Man on Fire (2004)
Directed by Tony Scott
Written by Brian Helgeland
Starring Denzel Washington, Dakota Fanning, Christopher Walken, Radha Mitchell, Marc Anthony, Mickey Rourke
Release Date April 23rd, 2004
Published April 23rd, 2004
Denzel Washington has become such a consistently brilliant actor that we have begun to take him for granted. Seeing Denzel's name on the poster, you know that he will deliver a great performance regardless of whether the film is any good. Case in point, his latest film, Man On Fire, in which Denzel is terrific but the film is an utter mess. Full of child-in-danger cliches and muddled visuals, it comes from Tony Scott, a once great director who has become a parody of his own best work.
In Man On Fire, Denzel is John Creasy, a former special forces soldier who regrets the number of people he has killed over the years. Living in a perpetual alcoholic haze, Creasy finds himself in Mexico City visiting an ex-army buddy named Rayburn (Christopher Walken). Rayburn has successfully given up the guilt of being a killer and is now a happily married family man. Rayburn feels he can help Creasy by getting him a job and finds him work as a bodyguard.
As the films jangled, sunburnt, out of focus prologue explains, there is a kidnapping every 90 seconds in Mexico City and one of the most requested services is that of a bodyguard. With Rayburn's help, Creasy gets a gig guarding Pita (Dakota Fanning), the daughter of an auto manufacturer, Samuel Ramos (Marc Anthony). Though he can barely afford to pay Creasy, Samuel hires him at the insistence of his wife Lisa (Radha Mitchell).
At first, Creasy does all he can to keep emotional distance from Pita but eventually her sweetness and smarts win him over. The scenes of Creasy and Pita bonding over swimming, homework and music are given great weight because of these two amazing actors but do little to mask the tragedy that is so obviously on the horizon. The film’s ads and trailer betray the tragedy of the film even before you enter the theater. You already know that Creasy is going on a killing spree, this is a revenge film so you can infer why revenge is necessary.
The revenge scenes are as brutal as anything in last week’s dark revenge fantasy The Punisher and much like that film, the scenes of brutality overstay their welcome. Director Tony Scott achieves a languorous pace that dwells on each bit of vengeance and regardless of how justified it may seem, it begins to wear on anyone with a conscience. The real betrayal however, comes at the end of the film which entirely betrays all that came before in one twist that makes you feel dirty for having been so involved in the film’s drama.
As always, Denzel is fantastic. I can't say enough good things about Denzel, he is consistently better in each and every role. It's unlikely that any other actor could have made this role tolerable. Because Denzel is so skilled and so trustworthy, we follow this character further than we would a lesser actor. It is truly sad how Director Tony Scott betrays Denzel's performance with cheap cliche and overheated visuals that border on the absurd.
I also can't say enough nice things about young Dakota Fanning who is so much better than the roles she plays. This preternaturally smart pre-teen is going to be one terrific actress once she learns to choose better material. Like her roles in I Am Sam and last year’s Uptown Girls, Fanning is far better than the characters written for her.
The rest of the supporting cast are merely cardboard cutouts, placeholders for plot points. Especially underutilized is Christopher Walken, who gets one good Walken-esque speech, the “masterpiece of death” speech seen in the commercial. Other than that, Walken is on the sidelines for most of the film.
Director Tony Scott has sadly lapsed into a parody of his better films. The man who directed True Romance, Crimson Tide and Spy Game has fallen in love with his camera and overuses it at every opportunity. Just because you can create unusual visuals doesn't make it necessary to use them. Scott can't help washing out colors, superimposing dialogue, out of focus shots and tricks with sound and editing. Maybe he felt the visual histrionics were necessary because the script is such an awful cliche.
Nothing is more cheap and manipulative than placing a child in a dangerous situation. Man On Fire is predicated entirely on a child being placed in the midst of gunfire and being the target of unnecessary violence. A screenwriter who can't achieve real drama falls back on this type of cheap ploy, this film is built around it.
The most ludicrous part of Man On Fire is not its cheap manipulative plot or awful twist ending, it's a little coda that appears prior to the final credits. On a black background, there is a message from the filmmakers thanking the wonderful people of Mexico City for providing such a great place to make a movie. The film portrays the city as a cesspool of corruption, a place where police officers conspire with criminals to snatch children, a place where a kidnapping happens every ninety seconds. Therefore, the thank you at the end is a rather backhanded slap as opposed to a real thank you. I doubt Mexico City is going to brag about having hosted the filmmakers behind Man On Fire.
