Over-edited and overlong

Rating: 5/10 (15 July 2007)

The violence of 'Man on Fire' isn't the problem here. In fact, the hard-as-nails approach we were promised is the reason that I was looking forward to seeing the film.
However, this film is prime example of how to run a potentially good film into the ground. The story is good enough and provides amble motivation for the violent second half. The chemistry between Dakokta Fanning and Denzel Washington is superb and gives the film some heart at least. In fact, the performances are all very good - so why five out of ten? Because Tony Scott and co. can't let a good film speak for itself.
When you've got great locations, a trio of fantastic actors (Fanning, Washington, Walken) and a emotionally charged premise, why do you need over stylised techniques to make the film work? Just about every single frame is spoilt by flickering, blurry or jittery camera-work. For instance, a simple interrogation sequence becomes a pop-video, full of freeze frames, sped-up imagery and so on. What's wrong with just letting the story flow in its own way? The film is also a bit too long. While it takes the time to build a relationship between the leads, it could still have done with taking 20 minutes out or so. But thats not what makes the film nearly unwatchable, its the director who tries to show off every few minutes and massage his ego.
With a different editor and director, the film could have been much better but as it stand, Man on Fire is disappointing.