Man on Fire is more that what meets the eye

Rutger Hauer in Wanted: Dead or Alive (1986)

Denzel Washington and Dakota Fanning in Man on Fire (2004)

Amy Yip, Chikako Aoyama, Peter Cheung, Anthony Chow, Billy Chow, Ken Goodman, James Wong, Siu-dan Hui, Wang-Hung Ng, Mark King, Lam Chua, Chung Lam, Jamie Luk, Vincent Lyn, David Wu, Fung Woo, Man Sing So, Jim Yeung, Siu Hung Yeung, Stuart Ong, Oni Tsuka, Richard Edward, Wing-Hin Ho, Bruce Shutten, Hoi-sing Cheung, Efi Hetz, Hin Ming Lee, Roger Thomas, Chi-Fung Yuen, Kwan-Luen Tam, Yiu-Bong Tsang, and Yuet-Wah Au in Robotrix (1991)

Val Kilmer and Joanne Whalley in Kill Me Again (1989)

Brion James, Reed Birney, Louise Lasser, Paul L. Smith, and Sheree J. Wilson in Crimewave (1985)

Morgan Freeman, Kathy Baker, and Christopher Reeve in Street Smart (1987)

Anthony Michael Hall and Jenny Wright in Out of Bounds (1986)

Scott Glenn and Jade Malle in Man on Fire (1987)

"Guys like us ain't got nobody in the world...... but not us, Lenny said." John Steinbeck "Of Mice and Men"

Jade Malle, Piero Vida, and Luigi Mezzanotte in Man on Fire (1987)

Scott Glenn

Jade Malle

Joe Pesci

A.J. Quinnell

Élie Chouraqui

Sergio Donati

A former CIA agent, Christian Creasy, becomes in Italy the bodyguard of a girl who awakens in him a tenderness he never felt before. When she is abducted, Creasy&apos;s fiery rage is unleashed, and he embarks on a bloody revenge spree.

Man on Fire

A bit slow but that&apos;s alright, actually.

Seems to me that the reason why this movie isn&apos;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. It&apos;s more the sort of action-thriller we are accustomed to of seeing now days, with a better- and more slow build up to it. So the movie was actually ahead of its time and I could understand Tony Scott&apos;s interest in this movie and why he decided to make a remake of it, back in 2004.

It&apos;s definitely not an usual revenge flick. It seems more focused on its characters and drama really but this of course is not necessarily a bad thing. It actually makes this movie a pretty refreshing and original one within its genre. And having said that, it&apos;s not like the movie is all drama. 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. However in this case I have to say I liked the first half, so its drama and buildup, better than the second, more action filled, one. 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. Besides, director Élie Chouraqui was obviously far more at ease with telling a story than at handling the action really. It&apos;s still good and fun enough action all but it just still feels like the second half of the movie is doing a good job at destroying what the first half of the movie had been building up. 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. But this approach is actually what makes the movie work out as something special and refreshing. I however don&apos;t think simply just everybody will be able to appreciate this approach. 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&apos;s pretty awesome! And there are all really right at place within this movie as well. 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&apos;s only just a half successful movie but it&apos;s still really worth giving a go!

7/10 

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

A former CIA agent, John Creasy, is hired as a bodyguard for a girl in Italy, who becomes the daughter he never had. When she is abducted, Creasy&apos;s fiery rage is unleashed, and despite being badly wounded, embarks on a bloody revenge spree.

Official Trailer

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZjVkY2EzMTctMWQ5Ni00MmZlLTkxYWQtNDc2ZGVjZGNiM2QwXkEyXkFqcGdeQXRyYW5zY29kZS13b3JrZmxvdw@@._V1_.jpg

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. It's more the sort of action-thriller we are accustomed to of seeing now days, with a better- and more slow build up to it. 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 seems more focused on its characters and drama really but this of course is not necessarily a bad thing. It actually makes this movie a pretty refreshing and original one within its genre. And having said that, it's not like the movie is all drama. 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. However in this case I have to say I liked the first half, so its drama and buildup, better than the second, more action filled, one. 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. Besides, director Élie Chouraqui was obviously far more at ease with telling a story than at handling the action really. It's still good and fun enough action all but it just still feels like the second half of the movie is doing a good job at destroying what the first half of the movie had been building up. 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. But this approach is actually what makes the movie work out as something special and refreshing. I however don't think simply just everybody will be able to appreciate this approach. 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! And there are all really right at place within this movie as well. 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/

A former CIA agent, Christian Creasy, becomes in Italy the bodyguard of a girl who awakens in him a tenderness he never felt before. When she is abducted, Creasy's fiery rage is unleashed, and he embarks on a bloody revenge spree.

bappamtv

Man on Fire

🎭 Top Cast

💰 Box Office

🎬 Technical Specs

🏷️ Keywords

🎯 Categories

⭐ Featured Review

💡 Did You Know?

🎬 More Like This

📖 Synopsis