Reviewed by: Adam Mast
Man on Fire is the third “revenge” inspired film of the last week (the other two are Kill Bill Vol. 2 and The Punisher), and while this picture has nothing on Tarantino’s opus, I did like it more than the Marvel comic book adaptation.
Denzel Washington plays Creasy, an ex-military assassin with a drinking problem. He’s given an opportunity by old friend Rayburn (played by the always charismatic Christopher Walken). That opportunity comes in the form of a bodyguard position. Creasy decides to take the job after meeting the parents (Marc Anthony and Radha Mitchell) of Pita (Dakota Fanning), the little girl he’s assigned to protect. The family live in Mexico City which makes the job all the more difficult, as this particular area is known for it’s obscenely high kidnapping rate, and in most cases these child abductions involve large ransom fees.
Once again, Denzel fleshes out what easily could have been a one dimensional role. His brooding, withdrawn attitude and “boiling-beneath-the-surface” anger are ostensibly the result a mysterious past in which it is apparent that this man has done things he isn’t particularly proud of. Washington is terrific here, but he played a similar character much more effectively in Ed Zwick’s Courage Under Fire. The turn really becomes fun to watch when his vengeful side is exposed. Even as a merciless killing machine, this fine actor still manages to have to convey a sensitive side.
Little Dakota Fanning continues to shine. She was the best part of the overrated I Am Sam, and in Man of Fire she really holds her own alongside Washington as the sweet and tenacious Pita. The two really do generate sincere chemistry and I loved that Creasy never talks down to her. His conversations with Pita are frank and to the point. Watching their relationship evolve is touching, and that’s a testament to the fine acting on display in this movie.
Screenwriter Brian Helgeland is no stranger to gritty storylines (he won an Oscar for L.A. Confidential and also guided Mel Gibson’s Payback until he was replaced for reasons that remain sketchy). His Man on Fire has shades of Ron Howard’s Ransom, only Helgeland has no interest in focusing on the kidnappers themselves (which is one of the elements that really annoyed me in the Mel Gibson thriller). No, Man of Fire is clearly about Creasy and what he’s capable of when something is taken from him. This is a story of revenge in it’s purist form.
Unfortunately, Man on Fire takes too long to really get going. We’re nearly an hour into the film before the plot really takes off. It’s obvious that Helgeland and director Tony Scott (Top Gun, True Romance) are interested in building a genuine rapport between Creasy and Pita so that when the pivotal scene arrives, it’s an emotional one. To an extent, it is, but it really does take too long to get there. I really didn’t see why this movie had to be two and a half hours long.
And, of course, Man on Fire is full of surprises and double crosses, none of which really work to the film’s advantage. In fact, many of these gimmicks felt tacked-on to spice things up for the audience. I also would have liked to have seen more of Christopher Walken’s Rayburn. He really livens things up in the few scenes he’s in. Sadly, his character is nowhere to be found in the final act of the picture.
Of all things, perhaps the worst part of Man on Fire is the direction! I enjoy Tony Scott’s work. I love his use of close-ups and I appreciate his attempt at adding drama to the proceedings. What I find incredibly discouraging, is his flashy, MTV cutting style. This technique worked in Enemy of the State and Spy Game because it was more in tune with the subject matter of those movies. Here, that flash is a big distraction and it takes away from the impact of the movie. In particular, I was really annoyed by a scene in which Creasy interrogates his first potential victim. It’s supposed to be an intense, violent sequence but it is ultimately drained of tension because of Scott’s intrusive directing style. This portion of the film would have been far more effective if it weren’t edited like a damn music video. This is all too bad really, because the cinematography is quite good. It has a sort of grainy, shaky documentary look on par with City of God and 21 Grams.
I also had big issues with the ending of this picture. Somehow, it didn’t feel like the real ending. What started off as a movie with “balls” as it were, ultimately takes the easy way out. I’m no cynic mind you, I just felt that the grittiness of this picture was compromised. I suppose though, that not only is Man on Fire a story of in-your-face revenge, it’s also a tale of redemption. I just wish the movie had the courage to maintain it’s edginess throughout.
