(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv720%2Fithica45%2Fmanonfire.jpg&hash=b6a4fe8eeebc39f05854b8df578642978dedf6d1)
Trailer:
Hi-Res (http://mp3content03.bcst.yahoo.com/proot2/PubShare06/yahoomovies/11/5788940.mov)
Med-Res (http://mp3content01.bcst.yahoo.com/proot4/PubShare16/yahoomovies/10/5788938.mov)
Lo-Res (http://mp3content02.bcst.yahoo.com/proot1/PubShare04/yahoomovies/4/5788937.mov)
Release Date: April 23rd, 2004 (wide)
Cast: Denzel Washington (Creasy), Dakota Fanning (Pinta Balletto), Christopher Walken (Reyburn), Marc Anthony, Radha Mitchell (Rika Balletto), Giancarlo Giannini, Mickey Rourke, Rachel Ticotin.
Director: Tony Scott (Top Gun, Spy Game, True Romance, Crimson Tide, Enemy of the State)
Screenwriter: Brian Helgeland (A Knight's Tale, Blood Work, Conspiracy Theory, cowriter of Payback, L.A. Confidential, Mystic River)
Premise: A bitter and remorseful former U.S. Marine (Washington) moves to Mexico City to take a position as the bodyguard for a wealthy family who have been receiving kidnapping threats. When their 10-year-old daughter, Pinta (Fanning), whom he had so recently befriended, is indeed kidnapped and murdered, the soldier-turned-guard devotes himself fully to reaping vengeance on those responsible... (Walken plays an old friend of Washington's who tells him about the "job" in Italy; Mitchell plays Pinta's mother)
how long is that fucking trailer?
Is it worth putting up with another over-acted Denzel performance to see if Tony Scott can squeeze a decent one out again?
Quote from: RegularKaratehow long is that fucking trailer?
approximately fuckteen minutes
This doesn't excite me too much. It looks kind of corny.
I'm interested in this, even though the trailer doesn't really go anywhere and is remarkably unclear as to what the movie's actually about -- must be that NIN song that makes it seem cool.
yeah i really like Tony Scott and will have to see this because of that. Brian Helgeland script seems like a good idea too, but Dakota Fanning/little kid angle does not. i thought his BMW short "Beat The Devil" was brilliant. tony scott would be better off if he didnt have to worry about making a story that makes sense and can last 2 hours and could just go buckwild and be as crazy as he wants to be, because as evident in his short...its pretty damn CRAZY.
...i'm noy going to waste my hhard earned USA currency on this at the theatres..but tony scotts a slick motherphucker.....his films are glossed beautifully i like his vibe..spy game's great....slick.....so i wait till the dvd realease date to purchase/ see this....if my calcualtions are correct.....maybe around..november.
i saw this today because of tony scott as mentioned earlier, although i didnt expect TOO much. while watching it i could definitely see the BMW short was a warm-up for the INSANE editing/camerawork/music he would use in this film. even down to the subtitling lines spoken in english. it was pretty cool at times and other times made you a little sick. but i like that he's pushing it as far as this just to see when hes gone too far. the movie was 2 1/2 hours and should've been trimmed by about 25 minutes. ill actually eat my words and say that the relationship between denzel and dakota was really nice without being too forced cheesy cute like i thought from the poster. there were a great lines though like the one in the trailer about "creasys art is death, and he's about to paint his masterpiece." hahah, thats great. and there was another one too a few minutes later that i cant remember right now. there was some good stuff here, but overall i would not want to buy this movie, its more like a rental. anyone who doesnt like baz luhrman should stay away from this as well.
Quote from: NEON MERCURY...i'm noy going to waste my hhard earned USA currency on this at the theatres..but tony scotts a slick motherphucker.....his films are glossed beautifully i like his vibe..spy game's great....slick.....so i wait till the dvd realease date to purchase/ see this....if my calcualtions are correct.....maybe around..november.
.well, theres times in your life that you gotta grab your sac and admit to yourself that you can be a phucking judgemental prick....and this is one of those times for me.......
spoilerrrrrrrrrrrrrs are in dis bitch.-denzel is solid troughout.....his acting is across between hurricane/training day
-the cinematography is phucking sweet.....i have said earlier that scott does have a slick/cool vibe running throughout his films...and this one takes it to the next level for him..and its more edgy..like (se7en's title sequence)....its really great..and envolves you in the film ...during its LEMGhty runtime....
-dakota is a surprise......
-some people will hate the hip subtitles and sh*t ..i thougth it was unique and added to the film.........
-the realtionship bewtteen denzel and fanning. during the builup wasn't cheesy...
-the "i'm gonna phuck you up" montages were classic...
-the ending is actually good....
-marc anthony...can act..!!!....so bringing out the dead wasn't a fluke....
-overall its well done, acted w/ skill and worth checking out....
This movie really didn't work for me. Tony Scott did some creative things with it, but he went way over the top with his camera moves. So much so that it took me out of the story. Could or should have been better.
Best part was the little girl. Very charming little actress who has a big career in front of her. Denzel wasn't bad either. The style for this film was downright awful though. Jesus. Tony picked the wrong material to use it on. The subtitle effects were downright embarassing. Id never see this again.
Solid performances by both Denzel and Dakota Fanning. She really has talent. But I was annoyed a tiny bit by the subtitles and the so-called disorienting strange visiuals, I also thought those certain visuals were overly repetatitive....That's my two cents.
Didn't really grab my attention... personally I don't like Denzel that much
However, this could be a "Training Day" like role for him, which I found him to be his best in...
I'll probably just rent the DVD though
I agree with all the mixed reviews, but I'd say its worth seeing just for Scott's direction. I can't decide whether I like it or hate it.
I can't imagine he had any sort of advance plan as to how to shoot the movie. He seems to have shot endless amounts of footage, and then edited it one 24 hour amphtemine-jagged spree, following impulses brought on in the heat of the moment and then leaving everything as it is. It goes beyond hyper, beyond manipulative -- any subtleties in Hegeland's script (and there are a few nice ones) are stretched out, freeze framed and repeated ad infinitum, just to make sure we catch them. It goes beyond the point of bad to being sort of creative again. If this weren't a Denzel Washington thriller directed by Tony Scott, I imagine a lot of people would be calling it brilliant, while others would call it a crapshoot that more often than not buries its story in a style that is actually style free.
The one thing I did love is the subtitles: I think that was pretty innovative/effective, and as I was watching it, I realized that this is what we'd probably get if we Guy Madden directed a big budget thriller. The decaying film stock look, the endless superimpositions, the combination of text and photography -- its very similar to his style. Maybe without the grace, but in place of that, I guess, you get explosions and Denzel, who is good, as expected.
Also, I watched the first hour of The Punisher while I was waiting for this one to start, which allowed me to make a comparison notable only due to similar subject matter. No matter how simplistic Hegeland's script may be (despite its great length), the difference between what he wrote here and what Hensleigh created with Punisher was rather incredulous (and a little refreshing, walking out of the one to see the other).
I liked the direction and the acting. The story was incredibly simple. I like what Tony Scott did with such simplicity.
Supporting my Guy Maddin comparison -- I read an interview with Scott today, where he said he used antique hand cranked cameras from 1910 to shoot a lot of it.
...i m glad people are liking this film...it s good popcorn stuff...i forgot to mention that the begining titles and sh*t is killer...i wish i had a still of the final image of the opening when it says [directed by: tony scott]...i thought it was done very cool and quasi-se7enish
I really liked this film. The first reason is the extension of the scenes of character development, something in most other revenge movies are summed up in a 20 minute sequence in the most barebone way just cause the film is itchy to get to the revenge part. Also, and most importantly, is the talent of Tony Scott's directing. His camera is so imaginative that he feels like Oliver Stone sometimes in that analysis of the film hardly comes from looking at the writing, but the directing that makes the story feel fresh. Scott's last film, Spy Game, seemed to have been given life from Scott's manic directing, but his directing is better suited here, where revenge fits the emotions he can bring from his directing. Denzel Washington, shockingly, was adaquete here for me. Too many times he feels he is acting for the spotlight of being "dramatic", but finally his face and movement bled a history of abuse and his tough guy persona seemed rewarded from the story.
*SPOILERS*
I really liked this film, and I agree with GT that the character development was necessary. I really felt the characters connecting with each other. I even cried when Pita won the swim meet and gave Ceasy the St. Jude chain. I thought the pace was fine, although I would have trimmed a bit when the film turned to the revenge spree, not because it was or felt long, but I felt the emotional impact was somewhat lost, like it was a bit forgotten what he was on this mission for. I thought Scott's "technique" went a bit too distracting sometimes, but worked for Ceasy's state of mind. The performances were fine, and was extremely happy Radha Mitchell, who've I been a fan of since "High Art" (yes, I even liked her in "Pitch Black") was not just disposed in a worried mom role.
Quote from: GhostboyThe one thing I did love is the subtitles: I think that was pretty innovative/effective
I thought it was pretty impactful too. It somehow made the film a bit more interactive.
Does anybody have a soundtrack listing for this movie? There's so much music jumbled up together throughout it. Some of it sounded like something out of Gladiator or The Insider.
There was definitely some Lisa Gerrard in there -- whether it was original or not, I don't know. The main theme seemed to be comprised of a NIN song (from The Fragile, although I don't remember which one).
NIN: The Mark Has Been Made
Title: Man on Fire
Released: 14th September 2004
Further Details
Fox Home Entertainment has announced the region one release of Man on Fire which stars Denzel Washington, Dakota Fanning and Christopher Walken. This new Tony Scott film will be available to own from the 14th September this year, and should set you back somewhere in the region of $29.98. As well as a 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen presentation, the disc will include English DTS 5.1 and Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks, an audio commentary by producer Lucas Foster, screenwriter Brian Helgeland and actor Dakota Fanning, an action themed trailer, a Hide & Seek Teaser with introduction, a trailer for Taxi and a Behind the Scenes featurette. The artwork has yet to be released, but we'll bring you that shortly.
The extras are a commentary and then trailers? That's a shame.
my favorite part was when the man went on fire.
After a friend recommendation followed by a surpring recommendation from a film professor, I decided to rent Man on Fire. This is a very, very underrated film. I think it is somewhere around 39% on Rottentomatoes. The style of the film is very similiar to City of God. In fact, I would argue that the aesthetic of Man on Fire works better than it does in City of God (93% on rottentomatoes). So, I find it interesting that City of God's style is praised and so many people are criticising Man on Fire for the same reason.
The film has a basic revenge plot, but I was very happy with the results. Scott spends about 45 minutes to an hour working on the Denzel/Dakota relationship before the kidnapping even occurs. All of the performances were good with the exception of Radha Mitchell, her performance is fine the first half of the film, but the second half I think she is dreadful.
Overall, I highly recommend everyone to rent this film and give it a chance. **** out of 5 stars.
This movie was a dreadful mess. Scott must have been consuming large quantities of illegal substances.
hahah, i just saw this one too as well and i liked it much, for reasons aformentioned, in particular, the first act of the film with denzel and the little girl (who is really a wonderful little actress!). i saw it with one of my few film buff friends, and he couldn't stop cringing at the dialogue/subtitle thing, but i really thought it was an interesting technique (maybe a bit overused, but nevertheless, it was fun).
and while i'm all for innovative, stylish camera stuff, i must disagree with the following;
Quote from: SHAFTRThe style of the film is very similiar to City of God. In fact, I would argue that the aesthetic of Man on Fire works better than it does in City of God (93% on rottentomatoes). So, I find it interesting that City of God's style is praised and so many people are criticising Man on Fire for the same reason.
i really don't see the style comparison here, nor do i see any reason to justify that the camera work in man on fire is more justified than the work in city of god. (i think visually, city of god was as good as it got last year (or whenever the hell it
officially came out)).
Quote from: ©brad
Quote from: SHAFTRThe style of the film is very similiar to City of God. In fact, I would argue that the aesthetic of Man on Fire works better than it does in City of God (93% on rottentomatoes). So, I find it interesting that City of God's style is praised and so many people are criticising Man on Fire for the same reason.
i really don't see the style comparison here, nor do i see any reason to justify that the camera work in man on fire is more justified than the work in city of god. (i think visually, city of god was as good as it got last year (or whenever the hell it officially came out)).
My problem with City of God is the content of the film and message is a glimpse at the violence that the youth were going through and performing. With that said, it doesn't make sense to stylize the violence and make it look "cool". The aesthetic doesn't fit with the content.
EDIT:
I found a review that explains how I feel better...
"Meirelles is one of the most successful TV-commercial directors in Brazil, and at times he seems to be showing off the violence as if it were a new product line. The distinction between the depiction of violence and its exploitation is paper-thin. We are made to witness horrific acts of cruelty, and yet there is something unseemly in the way Meirelles glamorizes them with fancy effects: split screens, slo-mo, jump cuts. He's trying to turn us on. Meanwhile, the victims and perpetrators of the violence are mere stick figures in the choreography." - Peter Rainer, New York Metro
So, since I look at Man on Fire as a mere vengeance flick, it's use of that style is much more appropriate.
Quote from: SHAFTRQuote from: ©brad
Quote from: SHAFTRThe style of the film is very similiar to City of God. In fact, I would argue that the aesthetic of Man on Fire works better than it does in City of God (93% on rottentomatoes). So, I find it interesting that City of God's style is praised and so many people are criticising Man on Fire for the same reason.
i really don't see the style comparison here, nor do i see any reason to justify that the camera work in man on fire is more justified than the work in city of god. (i think visually, city of god was as good as it got last year (or whenever the hell it officially came out)).
My problem with City of God is the content of the film and message is a glimpse at the violence that the youth were going through and performing. With that said, it doesn't make sense to stylize the violence and make it look "cool". The aesthetic doesn't fit with the content.
EDIT:
I found a review that explains how I feel better...
"Meirelles is one of the most successful TV-commercial directors in Brazil, and at times he seems to be showing off the violence as if it were a new product line. The distinction between the depiction of violence and its exploitation is paper-thin. We are made to witness horrific acts of cruelty, and yet there is something unseemly in the way Meirelles glamorizes them with fancy effects: split screens, slo-mo, jump cuts. He's trying to turn us on. Meanwhile, the victims and perpetrators of the violence are mere stick figures in the choreography." - Peter Rainer, New York Metro
So, since I look at Man on Fire as a mere vengeance flick, it's use of that style is much more appropriate.
I don't believe these films can be really compared. Similiar style, sure, but the article criticizes everything beautiful about City of God. Meirelles is so good with City of God that it becomes about the artfulness of the director than really the credibility of the subject and how truthful it is to current events. I can't understand how people are searching for a film like Traffic in this movie: epic and completely explorative of the politics behind the situation at hand. To really appreciate City of God for me has been to look at Meirelles' filmmaking own style as a kind of Fellini-esque. Meirelles makes some attempts at dramatic tension in the normal sense, but so did Fellini and Fellini never was able to fully committ. Meirelles, like Fellini, made a movie that hangs over a large cloud of personal style all his own. Man on Fire, a really good movie, is dramatic in the conventional sense.
From The Digital Bits:
Tony Scott's Man on Fire has being given 2-disc special edition treatment. It's tentatively planned for release around Father's Day (so watch for an announcement soon). Expect this to be a great SE, complete with an alternate ending and a version of the film that's some 20 minutes longer than the theatrical cut.
Devious bastards.
movie blew
I disagree.
Your mother didn't blow enough.
I saw this two days ago on DVD and I liked it... Denzel is always good... and the story was good... I didnt like the Direction much... but it was alright
just saw it tonight on HBO. Some mentioned in this thread the similarity to Tony Scott's BMW film. I couldn't get that out of my head the entire time I watched it. Hell, he even used that Spanish song that plays at the end of "Powder Keg", the BMW film by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu.
I feel so dirty for having enjoyed this flick as much as I did but Tony Scott is just the master of trashy action cinema.
Yeah, it's just a dirty shame to like something like this.
Well, you learn a lot about yourself when you find yourself laughing hysterically at (SPOILER) Denzel putting a C4 in a guy's ass.