Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

HeadlinesExotic Boring

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Michael Ledo FORGIVENESS IS BETWEEN THEM AND GOD... ...IT IS MY JOB TO ARRANGE THE MEETING.Somehow when Denzel Washington says this line it is not as convincing as maybe Van Diesel. Washington and Dakota Fanning did their expected wonderful job, but the ending was all wrong for the movie.The movie starts out slow. Washington plays a Jack Daniels guzzling former CIA agent who reads the Bible. His partner, Christopher Walken, lands him a job guarding Dakota Fanning (Pita). Early in the movie we find out every rich person in Mexico hires a body guard, then gets kidnapping insurance from AIG for 10 million dollars, which the kidnappers know about. This sets you up for the expected plot twists which were not terrific.Denzel doesn't want to get friendly with Dakota, but ends up becoming her friend, father, swimming coach, chauffeur, etc. etc. Dakota Fanning gets kidnapped (box information). Denzel uses his CIA "walking tall" methods to go after the bad guys, which includes half of Mexico. The substandard script, slow beginning, and questionable ending took away from the production.The ending should have included a dramatic escape by Fanning involving her ability to swim as the movie centered so much on this aspect of her life.

jasperan Altruism is a gift that only a few have. This film is a clear example of a good man, "a sheep that got lost". The performances by Dakota Fanning, Denzel Washington and Radha Mitchell were incredible, in my opinion. Christopher Walken didn't appear as much as I had expected; it's a shame he wanted to help on everything but kill. I would've liked to see him angry for once.

stinkerxD Man on Fire starts with a 5 minute in your face edit of a man being kidnapped and the steps taken to get him released. I feel it was supposed to be set up for the inevitable scene where are main characters would have to do the same. But this scene actually alleviates the tension from the film because it practically shows the basic structure for the entire movies finale. This sequence as well gives you a taste of the very quick cutting edits that City of God popularized around the time this film was made, but the execution of these edits in Man on Fire just tend to be annoying and makes it difficult at times to fully grasp what's happening as flashback sequences and the scenes taking place in the present are shot, colored, and edited in the exact same way as these flashbacks. The characters in Man on Fire is what makes this movie watchable, and I would even go as far to say that the first hour of this film was very well done. As you watch this young girl and her body guard interact as a business relationship that eventually grows into a friendship (as cliche and predictable as it might be) is actually quite entertaining to watch. It's only once the inevitable kidnapping and revenge story began that this film began to go downhill. So in conclusion, Man on Fire is a watchable film that has a strong first act but a weak second. And although its in your face editing style becomes obnoxious at times, and the story is rather predicatable and cliche, the characters make it worth a viewing.

TheLittleSongbird 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