|
Forwardcharm |
 |
Latest News 30 / 08 / 2010 29 / 08 / 2010 22 / 08 / 2010 01 / 08 / 2010 01 / 08 / 2010 25 / 07 / 2010 11 / 07 / 2010 11 / 07 / 2010 27 / 06 / 2010 13 / 06 / 2010 30 / 05 / 2010 30 / 05 / 2010 16 / 05 / 2010 16 / 05 / 2010 10 / 05 / 2010 10 / 05 / 2010 19 / 04 / 2010 18 / 04 / 2010 06 / 04 / 2010 05 / 04 / 2010 03 / 04 / 2010 29 / 03 / 2010 14 / 03 / 2010 09 / 03 / 2010 08 / 03 / 2010 17 / 02 / 2010 16 / 02 / 2010 31 / 01 / 2010 25 / 10 / 2009 02 / 08 / 2009 18 / 08 / 2005 |
Man on Fire (2004)
Directed by Tony Scott (Ridley Scott's brother). Adapted from the book by A.J. Quinnell, which has already been made into a film once before in 1987, with Scott Glenn, Joe Pesci and Jonathan Pryce. Story: An alcoholic ex-marine is employed as a bodyguard to a wealthy family to protect against the kidnapping of their little girl. Running Time: 2hrs 26 minutes. Certificate 18.
Denzel Washington turns 50 this Christmas. In all his career I can only remember one film - Virtuosity - that I didn't like. Before going to see Man on Fire I had glanced at other reviews only to find that this was likely to be Number Two - in more ways than one. As usual I'm going to tread carefully around the plot to avoid giving anything away - and to this end I recommend you avoid other reviews such as the BBC's, as in my opinion they reveal enough to spoil the surprises. All you need to know is that Denzel Washington is an ex-marine with a penchant for Jack Daniel's who is hired as a bodyguard for a young girl by their wealthy parents who are concerned about the escalating kidnap rate in Mexico City, where they live. Christopher Walken is Denzel's buddy and Mickey Rourke is a lawyer acquaintance. Things get messy later on, but I'm not going to tell you how, although you won't need to have read the book to figure it out. Had I read the screenplay for Man on Fire rather than watched it, I may have come to the same conclusion as many others have, as on paper it must look very drab and by-the-numbers, but from the very first frames it's clear that Man on Fire is not the run-of-the-mill Death Wish clone that it is being hailed as. Smart camera techniques are used to great effect throughout the whole movie, adding to the atmosphere and creating a claustrophobic and impersonal feel to Mexico City. Subtitles appear not only to translate the intermittent Spanish dialogue, but also during English-speaking moments, to highlight important words that maybe would have been missed otherwise. This sounds very intrusive when describing it, but it worked fantastically well and nestled snugly within the look and feel of the film. Tony Scott shows that he is a vastly talented director and adds another fine title to his CV that already includes quality work such as The Hunger, Top Gun, True Romance, Crimson Tide and Spy Game.
Intelligently then, the director spends a great deal of time developing the cinematic world before anything much happens. Once there, the tone changes markedly, but we follow it because we have been immersed in the characters' world - much like From Dusk Till Dawn. From here on, the violence begins, but it all sits comfortably within the framework already created and never seems inappropriate. The morality is a completely different story, and I can't go into that without spoiling the story, however the fact that I find the ethics of the story reprehensible yet I was still gripped, shows what a good job the film-makers must have done. If the acting and direction hadn't been top-notch, I would probably have been ripping Man on Fire apart for these reasons (much as I did to King Arthur) and even thinking about it now I feel I should dock it a mark simply for the message, however I'm not going to, simply because I came out of the cinema thinking that it was vying for a slot in my top three movies of the year. Definitely not one for everyone then, Man on Fire is nevertheless a thought-provoking, beautifully-acted, cleverly crafted piece of storytelling. The 18 certificate is certainly appropriate - in fact I can't see many people under 30 buying into it like I did, and anyone looking for a violence fix will have been bored to sleep long before any blood appears. Treat it as a character study instead, and it blossoms. I enjoyed this film: I think the average moviegoer will enjoy it: Testosterone Satisfaction Rating: A very strong sense of bitterness and revenge, including some gritty violent interrogation scenes. To enjoy this film you should be: patient and tolerant of appropriate violence.
To pre-order Man on Fire for its release on 14th February 2005, use the link below: To buy the book of Man on Fire, use this link: Man on Fire [book] |
Your commentsThe comments printed here are not necessarily the views of Forwardcharm!
best movie ever
|
Cast: Denzel Washington, Christopher Walken, Mickey Rourke, Radha Mitchell, Dakota Fanning.
Others have commented
that Denzel Washington is not stretched in the title role and perhaps they're right, but when I try to imagine another
equivalent actor in the part, the tone of the whole movie changes completely in my head. I think he just makes
it look effortless. The scenes between Denzel and the young girl, played very impressively by 10-year old
Dakota Fanning, are utterly convincing and create an unshakable foundation for the latter developments to build on.
This is critical, as the plot itself is fairly predictable, except for the clever way of dealing with the ending,
so the proceedings rely on the viewer being gripped by the performances.
