Man on Fire
Cast
Denzel Washington .... Creasy
Dakota Fanning .... Pita
Marc Anthony .... Samuel
Radha Mitchell .... Lisa
Christopher Walken .... Rayburn
Directed by
Tony Scott
Rater #2 has description and review.
Rater #1
Has Not Seen Movie
Rater #2
3/10. Is it just me, or can action movies never be set in America anymore?
They all either take place overseas, or the main character at least
travels there. In Man on Fire, Tony Scott's attempt to be cool, it
mostly takes place in Mexico City to prove to the dimwitted public
that, yes, America is better than any other country. To prove to
everyone how good America is, Scott has actors who speak with
American accents who have lived all their lives in Mexico. People
with southern accents don't trust Americans because
they're "foreign". It's even worse when the actors attempt to put on
a decent accent, and by even worse, I mean laughably bad.
John Creasy (Denzel Washington, in a one-note role) is a former
assassin who has become an alcoholic. He is hired by a Mexican family
(or an American family with southern accents) to protect their young
child, Pita (the ubiquitous Dakota Fanning) from the recent onslaught
of kidnappings. About halfway through the movie (where it could have
stopped and been a mediocre drama), she is kidnapped. Creasy swears
vengeance on everyone who helped kidnap her. You know, these revenge
movies always stay fresh and never get old after a while.
My largest complaint was the directing by Scott. Neither of the Scott
brothers (the other being Ridley) are very high on my list, and Man
on Fire just backs up my statement. Scott tries to be all "hip"
and "turn of the century" by not keeping the camera still for even
one frame. Even when two people are talking, the camera's
continuously moving in circles. It's enough to make you sick. If
that's not bad enough, Scott plays tricks with the camera related to
focusing so oftentimes you can never tell what's happening, which is
not helped by the choppy editing. Perhaps some of the minimal action
could have been considered exciting if we were able to tell what the
hell was going on at any time.
Enough about the technical aspect of the movie, which was bad enough.
The movie, touted as a no-holds-barred action movie, does have holds
barred (whatever that may mean) and is not able to be called an
action movie, simply because there is no action. There is nothing
going on for the first half of the movie (which I have said before)
except for a brief montage of how bad Mexico City is for kidnapping
(which is only referred to once more, and it's impossible to tell
what is happening then, also). The first half explored the bonding
relationship between Pita and Creasy, which is supposed to explain
why Creasy would be so hell-bent on destroying everyone who kidnapped
Pita. However, there is no chemistry between the two, and the basis
of their relationship doesn't even make sense. Pita's mother tells
him that Pita wants to be friends with him, so this hard-as-nails ex-
Marine decides to be friends with her. If he were TRULY a tough nail,
he wouldn't have given in. So why did he do it? To further
the "plot", of course! The main thing is, though, that the character
of Pita is just too damn annoying to care about. Fanning had just
come off of her star-making role in The Cat in the Hat, and here
again she plays the precocious child who is amazing at everything she
does. This is supposedly a true story, and if this was just supposed
to be an ordinary family torn apart by the kidnapping, why would this
child be an expert at swimming, playing piano, extreme ease of
talking to adults, and, most of all, being so annoying? The world may
never know.
Once the second half of the movie starts up and Creasy begins to get
mad, every single plot development that could have slowly happened in
the first half comes in. It's a leisurely movie, and then BOOM plot
here, here, and here. Add a few random acts of off-screen violence
and you get what naive critics call a "non-stop" action movie that's
so violent it should be banned. Give me a break. If this was truly an
action movie, wouldn't action take place throughout, and, more
importantly, wouldn't it be exciting? That's the aspect that's most
needed in Man on Fire but is not used-whatever action there is is not
exciting. The acts of torture are a little out of the ordinary, but
are not used properly or done in a way that makes sense (re: the man
tied to the car). In closing, if you want to see a young precocious
kid acting annoying and a famous actor sleepwalking through a boring,
meaningless movie with no action, then Man on Fire is your best bet
.
Rated R for language and strong violence.
Running time: 146 minutes
Back Home