Directed by:
Tony ScottScreenplay:
Brian HelgelandCinematography:
Paul CameronComposer:
Harry Gregson-WilliamsCast:
Denzel Washington, Dakota Fanning, Radha Mitchell, Christopher Walken, Marc Anthony, Giancarlo Giannini, Mickey Rourke, Rachel Ticotin, Roberto Sosa (more)VOD (3)
Plots(1)
Hard-drinking, burnt-out ex-CIA operative John Creasy (Washington) has given up on life--until his friend Rayburn (Oscar winner Christopher Walken) gets him a job as a bodyguard to nine-year-old Pita Ramos (Dakota Fanning). Bit by bit, Creasy begins to reclaim his soul, but when Pita is kidnapped, Creasy unleashes a firestorm of apocalyptic vengeance against everyone responsible. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (1)
Reviews (9)
Scott overdid it, he exhibited too much for my taste. His nervous camera games were too frequent, even annoying, I would say. The simple script was not devoid of logical nonsense, but the ambiguous ending was quite a pleasant surprise. Washington repeats himself as an actor, essentially performing a variation on his Oscar-winning Training Day (you're right, sepp). It was nice to see Walken in a different than his traditionally villain role, and I was pleasantly surprised by the leading girl who gave a very convincing and natural (for a child) performance. Finally, a cool line from a conversation Washington (about to assassinate one of the bastards) has with an old man: "In the church, they say to forgive." – "Forgiveness is between them and God. It's my job to arrange the meeting.”
()
Tony Scott is back in form at last. He didn’t hesitate to incorporate epileptic editing, violence and outstanding actors into a raw story about a girl being kidnapped. With a different cast, this might have collapsed like a house of cards, but when the main protagonist is played by Denzel Washington as a devotee of the “dark side", this clearly leaves no room for any humor. Especially when revenge tastes best when it’s cold blooded, isn’t that right?
()
I won't hide the fact that I expected a bit more from it. The first half is a compelling look at the growing friendship between a beleaguered bodyguard and a charming young girl, which is a joy to watch thanks to the performances and Scott's precise direction. The second half, marked by Washington's revenge and the liquidation of the kidnappers, does not lack momentum and brutality, but it’s surprisingly cold and the jerky camera got on my nerves instead of making everything more interesting. But that doesn't change the fact that Tony Scott was a great director who could make even a wheelchair chase look spectacular, and his action prowess and experience can be felt in every scene and especially in the ending. Man on Fire didn't impress me given the reviews, but on the other hand it didn't bore me for a moment. 3.5*
()
Tony Scott for the first time in full-on experimentally impressionistic mode in a feature-length film. The cinematography and editing, or rather the use of fragments of shots, become the equivalent of massive deposits of paint and brushstrokes. In a nervously agitated way, Scott transforms a gritty thriller into fantastical macho camp whose overwrought images are just as infused with kitsch and surreal artificiality as the peak works by the master of melodrama, Douglas Sirk. On a small monitor, it is a ridiculous spectacle for pubescent boys fumbling about in their masculinity, but on the big screen, Man on Fire is breathtaking as a spectacular audio-visual equivalent of kinetic art. The magnificent experience is framed by a mix of impressions from a unique work that manages to be unintentionally funny in its bleakness, cringy in its kitsch, touching in its pathos and captivating in its formalism.
()
In order for someone to really like this movie, they probably have to be a fan of Tony Scott in the first place. It has dynamic directing, sharp and lively cinematography, fast editing, blending of colors, and many other directorial tricks that the fans will enjoy, and basically it doesn't matter what the plot is about.
()
Ads