Man on Fire
I’m still a little steamed that this movie is mentioned nowhere in the Oscar nominations – I mean even a sound nod would sort of appease me. Yes it was released early in the year… but as I started this second viewing, I said to the person who I was watching it with, who asked if it was nominated for any Oscars, “No, but it should be.” Part of me wasn’t entirely sure of that statement, just a memory of my first dropped-jaw experience; but now I’ve seen it again, I still see how amazing a movie it is.
Harry Gregson-Williams’ score, Christian Wagner’s editing, the visual trickery, the superb creative use of subtitles (I’m certain we’ll be seeing more of this in films to come), and this is before I begin to even think about the performances – Denzel Washington, Christopher Walken, Mark Anthony, Radha Mitchell, and of course, Dakota Fanning. This role will likely go down for her like Natalie Portman’s in Leon and Kirsten Dunst in Interview with the Vampire – not necessarily because it will forever be her best, but because it’s the first that made so many people go “Wow,” and some people, myself included, will likely never enjoy any of her future performances more. You can’t watch her in the first half of this movie without smiling, and that’s so crucial for what happens in the second half. Her absence for nearly all of the second half is painfully notable. It’s almost like she has more impact offscreen than on.
Anyway, I still love the movie. Just a little more than before. It’s a grisly story, true, as I said last time, it highlights the most awful aspects of human life and these kind of movies are not good for me to watch often, ‘cos I just get too depressed. But there’s so much to behold, I can’t help but want to come back and look closer. One of my all-time favourites for sure.
Old Review (7th October 2004):
It’s a pity this movie wasn’t released a little later in the year. I realise it’s slight folly to hope for a movie released in April to win Academy Awards, but this is easily one of the few “above and beyond” actual great movies (in my opinion, at least) of 2004 (in fact, only Eternal Sunshine fully comes into that category, any other of my ‘04 faves are personal ones), and I wouldn’t be entirely shocked to see a sweep of nominations in an ideal world. I’m amazed I hadn’t heard or read a lot about the movie. I was under the impression that it was merely average, since there seemed to be no real passionate opinions either positive or negative.
There are elements of Taxi Driver and 8MM here, as well as a style that reminded me of Traffic and Black Hawk Down. I mention Black Hawk Down because I felt this movie opened my eyes to the reality of kidnapping in the same uncomfortable way as Black Hawk Down opened my eyes to the reality of war (re: why people go to fight). My thoughts were up and down throughout this movie. It’s fairly sensational in execution, but somehow it never over-sensationalises the subject matter. I’d give an example but the only example I can think of would be a spoiler.
The one Oscar nomination I would love to see this movie receive is (and I realise it won’t happen but I’m just saying) for Dakota Fanning’s superb performance, honestly the greatest child performance I have ever seen. I’d heard of Fanning but never seen her in a movie. She’s absolutely incredible from start to finish.
Denzel Washington, too, is great. That might sound like a given, but I’ve never really liked a Washington performance as much as I did this one. I’ve always admired his acting, but on a personal level, he’s usually annoyed me. Here, he really got me.
It’ll be a difficult movie to find a time to watch again. It’s a movie that to me really expresses how miserable the world is, and it’s never a good time for me to watch a movie like that more than once. But it’s definitely one I’ll look for on DVD if it has enough extra features. Colour me blown away.
June 20th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
[...] There’s little to say about this except it’s exactly what I was expecting from the trailers and basic set-up. It’s as much a shameless crowd-pleaser as Cinderella Man was earlier in the year with the added bonus of Dakota Fanning brightening every frame she’s in – despite the fact she seems to be eating for 90% of her screen time, lol. I don’t know if she deserves an Oscar nomination for the part as some are suggesting … much as I’d love to see that happen, I think her chances, though equally slim, are greater for her supporting role in War of the Worlds and she was better in I Am Sam and Man on Fire anyway. Elisabeth Shue is well cast as her mom, and the father/son pairing of Kris Kristofferson and Kurt Russell is perfect too. John Debney’s score is usual soaring stuff you get in this kind of movie, but, like everything else, it works perfectly for me. [...]
January 30th, 2007 at 12:51 am
[...] Man on Fire Tony Scott [...]
April 19th, 2007 at 2:51 am
[...] There’s hints early on at the brilliant potential for this movie to address love that transcends even time itself – and that’s the only reason, ultimately, it takes a slight downturn for me when Denzel goes back in time. It kind of breaks that whole potential. Don’t get me wrong, this moment is done as brilliantly as the rest, I completely accepted it and it doesn’t come over as too bizarre a turn, not even the way some people (not me) find The Prestige stuff does … but for me, the idea of someone falling in love, even just getting close, getting a connection to a person, without ever having met them, that deserves more and those shots where it looks like the girl “feels” Denzel watching her early on are just too tantalising for the rest of the movie to live up to. And, I know, I know, it’s not that kind of movie, it’s “just” a thriller, but if you’ve seen Man on Fire, or even True Romance you’ll know Tony Scott is capable of making a thriller so much more than a thriller, and it could’ve been both. The ending pulls this feeling back big time, I for one did not see it coming at all and when I realised what was going to happen, I primed myself for tears and they came on cue. [...]
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:39 pm
[...] I was afraid that this would be all the negative things I avoided it for in the first place – basically, the general criticism it’s received, that Tony Scott in general has often (unfairly in my opinion, though it stands here) received: that classic poison arrow of critics – all style, no substance. The first 10 minutes didn’t do much to convince me otherwise. But for the most part, I think this movie, though vastly overlong, definitely errs on the good side of all that criticism implies. Sometimes the MTV edits and, err, for want of a better word, sh*t become just ridiculous – but it never entirely makes me lose my newfound love of Tony Scott (let’s face it, with Man on Fire and Deja Vu, it’d take a lot) It’s manic in its business, so manic I probably couldn’t really relate the story to you at all right now if you asked – but it’s admirable in its own way just for being so manic. It’s one of those movies where you get the impression the film makers knew exactly what was going on in the frame at all times, even if you never quite latch on yourself. It’s certainly Keira Knightley’s best role outside of the original Pirates movie, that I’ve seen at least, that’s for sure, even if her voiceover stuff gets a little annoying at times.. It comes together really well in the end and for now I guess all I want to really say is it deserves a second viewing, and I’ll certainly give it that. [...]