Man on Fire: 3/10

Rating: 3/10 (1 May 2004)

Is it just me, or can action movies never be set in America anymore? They all either take place overseas, or the main character at least travels there. In Man on Fire, Tony Scott's attempt to be cool, it mostly takes place in Mexico City to prove to the dimwitted public that, yes, America is better than any other country. To prove to everyone how good America is, Scott has actors who speak with American accents who have lived all their lives in Mexico. People with southern accents don't trust Americans because they're "foreign". It's even worse when the actors attempt to put on a decent accent, and by even worse, I mean laughably bad.
John Creasy (Denzel Washington, in a one-note role) is a former assassin who has become an alcoholic. He is hired by a Mexican family (or an American family with southern accents) to protect their young child, Pita (the ubiquitous Dakota Fanning) from the recent onslaught of kidnappings. About halfway through the movie (where it could have stopped and been a mediocre drama), she is kidnapped. Creasy swears vengeance on everyone who helped kidnap her. You know, these revenge movies always stay fresh and never get old after a while.
My largest complaint was the directing by Scott. Neither of the Scott brothers (the other being Ridley) are very high on my list, and Man on Fire just backs up my statement. Scott tries to be all "hip" and "turn of the century" by not keeping the camera still for even one frame. Even when two people are talking, the camera's continuously moving in circles. It's enough to make you sick. If that's not bad enough, Scott plays tricks with the camera related to focusing so oftentimes you can never tell what's happening, which is not helped by the choppy editing. Perhaps some of the minimal action could have been considered exciting if we were able to tell what the hell was going on at any time.
Enough about the technical aspect of the movie, which was bad enough. The movie, touted as a no-holds-barred action movie, does have holds barred (whatever that may mean) and is not able to be called an action movie, simply because there is no action. There is nothing going on for the first half of the movie (which I have said before) except for a brief montage of how bad Mexico City is for kidnapping (which is only referred to once more, and it's impossible to tell what is happening then, also). The first half explored the bonding relationship between Pita and Creasy, which is supposed to explain why Creasy would be so hell-bent on destroying everyone who kidnapped Pita. However, there is no chemistry between the two, and the basis of their relationship doesn't even make sense. Pita's mother tells him that Pita wants to be friends with him, so this hard-as-nails ex-Marine decides to be friends with her. If he were TRULY a tough nail, he wouldn't have given in. So why did he do it? To further the "plot", of course! The main thing is, though, that the character of Pita is just too damn annoying to care about. Fanning had just come off of her star-making role in The Cat in the Hat, and here again she plays the precocious child who is amazing at everything she does. This is supposedly a true story, and if this was just supposed to be an ordinary family torn apart by the kidnapping, why would this child be an expert at swimming, playing piano, extreme ease of talking to adults, and, most of all, being so annoying? The world may never know.
Once the second half of the movie starts up and Creasy begins to get mad, every single plot development that could have slowly happened in the first half comes in. It's a leisurely movie, and then BOOM plot here, here, and here. Add a few random acts of off-screen violence and you get what naive critics call a "non-stop" action movie that's so violent it should be banned. Give me a break. If this was truly an action movie, wouldn't action take place throughout, and, more importantly, wouldn't it be exciting? That's the aspect that's most needed in Man on Fire but is not used-whatever action there is is not exciting. The acts of torture are a little out of the ordinary, but are not used properly or done in a way that makes sense (re: the man tied to the car). In closing, if you want to see a young precocious kid acting annoying and a famous actor sleepwalking through a boring, meaningless movie with no action, then Man on Fire is your best bet.
My rating: 3/10
Rated R for language and strong violence.