Man on Fire (2004) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
643 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Underrated and ignored, but a bit of a classic
bt-wells99-14 February 2010
Tony Scott can make good films and bad, personally I think he can be a bit flashy and trashy and his work obviously suffers in comparison with that of his rather famous brother, but this is quite possibly his best film.

What makes this film so great is that Scott gives Denzel (on scorching form, better than Training Day) and the revelation who is Dakota Fanning time to develop a relationship of real warmth and tenderness. The set up is absolutely NOT boring, although it takes time - it is involving, and takes us on a little journey into the characters - including a superb role for Radha Mitchell as the mother. This all serves to make the action so much more effective, as we are so invested in the characters, for all their all too obvious weaknesses. This film has you on the edge for its entirety, and doesn't cop out at the end either.

The film would of course be nothing without Washington. I often wonder why he seems to get so many duff roles, when he quite clearly is as good as almost any leading man out there (I can only really think of one, Daniel Day Lewis, who has more on-screen power these days). This film should have been huge, given his status and the strength of his performance, and the quality of the film. It just goes to show you that if a studio doesn't back a film to the hilt, it ends up going straight to video. I wish I'd got the chance to see this on the big screen.
157 out of 177 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Riveting viewing!
sblenkharn4 January 2005
Certainly one of the finest movies I have seen for quite some time. Exquisite direction and flawless acting make this a very entertaining and often moving film. Denzel Washington plays one of his most engaging and emotional roles to date, and the rest of the cast perform beautifully. Christopher Walken is of course superb in his part although he did not appear as often as I would have liked. A story of ultimate greed that backfires is offset against a childs innocence and love. This is also a film for action movie lovers as it has its fair share of bullets, rockets and revenge. The location of Mexico City adds a feel of seediness and corruption which in itself is an eye opener. All in all, a truly gripping film from beginning to end. Highly recommended!
463 out of 567 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Denzel VS Mexico City... with unexpected heart
OttoVonB10 January 2007
Alcoholic mercenary Creasy (Washington) is all washed-up, until his friend (Walken) finds him a job in Mexico City, as bodyguard for a rich family's little girl Pita (Fanning). The taciturn man and melancholy girl slowly develop a strong bond... that is utterly shattered the day that Pita is kidnapped and that negotiations are sorely mishandled.

"Man on Fire"'s title works against it. It proclaims an adrenaline-fueled action film, when in fact what we get is very different. What could be mistakenly thought to be a prologue (Creasy is introduced, meets Pita and the relationship is shown) constitutes a good half of the film's running time. Washington and Faning are on top form, the former tortured and angry and the latter endearing without being cloying, so it is a tribute to Scott and screenwriter Helgeland that the film takes its time showing their odd relationship. This makes things all the more hurtful and outraging when she is captured in a kidnapping that leaves Creasy severely scarred, both emotionally and physically.

The film earns its title in the second half, not because of non-stop action - which it fore-goes in order to give us something more pondered and cruel - but because Creasy is literally ablaze with silent fury. As he hunts down anyone who participated or profited from Pita's kidnapping, dismantling rings of Mexico City's tower of corruption, his methods get bloodier while his movement actually get slower. Creasy races against time and his own likely death, as a tragic figure who's newfound reason to live has been taken away from him.

The performances are fine, with great turns from the two leads and superb supporting turns by the always reliable Christopher Walken and Jiancarlo Giannini. What sometime detracts from the film's quality is Tony Scott's now signature messy visuals. While some shots are magnificent, reminiscent of brother Ridley's work, some are almost trashy and epilepsy-inducing (some unnecessary hyper-MTV editing). the man redeems himself by handling his actors with care, superbly illustrating his environment and creating a stark atmosphere.

This is a precious oddity: a quality blockbuster.
96 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A film of two halves.
mjbridges8222 April 2005
Based on the novel of the same name by the pseudonymous AJ Quinnell, which is itself alleged to be based around true events, Man On Fire has previously been brought to the big screen in a 1987 European production by French director Elie Chouraqui. At it's heart, a simple revenge fable, Man On Fire follows the fortunes of a formerly accomplished military man known simply as Creasy, that's Creasy with a C, not a G as it sporadically sounds in the movie. Portrayed in this adaptation by Denzel Washington, Creasy is an amiable if evasive character, clearly troubled by a shadowy past of contentious moral value. This exhibits itself in a pervasively melancholy facial expression and an eagerness to spend rather too much time with his good friend Jack Daniels. It's only through the ever watchable Christopher Walken's character Rayburn, a friend and former colleague, that the viewer is afforded any insight into Creasy's character or past. After we're explicitly informed of the prolific rate of kidnappings in South American states, a bearded, bottle hitting Creasy is cajoled by Rayburn into taking a job as a bodyguard in his adopted home, Mexico. He's immediately hired by the unconvincing couple of Samuel and Lisa Ramos, played by Jennifer Lopez casualty Marc Anthony and Neighbours alumnus Radha Mitchell, to protect their little girl Pita, played by Dakota Fanning. Of course Pita is summarily abducted, Creasy is riddled with bullets, and the subsequent ransom drop is botched, ostensibly meaning curtains for the little girl. Well Creasy needed something to burn about, you didn't think it was about visit to the clap clinic did you? The rest of the film depicts a largely irrelevant criminal network being dispatched in creatively gruesome ways until the inexorable showdown with the architect of the kidnapping.

The first half of the film plods along with a pleasantly restrained pace, allowing us to enjoy some truly memorably scenes between the excellent Washington and Fanning. Creepily precocious in previous appearances, c.f. the saccharine I Am Sam, Fanning is charming as a convincingly bright youngster with maturity beyond her years, and a penchant for oral hygiene, rather than some kind of miniaturised twenty-something. Washington performs admirably as a character that is detached and distant, not least because he clearly has little back story to speak of. Walken is used sparingly and his performance is restrained. His only foray into his usual trade of scene stealing dramatic monologues even ends with the assurance "I don't have anything else to say". Mickey Rourke puts in a brief performance as a lawyer that appears as though the word bar has no legal connotations to him at all, and all the other supports are of a generally high standard. Anthony and Mitchell, however, fail to convince as either spouses or parents. Mitchell manages to be pert and distressed at the appropriate junctures, but Anthony clearly struggles to make his character credible as an actual human being.

The second half of the film, and it does start almost exactly half way through the two and half hour runtime, sees Scott abandon all directorial restrain and turn up the affectation to 11. In a scene which had the potential for Washington and Mitchell to display a deeper emotional side to their characters, Creasy flicks through his departed charge's diary while sitting on her bed, and is interrupted by the grieving MILF. After some cursory navel gazing, Lisa concedes that she doesn't know what to do and solicits Creasy's plans for the future, "What are you going to do?" "What I do best. I'm gonna kill 'em. Anyone that was involved, anybody who profited from it, anybody that opens their eyes at me (!?)" This statement of murderous intent comes complete with an irritating musical cue courtesy of Nine Inch Nails, and Lisa's response? Clearly suffering from a bout of the ever popular Lady Macbeth syndrome, barely batting an eyelid, she offers "you kill 'em all", pecks him on the cheek and sends him on his merry way. The inevitable 'tooling up' montage follows promptly.

From here on in, the film resembles some unholy mash of Stone and Soderbergh via Akerlund, filming a Tarrantino script without the dialogue or stylistic aplomb. The soundtrack proceeds to irritate, offering the abrasive cheese-grater on a guitar posturing of Nine Inch Nails to let us know when the action is suitably 'hardcore', and the pseudo mystical foreign female vocals popularised by Scott senior in Gladiator, when something 'poignant' is occurring. The subtitles, required by virtue of the Mexican locale, fade, grow, wipe and move across the frame in manner initially intriguing, but quickly distracting. These two aberrations, on top of the 'kid in a sweet shop' approach to visual effects, serve to totally distance the viewer from any connection they may have established in early scenes. On top of this we're offered a fearless journalist who can seemingly find out anything, Creasy attracting and taking bullets like Rocky does punches, and yet another ridiculous club scene. Aren't there any normal night spots in Hollywood? The violent set pieces are generally well executed, no pun intended, the most memorable being a Reservoir Dogs style extremity deprivation to the strains of the radio. The climax, when it finally arrives is surprisingly subdued, though a tacked on final moment of retribution caused the film to leave me rolling my eyes in irritation.

The main problem with Man On Fire is that it's a thin, simplistic story, prolonged to 146 minutes by a desire to show off stylistically. After Creasy sets off on his killing spree, the only thing left is to sit back and count the bodies. There isn't really any interest left in the characters, and the shadowy criminal network offers little more than greedy Creasy fodder. On the whole, it's a good quality action film, so long as you don't mind the bloated run time. Man On Fire is a predictably undemanding, enjoyable piece of entertainment from Tony Scott.
12 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An absolute masterpiece
paul-purwin20 April 2021
Seen this movie 25x, it never gets old. The acting, story, soundtrack, film style are nothing short of amazing.
23 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Perfect...Just Perfect. Do yourselves a favor and watch it but...
kourgon16 March 2005
...dont read any plot summaries because in words the plot might seem trivial, brain-dead and pointless. The film is excellent, the acting by both Denzel and Dakota (she will go sky high, trust me on that)are just fabulous, and the plot is mind blowing. Actually "fabulous" is a small word to use for such talented actors. The film is just based on actual facts and some characters are not fictional, a fact that adds up to the shock that i was having during and after the film. If you are fond of both actors and of somewhat deranged films, you still haven't watched your favorite one yet...Trust me, in the end you will have a weird and inexplicable feeling. The film is awesome, see it, rent it, buy it or whatever...just don't miss it
446 out of 581 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Editing Massacre
littlemartinarocena9 October 2006
A riveting introduction, powerful performances and yet, I couldn't quite connect. The trendy editing, I hope, it's just a moronic phase that movies are going through to be outgrow soon, very soon. All the dramatic tension vanishes as the editor plays around with the visuals. Why? If you have characters played by the likes of Denzel Washington, why the need to hit us over the head with a self conscious blow of irrational cutting taking me out of the movie completely and forcing me to see the movie as a movie, the actors as actors and the drama as sheer fiction. Washington is superb. Slowly but surely I'm warming up to the man. I've always admired his performances but there was something about the actor, a veil of arrogance perhaps, that stopped me from getting closer. Here, his personal torment and his warming up to Dakota Fanning took me completely until the smart ass editing ruined everything.
156 out of 208 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Best film of the year
royalbluemk212 February 2005
This has to be one of the best, if not the best film i have seen for a very, very long time. Had enough action to satisfy an fan, and yet the plot was very good. I really enjoyed the film,and had me hooked from start to finish.

Added blood and gore in there, but brought the realistic nature of what happens to the front of the film, and even had a tear jerker ending for many people i should think.

It is a must watch for anyone. Seen many reviews, slating the film, but to be fair, most the films that get bad reviews, turn out to be some of the best. this proves it once again.

Rent this film, buy this film, just go out and watch this film. You will not be disappointed.
379 out of 530 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Outstanding Movie
skiprodgers1 February 2005
This is by far one of the better made movies and didn't leave me disappointed at all. The sound track along with finely shot hand-held camera work was exquisite . The are always chances a movie won't hold ones beliefs as well as another, but I felt that rhythm of this picture and the timing was excellent. Dakota Fanning is rapidly becoming a staple in movie that require a child with an old soul personality and she has never disappointed me with her talent. As for Mr. Washington and of course Christopher Walken they both exceed the challenge of showing the darkest sides of humanity trying to move to the light.
244 out of 338 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
a genuinely good movie
MrFunktastic23 November 2005
i liked this film a lot. it's dark, it's not a bullet-dodging, car-chasing numb your brain action movie. a lot of the characters backgrounds and motivations are kinda vague, leaving the viewer to come to their own conclusions. it's nice to see a movie where the director allows the viewer to make up their own minds.

in the end, motivated by love or vengeance, or a desire to repent - he does what he feels is "right". 'will god ever forgive us for what we've done?' - it's not a question mortal men can answer - so he does what he feels he has to do, what he's good at, what he's been trained to do.

denzel washington is a great actor - i honestly can't think of one bad movie he's done - and he's got a great supporting cast. i would thoroughly recommend this movie to anyone.
129 out of 178 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
3 Denzels and 1 Dakota For Your Money
ccthemovieman-14 November 2005
Here's a gritty, get-the-bad guys revenge story starring a relentless and rough Denzel Washington. He's three personalities here: a down-and-out-low-key-now drunk- former mercenary, then a loving father-type person to a little girl and then a brutal maniac on the loose seeking answers and revenge.

The story is about Washington hired to be a bodyguard for a little American girl living in Mexico, where kidnappings of children occur regularly (at least according to the movie.) He becomes attached to the kid, played winningly by THE child actress of our day, Dakota Fanning. When Fanning is kidnapped in front of him, Washington goes after the men responsible and spares no one. Beware: this film is not for the squeamish.

This is stylish film-making, which is good and bad. I liked it, but a number of people found it too frenetic for their tastes as the camera-work is one that could give you a headache. I thought it fit the tense storyline and was fascinating to view, but it's (the shaky camera) not for all tastes.

Besides the two stars, there is the always-interesting Christopher Walken, in an uncharacteristically low-key role, and a number of other fine actors.

The film panders to the base emotions in all of us, but it works.
135 out of 187 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A emotional ride
RickHarvey1 February 2010
This film contains the one ingredient that all revenge movies should have and that is true emotion. Sorrow, love, laughter , anger. There are so many emotions thrown into this film. From start to finish this film is immensely captivating. The plot on paper sounds like the usually rubbish that is mostly thrown In the faces of the audiences but don't be mistaken, this film is powerful. Washington as always puts on a great performance.

The plot in a nutshell: man suffers from depression, a young girl brings life into him, kids gets kidnap, man wants revenge. Doesn't sound like anything special but it far superior than any other similar film out there. For instant, TAKEN is a similar film but when you compare them both, MAN ON FIRE wins hands down. The characters are engaging and everyone puts in a great performance and the directing is great. Mexico City feels alive , it looks like Mexico city, it smells like Mexico city. Everything is portrayed brilliantly . the style of direction was something I enjoyed and brought the best out of Mexico City

This is one of those films you'll bring out once a year to watch again or a film that you'll beg your family and friends to watch. From start to finish you are rooting for the main protagonist, making it a roller-coaster journey. There enough action to keep you happy, there enough character development to please you and then there's Washington to bring a smile to your face . Watch this film, you won't be disappointed
23 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Righteous retribution and the John Creasy redemption.
hitchcockthelegend27 June 2009
Man on Fire is directed by Tony Scott and adapted to screenplay by Brian Helgeland from the novel of the same name written by A.J. Quinell. It stars Denzel Washington, Dakota Fanning, Marc Anthony, Rachael Ticotin, Radha Mitchell, Christopher Walken, Giancarlo Giannini, Mickey Rourke and Jesús Ochoa. Music is scored by Harry Gregson-Williams and cinematography by Paul Cameron.

Mexico City and kidnappings are rife. Enter ex-military operative John Creasy (Washington). Often drunk and with no discerning aims in life, Creasy is hired by the Ramos family to act as bodyguard to their young daughter Pita (Fanning). After initially being cold and distant, Creasy starts to form a warm relationship with Pita, but tragedy strikes and Pita is kidnapped. This sets the wheels in motion for Creasy to go on a one man war of revenge against anyone involved in the snatch.

Directed with a raft of deliriously ace neo-noir flourishes by Tony Scott, Man on Fire is 145 minutes of fatalism. From the outset it's evident that this sweaty part of Mexico is home to a tortured soul, a man in desperate need of redemption. John Creasy will get this redemption, by hook or by crook, we know this, the narrative structure quickly pulls us in to impress this fact upon us. How he finds it, both emotionally and physically, is what drives the picture on. This is no ordinary tale of revenge, an excuse for pyrotechnics and inventive deaths, it is about one man's journey to said redemption, his trawl through hell, his personal sacrifice is his calling.

The catalyst is the kidnapping of young Pita Ramos, but where it would have been easy for Scott to jump in early and unleash Creasy hell, the director shows great restraint by affording time to the relationship of John and Pita. Most of the first hour is spent building a bond between them, the child softening the edges of the Creasy exterior, to then enter into his heart as he becomes not just a friend, but a surrogate father as well. It's a very real relationship, a natural one, so when things go pear shaped in the second half of the piece, we care what is happening.

Yet constantly that air of fatalism and pessimism hangs heavy as the plot thickens, the unfolding story pulsing with betrayal at almost every turn, classic neo-noir and Scott amps up the disorientation as we enter a hellish world of social decay. His box of tricks contain jump-cuts, film stock, reverse process, over-saturated colours, kinetic camera work, step-printing and slow-mo, all used to create the perfect tonal discord, a marrying up of the anti-hero's state of mind and that of the realm he has entered.

The film can be accused of pandering to stereotyping Latino baddies, especially irksome since the source novel was based in Italy, and that is a misstep that could have been avoided, but Man on Fire remains one of the most important neo-noirs available to view. It refuses to take easy options, particularly with the jet black finale, it has a grasp on what is required for quintessential neo-noir. Backed by stunning work from Washington, Scott and Cameron, it's a film equally of high technical merit as it is of narrative bite. 9/10
32 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Vengeance In Mexico City
virek21310 May 2004
Although released among a flock of revenge-minded action flicks (KILL BILL VOL. 2; THE PUNISHER; WALKING TALL), MAN ON FIRE works as well as it does thanks in large part to the always-watchable Denzel Washington, one of the best actors around today.

In MAN ON FIRE, based on A.J. Quinnell's 1980 novel (first filmed in 1987, with Scott Glenn), Washington plays a down-on-his-luck ex-mercenary who has now stooped to drinking from a flash of Jack Daniels, until his old partner (Christopher Walken) offers him a chance at redemption. He is hired on as a bodyguard to the 10 year-old daughter (Dakota Fanning) of a Mexican businessman (Marc Antony) and his American-born wife (Radha Mitchell). While he and Fanning work like oil and water first (not mixing very well), he really gets to form a bond with her, encouraging her to do better at swimming, while he at the same time attempts to deal with the demons of the past. It is that very bond that will force Washington back into his old line of work when Fanning is kidnapped and held for a $10 million ransom, and he is nearly killed. With almost any other stock action hero (Schwarzenneger; Segal, etc.), the subsequent bloodbath would be the same repetitive schlock we've seen a million times before. But Washington's character, though he's killing for a reason, does not particularly enjoy doing what he does. Still, he gets help from a very intrepid Mexican newspaper reporter (Rachel Ticotin) out to expose "La Hermanidad" (The Brotherhood), the kidnap gang responsible for Fanning's abduction.

MAN ON FIRE is flawed to some extent because of the hyper camera work, nearly headache-inducing montage editing, and various film stocks that are par for the course of its director Tony Scott (TOP GUN; CRIMSON TIDE), but which are not necessarily unique to him (witness Oliver Stone's use of montage in JFK or Sam Peckinpah's in his classic 60s and 70s films). Still, Scott gets a very good performance from Washington, as well as Fanning, who comes across as far more than a typical movie-brat kid. Harry Gregson-Williams' south-of-the-border Spanish guitar score is enhanced by soundtrack splashes of Chopin, Debussy, and even Linda Ronstadt's classic 1977 country-rock version of "Blue Bayou." Although the film overall is quite violent, it is no worse than most action films of the last ten years, and overall it is much better than most.
93 out of 141 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Denzel is incredible! One of the most underrated films ever made!
rossmichael-7524816 June 2019
How is this films rated so badly by critics? I have seen this film 4 times now and every time I watch it, I realise more and more that is it an absolute classic! The way the film was made is so unique and I love how it has been edited to have this intense feel. The music was beautiful and the violent scenes were brutal!

The relationship between Denzel and the girl is so real and makes you see why Denzel did what he did. The acting is fantastic and would recommend this to anyone looking for something different to watch!

Denzel... best actor in the world hands down!
22 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Best Film of 2004!!!
d4rk3v1L5 June 2005
There are many reasons to watch this movie: to see the reality that whips Latin America with regard to the kidnappings thing, the police corruption at continental level, among so many realities that we live the Latins.

The performance of Denzel Wahington was brilliant, this guy continues being an excellent actor and that it continues this way. Dakota Fanning just by 10 years, an excellent actress has become and I congratulate her. The rest of the movie was of marvel, I have it in my collection.

I hope that they are happened to those producing of Hollywood to make a movie completely in Venezuela, where they show our reality better with regard to the delinquency, the traffic of drugs or the political problems. They have been few the movies that they play Venezuelan land (for example: Aracnophobia, Jungle 2 Jungle, Dragonfly) they should make more, as well as they make in Mexico.

The song "Una Mirada" I hope that it leaves in the soundtrack, it is excellent. My vote is 10/10
130 out of 211 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Ahead of its time action film
loughlinmagowan5 June 2021
Denzil has eclipsed Liam and Keanu, before there Taken and Wick franchises with this performance. The acting of Dakota, Christopher and Denzil is top notch. The action scenes are gorey and the tech info graphics are ahead of there time. Great film for action buffs.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Denzel on a mission
kosmasp25 July 2012
This is a remake of an 80s movie. But before you go all out and yell at Hollywood not being able to make unique new movies, consider this: The original wasn't that good to begin with. And frankly I'd rather have them remake a movie that had a strong central idea but wasn't executed as well (for whatever reason that might have occurred, money/time/actors/filmmakers), than make something ridiculous and try to sell it to us as the best thing ever.

This of course isn't the best thing ever either, but with Denzels strong lead performance (sometimes literally), it does have a way of convincing you. Mr. Scott is known for his visual style and he doesn't disappoint here either. Quite a lot of things going on, that on the other hand might be distracting to some. Supporting actors and a very fast paced narration lead to an enjoyable (sometimes a bit violent) ride.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Utterly brilliant
jasonbuckley-0296217 December 2020
A wondeful film.

Amazing camera work in places and not a bad actor in sight. Great storyline.

The ending is superb and not the usual rubbish of where everything has to end happily.

Best film I have seen in a long while.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Jesus Christ. I was looking for an action film, instead I get a good tear jerker
andreitt21 June 2020
The first half of film is kind of dragging but I understand it is to develop the relationship between the kid and the suicidal bodyguard. The second half is like those John Wick or Charles Bronson movies where there is hell to pay - so satisfying.

Anyway the last twenty minutes has the best and unforgettable scenes in the movie. Fathers with daughters will relate.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Fav Movie
BenzoEnzoMk227 October 2020
This is one of / my fav movie ever.

I even bought the Steelbook.

Ending always makes me (a full grown man) cry.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
flawed but gripping crime thriller
Buddy-5120 September 2005
You know you're in for something different when a movie has Christopher Walken playing the part of a professional hit man - and he isn't even one of the bad guys! Although it could do with some judicious trimming here and there, "Man on Fire" is a generally effective crime drama that ranges in tone from the openly sentimental to the downright brutal - and just about every tone imaginable in between.

Denzel Washington stars as Creasy, a former CIA assassin who has recently quit the business and is seeking some sort of redemption for the sins he's committed. So far, he's been looking for answers in a bottle and the Bible and not doing all that well with either. As the movie opens, Mexico City has been ravaged by a series of kidnappings aimed at the powerful and well-to-do, possibly perpetrated by the very police force assigned to keep law and order in the community. Creasy accepts the position as bodyguard to the daughter of a wealthy business owner who rightly fears for her safety. The first third of the film is devoted to the growing friendship between Creasy and his charge, Pita, a sweet little girl who, slowly but surely, works her way into Creasy's initially hardened heart and affections. The last two-thirds of the film turns into an Avenging Angel melodrama, as Creasy systematically seeks out and eliminates all those responsible for a tragedy that occurs early on in the story.

Based on the novel by A.J Quinnell, "Man on Fire," astutely written by Brian Helgeland and flashily directed by Tony Scott, is a coolly efficient action picture that never shies away from the raw brutality of its subject matter. It takes a risk in asking us to identify with a man who is, for all intents and purposes, achieving his redemption by torturing and murdering (admittedly disreputable) people. These scenes of carnage and violence are both intense and suspenseful, even if they do at times border on the exploitative. Even better are the quiet, intimate moments between Creasy and Pita in the early parts of the movie. Washington and the wonderful Dakota Fanning establish an natural, easygoing rapport that helps to set the stage for the chaos and turmoil to follow.

Washington carries the movie with his quality of stoic righteousness, making us understand his character on an emotional level even if what he is doing eludes us intellectually. In addition to the two leads, there are solid performances from Walken, Marc Anthony, Radha Mitchell, Mickey Rourke, Rachel Ticotin and Giancarlo Giannini. But it is Washington and the delightful Ms. Fanning who steal the show.

"Man on Fire" would have been better with about a half hour taken out its running time, but this is still a better-than-average crime thriller.
76 out of 138 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Perfect acting
chinedu-jerome-okafor3 February 2018
Best on-screen chemistry i've ever seen between actors. Denzel and Dakota were brilliant. Just acting at its peak.

I'm also glad marc got limited screen time cos he kinda complicated the plot.
16 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Won't be Disappointed
rothenburg7424 September 2004
The movie has a great story and great acting. The sound was terrible and it had too many camera tricks. I had to use the subtitles on my DVD player just to understand some of the dialogue. However, the positives far outweigh the negatives. I personally think Denzel is a top five actor and this movie just adds to his tradition of great performances. The little girl has a great performance also. I've seen many bad reviews and I don't understand them. Just picky writers, they have to bash some movies. Funny, I've never remembered one of their names. Apparently there is an original that is worth checking out and comparing. This movie is a must see for action fans.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great cast, brilliant storyline and fantastic directing
efy2k200126 March 2005
This is one film which i was really excited about and believe me it did not disappoint. Denzel Washington is on great form as usual. his portrayal of Creasy a very distraught man is maybe not enough to be considered for an Oscar, but it is still up there with his best work. the storyline is fantastic and the stock which Scott chooses to use really gives one a sense of that sweaty, gritty and corrupt atmosphere of Mexico. For some the beginning of the film may drag on for a bit too long, however it is essential in establishing Creasy's character. The action really starts when Cristopher Walkens, who by the way is brilliant in his supporting role says Creasy's about to paint his masterpiece. one by one the culprits meet in their end in ways which even the most spontaneous and inventive killer would not even dream about. A brilliant film with a touch of class form both Washington and Scott.
18 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed