A hysterically conventional drama/action film.

Rating: 4/10 (24 May 2005)

A former government operative/alcoholic (Denzel Washington) is given a job to look after a wealthy couple's daughter (Dakota Fanning) in Mexico City. Though, on duty he gets gunned down and the girl is kidnapped. After recovering from his injuries he goes after those who had anything to do with the girls kidnapping.
For me ''Man on Fire'' didn't live up to the hype and actually it was rather disappointing. It's a film of two halves. The first being a heart felt relationship between bodyguard and child, while the second half (where the film is let down) turns into a violently graphic vigilante piece. I just don't see the big deal about this film; it's not as smart as it may think it is and it tries so hard to be moving that it just comes across as manipulative and overwrought.
This was a simple story and quite an unoriginal one too, really. I didn't mind the first hour, though there were some overly sweet moments, but the chemistry between Washington and Fanning is genuinely good. After the kidnapping it just got too messy and it kinda dragged. Some scenes during that half were so ridiculously ludicrous or just cheesy that you just seem to smirk then really be amazed, because they were so over-the-top, clichéd and at times rather dull. Maybe they could have added some light or black humour into the story or those situations, as there was hardly any to be found. The serious tone and emotional pull that the film had was so pushy in its delivery that it was fairly nauseating when it came to the end. While the abrupt ending just felt like a flat cop out, to be honest. I found it too unsatisfying and hollow to be pleasing and that goes for the formulaic movie as well.
The direction by Tony Scott was so distracting with its flashy slow motion, swirling frames, freeze frame and double screens. It was like Scott was trying to make it standout visually, while trying to hide it's been there done that plot. It might look like a fast adrenaline pack film, but really it's the disjointed editing that gives that illusion because it's was mostly slow story telling. The editing was so annoyingly choppy and with its quite jumpy camera work it was really giving me a headache and the noisy and loud soundtrack didn't help either.
What a waste of superb actors; Denzel Washington and Christopher Walken. There not bad, but with the lack of depth and material they're given, they deserved much better. The only standout performance for me was Dakota Fanning who shined in her part and Radha Mitchell wasn't bad, but the rest were bystanders in this muddled film. It's not entirely awful as it had some moments of superbly built tension and it truly captures a seedy Mexico City that comes across as one imposing stature.
Overall, it's really just an ordinary film that's nothing spectacular or has anything new to show. It's maybe worth look for Fanning's performance, but still the film is equally missable.
Ps I really didn't know that this was a remake or that there was an original French/Italy version that starred Scott Glenn, Brooke Adams and Joe Pesci. Well, maybe that's another good thing about this film?