Remake of an Italian 80s drama. (SPOILERS)

Rating: 6/10 (11 July 2004)

The style of 'Man on Fire' is at times annoying. With consistent zooming, scanning, and bleaching, it is more like watching a music video and at times, like a series of movie previews. For a story like this, the attempt to be avante garde, seems wasted, and at times detracts from the story itself as you try to slow down your brain to catch up with what is going on. The film-making tries to be too cutting edge while the movie itself, the story and it's characters, are really nothing new, and not accommodating for these techniques.
It certainly doesn't do much to help establish mood. And what's worse, though this may be considered "cutting edge" techniques, it seems to be quite cliché.
'Man on Fire' is for me, among the better of recent releases, particularly because it recognizes the importance of relationship to it's characters. I have seen far too many action movies where characters fail to recognize the immediacy and the emergency of the situation, even though their adversaries promise swift death if they choose to interfere.
The story goes like this: Former counter-intelligence, Creasy (Denzel Washington) is an alcoholic drifter who is hired as a bodyguard for the daughter (Dakota Fanning who plays 'Pita') of a man (Marc Anthony) who's family fortune is depleting fast. (Unforunately, the opening sequence gives away too much about the impending story, including it's sabateurs).
Pita, played naturally by Fanning, gives Creasy a sense of purpose and eases his persistent loneliness, something that once influenced his alcoholism and suicide attempts. He no longer becomes just her bodyguard, but he becomes more like a surrogate father and a best friend. Her parents seem to be out of the picture in her life, or at least not willing to listen to her, most of the time.
The movie centers on a kidnapping. Pita informs Creasy earlier that there were 24 kidnappings in Mexico City last week (where the story takes place), 4 kidnappings a day. The swift opening credits of the movie probably place fear (at least in us impressionable American audiences) about traveling or living there if we have young children, as they inform you of the formidable statistics: 70% of those children kidnapped are usually not recovered. Yep, it gives you the air of Santa Carla (you know..."The Lost Boys").
Soon enough, Pita, too is kidnapped. And Creasy, broken over his inability to prevent it--being terribly shot in the process--and over her death, which the kidnappers inform her parents of after the ransom drop goes foul.
Like a Samurai avenging the death of his master, Creasy, feeling such remorse for the loss of his best friend, an innocent nine year old girl, vows revenge upon all those involved. I suppose that makes this movie much more violent than a Quentin Tarentino production, considering the creative ways that Creasy kills the minions to get to the top.
And he's not dealing with a bunch of amateurs. Those behind the kidnapping are actually a heavily protected gang of corrupt cops who head the department that investigates kidnappings, of all things. With the help of a vigilante reporter (a rare breed of journalists, of course), a high level detective who suspects corruption, and a determined friend (Christopher "I'm in at least one scene of every movie" Walken), Creasy is going straight to the top to bring them all down.
There's a continuous role of religion in this movie, which I find to be quite annoying, but may be appropriate given that it is set in Catholic Mexico City. Creasy asks his friend, Rayburn (Christopher Walken) whether he thinks there is any place for God in the work that they do. Towards the end, while still in the process of revenge, Creasy says something like God can do with them what he wants, but he just delivers them to Him. It wouldn't matter what God thought, because any inclination of that might stop Creasy from proceeding and that to him, may be like giving up on Pita in the end, someone that he was so strongly committed to.
One viewer commented how there is not much action going on in this movie, which is pretty much true. After seeing it, I had thought it was a decent 'action' movie (for lack of a better word), but in retrospect, it does seem to be lacking the qualities that would make it much better, let alone just 'pretty good'.
That is, Denzel's character, Creasy, seems to just walk along and get his revenge with little or no resistance or pursuit from the kidnappers and their clan--though at the end, he does have to finally do some negotiating (number one rule of action movies: the last boss is always the hardest to defeat). Creasy in a sense, driven by his commitment to Pita, appears invincible. Number two rule of action movies: invincible characters do not make a very interesting story because it lacks all the competition that drives the suspense. And this is a necessary element, considering the entire second half of the movie is dependent upon it (the first half focuses on Creasy's development and his relationship with the young girl).
In the end, it seems pretty wasteful considering the potential of your cast--Denzel Washington, Christopher Walken, Dakota Fanning, and hell, even a good-looking Mickey Rourke. Perhaps, more attention should have been given to the story instead of trying to woo audiences with music video production techniques.