Man on Fire (2004)
Starring: Denzel Washington, Dakota Fanning, Marc Anthony, Radha Mitchell, Christopher Walken, Giancarlo Giannini, Rachel Ticotin, Jesus Ochoa, Mickey Rourke, Angelina Palaez, Gustavo Sanchez Parra, Gero Camilo, Rosa Maria Hernandez
Director: Tony Scott
Running Time: 146 minutes
US MPAA rating: RUK BBFC rating: 18
Action, Crime, Drama, Thriller
Haunted by his past and ravaged by alcoholism, John Creasy (Denzel Washington) drifts down Mexico way where he takes on work as a bodyguard to Pita (Dakota Fanning), the daughter of aristocratic Mexican Samuel (Marc Anthony) and his American wife Lisa (Radha Mitchell). Gradually a bond develops between Creasy and his young ward, but just as Creasy begins to rediscover his lost humanity, it is snatched away, along with Pita, by a group of professional kidnappers and crooked cops who leave Creasy for dead. After the pay-off goes wrong, Creasy vows to take revenge on all those who have contributed to Pita's death, turning to Federal Investigations chief Manzano (Giancarlo Giannini) and upright journalist Mariana (Rachel Ticotin) to guide him through all the sleaze and corruption - and, being an ex-assassin for the CIA, Creasy knows a thing or two about the business of killing - or, as his friend Raymond (Christopher Walken) puts it, "Creasy's art is death; he's about to paint his masterpiece".
'Man on Fire' is an oddity, and you may well find yourself spending at least half of its (very long) duration trying to work out whether it is a bog-standard genre piece trying to pass itself off as a serious masterpiece, or the other way around. Screenwriter Brian Helgeland is known for the subtlety of his plotting and dialogue in films like 'L.A. Confidential' and Mystic River, but here his adaptation of A.J. Quinnell's novel 'Man on Fire' (originally set in Italy) resorts to tough-guy cliché and kiddie pathos. Similarly director Tony (brother of Ridley) Scott has at times shown an ability to deliver films of oddball quality ('The Hunger, 'True Romance'), but 'Man on Fire' is an unadulterated celebration of vigilante justice from way right-of-centre which seems to signal a return to the reactionary sensibilities that made his earlier 'Top Gun' such a brainless popcorn-pusher. Never once calling into question the morality of Creasy's ultra-violent actions (which include brutal torture, merciless mutilation, extrajudicial killing, etc.), the film's examination of the dynamics of revenge makes little advance on the cartoonish philosophy of Jonathan Hensleigh's recent 'The Punisher'. In both films, any means to getting the job done seem justifiable, offering viewers a dangerous fantasy version of the world where all problems and injustices can be sorted out simply by a strong will and a lot of ammunition (ignoring the fact that this is how many of the world's problems and injustices actually begin). In all its unreflective oversimplification, this is easily recognizable as the ideology behind the current so-called War on Terror, and it is surely no coincidence that 'The Punisher' and 'Man on Fire' both feature vengeance-seeking protagonists who are born-again Christ figures (note John Creasy's initials) of the gun-toting variety, and who have explicitly learnt their lethal trade working as agents in counter-terrorism.
When Quentin Tarantino opened his first volume of 'Kill Bill' with the words "Revenge is a dish best served cold", he ascribed them to an "old Klingon proverb", setting the wryly postmodern tone for the two films to come; yet when Creasy delivers a similar line in Scott's film, he does so without any accompanying irony, making 'Man on Fire' seem a bizarre dinosaur of a revenge movie, told completely straight. Corresponding to this misplaced earnestness is the presence of Denzel Washington, who brings to the murderous Creasy a strange gravity - and the film's extraordinarily high aesthetic values, composed of handheld, oversaturated shots cut together with dizzying rapidity, and featuring the smartest set of integrated subtitles I have ever seen, make 'Man on Fire' look more like the work of Steven Soderbergh or Oliver Stone at their artiest rather then like the trashy pulp piece that it is, or at least ought to be. So, in the end, 'Man on Fire' sends out a mixed message. Either it really is as deadly serious as it purports to be, in which case it is one big dumb (if nicely made) movie - or else it is a joke too subtle to be easily appreciated.
It's Got: A lot of sadistic violence and cartoonish ethics, extraordinary production values, Christopher Walken playing a (relatively) good guy, the ever dependable Dakota Fanning reprising her rôle of kidnap victim from 'Trapped', and the most stylish subtitles ever seen.
It Needs: Less cliché, and a more equivocal perspective on the nature of revenge.
Alternatives: 'The Punisher', 'Trapped', 'Ransom'
Summary: A beautiful-looking, well-acted revenge movie, but too big and dumb-assed to be so serious.
Review Date: 24th October 2004
External Links
Official Web Site
Man on Fire at the IMDB
Comments14 Comments |
| Anton Bitel must be another morally bankrupt left wing nut who cares more about the rights of the murderers than the victims. There was a time in this country when criminals were expected to pay for their wicked deeds instead of finding some excuse to justify their actions. Yet today, some people are more concerned about "a woman's choice" than the rights of her child. Those same people want to take God out of government and school. They want to deny Americans the ability to protect themselves but find any excuse to let criminals go free that commit crimes with guns. I hope none of his family is ever a victim of crime. And I hope that this "so-called War on Terror" never again reaches our shores. However, if his friend, John Kerry gets elected on Tuesday, 2 Nov 04; I wouldn't be money against either one. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 31 October 2004 | ip: logged |
| bitel rocks and so does panton - their reviews are good and this review is true to form he's dead right, get real it's a movie |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 03 November 2004 | ip: logged |
| Very good movie i loved it an may John creasy RIP |
| Comment by:- Big Joe | | 04 November 2004 | ip: logged |
| How dare they!This was such a good movie!i dont usually like these kind of crime/gory movies,but the cute little relationship between Pita and Creasy really balanced it out!When shes crying in the car at the end :'( was it just me or did any1 else think the mother was kinda evil?!! |
| Comment by:- Carsy | | 07 November 2004 | ip: logged |
| No, the mother was not evil, just played by a bad actress. Hollywood's habit for casting gorgeous young things who can't act often kills the believability of the film. The mom appeared to be about 18, and looked more like she should be worrying about a date for the prom. Consequently we never really got that she loved her daughter. Watch the scene with the two of them in the back of the car. No connection, nothing. When she said, "I don't feel right about leaving her." to her husband, I howled with laughter. Nothing she did up to that point gave us any idea she even liked this kid. This actress has no idea of how a mother responds to a child. Hey a pretty woman is nice to look at, but I just wish Hollywood could expand their casting choices so the movies aren't compromised. Nice review by the way. |
| Comment by:- Ron | | 10 November 2004 | ip: logged |
| I do not think the role of the mother was played that bad. Actually it is true that some times rich parents have very little connection with their kids. I guess is just diffcult to understand how it does work in other cultures. But I believe the movie went beyond any credibility. |
| Comment by:- adriana | | 11 November 2004 | ip: logged |
| Anton Bitel (wannabe Ebert) is such a wierdo, this movie was awesome. |
| Comment by:- Me. | | 20 November 2004 | ip: logged |
| Pretty good movie but long and violent. We still can't figure out how the father was going to gain from the kidnapping. We're scratching our heads! Was it or was it not based on a real person? The book says it wasn't, movie indicates is was. |
| Comment by:- CAT | | 29 November 2004 | ip: logged |
| It's G-R-E-A-T ! ! ! ! |
| Comment by:- Dee Dee | | 01 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| was this movie base on truth story? Cause if it was, then why there's a date of birth and death? Also searching throught the interent, there's isn't good evidence that the acutall person exist. |
| Comment by:- cindy | | 04 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| I for one loved the movie, it showed that some people will put there lives out for someone they truely love, no matter who, where they come from, are there color of skin. It's what God would want us to do for each other. |
| Comment by:- Kenalen Collins | | 08 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| Brilliant movie, it is by far the best movie of 2004. Not only a beautiful love story that is pure at the beginnning but the retribution was creative and it was not too long at all. Every second was needed to understand and enjoy the whole story. 5 stars for sure1!! |
| Comment by:- TC | | 15 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| The movie, which I've just seen on DVD recently, is much more brilliant and moving than I had expected. As one of the revenge movies, it shows a terrific storytelling and, needless to say, the performance is superb. The success of the movie is based on the patient and natural building of the friendship between the tough bodyguard and the cute little girl. Though other revenge movies all try to build such a warm sense of family in the first part, few of them get rid of those cheap filming methods, say, a couple of kissing and some boring family talk. This movie, to my surprise, does not get into the trap which its peers are easily fall. It is this sense of warm family that gives power and meaning to later killings. Additionally, the air of lament makes this movie even more different, sometimes, more heavy to bear. |
| Comment by:- Seth | | 21 May 2005 | ip: logged |
| The execution of revenge is fantastic, well beyond the capacity of any normal victim seeking retribution. Simplistic? Maybe, but I must more doubt the nature of dead souls who could not feel a burning desire to get even when their loved ones are being trampled upon. In my view, it is exactly this kind of people who make the world unsafe for would-be criminals. Civilization up to this point is built upon centuries of violence, made by valiant men who could face up to blind forces. Laws and all facades of sophistication can be ethereal in the final analysis...Denzel and Fanning made a big difference for this movie. Not familiar with Tony Scott, I thought this was directed by Quentin Tarantino :-) |
| Comment by:- m08n14b02 | | 10 November 2005 | ip: logged |
