Man on fire (2004).

[Neville]

OK, normally I'm not that emotional about bad movies, but...

SOMEBODY KILL TONY SCOTT!!!!!

His last movies (Spy Game, Enemy of the state) were OK and even cool, but this one is a stinker. Scott fills the picture with so many visual flourishes that it is neraly unwatchable, and while the first third seems to have a direction, when the momemt for action comes, all sense is thrown out of the window in favour of some revenge killings so stupid Charles Bronson must be rolling inside his grave... because of the laughs.

Oh please, if they only bothered to wrote a script before filming crap like this... But no. Most of the film looks like if they had improvised the whole thing right there. Just apalling.

[Yaddo 42]

Count me in on the hatred of Tony Scott and this film. So long, boring, and drawn out for a flat revenge flick with such a weak plot full of holes.

To begin with it took forever to get going since Denzel Washington was still a bitter drunk when the film started, so the little girl had to soften him up and win him over so they could bond before she's kidnapped. Since we knew they had to become close so he'd care when the kidnapping took place, that just frew out what was already a slow-paced and by the book piece of storytelling. I know Dakota Fanning got good notices even in bad reviews of this film, but that brat got on my nerves from the get go. So I was even more sick of her as the film went through the motions, but I have a low tolerance for polished child actors who act wise beyond their years.

When he does finally kick into action, things go from annoyingly dull to annoyingly stupid. If the kidnappers are as brutal as the movie says, only 10% of victims are recovered alive and even the ones who are are often disfigured to make a point, why would they let the girl live in order to "try again" if the botched ransom hand-off resulted in the death of the head kidnapper's brother? If he is that cruel and vicious when things go the way he planned and its nothing personal, why go easy on the parents when things go bad AND he loses a member of his family to outside interference?

The "twist" with the dad was just a subplot to pad out an already overlong movie and add another name to Washington's list of people to get back at. Plus the editing was confusing during that part. I know the bullet he saved from his failed suicide attempt (defective primer I'm guessing) couldn't be the same bullet he loaded into the Glock to give to the father, but the way the scene was put together it looked like it was. Just sloppy work in a film full of visuals.

The discovery that the girl wasn't dead with the mixup in and the burning down of the club/rave/drug lab was dumb as well. Of course he couldn't get the girl back that easy, his quest wasn't over yet (too bad). The crowd eating up the explosions and his gunfire as part of the show, and everyone seeming to get out unharmed (club goers who don't stampede when they have to clear out in a hurry???) and getting just far enough out of harm's way but still close enough to get a good show when the building went up. Just add it all to the stupid pile.

The only characters I really liked were the reporter and apparently the only honest cop in Mexico City(Rachel Ticotin and Giancarlo Giannini). I would have rather have seen a movie about those two who were interesting with their relationship and how they try to maintain their morals and still stay alive in such a crime ridden environment. Chris Walken was wasted in a pointless role menat to humanize Washington's character until the plot with the girl took over, he almost made that idiotic "painting his masterpiece" speech work, almost. But he works in so many films (good and bad), this turd hardly hurts him.

The person I blame is Tony Scott, who is inept at conveying emotion onscreen since he's too busy tweaking the annoying camera effects (the herky-jerky camera jumps, the various film stocks, the squiggles and distortion onscreen, the subtitles floating around like slogans from perscription drug commercials) and cuddling up with his cameras. He makes his "hit or miss" brother Ridley (who is often weak in the emotions dept of his films) seem like a "touchy feely" guy by comparison.

Sorry to ramble about I movie I slammed for rambling, but that flick really p**sed me off.

[Neville]

You didn't ramble, Yaddo. I say amen to anything you say there except your comments on the actors. While nobody was specially great, they all seemed the only ones who knew what they were doing. Washington and Dakota Fanning should be decorated if only to appear in a film like this and be professional. The rest of the cast is quite wasted, indeed. What hurt me the most was Radha Mitchell's character.

She was pretty good, but ultimately the only function of her character seems to be to give Washington  charte blanche to kill everybody, husband included.

And yes, Helgeland and Scott should be ashamed of moments like the rave party or the C4-in-the-arse thing. As I said, Charles Bronson must be rolling in his grave... with laughter.

[Chopper]

lol. i kinda liked Man on Fire, but don't get me wrong, i do see all the weak points you guys (or ladies) are addressing about it. i walked out of the theatre saying "wow it's like Deathwish but directed by a Catholic!"

[Mr_Vindictive]

I didn't care much for Man On Fire either.  I'm not as ferverent about my hatred of the film as some though. :o)


I too felt the film was much too long and that it took too long to get to the action.  I wanted to see some real revenge, and all I got was some wimpy revenge.  Screw that!  

I thought that the direction was stylish, but got in the way too much.  I hate the "flash cuts" which only give us a milisecond of visual before switching to another visual.  This film might have actually been good with some slower, smoother direction.

This isn't to say that Tony Scott is a bad director though.  Hell, just look at "True Romance"!  Now that is visual poetry!

[Yaddo 42]

When I saw "Man On Fire" at the theater it was a last minute choice because I had planned on seeing "Kill Bill Vol. 2" at another theater. The projector had eaten about ten minutes of the film at an earlier showing and they cancelled any other ones until the projector was fixed and a replacement film reel was ordered. So I was already cranky when I had to drive to the other theater and find another flim to go see late on a Sunday night.

I probably wouldn't have liked it under any other circumstances, but it really was the wrong film at the wrong time. I just didn't have much else to choose from at the time.

Actually I'm not a fan of "True Romance" either. Looking through his directing credits, "Crimson Tide" is about the only film of his that I do like. I thought "Spy Game" had potential, but is muddled, big surprise. Now I see Tony Scott is directing the remake of "The Warriors", ho-hum. Now he's messing with a favorite popcorn movie of mine.

[Purator]

What imbeciles.

"Man On Fire" was one of the most powerful films ever made.

Someone needs to pull their brain out of their ass.

Get over it.

[AndyC]

Purator wrote:
> Someone needs to pull their brain out of their ass.

Indeed. Someone does.