Man on Fire
Tags: murder

Plot synopsis:
In 2003, burnt-out ex-CIA(SAD/SOG) Paramilitary operations officer and former U.S. Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance officer John Creasy (Denzel Washington) visits his old comrade Paul Rayburn (Christopher Walken), who runs a security firm in Mexico. Because of the extremely high rate of kidnappings in Mexico City for ransoms, wealthy businessman Samuel Ramos (Marc Anthony) hires Creasy through Rayburn to guard his nine-year-old daughter "Pita" (Dakota Fanning). Samuel, however, is having money problems, and intends to keep Creasy on only long enough to satisfy the requirements to renew his kidnap and ransom insurance on Pita. Creasy suffers from alcoholism, depression and severe guilt as a result of his former black ops work. Drinking heavily, Creasy attempts suicide with his pistol, but the bullet fails to fire when he pulls the trigger. He calls Rayburn, who says that "a bullet always tells the truth." At first, Creasy distances himself from Pita, but soon he becomes a surrogate father to the girl, allowing him to stop drinking and find a purpose in his life.
One day, while Creasy is escorting Pita from her piano lesson, a group of gunmen try to kidnap her. Creasy kills four of the kidnappers, including two corrupt policemen, in a shoot out, but he is shot multiple times and collapses from his wounds, and the abductors escape with Pita, who Creasy had commanded to flee, but returned to the collapsed Creasy. Creasy is hospitalized, but is moved to a veterinary hospital by Miguel Manzano (Giancarlo Giannini), a senior agent of the Agencia Federal de Investigación (AFI), who suspects Creasy will be killed by rogue police. Meanwhile, the Ramoses agree to deliver a dead drop ransom of US$10 million per the instructions of "La Voz" ("The Voice") (Roberto Sosa), the mastermind behind the kidnapping ring. Samuel's attorney, Jordan Kalfus (Mickey Rourke), arranges for the ransom money to be collected from Samuel's kidnapping insurance policy, then delivered to the kidnappers. The drop, however, is ambushed by members of "La Hermandad", a powerful crime syndicate composed of corrupt police officers, who steal the money and kill The Voice's nephew in the process. The Voice notifies the Ramoses that Pita will be killed in retribution.
Creasy leaves the hospital before fully recovering, swearing to Pita's mother Lisa (Radha Mitchell) that he will kill everyone involved in her daughter's abduction. Rayburn helps Creasy purchase black market firearms, a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and explosives. Mariana Guerrero (Rachel Ticotin), a journalist investigating kidnappings, and Manzano also offer their support. Creasy tracks down low-level operatives involved in various stages of the kidnapping, torturing each for information about other operatives, then killing them in brutal ways, eventually learning from the "president" of "La Hermandad" that the bags they stole at the ransom drop contained only $2.5 million of actual currency while the rest was blank paper.
Creasy finds Kalfus murdered and then finds evidence of his questionable financial dealings with Samuel. He confronts Samuel and Lisa for the truth behind the kidnapping. Samuel confesses to Creasy and Lisa that he agreed to Kalfus' plan to stage Pita's kidnapping, so he could pay off business debts by fraudulently collecting the insurance money. He planned to keep $5 million for himself and split the rest between Kalfus and the kidnappers. He was told that Pita would watch cartoons for a couple days and be returned after the ransom was paid. Samuel confesses to killing Kalfus, and Creasy leaves Samuel with a pistol and the misfired round, which works for Samuel when he commits suicide.
Using the information provided by Creasy, The Voice's identity is revealed by Manzano to be Daniel Sánchez, who Mariana exposes on the front page of her newspaper. Creasy sneaks into the home of Sánchez's ex-wife and children, and is shot by his brother Aurelio (Gero Camilo), whom Creasy then captures. Creasy calls Daniel Sánchez and threatens to kill all of his family unless he gives himself up, but Sánchez reveals that Pita is still alive, and offers her in exchange for Aurelio and Creasy. Creasy and Pita share a tearful goodbye before he surrenders himself to Sánchez' men, as Pita is released into her mother's arms. Creasy succumbs peacefully from his gunshot injuries. Daniel Sánchez is later killed by Manzano during an AFI arrest raid.

Review: Scott Glenn gives a suitably haunted and melancholic performance, despite his dorky 80s wardrobe; no man can look cool with puffy shoulder pads like Joan Crawford and his coat-sleeves pushed up past his elbows.
Seems to me that the reason why this movie isn't liked and known any better is because the world was not really ready yet for a this sort of action movie, at the time.
So the movie was actually ahead of its time and I could understand Tony Scott's interest in this movie and why he decided to make a remake of it, back in 2004.It's definitely not an usual revenge flick.
It of course is still being filled with plenty of straightforward action, in its second.And you would think that this is when the movie becomes truly good and interesting.
I just liked the story and far slower pace of the movie its first half way better.
It was a genuinely good movie, while its action part comes across as far more standard and the story suddenly got pushed to the background.
In that regard this movie is totally the opposite of its remake, in which the second half and all of its action parts were its highlights.With its pacing and buildup this definitely feels more like a foreign movie, which is not all that surprising really, considering that it had a French director at the helm.
especially of course when you are expecting a more straightforward action flick.And for such a low key movie, it definitely has a great cast in it.
Scott Glenn, Joe Pesci, Jonathan Pryce, all in one movie, that's pretty awesome!
Scott Glenn is a great leading man to have, when the main character is supposed to be a grumpy, tough guy, with his heart still at the right place.Maybe it's only just a half successful movie but it's still really worth giving a go!7/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/.
When most people today hear the title "Man on Fire", they probably think right away of the 2004 film starring Denzel Washington and Dakota Fanning.
The 1987 version of "Man on Fire" is probably a film that I would have to consider schlock.
And the other half will simply despise it.For me, "Man on Fire" was in deed unusual and strange and definitely not the most creative film ever made.
Scott Glenn was absolutely flawless as Creasy and he pulled off the character as being mysterious, cold, and unusual.
Jade Malle, an actress who unfortunately did not do much acting after this debut, was fairly good as Sam. Yes, she wasn't the best child actress in the world and not a patch when compared to Dakota Fanning, but I found her to a fairly decent addition to the cast.
And Joe Pesci, while definitely one of the unusual aspects of the film, pulled off a fairly good performance as well.Action sequences in "Man on Fire" were fairly decent.
And what I will always remember about this film was that unlike the 2004 version, there was a scene here that just made me jump.So what doesn't work in "Man on Fire"?
Maybe that's what the director intended.The original 1987 "Man on Fire" is not the kind of film for everybody.
Personally, I might prefer this version for its colorful acting, its not-so-gangster style, Scott Glenn's wonderful performance, the great music score, and just the great thrills of a 1980s European thriller..
Friends Like Us. Although several films are entitled "Man On Fire", this one (1987) has Scott Glenn playing the lead.
With the combined talents of both and then add Joe Pesci as David, Jonathan Pryce as Michael, Paul Shenar as Ettore and especially Danny Aiello as Conti, the film becomes a unique stage upon which abundance talent is configured to provide an explosive outcome.
Not being fan of director Tony Scott's 2004 remake starring Denzel Washington and Dakota Fanning, it however did get my attention that this novel adaptation was also attempted in the late 80s in a very European style.
Not as easy to get a hold off, but it turned out to be a solidly atypical, if unspectacular, lean revenge thriller with a striking performance by Scott Glenn in the central role as former CIA agent turned bodyguard Mr. Creasy.
It's the cast that makes this one work (where can you get Joe Pesci doing what he does best; getting angry; yelling profanity, breaking radios and singing "Johnny Be Goode"), outside some methodically stylish directorial touches (like the opening slow motion intro) and stunning Italian backdrops and decors.
The music score is atmospherically edgy and always complements the on-screen action with the cinematography fluidly projecting the details.The pacing is rather stodgy, as it does take awhile before it builds up some momentum (soon after the ransom kidnapping by some terrorists), there it crackles along (Creasy gaining health and then going on the warpath finding those involved to only dispatch them) until reaching its abrupt, if confused climax.
Instead it's rather understated - more so moodily brooding in its activities (and Glenn's husky narration), as it's quite a lyrical character drama, spending a lot time developing upon the relationship of the young girl and her bodyguard.
Unlike "Menteurs" where Chouraqui constructs a (French) movie within a (French) movie, his earlier work "Man on Fire" deftly collides elements of European and Hollywood moviemaking by putting American actors inside the universe of Italian political thriller and making them look utterly un-American....A man is dying in some Italian military hospital.
Bodyguard Chris (Scott Glenn) is hired to protect Sam (Jade Malle), 12-year old daughter of American businessman (Jonathan Pryce).
The direction is elegant (if a bit slow), but movie's biggest assets are its two leads: Jade Malle with her sincerity and freshness and Scott Glenn - one of the most underrated American actors.
You'd have to dig a bit to discover that Man On Fire with Denzel Washington is actually a remake, or rather another version of a book that's out there somewhere, but there is indeed film from 87' bearing the same title and basic plot outline, albeit with a heavy dose of melodrama.
Swap out Denzel and Chris Walken for Scott Glenn and Joe Pesci, Mexico City for Italy and Tony Scott's neo-punk visual aesthetic for a more stone-faced, straightforward approach and you'll have some idea.
Glenn is Creasy, a mopey ex CIA soldier who gets a job from buddy Pesci protecting a wealthy businessman (Jonathan Pryce) and his family, mostly driving their precocious young daughter (Jade Malle) around.
It's still a decent piece though, with the distinct cast doing fine work, especially Pesci who is volatile and unpredictable, almost stealing the film from Glenn.
Awaking in hospital, Creasy decides to take matters violently into his own hands.It was the sequel that made me come back to this film and, given Scott's heavy use of style I was hoping that this would be a much more slimmed down and gritty film but still keeping the violence and desperation.
It is very American in cast but yet very European in style and delivery, like it is an attempt to ape the American movies without stepping too far from it.
When the violence finally comes it lacks conviction and is surprisingly dull.It is a shame because I was hoping that the low budget feel would mean a very gritty and desperate feel to the film but there is never much in the way of urgency.
Pesci, Pryce and Aiello are all so-so at best but it is Malle that is the worst cast  not only is she a bit irritating, but she doesn't have the chemistry with Glenn that the film requires.I wanted to like Man on Fire because it is a bit of a cult film that few people have seen.
The remake is not a great film by any means but it is certainly better than the original  and maybe that was the point Scott wanted to prove!.
Scott Glenn just doesn't work as Creasy.
As has been said, when people think of the title 'Man on Fire' one immediately think of the far better known 2004 film.
'Man on Fire' is not a great film exactly and can totally see where the critics are coming from.
The music is dynamic and haunting.The script has some nice tension and, contrary to what some critics have said, it does have wit and coolness (especially Scott Glenn's lines).
The direction has been criticised, can understand as it is sluggish to begin with but there is a real sense that Chouraqui is more comfortable.Scott Glenn is an intensely charismatic lead and carries the film brilliantly.
Her and Glenn's chemistry is the heart of the film and it is dealt with a believable amount of charm and that it developed gradually rather than them hitting it off straight-away was a good move.
In support, a fun Joe Pesci and sinister Danny Aiello (despite an inconsistent accent) stand out.Not everybody comes off well, more to do with screen time than performance quality.
Jonathan Pryce and Brooke Adams just have too little to do to make much impression, Adams in a role little more than the smallest, blink-and-miss of cameos is particularly wasted.In summary, not a bad film and has enough to not make it fizzle but some elements bring it down from being on fire.
It stars Scott Glenn as John Creasy, a former C.I.A. agent living in Italy who forever mopes about his traumatic past.
Then his good friend David (Joe Pesci) finds him some work, as a bodyguard for Sam (Jade Malle), the daughter of a financially well off couple (Paul Shenar, Brooke Adams).
Once he's recuperated, he's determined to get her back using the most ruthless means available to him.The 2004 version of the same story, directed by Tony Scott (originally considered as director of this adaptation) and starring Denzel Washington, Dakota Fanning, and Christopher Walken, may be much better known, but this version offers a well paced, watchable enough (and very rainy) revenge flick, full to the brim with violence.
The deeply affecting music score by John Scott will make you think you're watching a better movie than you really are.It is somewhat fun to see the under-rated Glenn join the ranks of cinematic bad asses.
Though billed and treated by most as an action/thriller/revenge film it's much more than that.
The aspect that really grabbed me was the development of the relationship of Scott Glenn's Chris Creasy and Jade Malle's Samantha.
The gradual development of the Creasy character from an isolated and emotionally shut down loner first into a friend and finally into a surrogate father and mentor to Samantha is touching and believable.
You're going to tell me that Scott Glenn is a much better actor than SS, Arnold and co:that's true and he looks sometimes jaded,depressed,and even moving.But it's the same old story all over again:the little girl,the daughter of rich wealthy Italians  is kidnapped by villains and so begins the task.
Main objections:why ,when the movie takes place in Italy and only one character is American ,does  almost everyone speak English  in the original version?This is not natural,particularly for the girlie ;why were the prologue and the epilogue filmed in slow motion:it does not bring anything.
If you are a fan of Scott Glenn, Joe Pesci, or Danny Aiello, I have two words "don't bother".
"Man on Fire" opens with a truly tedious relationship build up between Glenn and the twelve year old kidnapping victim, Jade Malle.
Joe Pesci more or less just revolves around Glenn's character, and really never gets involved in the action.
Character development is weak, and the film is way too dark in places.
While there are remakes that could be deemed unnecessary (though studios never think that, especially financially), this one was more than ripe and really easy to top.While I do like Scott Glenn in general (you might also remember him from "Silence of the Lambs", but he's done quite a lot of other work, mostly small roles in a lot of movies), I don't think he adds anything to the mix here.
When he was wearing the sunglasses it could have been outtakes from "Doctor Who".That's really all I have to say, but there's this dumb "10 line" restriction.Ho, hum.It was a good movie.I can't see what prompted Denzel Washington to remake it; he added very little to the role.Is that enough text yet?.
Glenn truly is the epitome of the title of the film, and is far less methodical than the 2004 updated version (this aspect is neither better nor worse, but different).
The 80's version does not have same pyrotechnics featured in the latter film, and the action is a bit less satisfying.
More satisfying than the far more melancholy ending with Denzel Washington and a rather obvious tacked on final resolution to the final baddie yet to be dealt with on Creasy's list (watch it, it looks like it was filmed at the last second with just 2 actors in someone's backyard), the 80's film has an interesting bookend with it's unusual opening and ending.
The finale is almost nightmarish as Scott Glenn's Creasy is insanely calling out his young charge's name, but it all ends with a far more sweet resolution than what we would have predicted.
Without giving away who all lives and dies, it is a long belief of mine that the best films make you feel for characters that you are convinced will die, but then don't.
People love the illusion and sensation of being in some great danger, but (barring strange accidents) walk away just fine.**END SPOLIER**Scott Glenn's Creasy deserves to be seen.
And although Fanning is absolutely amazing as Denzel's charge in the remake, the original has the rare distinction of having a bit more ethnic child being the focus of Creasy's devotion and not the unlikely blond and very pale skin offspring of Marc Anthony.
Denzel's 2004 version is one of my favorite one-man-army revenge flicks, so when I saw this title at the truck-stop $1 bin, I grabbed it.
Scott Glenn is a top-notch tough-guy actor who never got his big break, but he always does a great job and this is clearly some of his best work, IMO (also check out "The Challenge", 1982).
This French/Italian 1987 version had only a small fraction of the budget of Denzel's film and it quickly sank out of sight in America, but it works on different levels and is very entertaining in its own peculiar way.Glenn's Creasy is a great version of the burned-out, PTSD-suffering, haunted, depressed former Special Ops bad*** soldier who has seen and done too much and has totally given up on life.
Yes, this character is an action movie stereotype, but Glenn breathes a lot of life into him.
After all Hell breaks loose, then he shaves and gets a haircut and the audience knows he means business from that moment on.Jade Malle was a 12-yr-old French actress, so it's a very different dynamic from Dakota Fanning's little girl, but it's interesting in a special way.
Glenn's Creasy still sees her as the daughter he never had, but being older she's more of a pain in the butt than a sweet little girl would be.
Also, among many other great actors and actresses in the supporting cast, we have Joe Pesci in the Christopher Walken role and he's fantastic as usual.Anyway, for fans of the one-man-army revenge films, this is a fine example of the genre.
Thanks to his friend David (Pesci), he takes a job in Italy, protecting a 12-year-old girl, Samantha (Malle) from the kidnapping danger sweeping Italy at the time.
Her parents, Jane and Michael (Adams and Pryce, respectively) are never around so Creasy ends up spending a lot of time with Sam, as she likes to be called.
But truly the star of the show is Scott Glenn, who puts in a great performance as the troubled Creasy.
The movie is worth seeing for Glenn alone.Acting as his foil is Joe Pesci, who really rocks out on his own version of "Johnny B.
That aside, what sets apart Man On Fire is the fact that it takes its time to develop the relationship between Sam and Creasy.
Just like (see my other reviews) the actor chosen to play the lead in SHOOTER looked nothing whatsoever like the character as described in the source novel by Stephen Hunter, Scott Glenn in this film looks nothing like Creasey in the Quinnell series, nor does he act like him.
(Creasey was huge, and a stone-faced killer.) Which is not to say this is a bad film -- I ACTUALLY PREFER IT OVER THE DENZEL VERSION -- merely to point out that this is just one more sad example of the film biz "having its way" with a good work of fiction, and leaving mainly ashes in its wake.
I think that I had read the book after seeing the film starring Scott Glenn as I had never heard of the author before reading the book man on fire.The Scott Glenn movie may be a little dated as for the time that it was made but there is good value with the amount of stars that are in the movie and if you liked the remake it will be worth a look at the original as the book is set in Italy and this original movie is as well and I still feel that denzel Washington is too young for to play the character as he is an ex-legionnaire and had served in the army for decades.I do like the remake but it could have done without the words coming up on the screen at certain points of the film and I would have loved it if he done what greasy had done in the book as he started at the little guys that carried out the actual kidnapping then ended up going after the top man in the mafia.