Post by mckyoneal on Feb 28, 2008 22:20:45 GMT -5
Seeing as how that no one seems to be writing reviews for heavy handed movies of the past decade, I thought I’d claim my little niche, and do a review for Man on Fire. I was also thinking about following up with Crash, The Departed, and Collateral.
Before I give away any more ideas, I’d like to tell the tale of a hormonal teenager that lives in all of us. They get mad for no good reasons, and have outbursts where pieces of furniture or the foundation for the garage is compromised. The only thing was, a few years ago, that hormonal teenager didn’t live inside me, because I was (and still am for the next week or so) that person. Sweet, I can still blame my random acts of violence on chemical imbalances.
2004 was a tough year for me, and luckily I can place all the blame on one thing: high school chemistry. Still four years later, I can say I’ve never had a harder class. I had problems with big words like stoichiometry and coefficient matrix. It was hard enough to just pronounce them let alone work out homework problems. That made me mad. Very mad. After having chemistry from middle of August to May was going to kill me. Months of stress and anger would erupt shortly. Man on Fire knew how I felt.
John Creasy (Denzel Washington) was just as lost when the girl he was hired to bodyguard, Pita (Dakota Fanning), was kidnapped. She had shown the ex-soldier it was ok to live again after a life of bloodshed with a well developed, touching, and memorable father-daughter type relationship. So while I could only punch pillows in frustration, and chunk my chemistry book across the room; Denzel could blow people away with shotguns and rocket launchers. I had found my ventilation. Ironically, this was about the same time I had discovered hardcore music. Such rage…
The plot summary above doesn’t do it justice so I’ll expand as best I can. John Creasy has led a dark life as a counter-terrorism soldier who has traveled around the world and seen nothing but the worst it has to offer. We begin our story when he hits rock bottom, alcoholic and bearded, traveling to the border by Mexico to visit his old friend Rayburn (Christopher Walken). You thought my review couldn’t get more glowing, but then BAM, Christopher Walken shows up and ices the cake. Creasy asks him, “Do you think God, will forgive us for what we’ve done?”
Rayburn has an answer, but he also hands him a job as a bodyguard protecting Pita simply to give him a reason to wake up in the morning. But the job isn’t what keeps him going, it’s Pita. Unfortunately, at the start of the movie we’re giving a brief introduction into the rampant kidnappings that plague all of Latin America. But the Creasy/Pita relationship is so effective we forget that Pita will be put into danger by unknown kidnappers. And when Pita comes up kidnapped, we’re thrust into a different movie. A movie that had my fist clenched with murderous fury as Creasy begins to dispense vengeance on the kidnappers. It's the closest I've ever come to actually yelling at the screen.
Man on Fire remains will forever reign in my mind for having the some of the greatest revenge scenes since William Wallace avenged Murron in Braveheart. It also ranks better than all the revenge movies that came out at the same time Man on Fire. Take that Kill Bill and Punisher! Thank director Tony Scott for that. Critics complained that audiences would cry for blood as if Scott’s skills were limited. Just the opposite that just proves how effective he can work with (not manipulate) the audience’s emotions. He doesn’t skimp on character development or story so when the bloodshed rolls around, it has a purpose. Although it looks like he cares more about editing and cinematography than anything else. The cuts between shots are incredibly rapid; the camera shakes while the film looks likes it’s been overexposed and washed out or just the opposite and difficult to understand because it’s near black. Unfortunately, I was in the fourth row at my first viewing and found this a complete turn off, but give yourself enough distance and you can appreciate it a lot more.
Two side notes about the editing and camera work: first, Scott and his crew more or less completely copied City of God, the little Brazilian film that could. They were obviously inspired, but honestly, they took it too far using the disjointed method all the time. Secondly, this kind of editing has become commonplace now, especially in TV shows like CSI over the past few years so the originality effect has warn off.
But all of this shouldn’t keep you from watching it. Nor should it’s overly dramatic scenes that are spliced through the movie that tend to feel cheesy. Man on Fire does run on a little too long as well just like people mentioned of Casino Royale. But viewing the movie shouldn’t be limited to your moments of bloodlust, it really is a great movie, and if I had the power I’d clock it in on the 5 rewatchability scale. Because even as my hate for chemistry fades, Man on Fire still stands as a fantastic movie.
Before I give away any more ideas, I’d like to tell the tale of a hormonal teenager that lives in all of us. They get mad for no good reasons, and have outbursts where pieces of furniture or the foundation for the garage is compromised. The only thing was, a few years ago, that hormonal teenager didn’t live inside me, because I was (and still am for the next week or so) that person. Sweet, I can still blame my random acts of violence on chemical imbalances.
2004 was a tough year for me, and luckily I can place all the blame on one thing: high school chemistry. Still four years later, I can say I’ve never had a harder class. I had problems with big words like stoichiometry and coefficient matrix. It was hard enough to just pronounce them let alone work out homework problems. That made me mad. Very mad. After having chemistry from middle of August to May was going to kill me. Months of stress and anger would erupt shortly. Man on Fire knew how I felt.
John Creasy (Denzel Washington) was just as lost when the girl he was hired to bodyguard, Pita (Dakota Fanning), was kidnapped. She had shown the ex-soldier it was ok to live again after a life of bloodshed with a well developed, touching, and memorable father-daughter type relationship. So while I could only punch pillows in frustration, and chunk my chemistry book across the room; Denzel could blow people away with shotguns and rocket launchers. I had found my ventilation. Ironically, this was about the same time I had discovered hardcore music. Such rage…
The plot summary above doesn’t do it justice so I’ll expand as best I can. John Creasy has led a dark life as a counter-terrorism soldier who has traveled around the world and seen nothing but the worst it has to offer. We begin our story when he hits rock bottom, alcoholic and bearded, traveling to the border by Mexico to visit his old friend Rayburn (Christopher Walken). You thought my review couldn’t get more glowing, but then BAM, Christopher Walken shows up and ices the cake. Creasy asks him, “Do you think God, will forgive us for what we’ve done?”
Rayburn has an answer, but he also hands him a job as a bodyguard protecting Pita simply to give him a reason to wake up in the morning. But the job isn’t what keeps him going, it’s Pita. Unfortunately, at the start of the movie we’re giving a brief introduction into the rampant kidnappings that plague all of Latin America. But the Creasy/Pita relationship is so effective we forget that Pita will be put into danger by unknown kidnappers. And when Pita comes up kidnapped, we’re thrust into a different movie. A movie that had my fist clenched with murderous fury as Creasy begins to dispense vengeance on the kidnappers. It's the closest I've ever come to actually yelling at the screen.
Man on Fire remains will forever reign in my mind for having the some of the greatest revenge scenes since William Wallace avenged Murron in Braveheart. It also ranks better than all the revenge movies that came out at the same time Man on Fire. Take that Kill Bill and Punisher! Thank director Tony Scott for that. Critics complained that audiences would cry for blood as if Scott’s skills were limited. Just the opposite that just proves how effective he can work with (not manipulate) the audience’s emotions. He doesn’t skimp on character development or story so when the bloodshed rolls around, it has a purpose. Although it looks like he cares more about editing and cinematography than anything else. The cuts between shots are incredibly rapid; the camera shakes while the film looks likes it’s been overexposed and washed out or just the opposite and difficult to understand because it’s near black. Unfortunately, I was in the fourth row at my first viewing and found this a complete turn off, but give yourself enough distance and you can appreciate it a lot more.
Two side notes about the editing and camera work: first, Scott and his crew more or less completely copied City of God, the little Brazilian film that could. They were obviously inspired, but honestly, they took it too far using the disjointed method all the time. Secondly, this kind of editing has become commonplace now, especially in TV shows like CSI over the past few years so the originality effect has warn off.
But all of this shouldn’t keep you from watching it. Nor should it’s overly dramatic scenes that are spliced through the movie that tend to feel cheesy. Man on Fire does run on a little too long as well just like people mentioned of Casino Royale. But viewing the movie shouldn’t be limited to your moments of bloodlust, it really is a great movie, and if I had the power I’d clock it in on the 5 rewatchability scale. Because even as my hate for chemistry fades, Man on Fire still stands as a fantastic movie.