Man on Fire

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

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.

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.

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.

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.