SummaryDenzel Washington stars as a government operative/soldier of fortune who has pretty much given up on life. In Mexico City, he reluctantly agrees to take a job to protect a child (Fanning) whose parents are threatened by a wave of kidnappings. He eventually becomes close to the child and their relationship reawakens and rekindles his spir...
SummaryDenzel Washington stars as a government operative/soldier of fortune who has pretty much given up on life. In Mexico City, he reluctantly agrees to take a job to protect a child (Fanning) whose parents are threatened by a wave of kidnappings. He eventually becomes close to the child and their relationship reawakens and rekindles his spir...
No one rises above the material, though, except for Walken, who looks pleased with the paycheck and the top-shelf tequila. As a shady lawyer, Mickey Rourke is smooth and funny, but recognizable only by his familiar purr.
The first fifty minutes or so of the movie is quite slow and is all about John's relationship with Pita, which could be seen as boring to some, if your only after the large special effects and action scenes but I think it is worth it to properly set the scene for whats to come, for the characterisation/development and to make you really root for John as he sets out to discover who was behind what happened. You can tell that John tried to keep a distance from Pita as not to get attached to her personally or to lose focus on his job to keep her safe and secure but it turns out that they form quite a bond as friends, with Pita often asking John about himself. Once the action starts, its quite suspenseful and there are some pretty impressive special effects, mainly explosion scenes as well as some brief black and white flashback scenes. It does become quite fast paced and the story isn't sacrificed for the action either, the plot thickens as John discovers more about the underground organisation behind many of Mexicos kindappings and there are some real twists in the plot, to keep the viewer guessing.
The performances are all good, Dakota Fanning in particular, playing a very clued up little girl. The story is quite believable and gritty and although it is quite long at over two hours and ten minutes, it had enough suspense and action to keep me watching, indeed I found it quite absorbing, in such a way as that I was glued to the screen and I didn't feel that it was too unrealistic, that there was too much 'violence for violence sake' (as there is a fair bit of violence but it didn't seem overly excessive, given the plot).
I thought that it was, at times, quite an emotional movie, in that you do care for, or about, the main characters. The lighting used at times (dark and grainy) gives a gritty feel that I thought worked quite well too.
About the only downside (other than the slow start which might bore some impatient people perhaps) is that the ending may be seen as a bit too 'Hollywood' by some but I'll say no more about that, so I don't give too much away. Oh and also there are alot of Spanish subtitles too, so be aware of that too, if reading many subtitles in a movie really puts you off then this may not be for you, although thats not to say that there isn't English dialogue but the movie is set in Mexico... there is more English spoken than Spanish but there were still quite alot of subtitles. The subtitles themselves were shown on screen in a dynamic way with the words swooping onto the screen sometimes, rather than just appearing statically, at times.
Intentional or not, Man on Fire's over-the-top evocation of Christian retribution goes a long way to making this otherwise standard revenge fantasy watchable.
If your idea of a bargain is two bad movies for the price of one, then shell out for Man on Fire. And don't fret about that incendiary title because this thing is all fuse.
It's dispiriting to see good actors doing smart, solid work with so much unadulterated garbage swirling around them. Scott's art is also death, and we, the audience, are the ones he's jabbing at with his ruthless paintbrush. It's about time someone told him where to stick it.
" Denzel Washington's performance is Action pack , fun the best film in his career ". It's obviously that Washington is the legend of acting in all of his films which critics like it or not. I love it when Denzel is in one of his dramatic action pack thriller's Training Day , The Equalizer , Inside man , american gangsters , and Flight. Also good directing from Tony Scott. Denzel Washington made it happen and director Tony scott made it happen to. Grade A+
When people think of 'Man on Fire', they think of this 2004 film but some probably don't realise it's a "remake" of a less critically well received 1987 film.
If asked which from personal opinion is better, it would be a hard choice. As an adaptation of the source material, author AJ Quinnell would choose this easily. It is easy to see why that is the case, there are more lines in this version lifted from the source material and more of the spirit is there, apparently Quinnell intensely disliked the 1987 film going as far to saying that he couldn't recognise any of what he wrote in there. On its own terms, it is not an easy pick. Both films are uneven but both films are also very worthwhile (yes, will admit to liking the 1987 film despite it not being a great film), they have a numerous amount of strengths but both have quite a few faults.
Talking about this 2004 film, it's uneven with some things that stop it from being as on fire as its lead performances. As said above though there is a lot to like and enough to make it more than watchable. Visually, 'Man on Fire' has its moments. The locations are both stunning and gritty and there is evidence of a slick atmospheric stylishness and director Tony Scott providing a few inventive touches. The film is hampered quite severely however by Scott excessively going overboard on the visual style, too much of it is more gimmicky and self-indulgent than it is clever and imaginative which is a real shame.
'Man on Fire' has a haunting and cool music score that really adds to the film and drives the action well. The script has wit and tension.
Storytelling, like with the production values, is more problematic. It is very successful in the first half, the central chemistry between Denzel Washington and Dakota Fanning is truly heartfelt and beautifully written. Really liked that the care and trust were realistically gradual and not evident straight away. In the more action-oriented and thriller-like second half, the action is well-choreographed and suitably uncompromising, it's fun and suspenseful and it makes more consistent sense than the 1987 film.
It is let down sadly by the pace being drawn out in places while the ending is more logical, more exciting and more emotional in the 1987 film, it's a bit of an illogical fizzler here. The film is sadly rather too overlong too by about twenty minutes, this could have been cleared up by tightening the pace in the second half.
Denzel Washington excels in the lead role as does a charming and beyond her years mature Dakota Fanning. Their chemistry is one of the highlights of 'Man on Fire'. The supporting cast is more uneven, with a fun if underused turn from Christopher Walken and a strong Radha Mitchell but Mickey Rourke especially is wasted in a role little more than a throwaway. The villains too could have been more threatening. Scott's direction succeeds in the action and direction of the actors but is really messy visually.
Overall, worthwhile but not the on fire film it could and should have been. 6/10 Bethany Cox
Disgraced former special ops officer is hired to protect a rich man's child. He grows to love her like a father and vice versa. Then she's kidnapped and he sets out to get revenge. Great cast. Denzel is always good. Dakota Fanning is smart and adorable as the rich man's daughter. Christopher Walken is good but doesn't have much to do here. The film is split in two. The first half showing Denzel getting Redemption because a child has faith in him. The second half is all Revenge. Which of course we want to see, but it's far less interesting. I think it would have been better to see some pain and loss in his vengeance. But it's mostly just generic killing.
This film is awful, truly terrible. It uses every cinematic gimmick known to man which only serves to make the film even worse. Plus corny, melodramatic ham acting. All these reviews gush about it because it isn't PC to be critical of a film with Washington in it. But it ****.