Man On Fire

[Ghostboy]

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.

[NEON MERCURY]

...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

[Gold Trumpet]

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.

[MacGuffin]

*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.

The 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.

[Finn]

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.

[Ghostboy]

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).

[edison]

NIN: The Mark Has Been Made

[modage]

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.

[meatball]

The extras are a commentary and then trailers? That's a shame.

[Pubrick]

my favorite part was when the man went on fire.

[SHAFTR]

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.

[mutinyco]

This movie was a dreadful mess. Scott must have been consuming large quantities of illegal substances.

[©brad]

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;

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.

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)).

[SHAFTR]

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.

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.

[Gold Trumpet]

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.

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.