Guy Ritchie’s The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare (2024) is an action-comedy war film with a distinctive twist: it is based on real events. Adapted from Damien Lewis’s 2014 book Churchill’s Secret Warriors: The Explosive True Story of the Special Forces Desperadoes of WWII, the film dramatizes the formation of Britain’s first “black ops” unit during the Second World War. The story focuses on Winston Churchill’s decision to create a covert task force to sabotage Nazi operations using unconventional tactics — methods that broke traditional rules of combat and paved the way for modern special forces like the SAS.
As both a piece of entertainment and a work inspired by history, The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare explores themes of innovation in wartime, the morality of unconventional combat, and the importance of deception in achieving victory. While Guy Ritchie imbues the film with his signature humor, stylized violence, and larger-than-life characters, the real story behind it remains one of the most daring and underappreciated chapters of World War II.
Historical Context: Churchill’s “Ungentlemanly” Vision
By 1940, Britain was facing dire circumstances. France had fallen, Hitler’s forces dominated continental Europe, and Britain itself stood isolated. A conventional war of attrition against Germany’s military might seemed nearly impossible. In this context, Winston Churchill approved the creation of an organization devoted to sabotage, espionage, and guerrilla warfare — tactics considered “ungentlemanly” by the traditional standards of the British military.
This new organization, the Special Operations Executive (SOE), was tasked with “setting Europe ablaze” through irregular warfare. Members engaged in acts of sabotage, disruption of supply lines, assassinations, and resistance support. Their operations were a stark contrast to the codes of chivalry and fair play often associated with earlier eras of British warfare.
The real-life exploits of these operatives laid the foundation for future covert organizations, including the SAS and MI6 special teams. The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare is thus not only a film but also a dramatization of the origins of modern special forces.
The Film: Plot and Style
Ritchie’s adaptation is loosely based on these events but delivered with the energy of a stylized action movie. Henry Cavill stars as Gus March-Phillipps, the dashing leader of the unit, alongside Alan Ritchson, Henry Golding, Eiza González, and others in a star-studded cast. The group is tasked with a high-stakes mission: disrupting Nazi U-boat supply lines in the Atlantic by destroying ships at their source.
The film follows familiar beats of a “men (and women) on a mission” war story: the recruitment of misfits, the planning of a daring operation, the execution of audacious sabotage, and the clashes with Nazi forces. What makes it distinct is Ritchie’s signature style: witty banter, fast pacing, comic-book-like violence, and characters who are as charming as they are ruthless.
Much like Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, Ritchie’s film revels in the fantasy of ordinary soldiers humiliating the Nazis. However, it differs by rooting its story in genuine history, even if dramatized.
Themes
1. The Morality of “Ungentlemanly” Warfare
At the center of the story lies a moral question: is it acceptable to abandon traditional rules of war in order to fight an enemy as ruthless as the Nazis? The SOE operatives were trained in assassination, sabotage, and deception — tactics condemned by the Geneva Conventions and dismissed by conventional military leaders as dishonorable. Yet Churchill argued that such methods were necessary for survival.
The film, like the history it draws from, celebrates the effectiveness of these tactics but also highlights their ethical ambiguity. In many ways, this was a turning point for modern warfare: the acknowledgment that victory required fighting on the enemy’s terms, even if it meant compromising traditional codes of honor.
2. Innovation and Resourcefulness in War
The SOE’s work relied not on brute force but on cleverness, disguise, and ingenuity. Explosives disguised as coal, radios hidden in everyday objects, and raids designed to maximize psychological impact — all of these reflect a kind of wartime creativity that turned underdogs into effective operatives.
Ritchie captures this spirit by framing his characters as witty, unorthodox heroes who outsmart rather than outgun their opponents. In this way, the film becomes not just a war story but a celebration of human ingenuity under pressure.
3. Deception as a Weapon
Deception is a recurring theme, both historically and in the film. The SOE specialized in misleading the enemy, staging distractions, and creating confusion. This idea is central to warfare itself: winning often depends less on strength than on manipulating perception. The Nazis, known for their propaganda machine, were particularly vulnerable to psychological warfare, and the SOE exploited this ruthlessly.
4. Heroism and Mythmaking
Like many war films, The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare raises questions about how we remember history. The characters are depicted as larger-than-life, almost mythic figures — rogues and rebels whose exploits seem more cinematic than real. Yet this too reflects how wartime narratives evolve: real history becomes legend, and legend becomes inspiration.
Characterization
The film’s characters are loosely based on real figures but adapted into archetypes. Henry Cavill’s Gus March-Phillipps embodies the charismatic leader; Alan Ritchson’s Anders Lassen is the muscle, a deadly fighter with Viking-like ferocity; Eiza González plays Marjorie Stewart, representing the contributions of women in espionage; and the rest of the team fills roles familiar from ensemble war films — the strategist, the marksman, the wildcard.
This archetypal approach sacrifices some realism but enhances accessibility. Audiences can immediately grasp who each character is and what they contribute, making the story function like a blend of history and comic-book adventure.
Ritchie’s Direction
Guy Ritchie brings his trademark style: quick-cut editing, playful dialogue, flamboyant action sequences, and a focus on character charisma. Unlike more solemn WWII films such as Saving Private Ryan or Dunkirk, Ritchie’s film is irreverent, often comedic, and unapologetically stylish.
This choice has divided audiences. Some critics praise the film for making history entertaining and accessible, while others argue it trivializes the seriousness of WWII. Yet Ritchie’s goal is not realism but mythmaking. He presents the SOE’s exploits in a way that feels like a comic-book retelling of true events — outrageous but grounded in a core of truth.
Historical Accuracy vs. Entertainment
While the film is inspired by real operations, it takes significant liberties. The SOE’s work was often grimmer, more dangerous, and less glamorous than what is shown on screen. Missions frequently failed, operatives were captured and executed, and the brutality of the war was far starker than in Ritchie’s stylized version.
That said, the core premise — that Churchill authorized a covert team to wage ungentlemanly warfare against the Nazis — is historically accurate. The film highlights this truth while embellishing the details for entertainment. In doing so, it sparks interest in the real history, encouraging audiences to learn more about the SOE and the origins of special forces.
Critical Reception
Early reviews of The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare have been mixed to positive. Fans of Guy Ritchie’s style have embraced its blend of humor and action, while others feel it leans too heavily on cliché and oversimplifies the complexity of WWII.
However, the film has succeeded in shining a spotlight on a relatively unknown chapter of the war. For many viewers, it serves as both entertainment and a gateway into exploring the history of covert operations.
Conclusion
The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare is a film that straddles the line between history and myth, entertainment and education. It dramatizes the real exploits of Britain’s first black-ops unit while infusing them with Guy Ritchie’s trademark energy and irreverence.
Thematically, it reminds us that war is not always fought on traditional terms — that survival sometimes demands breaking rules, embracing deception, and unleashing creativity. It also raises questions about how history is remembered: are these men and women heroes, rogues, or both?
As a film, it may not have the gravitas of more serious WWII dramas, but it offers something equally important: an accessible, entertaining entry point into a remarkable story of courage, ingenuity, and unconventional heroism. In doing so, it ensures that the legacy of Churchill’s “ungentlemanly” warriors continues to inspire — not just as history, but as legend.
