Man on Fire

Classic American Rambo revenge morality covered with the skin of a top techno-thriller form. The lemonade motif of the pursuit of justice and the pursuit of the last shudder of love in the soul of the bestial good guy didn't really irritate me, because Denzel Washington, the killer with a human face is good, and Scott even serves the loving relationship with little Pita in a tolerable way. The dumb content is clearly overridden by a selective form, a high-tech camera, perfect editing, and a clip-like incorporation of a musical undertone. Maybe if the story didn’t take itself so deadly seriously and some of the really forgettable dialogues were left out, Man on Fire would have been a very good, low-value film. Especially thanks to the directing and technical implementation, I was quite interested in the story, but I was definitely not satisfied. There's something infantile stupid about it, and Tony Scott can pull any sort of fat rabbits out of his hat, but this fact can't be disguised. A stupid action film in a selective guise with good acting. (02/17/2007)

I won't hide the fact that I expected a bit more from it. The first half is a compelling look at the growing friendship between a beleaguered bodyguard and a charming young girl, which is a joy to watch thanks to the performances and Scott's precise direction. The second half, marked by Washington's revenge and the liquidation of the kidnappers, does not lack momentum and brutality, but it’s surprisingly cold and the jerky camera got on my nerves instead of making everything more interesting. But that doesn't change the fact that Tony Scott was a great director who could make even a wheelchair chase look spectacular, and his action prowess and experience can be felt in every scene and especially in the ending. Man on Fire didn't impress me given the reviews, but on the other hand it didn't bore me for a moment. 3.5* (09/02/2012)

Tony Scott is back in form at last. He didn’t hesitate to incorporate epileptic editing, violence and outstanding actors into a raw story about a girl being kidnapped. With a different cast, this might have collapsed like a house of cards, but when the main protagonist is played by Denzel Washington as a devotee of the “dark side", this clearly leaves no room for any humor. Especially when revenge tastes best when it’s cold blooded, isn’t that right? (08/10/2004)

In order for someone to really like this movie, they probably have to be a fan of Tony Scott in the first place. It has dynamic directing, sharp and lively cinematography, fast editing, blending of colors, and many other directorial tricks that the fans will enjoy, and basically it doesn't matter what the plot is about. (01/20/2005)

Scott overdid it, he exhibited too much for my taste. His nervous camera games were too frequent, even annoying, I would say. The simple script was not devoid of logical nonsense, but the ambiguous ending was quite a pleasant surprise. Washington repeats himself as an actor, essentially performing a variation on his Oscar-winning Training Day (you're right, sepp). It was nice to see Walken in a different than his traditionally villain role, and I was pleasantly surprised by the leading girl who gave a very convincing and natural (for a child) performance. Finally, a cool line from a conversation Washington (about to assassinate one of the bastards) has with an old man: "In the church, they say to forgive." – "Forgiveness is between them and God. It's my job to arrange the meeting.” (10/28/2004)