Man on Fire

i liked this film a lot. it's dark, it's not a bullet-dodging, car-chasing numb your brain action movie. a lot of the characters backgrounds and motivations are kinda vague, leaving the viewer to come to their own conclusions. it's nice to see a movie where the director allows the viewer to make up their own minds.

in the end, motivated by love or vengeance, or a desire to repent - he does what he feels is "right". 'will god ever forgive us for what we've done?' - it's not a question mortal men can answer - so he does what he feels he has to do, what he's good at, what he's been trained to do.

denzel washington is a great actor - i honestly can't think of one bad movie he's done - and he's got a great supporting cast. i would thoroughly recommend this movie to anyone.

Although released among a flock of revenge-minded action flicks (KILL BILL VOL. 2; THE PUNISHER; WALKING TALL), MAN ON FIRE works as well as it does thanks in large part to the always-watchable Denzel Washington, one of the best actors around today.

In MAN ON FIRE, based on A.J. Quinnell's 1980 novel (first filmed in 1987, with Scott Glenn), Washington plays a down-on-his-luck ex-mercenary who has now stooped to drinking from a flash of Jack Daniels, until his old partner (Christopher Walken) offers him a chance at redemption. He is hired on as a bodyguard to the 10 year-old daughter (Dakota Fanning) of a Mexican businessman (Marc Antony) and his American-born wife (Radha Mitchell). While he and Fanning work like oil and water first (not mixing very well), he really gets to form a bond with her, encouraging her to do better at swimming, while he at the same time attempts to deal with the demons of the past. It is that very bond that will force Washington back into his old line of work when Fanning is kidnapped and held for a $10 million ransom, and he is nearly killed. With almost any other stock action hero (Schwarzenneger; Segal, etc.), the subsequent bloodbath would be the same repetitive schlock we've seen a million times before. But Washington's character, though he's killing for a reason, does not particularly enjoy doing what he does. Still, he gets help from a very intrepid Mexican newspaper reporter (Rachel Ticotin) out to expose "La Hermanidad" (The Brotherhood), the kidnap gang responsible for Fanning's abduction.

MAN ON FIRE is flawed to some extent because of the hyper camera work, nearly headache-inducing montage editing, and various film stocks that are par for the course of its director Tony Scott (TOP GUN; CRIMSON TIDE), but which are not necessarily unique to him (witness Oliver Stone's use of montage in JFK or Sam Peckinpah's in his classic 60s and 70s films). Still, Scott gets a very good performance from Washington, as well as Fanning, who comes across as far more than a typical movie-brat kid. Harry Gregson-Williams' south-of-the-border Spanish guitar score is enhanced by soundtrack splashes of Chopin, Debussy, and even Linda Ronstadt's classic 1977 country-rock version of "Blue Bayou." Although the film overall is quite violent, it is no worse than most action films of the last ten years, and overall it is much better than most.

Tony Scott can make good films and bad, personally I think he can be a bit flashy and trashy and his work obviously suffers in comparison with that of his rather famous brother, but this is quite possibly his best film.

What makes this film so great is that Scott gives Denzel (on scorching form, better than Training Day) and the revelation who is Dakota Fanning time to develop a relationship of real warmth and tenderness. The set up is absolutely NOT boring, although it takes time - it is involving, and takes us on a little journey into the characters - including a superb role for Radha Mitchell as the mother. This all serves to make the action so much more effective, as we are so invested in the characters, for all their all too obvious weaknesses. This film has you on the edge for its entirety, and doesn't cop out at the end either.

The film would of course be nothing without Washington. I often wonder why he seems to get so many duff roles, when he quite clearly is as good as almost any leading man out there (I can only really think of one, Daniel Day Lewis, who has more on-screen power these days). This film should have been huge, given his status and the strength of his performance, and the quality of the film. It just goes to show you that if a studio doesn't back a film to the hilt, it ends up going straight to video. I wish I'd got the chance to see this on the big screen.

Alcoholic mercenary Creasy (Washington) is all washed-up, until his friend (Walken) finds him a job in Mexico City, as bodyguard for a rich family's little girl Pita (Fanning). The taciturn man and melancholy girl slowly develop a strong bond... that is utterly shattered the day that Pita is kidnapped and that negotiations are sorely mishandled.

"Man on Fire"'s title works against it. It proclaims an adrenaline-fueled action film, when in fact what we get is very different. What could be mistakenly thought to be a prologue (Creasy is introduced, meets Pita and the relationship is shown) constitutes a good half of the film's running time. Washington and Faning are on top form, the former tortured and angry and the latter endearing without being cloying, so it is a tribute to Scott and screenwriter Helgeland that the film takes its time showing their odd relationship. This makes things all the more hurtful and outraging when she is captured in a kidnapping that leaves Creasy severely scarred, both emotionally and physically.

The film earns its title in the second half, not because of non-stop action - which it fore-goes in order to give us something more pondered and cruel - but because Creasy is literally ablaze with silent fury. As he hunts down anyone who participated or profited from Pita's kidnapping, dismantling rings of Mexico City's tower of corruption, his methods get bloodier while his movement actually get slower. Creasy races against time and his own likely death, as a tragic figure who's newfound reason to live has been taken away from him.

The performances are fine, with great turns from the two leads and superb supporting turns by the always reliable Christopher Walken and Jiancarlo Giannini. What sometime detracts from the film's quality is Tony Scott's now signature messy visuals. While some shots are magnificent, reminiscent of brother Ridley's work, some are almost trashy and epilepsy-inducing (some unnecessary hyper-MTV editing). the man redeems himself by handling his actors with care, superbly illustrating his environment and creating a stark atmosphere.

This is a precious oddity: a quality blockbuster.

A riveting introduction, powerful performances and yet, I couldn't quite connect. The trendy editing, I hope, it's just a moronic phase that movies are going through to be outgrow soon, very soon. All the dramatic tension vanishes as the editor plays around with the visuals. Why? If you have characters played by the likes of Denzel Washington, why the need to hit us over the head with a self conscious blow of irrational cutting taking me out of the movie completely and forcing me to see the movie as a movie, the actors as actors and the drama as sheer fiction. Washington is superb. Slowly but surely I'm warming up to the man. I've always admired his performances but there was something about the actor, a veil of arrogance perhaps, that stopped me from getting closer. Here, his personal torment and his warming up to Dakota Fanning took me completely until the smart ass editing ruined everything.