Washington asserting family values? Not so much. But it's a thrill ride.

Rating: 7/10 (13 July 2008)

You kind of get exactly what you expect out of "Man on Fire." Denzel Washington kills people, there some seriously innovative and abstract camera-work and editing from one of the finest action directors in the last 20 years (Tony Scott), and there's even a mystery to unravel. The film even bravely attempts to bring in a family oriented theme in what it tries to sell as an unlikely relationship between Washington and Fanning. But understand that this is an action film first, and even if it takes about an hour to get that, it's the truth. It's good, but it's mostly an artistic action piece.
Washington's bad ass named John this time is known as just "Creasy." From the start he is an enigma. All you can really tell is he's sort of a war-torn alcoholic ex-US Intelligence assassin. With no other direction in life, he agrees to take a job as a body guard for a wealthy guy in Mexico City (Marc Anthony), where many kidnappings have been happening recently. There he forms this "unlikely bond" with the daughter Fanning, who of all her roles, this is the least annoying I've seen. She breaks his tough skin and then things take a scary turn when she is kidnapped.
Unfortunately, that above paragraph is the first hour of the film. I understand the need to establish the relationship, but it all kind of becomes amoral anyway when Creasy decides he's going to kill everyone tied to the kidnapping. The rest of the film is Creasy seeing red and just taking it to everyone. As much as you understand the motivation, it just doesn't click right when he goes on this spree. He's very good in the role--outstanding I would say, but as a film the cohesiveness doesn't exactly work. I would give high marks to both halves of the film, but they don't exactly mesh together.
Scott's use of flashing and repetitive images that he slows down and speeds up works better in the second half to accommodate the intense revenge/action scenes, but it feels a bit out of place in the beginning. Scott usually only uses it as it ties in to Creasy's past, but his past is not exactly something the film explores--it sort of takes it for granted. In general though, it's cool and unique and shows why Tony Scott is capable of handling any action film.
I think what I'm saying is go in for Denzel and for the action, but I think that's what most people interested in watching "Man on Fire" are looking for anyway. Perhaps the family element will go over better with some more than others, but I see no family values in a film where Denzel is depriving people of fingers, no matter what they try and convince me. This is a great premise and an entertaining film and worth a watch.