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
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