|
Directed by: Tony Scott Starring: Denzel Washington "In Mexico City, a former Marine swears vengeance on those who committed an unspeakable act against the family he was hired to protect." I saw this movie tonight and though it was the greatest movie I've seen all year, and I've seen a lot of great movies this year. The best part was the directing. It was just amazing how well it was done. It's not often that after watching a movie with the guys that we all comment on the directing. It was amazing. The acting was also very good. Even though Denzel Washington played mostly a generic badass, there are plenty of dramatic scenes and he does it perfectly. I think the best acting though goes to the little girl (Dakota Fanning but who cares about child actors anyway). The first half of the movie is pretty slow but very entertaining nonetheless. After the "incident" happens, though, the tables turn and now the bodyguard becomes the hitman. It seems a lot like Punisher but this movie blows Punisher out of the water. He's ruthless when it comes to tracking down the bad guys. Unlike Punisher, he doesn't know who the bad guy is, so his revenge comes down to a lot of investigating and a lot of torturing. Why are you still reading this? Go watch the movie. Do it.
|
#
?
May 2, 2004 10:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
I just got back from seeing this film and I've gotta say it was awesome. I thought the directing was very nice and the camera work was interesting. Something that I haven't seen in any movies before was the subtitle effects. Instead of just putting subtitles at the bottom like an ordinary movie they moved the words around based on who was speaking and the emotion of the words. Anyways A Man on Fire is definitely worth seeing... WALKEN OWNS
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2004 11:29
|
|
|
Yeah I'll agree, this is a pretty good movie. I read in my college newspaper that it was a generic revenge movie and that Washington was just the generic killer, but I didn't think it was true at all. I went in expecting something good but instead got something great in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2004 15:45
|
|
|
Something tells me Im probably going to be alone on this one, but I didnt like it. I thought it was boring, I thought it was filled with cliches, I thought it was predictable, and I thought it was too loving long. I mean, if you like 2.5 hour long vanilla revenge movies with Denzel Washington chopping off people's fingers, go right ahead. But I wouldnt see it twice.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2004 16:41
|
|
|
The critics didn't really hae good things to say about this movie. But I still went to see it because I'm a huge Denzel Washington fan. I was not disappointed with this movie at all. I thought it was great. Does anybody have any information in regards to it being based on a true story? Supposedly it's based on the true story of a bodyguard in Italy who gets revenge on the kidnapping crooks after the girl he's protecting gets kidnapped and then killed.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2004 18:55
|
|
|
The movie is actually a remake of a 1987 film which is based on a book of the same name by A. J. Quinnell and the book is about an actually kidnapping that occured in Italy. The novel and the movies take some liberties with the story however. http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/Today/2004/04/24/434228.html (about half way down it starts talking about the book and what-not) I enjoyed Man on Fire, I went in expecting a silly action flick that I would forget about as soon as I left the theatre but the movie was very well done. It took time developing the characters and setting up the plot and I appreciated that nothing felt rushed for the sake of the audience's short attention span.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 04:27
|
|
|
this movie loving sucked. Edit: Reasoning: * 2/3 through the movie and the loving girl still hasn't been kidnapped? Who wrote this, the director of "The Hulk"?? * As predictable as the rising sun * Stretched out * Hey, Denzel was shot hours ago, but fortunately he is able to hold off his death (and act as if nothing had happened) until the girl is set free * The movie is just booooooooooring. tractorcrusher fucked around with this message at 04:26 on May 4, 2004 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2004 04:21
|
|
|
I didn't like some of the camara work in this movie. At first the whole dramatic zooming in was ok but I think they over did it. I also think that they portrayed the kidnappers too nicely. The scene where the AFI/newspaper reporter gets threatened to get killed if she publishes the photo was bullshit. In reality kidnappers would have just killed her.Also real kidnappers would have raped and cut off a limb before negotiations would have commenced. (Not a kidnapper) This movie is pretty depressing though... voted 3.5
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2004 05:28
|
|
|
I thought this movie was pretty drat awesome. I saw it tonight with my goon pal Anarchist. We both enjoyed it a lot. I thought it took awhile to get started but once it picked up it was really strong. Denzel kicked a lot of rear end in this movie (oh poo poo C4 suppository). There were some great lines too. There was one point though, where the both of us cracked up. I was so close to disrupting the theatre. Denzel is talking to this guy who was holding the girl trying to find out who runs the operation. He askes him multiple times "WHO'S THE BOSS?" It's also subtitled so large it takes up the entire screen. I turn to my pal Anarchist and say "Tony Danza." We were laughing for like five minutes. 4/5 It was awesome but a bit slow to start. Edit: Oh we can do half pointes now? In that case 4.5
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2004 06:04
|
|
|
I thought it was very good, but at least a half-hour too long. The best thing about it, predictably, was the acting; Washington and Dakota Fanning are teriffic. The pacing of the film, however, is a major, major drawback; it's a good 1.5 hours into the movie before some major killing happens. Other than that it was an excellent movie. Just be patient.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2004 06:27
|
|
|
quote:stomachpancake came out of the closet to say: The pacing was what made this movie for me. It wasn't just a generic revenge flick, you actually got an idea of the relationship beforehand, and by building it up, the payoff was much more effective. Overall, I thought this was a pretty good movie, long, but appropriately long. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2004 06:58
|
|
|
I thought it was disconjointed, with horrible cinematography and a weak script. The director made an attempt at being artsy, both with jerky camera work and boring predictable plot twists. It just failed on so many levels. The movie took itself pretty seriously and was way too silly for it's atmosphere to be enjoyed. Also, the horrible misuse of christopher walken. You could have removed Walken from the movie altogether, and it wouldn't have impacted the "plot" one bit. And that's just weak... 1/5 EDIT. strikerboy, I said that too. It was comedic gold 
CrustaceansofFire fucked around with this message at 11:30 on May 9, 2004 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2004 11:24
|
|
|
Man on Fire was a good film. I plan on purchasing the DVD when it comes out. It was highly enjoyable with scenes I would like to see many more times, but far from a great film. The only major drawback was how slow it started, and how rushed the ending was. An hour an a half of just character development and the building of the relationship between Crecy (sp?) and Pita (sp?). Granted, this relationship needed to be fully explored to understand Denzel's emotions and motivations for doing what he did to get her back, but too much time was given to do it. When you finally get to all the "bad rear end poo poo" with him killing people in very creative and awesome ways, it goes WAY too fast and leaves something to be desired. I would not have minded a few extra minutes, maybe another half hour just to pace things a little better. Something, but the pacing needed work. One other drawback was the script though. The whole thing with the kidnappers and the "web of intrigue" confused the poo poo out of me and some of the motivations of the characters became very foggy and hard to understand. Not to mention the mishap with the money drop to get Dakota back, and some of the events thereafter made no sense. Everything else (characters, scenery, action, etc...) was very well done and enjoyable. However the pacing needed some work. Solid 3.5/5 PS- I want the DVD just to watch the killing scenes about 15 dozen times since those were loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2004 15:53
|
|
|
I really enjoyed this movie. If you haven't seen "Man on Fire" or "The Punisher" but plan to see them both, I would suggest watching "The Punisher" first, because in terms of revenge this movie kicks it up a notch, and watching "The Punisher" after it will make the crazy violence in that movie seem bland by comparison. The little girl creeped me out a little, but her acting was pretty good, and I like the fact that there was solid character development before any major action. Also, did anyone else enjoy seeing Mickey Rourke as a crooked American in Mexico for the second time in twelve months (Once Upon A Time in Mexico being the first time)? Voted 4.5
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2004 16:30
|
|
|
4/5 I went into this movie not knowing anything about it. I've never seen any commercials for it beforehand and didn't even know it existed until me and a bunch of friends went. The movie is really slow in the beginning, so me and one of my friends took a cigarette break expecting the movie to suck hardcore. One of the employees was outside saying that the movie gets better after about an hour, and poo poo he was right. It seems like a totally different movie later on. I'm sure the 1st hour could have been less dragged out, but oh well. Good movie overall and I recommend it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2004 04:09
|
|
|
The biggest problem with this movie is that the kidnapping itself doesn't start until halfway through the film. This wouldn't be a problem but the dialogue and the story seem drawn out and boring. The second biggest problem was the filmography. It was way too artsy and left me feeling queasy and annoyed. Not to mention that for some insanely moronic reason they decided to float in random words and phrases into the movie as if they were subtitles. The only part of this movie I'd even consider watching doesn't begin until about 3/4 the way into the movie. He starts killing people and the best part is he shows no mercy to those directly involved . Oh and is anyone else tired of the cliched "alcoholic who redeems himself" main character? 2/5
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2004 05:40
|
|
|
Man On Fire was an average quality film that could have been a lot better, but was dragged down by a director who seems alternately indulgent and distracted. less effects and more cuts would have helped this film a lot. i didn't like the "cool" direction, and i hated the drat subtitles (and i think i spotted an error in them). all the acting was good and the story was decent enough -- though it obviously wasn't just a flat-out revenge thriller like every drat critic told me. it wasn't bad, and there's good stuff in it, but the problems nag me enough that i can't rate it too highly. so... 3.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2004 08:24
|
|
|
This movie is a loving abomination. By the time it was over, my legs had turned to complete mush. Me and Jhonas tried to stand up after it was over and we just fell down, the movie was that long. Wow, just wow. That was the longest, most painful and boring movie I've ever sat through. For at least the first hour, it was nothing but exposition explaining....well, nothing, really. It was like a deformed stepchild of The Punisher. Man goes from having no feelings, to falling in love with a 6 year old girl or whatever, to having no feelings (lol punishment not revenge). After an hour it degenerates into a comedy (lol NUNYA BIZNESS) which, ironically, was the best part of the movie. The last 5 hours was some abortion of The Punisher, except less cool, and more wimpy. The cinematography was nauseating. Quick cuts, and I mean QUICK cuts, for 20 minute long sequences, never focusing on one thing for more than a second, so you can really never tell what in the gently caress is going on. It makes you dizzy. The dialogue is horrible. It's cringe-worthy in many, many places. The movie is longer than a goddamn Extended version of an LoTR movie. Half of the lines are in Spanish. I understand the movie takes place in Mexico, but it is rather asinine to have a very large portion of the lines in the movie not be in English, so that you almost do as much reading as watching. For god's sake, even half the English lines are subtitled, on-screen, for really no apparent reason. In short, save yourself the $8, the 12 hours, and just watch The Punisher instead. edit: also, movie does not deliver. There are, in fact, no men on fire.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2004 10:07
|
|
|
I thought this was an extraordinary film, I loved every bit of it. Anything I could say about it has already been said, but I think a point of the movie that nobady has yet mentioned is the fantastic soundtrack to it. I think how they mixed in that NIN song to dramatic scenes, and just the overall feel of the music made the atmosphere of the movie much more powerfull. I love NIN though, so I might just be predisposed. voted: 4.5
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2004 11:54
|
|
|
I liked the movie after the second half. The first half was a little slow (making the overall movie seem pretty long). As far as Washington's character, he was much meaner than his character from Training Day (not saying this is a movie to compare to since Training Day was much better). I give it a 3.5 Pros: The second half (Denzel wreaks havoc) Cons: The first half (Denzel wreaks of alcohol)
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2004 04:53
|
|
|
I liked it a ton. It had some of the best character development to come in a movie in a long rear end time. The little girl was the first kid that I didn't want to strangle after watching the movie (I hate child actors, they usually ruin otherwise good movies). Denzel was awesome as usual. Soundtrack was awesome Cinematography was odd, but cool. Definately worth seeing.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2004 14:21
|
|
|
Alot of you guys suck with your film opinions. Most of the lines of an American movie should be in English so we don't have to read subtitles?! Whoever said that, loving give us all a break and go kill yourself. Now honestly, I didn't expect much, but as soon as I saw that Tony Scott directed it, I got really excited. Tony Scott directed the awesome BMW film, "Beat the Devil", which you can find in BTB, staring James Brown who makes a deal with the Devil. Tony Scott is a major new directing talent, who combines awesome digital techniques, sharp editing, music, colors and acting. I also was really impressed with the little girl. I can't wait to see her in Maxim in another 10 years or so, and after that collecting her Oscars. We saw the introduction of a major new film talent in Dakota Fleming.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2004 03:31
|
|
|
I liked the movie alot. As someone previously said the pacing was perfect for my taste, where some might have judged it too drawn out I think the timing worked in favor of the overall story, the audience wasnt thrown into vicious scenes of revenge, we were actually given enough time to see why one man would do all of this. The acting was superb, Denzel and Dakota Fanning gave excellent performances, the rest of cast did there roles well, and more importantly believably. My only complaint was that the excellent cinematography would be sometimes marred with camera effects and 'MTV' style quick edits, sometimes ruining stunning visuals. The gun battles, peticularly when Pita is kidnapped where gritty and not overdone. And I also cant forget that it had Christoper Walken. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2004 04:43
|
|
|
I was really digging this movie through the first half. Denzel going on his revenge spree rocked. But I felt it lost a lot of steam once they revealed Pita was still alive. Aside from being predictable, it really hurt the pacing of the movie. Having her father involved was a nice twist, but that's how the movie should have ended. Having them do an exchange at the end was just weak. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2004 08:16
|
|
|
Really lame-rear end movie that spread like a Mexican whore to facilitate Denzel's improbable killing spree. Loads of contrivances to make it seem smarter than the average revenge flick. Looks like it was edited by an epileptic on a meth binge. Two.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2004 04:33
|
|
|
One of the best movies i've seen in a long time, i really enjoyed it 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2004 06:31
|
|
|
A pretty decent movie that would've been better if it didn't have to resort to schizophrenic editing. Creasy's gradual transformation from a hardened disillusion soldier to a warmer bodyguard (and his subsequent regression) was believeable, and the scant scenes if violence I saw were short, to-the-point and exceptionally bloody. This is one of those movies that has great ideas and bad ones, which average out to a decent moviegoing experience. Worth a rental. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2004 05:50
|
|
|
Good overall movie. Like most have said started too slow in the beginning, but made up for it later. Even though it was slow in the beginning, I think that they should have devloped the relationship more. Plus there wasn't nearly enough Walken. I know this isn't supposed to be a discussion, but was I the only one that had hoped at the end that Denzel had one of those rectal bombs to kill everyone in the car? I mean "The Voice" and Denzel ended up dying in the end, so why not make it in a sweet anus explosion?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2004 14:46
|
|
|
A very enjoyable movie overall, I almost fell asleep through the first part due to the slowness of it, the end was rushed to fit it into a respectable timespan. 4/5 potatoes easily.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2004 14:46
|
|
|
I really really really really liked this movie, the whole set up with him and the girl was perfect, and the fire fight when she's kidnapped is one of my favorite ever. The shot with his arm stretched forwards with the gun while firing, the sounds, everything, is loving amazing. I loved the footage, but I also enjoyed the Bourne Supremecy's directing, so take that as you will. I really don't think that the girl should have lived. I mean, the whole movie is about how she gave him his humanity, and when she was killed, he lost all of it again, which is why he's so loving mad. He just needed to be a bad rear end until the end, gently caress the little girl.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2004 02:44
|
|
|
Ah, just watched this. It is a revamp of Leon the Professional, in many ways... (What is it about lonely ultra-assassins and cute little girls?) Fantastic, though! I liked leon better, of course, but this was still pretty neat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2004 04:04
|
|
|
I have this movie on DVD,a nd I freaking love it. One of the best movies I've ever seen, 5.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2004 05:48
|
|
|
Saw this last night. First off, the directing and cinematography were awesome. I've never seen a film done in that style before. It almost felt like I was reading a comic book, with the quick action shots, the freeze frames, quick flashes, and little bits of dialogue left on the screen. Marvel Films should take note of this movie, because if a comic book movie was done in this style it would be amazing. Also, the music was really good. I spotted the use of about 3 or 4 total Nine Inch Nails songs (though mostly just one), and a few scenes with Lisa Gerrard's hauntingly gorgeous vocals. It set the mood well, though that one NIN song might have been overdone just a tad. The problem I had was that it couldn't make up its mind whether it wanted to be a serious, realistic drama, or a Hollywood action movie. Several parts of the film bounce back and forth between each. If I go to see a serious drama, I like to think about it. If it's Hollywood action, I turn my brain off. When watching 'Man on Fire' I couldn't decide which one to do. There's some great drama, and some excellent acting in a lot of scenes, particularly Denzel, Walken, and the little girl. They make the story seem more believable. The gritty filming style and a lot of the character actions throughout the movie also make it more believable. Even the way people dress makes it believable. But then there are a bunch of scenes where it really turns Hollywood, and makes me question the nature of the movie..Creasy makes the jump from hardass emotionless bodyguard to suddenly caring so much about the girl, in the span of like 2 minutes of the movie. I guess you're supposed to think that she's so charming that anyone would have to fall in love with her, but for me it was way too fast on the character development. Second, some of the dialogue was great, but other one-liners wouldn't be out of place in an 80's Stallone action movie. They also put in too many Hollywood plot twists for its own good. I figured at some point they would have maybe ONE of the following plot twists at the end: Corrupt anti-kidnapping detective is involved, lawyer is involved, father is involved, or the girl's still alive at the end. Instead they put in ALL of these. Creasy goes through the movie with the motivation of pure sadistic revenge, and then at the end all of the emotion and vengeance he's gone through turns out to mean nothing, and that's why I think the girl should've stayed dead. He had some really clever ways of killing people and getting information though. I also agree with awd55's suggestion about the bomb at the end. I was thinking the same thing when I watched it, kept waiting for it to happen, and it never did. At the end I was just kind of confused about the whole thing. Was it trying to be purely dramatic and serious? Or was it trying to be an action movie with a revenge story? I think it was trying to be both at the same time, and that ended up hurting it. Many parts of it were great, but other parts made me wonder what they were thinking. Between the mix of good and bad I'd give it a 3 out of 5, but the directing style was really good so I'll give it an extra half point. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2004 23:29
|
|
|
Denzel's finest work to date. The movie to me was a great cross between the professional and Falling Down, basically any movie where the character takes the law into his own hands has my vote. As far as cinematography goes it was creative and very well done. The camera was shaky at times, but it was for a purpose, there was nothing hollywood about it at all and it lended creativity to the scenes. The characters surprisingly were all well introduced and there was not one part in the movie where i scratched my head wondering what the hell just happened. And thats probably another thing i liked about it, the movie took its time, the pacing was spot on and it never rushed into scenes or sped things up to make the plot go faster. This gets a solid 5. Its earned its place in my collection and proves that every summer, for the pile of Hollywood drivel that gets thrown at us, theres always that one gem that shines above the rest, and this is it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2004 03:16
|
|
|
almost there. 5 out of 5 if the music was good AND original, the end score ripped off Gladiator
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2004 07:22
|
|
|
I searched for a thread on this simply to say that I watched this movie yesterday and it was absolutlyamazing. Danziel is the black Brad Pitt, he can play the good guys as well as he can play the bad guys. If you haven't seen this movie yet....do it!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2004 22:00
|
|
|
Tony Scott has done some great films, Top Gun is a classic and despite the response Spy Game got at work I personally became very involved in it. As for Man on Fire, I thought it was cracking, cor blimey guvnor (to be my typically British self). Denzel for me can do no wrong, his performance in Training Day deserved the Oscar he received, and in Fallen he was outstanding. Dakota Fleming (the little girl) is probably the most impressive child actor/actress I've seen in a long time, she was surprisingly decent in Trapped and she was only 8 at the time of filming. I agree with what people here have said about the film being a little slow to start with, but personally I prefer the kind of film with a steady build up that one that's racing at 100 mph for 2 hours long. To sum up, it could have been better, but only ever so slightly, and has some incredible touches from Scott. It's unfortunate, however, that here in Britain it's a good 3 or 4 months off general retail release. Already I've become aware of several copies floating around with people I know. Overall 4/5 Pro's - Christopher Walken!! Denzel's character Con's - Can't really say without spoiling the plot
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2004 02:03
|
|
|
Good movie, a little too long for my tastes, but what pissed me off was the fact that christopher walken just disapears half way through the movie and is never seen again. 3.5/5.5 Pros: Good action flick with great action. Cons: Too long!!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2004 00:41
|
|
|
4/5 If you would like to see a movie where one man get pissed off and takes revenge the way everyone wishes they could, this is that movie. Another great one from Denzel
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2004 06:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
I just finally saw this movie. The DVD arrived today. I guess no one has posted on this movie in awhile, however I liked it so much I thought I would post my thoughts. For those that do not own, I would recommend picking it up. I am not a huge Denzel fan, however he plays an excellent part in this movie, a very believeable character. The ending is powerful and a must see. Great move overall, 9.1 of 10 IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2004 03:45
|
|