Tony Scott's latest certainly isn't a bad movie, but it is disappointing in many ways. Denzel Washington turns in yet another strong and intense performance, while some of the revenge elements in the story are bound to get your heart pumping, mostly built around the fact that we sincerely care for the relationship forged between a cold ex-Marine-type and the little girl he's hired to protect.


I know what you're thinking - an action/revenge movie with a solid emotional core? What's my problem? Well, my problem is that Tony Scott couldn't keep his hands off the damn thing. Don't get me wrong, I think Scott is underrated as a director, particularly for his last two projects, Enemy of the State and Spy Game. As previously mentioned, my fondness for Scott combined with the potentially stirring premise had me itching to see Man on Fire. If only he had been pushed to get it through post-production as soon as possible instead of having the time to labor over it and constantly tweak and adjust. This may sound funny, but if you watch the film it's obviously over-directed. Mainly it's the over-jerky camera work in a attempt to make it feel gritty and raw (which, I might add, is completely pointless if you consider Mexico City and the fact that it's gritty enough all by itself), although the sub-titles are truly the most unique and annoying you'll ever see. They come in from different sides of the screen, change sizes, and sometimes even "translate" English for us in an effort to up the intensity (as if Washington needed the help).

I feel bad going off on the movie because it does have a lot going for it despite an absurd 2 and a half plus hours running time. I think if someone can ever put a leash on Tony Scott he'll deliver a masterpiece, as once again he shows flashes of brilliance without respecting the appeal of simplistic story-telling. Anyway, if you like revenge movies you'll probably walk away satisfied, although you may be slightly disappointed because Man on Fire should've been so much better than it turns out to be.

Posted April 21, 2004 | link | 0 comments