L'homme en feu

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.

Seen this movie 25x, it never gets old. The acting, story, soundtrack, film style are nothing short of amazing.

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.

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.

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.