man on fire....

Rating: 10/10 (11 May 2007)

Once again, Denzel Washington portrays a flawed character who is out to set things right. This, of course, is not a stretch for Denzel since this is often a staple characteristic in many of the roles he takes on. And while I respect his willingness to play less-than-perfect, vulnerable characters, he might be getting a little too comfortable playing these parts. Don?t get me wrong, I?m big fan of Denzel Washington. He?s probably the best actor in Hollywood right now and Man on Fire does nothing to hurt that status. Denzel manages to carry Man on Fire on his back and makes this movie much more interesting than it would have been without him.
Man on Fire is a LONG movie. While the plot is engaging and suspenseful, Denzel?s mission to make a ?masterpiece? of his quest-for-revenge eventually becomes a bit monotonous down the final stretch. His self-made mission to kill anyone involved in the kidnapping is a welcome idea, but too much film time is given to scenes where Denzel only gathers small bits of information. Sure, it all adds up in the end, but if some of these creeps had spilled their guts and gave up better details, we could have probably omitted at least one full revenge sequence.
My biggest beef with Man on Fire is the lack of presence from our primary villain. When a film spends almost two hours building up an anti-hero (in this case, ?The Voice?), we, as an audience, deserve some sort of reward for our endurance. I do not believe every ending needs to resolve happily, but I do believe a quality confrontation was needed in order to gain a sense of satisfaction about our two-and-a-half hour long marathon.
I do commend Man on Fire for being the first film in a long while to cause my eyes to get misty in a blatant, but effective, tear-jerking conclusion. If you don?t feel any emotion during the end of the film, you are a heartless soul! Seriously though, the filmmakers really do lay it on thick in Denzel?s final conversation in the movie. In my mind, I was cursing them for their almost over-the-top attempt to make the audience weep, but privately I was happy that they did. It was an effective, emotional exchange that made the entire movie worthwhile.
Christopher Walken is not given the most involved role, but he excels with what he is given. As one of the world?s greatest supporting actors, Walken adds some weight to this movie and is probably given the film?s best lines in his final scene when he is describing Denzel?s vengeful activities. The little girl in this movie is really wonderful in her role and because of her effective performance, you truly feel saddened about her kidnapping.
I thought a lot of the filmwork was just plain overdone. In most movies, the camera is like the eye of the audience. In such an instance, we are usually given an unintrusive perspective of our main characters. In Man on Fire, there is a reliance on the camera-work to set the mood of the film instead of allowing the characters and their environments to accomplish that. There are just too many camera effects and too many stylized subtitles that cause Man on Fire to forfeit some of its dramatic essence.
All and all, I enjoyed Man on Fire. While it?s not without its flaws, Denzel and Co. turnout a respectable effort. If your question is, ?should I see this movie??, as long as you are comfortable with the overall runtime, you should be good with seeing Man on Fire.