There are better ways to spend 146 minutes of your life...

Rating: 4/10 (19 August 2004)

OK, this may take a while, but bear with me.
**Spoilers ahead**
Quick plot outline for those that haven't seen it. Drunken ex-CIA trained killer, on the verge of suicide, takes a job protecting a little kid in Mexico City. The killer and child develop an almost father/daughter relationship, he starts smiling, stops drinking etc - and then she is kidnapped and presumed dead. The ex CIA guy, still injured from the kidnapping, goes on killing spree taking out everyone involved in the crime. Just as he is closing in on the guy behind it all, he finds out the kid's alive and gains her release by turning himself over to the kidnappers. He dies of his wounds before they have a chance to kill him. The End.
My main problem with this film was the direction; Tony Scott appears to be getting worse. Normally I'm a fan of his work. Spy Game was enjoyable, Crimson Tide gripping, and even Top Gun has its moments (best not to mention Days of Thunder or Beverly Hills Cop 2 though). But Man On Fire irritated me. The frantic camera work, over editing and derivative music - seemed to all stem from the fact that the film was set in Mexico. Just because a film is set 'south of the border', does not mean it has to imitate Traffic. I know the director was probably trying to give us an insight into Creasy's (Denzel Washington) mind, as he goes a rather short killing spree, but he spent an entire hour establishing Creasy's relationship with the little girl. We really didn't need the constant flashbacks to justify every murderous act. When I say Scott is getting worse, I mean his style of directing rather than his films necessarily. The fast cut/moving camera style moments worked in Enemy of the State and Spy Game because it suited the plot (and wasn't over done). Here it's almost as irritating as Moulin Rouge, although nowhere near as nauseating, thank god.
Unfortunately, the direction is not the only thing wrong with this film. The plot starts OK, as it sticks to the excellent source material (the book, not the appalling 1987 film). The book is set in Italy, but replacing that with Mexico is sensible, Italy isn't quite the kidnap friendly place it used to be. The first hour, although slow, sticks to the book and builds up the relationship between Pita (the little girl) and Creasy well. Then it all goes wrong. Instead of recuperating after being wounded in the kidnapping, like any professional would, he charges round Mexico City still bleeding from several gunshot wounds. What's his rush? It's not like the perpetrators of crime are going anywhere. There are side plots that are never properly explored or explained. Such as the true level of involvement of high ranking police officials, or the Mexican FBI agent that spends most of his time doing favours for a journalist he's hot for. What should be a nice simple last half of the film, Creasy's bloody retribution, is a mess. I've read some comments from people who hold this film up as an example of a 'non-Hollywood' unhappy ending. This is far from the truth. In the book there is no miraculous resurrection of the little girl. What kind of kidnapper doesn't kill his victim if you don't pay? No one is going to pay the ransom next time someone is taken if they're not afraid of the consequences. As they keep saying in the film, kidnapping is a business. The girl would be killed, and her body left for the parents to find as a warning to the next victim's family. Having Creasy die (possibly) at the end is the usual cop out. He's brutally murdered people; therefore he must be seen to pay the price. Would a highly trained assassin really be that easy to kill?
The one high point of the film was the acting. I not really a fan of Denzel (he said blasphemously), give me Wesley Snipes or Morgan Freeman any day. Denzel always seems to take himself incredibly seriously; someone should tell him he's an actor not Secretary General of the UN (ok, bad example). But in this film he's actually pretty good. Here Tony Scott perhaps takes some credit; Denzel was also pretty good in Crimson Tide. The little girl is played well, Fanning's clearly not from the Haley Joel Osment school of overacting. Christopher Walken is criminally under used however, and it would have been nice to see more of Mickey Rourke (the first time that's been said in a while). But hey, at least Chris Tucker's not in it! (Rush Hour 3 is being threatened)
To sum up: badly directed, but well acted tale, that spends too long reaching the wrong conclusion. If you have two free hours to watch a movie, I advise you to watch Before Sunset or even Spider-man 2, you won't regret it. 4/10