Man on Fire (2004)
Note: Spoilers. But go ahead and
read anyway.
A rather typical and standard Denzel
Washington pic is made almost worthwhile by Tony Scott's
quirky modern filmmaking. Scott uses lots of quick
cuts, lots of takes and a stunning and fresh approach
to subtitles to make the film a visual treat. It is
this, more than story and plot, which make the film
worth watching. Of course, the distributor and the
script does everything it can to ruin this film and
ultimately make it a waste of time and money.
First there are the fucking red
dots all over the scene where Washington gets shot
down in front of Dakota Fanning's robot girl character.
(Okay, she's not a robot but Fanning is. This kid
is spooky. How long before she stars in a remake of
"Village of the Damned?") These fucking red dots,
designed to mark film prints to help the distributor
find and complicate film pirating, do nothing to stop
film piracy and only aid in ruining the integral scenes
of a film. Granted, the dots are on different places
on different prints, but on the one I viewed they
were in the most important scene in the film. Fuck
this shit.
Okay, now, for what it is worth,
Fanning is an amazing young actress. She evokes so
much chemistry with Denzel Washington that the screen
becomes alive whenever the two share a scene. I am
convinced the young imp is possessed by some demonic
spirit that will eventually use her fame for evil,
but at this point it is impossible not to be enamoured
with what an amazing young actress she is. Washington's
character may be hackneyed, and the plot of this film
may be very familiar, but Washington's immense talent
and Fanning's amazing inherent likeability entrenched
in the wonderful cinematic treatment expressed by
Scott make watching the first half of this film as
easy as breathing.
It is because we like the beginning
of this film so much, and become so engaged in the
characters and the story that sitting through the
typical "revenge" aspects undertaken by Washington's
Creasy in the last half of the film has any importance
to us at all. This is the same formula that worked
in "Titanic" and a thousand other films, a two-act
drama that works by spending half the film falling
in love with the characters and the second half putting
them through an impossible traumatic experience so
that we cannot help but care desperately about what
happens to them.
But this film screws us over. Would
"Titanic" have made 600 million dollars domestically
if somehow, after Kate Winslet was rescued and returned
to America, Leo knocked on her door one day and announced
through some amazingly unbelievable turn of events
he had somehow survived? I don't think so.
Having Fanning's young daughter
come back to life here at the end of the film might
work if it were presented as some sort of allegory
or symbolic happening that was occurring in Creasy's
psyche to justify his revenge and make him a whole
person again - a saved man. But it is not presented
as such; it is presented as a reality. This is inexcusable.
Yes, But the thing that pissed me
off most is that Fanning's character, who is kidnapped
and killed, ends up alive at the end of the film.
What bullshit. I told myself that if she ended up
alive at the end of the film, I would hate the thing,
and I do. Garbage. I thought Tony Scott had some balls.
I guess I was wrong.
Note:
In English and Spanish with subtitles.
Also with Marc Anthony, Christopher
Walken, Giancarlo Giannini and Mickey Rourke.
Script by Brian Helgeland based
on the A.J. Quinnell novel.
A remake of a 1987 film. A Bing
Crosby film also had this title in 1957. Scott wanted
to direct the original version in '87 but was turned
down as a neophyte.
Viewed in Austin in April 2004.
