A typically classy performance from Denzel, who seems to be open to harsher scenes and less sympathetic roles as he gets older (like Training Day). Radha Mitchell is almost excellent - a little bit too cool most of the time, but her grief is well done. I'm not sure how old Dakota Fanning is playing here (8? 12?) but she's as precocious as ever, and a few of her lines/reactions are way too studied to seem real. Thankfully she never gets too annoying, but she's on that borderline all the way through. Imagine if you had to sit through a film with her & Hayley Joel Osment in it! (although if they died suddenly, tragically and violently, I'd go). She's worse in Hide & Seek, and we'll have to wait and see for War of the Worlds.
Anyway, Man on Fire - nice to see a film set somewhere different (Mexico - and not the tequila-sodden, cactus-strewn desert bit).. The tone is fairly cold (Tony Scott's films have a similar 'real light' sharpness to his brother Ridley's - not too many bright colours). And I particularly liked the refreshing way the authorities 'dealt' with Denzel on the rampage (not saying any more than that). Very good killings - gritty and inventive, yet not really glorified. A few more would have satisfied my bloodlust. And although he doesn't have much to do in this, it's always a pleasure to see Christopher Walken on screen. Good ending too. Not much of a soundtrack at all (that I noticed - apart from stealing the opening notes of one of my all-time favourite classical pieces 'Clair de Lune'), but it's not that sort of film. If anything, Man On Fire could have done with a sub-plot; it would have been more involving. But generally a good film, and slick without feeling formulaic.
Final thoughts: a few details mentioned went unresolved (or unexplored) not plot holes, just omissions..? And why couldn't Denzel be called something other than 'Creasy'? It kept sounding like 'greasy' to me, and I had to keep reminding myself it was his name and not a statement.
8/10 for me, with points off for never really getting exciting, and because Dakota Fanning came off as over-rehearsed and precocious.
Anyway, Man on Fire - nice to see a film set somewhere different (Mexico - and not the tequila-sodden, cactus-strewn desert bit).. The tone is fairly cold (Tony Scott's films have a similar 'real light' sharpness to his brother Ridley's - not too many bright colours). And I particularly liked the refreshing way the authorities 'dealt' with Denzel on the rampage (not saying any more than that). Very good killings - gritty and inventive, yet not really glorified. A few more would have satisfied my bloodlust. And although he doesn't have much to do in this, it's always a pleasure to see Christopher Walken on screen. Good ending too. Not much of a soundtrack at all (that I noticed - apart from stealing the opening notes of one of my all-time favourite classical pieces 'Clair de Lune'), but it's not that sort of film. If anything, Man On Fire could have done with a sub-plot; it would have been more involving. But generally a good film, and slick without feeling formulaic.
Final thoughts: a few details mentioned went unresolved (or unexplored) not plot holes, just omissions..? And why couldn't Denzel be called something other than 'Creasy'? It kept sounding like 'greasy' to me, and I had to keep reminding myself it was his name and not a statement.
8/10 for me, with points off for never really getting exciting, and because Dakota Fanning came off as over-rehearsed and precocious.