Man on Fire (2004)
- Thread starter uhrgl
- Start date
Stas_Tagios
Well-known member
Caught MOF on cable and really disliked the filmmaking style, which I thought was obnoxious and overdone, even for Tony Scott. The endless flash frames and saturated colors... yikes.
I have no problem with assured directorial style if it suits the material thematically or narratively (e.g., as in Scorsese's "Goodfellas"), but in the case of MOF, I felt Tony Scott's over-direction was an attempt to dress-up what was essentially a simple revenge movie.
Just my 2 cents.
I have no problem with assured directorial style if it suits the material thematically or narratively (e.g., as in Scorsese's "Goodfellas"), but in the case of MOF, I felt Tony Scott's over-direction was an attempt to dress-up what was essentially a simple revenge movie.
Just my 2 cents.
nullphonic
Well-known member
I love this movie, I thought they did a great job of character development before letting all hell break loose.
Denzel Washington is one of my favorite actors as well. He's one of those actors that I can generally trust his script choices (in addition to being an incredible actor obviously). I used to be that way with Al Pacino and Robert De Niro back in the day but not any more, their script choices of late have been a little off imo.
Denzel Washington is one of my favorite actors as well. He's one of those actors that I can generally trust his script choices (in addition to being an incredible actor obviously). I used to be that way with Al Pacino and Robert De Niro back in the day but not any more, their script choices of late have been a little off imo.
Final Design Studios
Veteran
I liked this one. But I read a review that kinda took it away from me. The whole reason why denzel's character has problems is because both times he's shot at he's dumb enough not to wear body armor.
STORYTELLER32
Well-known member
I'm torn on man on fire. As a story concept I love it. As an execution of a story I don't love it but don't hate it. Tony Scott is one of my favorite directors, but he's getting over the top with his stylizational choices. I miss the Tony Scott who's gorgeous compositions filled the screen CLEARLY (ie. Crimson Tide, True Romance, The Fan) and didn't do things to take us out of the narrative. Lately, I get the feeling he's trying to compete with and step out of the shadow of his brother Ridley (I hear they have a really big sibling rivalry thing going on). He treats the movie screen more like it's a canvas and the film like it's a set of oil paints rather than getting us involved in the narrative. The words on the screen were VERY annoying and only served to remind me I was watching a movie instead of keeping me engrossed in the story. His decision to use a hand crank camera for artistic effect was a good one and I liked the color pallet. I just wish he would have used it sparingly to sell an emotionally distressed moment here and there instead of peppering every scene with it. It was absolute overkill.
About the story: great concept and yes, I think it's what The Punisher should have been. (The studios really dropped the ball with Punisher bigtime.) I think so much of the screen time in MOF was taken up with the stylized usage of 9 camera setups and intentional 'popping' the frame that he lost time to really develope the characters. We know very little about Creasy or his friend only that they did things in their past which they regret. The film makers were obviously a little concerned with this when they went so far as to include an entirely expositional scene between the top mexican cop and Creasy's friend where he sits there and basically explains the logline concept of the movie to the audience. ("What was the little girl to him? Creasy was dead inside, she showed him it was ok to live again, brought him back to life") I mean come on, that was a given in the overall concept. But the studios were probably concerned with the stylized film making taking up all the narrative time so they had Tony shoot that scene to cover it's short comings and make sure the audience gets it. I think Tony's choices in MOF turned what was probably a great story on paper into just a good one on screen.
Tony started this nonsense with Spy Game then increased it with Enemy of the State and has gone absolutely insane with it in Man on Fire. I hope someone reigns him in on his next one because if I see this annoying execution in the advertising of whatever comes out next from him, I'll avoid paying to see it. ..ahem.. :angry:
PS: I thought it made sense to the overall story that Denzel didn't wear armor. I mean they were in Mexico, he had no money and he wasn't expecting to take a job doing security (his friend sprung it on him). You're assuming he even had access to Body Armor #1 (he was already being underpaid as they stated so where was money coming from for the armor?). And #2, the second time he got shot, he was stalking the brother in own back yard with lookouts everywhere. Being black in Mexico makes you stand out enough. Wearing body armor would be over the top obvious and cause alarm to the lookouts thereby blowing your surprise advantage. That's the way I looked at it. :happy:
About the story: great concept and yes, I think it's what The Punisher should have been. (The studios really dropped the ball with Punisher bigtime.) I think so much of the screen time in MOF was taken up with the stylized usage of 9 camera setups and intentional 'popping' the frame that he lost time to really develope the characters. We know very little about Creasy or his friend only that they did things in their past which they regret. The film makers were obviously a little concerned with this when they went so far as to include an entirely expositional scene between the top mexican cop and Creasy's friend where he sits there and basically explains the logline concept of the movie to the audience. ("What was the little girl to him? Creasy was dead inside, she showed him it was ok to live again, brought him back to life") I mean come on, that was a given in the overall concept. But the studios were probably concerned with the stylized film making taking up all the narrative time so they had Tony shoot that scene to cover it's short comings and make sure the audience gets it. I think Tony's choices in MOF turned what was probably a great story on paper into just a good one on screen.
Tony started this nonsense with Spy Game then increased it with Enemy of the State and has gone absolutely insane with it in Man on Fire. I hope someone reigns him in on his next one because if I see this annoying execution in the advertising of whatever comes out next from him, I'll avoid paying to see it. ..ahem.. :angry:
PS: I thought it made sense to the overall story that Denzel didn't wear armor. I mean they were in Mexico, he had no money and he wasn't expecting to take a job doing security (his friend sprung it on him). You're assuming he even had access to Body Armor #1 (he was already being underpaid as they stated so where was money coming from for the armor?). And #2, the second time he got shot, he was stalking the brother in own back yard with lookouts everywhere. Being black in Mexico makes you stand out enough. Wearing body armor would be over the top obvious and cause alarm to the lookouts thereby blowing your surprise advantage. That's the way I looked at it. :happy:
STORYTELLER32
Well-known member
Absolutely true. I forgot about that because I forgot that he didn't know Pita was alive until after he got shot the second time. Ironic because he probably would have wanted to live if he knew she was alive only by the time he found out, he was already dying.
Caught this on HBO a few weeks back. Pretty good story, but holy heck, the editing was incredibly annoying! Seriously, whoever editing this film needed to just stop for a second and realize that it's hard for an audience to watch a two hour music video. I didn't have a problem with all the oversaturation and filtering, but the harsh cuts were a nightmare. Probably one of the first films were I actually liked less simply because of the editing.
Tlalconetl
Well-known member
I didn't like the ending. Come on, that girl should've been killed. Typical hollywood ending.
emotepix
Well-known member
This movie is a remake of an italian indie low budget film by Elie Choraqui with Scott Glenn as the ex CIA guy. Although the film itself was rather cheesy and not at all Hollywood slick, I think I prefer it somehow to the remake. You should try and catch it in the clearance bins of your local rental stores before they toss them out. I think Scott Glenn did an extremely good job of carrying that film.