real motivation, to make him more human. It didn’t work, because the whole thing is drowned in ugly execution.

Next year, I expect to see Statham playing a vengeful plumber uncovering a conspiracy of greedy sewer workers.

If you enjoy watching brutal carnage, there are moments where blood splatters everywhere. A shotgun sends enemies flying—mildly entertaining. But the film lacks edge and creativity, though some might not mind.

To be honest, I barely even talked about the film itself in this review because there’s nothing to say. At least The Beekeeper had a defined style and theme, even if they annoyed me. A Working Man has no character, which is ironic for a film supposedly about a man with character.

It’s not awful, but it’s painfully bland. If you want something better, go see Novocaine. Or, stay home and stare at the wall for two hours—that would be a more creative experience than watching A Working Man.