The Man on Fire is Denzel Washington

Rating: 7/10 (23 April 2004)

OK, as far as violence, vengeance and virility go, this rivals any Charles Bronson flick. It also has a grittier ending than the first attempt at filming this novel back in 1987. (That movie also had a great cast at the time, even though it may have been made in Italy, and was headed by Scott Glenn. I like Glenn and almost all his work but Denzel Washington brings something extra even to roles that may not be that sparkling.)
DW plays the same "hero" as in the first film since the two screenplays are based on the same novel. This one is set in Mexico City, presumably because Latin America now has the kidnapping reputation that Italy once had. Again, the bodyguard Creasy looks after the young daughter of a rich local. The daughter, of course, brings out the lost humanity of the bodyguard with a past. Surprisingly, the screen pairing of Washington and the currently ubiquitous Dakota Fanning works, even for a curmudgeon like me. (I'm sure she is being regularly injected with anti-growth hormones, even as I write this, in order to keep her kid/star power mojo and paychecks at their peak.)
Once a kidnapping goes very wrong, Creasy recovers in record time from his wounds and, lacking any other avenue than just returning to his formerly empty life, goes on a meticulous journey of revenge/vigilante justice. It is implied here, as in the previous film, that this is the only justice available and, therefore, justified in its way. This justification is validated by a brave reformer reporter and a high police official (the Italian Giancarlo Giannini, coincidentally) who seems to have no other way to fight the widespread corruption in the police and the kidnapping-as-business of organized crime. More entertaining help is provided by old comrade-in-arms or comrade-in-atrocities, Christopher Walken. He underplays here, but it is true as Roger Ebert, I believe, once said that he enlivens a movie just by showing up!
Objections? Mercy or due process are missing altogether and some could argue that it reinforces racist or elitist approaches to justice by a lone American. There may be some truth to this but given the set up of the plot, novel and movie, the people Creasy hunts down are about as mundanely evil as it comes and as well-protected in official circles as they can be. (Essentially the same situation is propounded in the 1987 film in Italy so the same arguments would have to be made there, as well.) The movie is lengthy, especially when you divine very early the identities and motives of some of the "surprise" bad guys. No, I'm not giving anything away. What do you think when you see Mickey Rourke as a lawyer?! If you were watching almost anyone but Denzel Washington during all this time, you might begin to tire. It is far from a perfect film or premise but it is stylish and it is Denzel Washington and it is compelling within the world it conjures.