Watch Man on Fire For Free

i must have seen a different film!!

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

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. It's a passable film, but instantly pales with any comparison to Scott's outing, which is a masterpiece and one of the best films of the century. 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. The two are rocky at first, begin to bond, she's kidnaped and Creasy wages war on the criminals who took her with an arsenal of firepower provided by Pesci. At ninety minutes it's a little too short for any of this to be developed properly, or proportionately so to other elements, but it works well enough. The strongest bits are the early scenes where they make friends, brought to life by Glenn's warm smile and Malle's emotional curiosity. The final act of revenge feels oddly rushed, awkward and too overblown to justify the lack of action we get, it should have been more hot blooded and sustained. 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. Nothing compared to Scott's version, but worth a look.

As has been said, when people think of the title 'Man on Fire' one immediately think of the far better known 2004 film. Which is actually a remake of this film from 1987. This version was not well received by critics at the time and is a poor adaptation of the book (almost unrecognisable and the book's author AJ Quinell disliked it intensely for that reason), but to me it is a perfectly serviceable film in its own right.One of those times of me going against the general critical consensus. Tend to be along the same lines and on the same page as critics, who tend to be unfairly bashed on the internet for no reason, but there have been times where a panned film is not that bad to me and an acclaimed film considered not that good or not doing much for me. The former is an example here. 'Man on Fire' is not a great film exactly and can totally see where the critics are coming from. Personally do share some of their criticisms. However, 'Man on Fire' does have a lot of things in its favour, so if asked whether it is that bad my answer would be no. Not a lot is done exceptionally, nothing also is done disastrously.'Man on Fire' is an interesting film visually. The locations are stunning, especially the palazzo, the industrial loft and the boat dock, and the film has some of the best location shooting from personal opinion of any film from that year. Not perfect by all means, some of the editing is choppy and incomplete-looking and count me in as another person or didn't see the need for the slow-motion, which has very rarely been a favourite camera technique of mine in film. 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 story could have been better, the build-up of the first half tends to be slow and take too long, some of it is routine and other parts forget to make sense and come over as ludicrous. However, the second half generally really picks up the momentum, fun and suspense levels, leading to an exciting and touching ending.Don't agree that it completely lacks emotion, though there could have been more and it does for my liking come too late. The action mostly (a few routine moments) is gritty and suitably uncompromising without going unnecessarily over the top. 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. Jade Malle is more charming than she is irritating, which was great. 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. 6/10 Bethany Cox

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. However the final frame really does paint a beautifully haunting picture, which does leave it open. While grimy and mean when it does explode (effectively staged too), it might be too short-lived, as it could have up the ante on numerous occasions (despite one bloody shoot-out and a brutal beat-up scene). 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. While not particularly deep, still it feels genuine in the thoughtful bonding and the transformations. Glenn's wearily lamenting, but hardy performance balances out nicely to Jade Malle's wholesomely bright turn. Danny Aiello shows up as one of the kidnappers. Also the cast features Brooke Adams (who we don't see too much of) and a little role for Jonathan Pryce.

Former CIA agent Creasy finds himself employed as a private bodyguard to a wealthy family living in Italy – a job arranged by his friend and former colleague David. At first he hates it as it involves working with a child (Sam), a subject that carries a lot of pain for him. However gradually he softens to Sam and relaxes into a job described to him by David as no-risk baby-sitting, despite the kidnapping problems in Italy. When Sam is kidnapping right out of Creasy's arms, he is left riddled with bullets. It becomes a matter for the police and paying is not an option from their point of view. 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. As it is though, Man on Fire is just a disappointment because it doesn't do a terrible lot of note. I can understand why it does have a certain amount of cult appeal because it is a strange beast of a film. 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. The problem is that it is cheaply done and basic – and not in a good way. Creasy's character changes like a light being flicked on and off. However even with this we still drag our way through the story. 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. For me director Chouraqui carries the can on this because he directs with a clumsy touch and his use of slow motion at the start and end is a terrible call. The cast are OK but to be honest it is mostly the novelty value of having them there. Glenn deserves more and could have given more if given the opportunity. 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. However the truth is that there is a reason for this because it is just not that good. It doesn't deliver convincing characters or story and the violence is too dull and uninvolving to save the day. 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!