Man on Fire (1987)

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

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

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

I loved, loved, loved the remake with Denzel! I liked the book. But this? Not so good. Scott Glenn just doesn't work as Creasy. And the voice over really doesn't work. Plus, the girl playing Samantha is just terrible. It just pales in comparison to the Denzel film. I missed hearing "Blue Bayou" and instead got Joe Pesci singing and strumming a guitar? Yeesh. Read the book, skip this movie.

I am trying very hard to avoid scrapping with other reviewers -- after all, each of us means well, each of us is doing the best we can -- but to suggest that the newer Denzel version is a remake of this, the "original" is completely and absolutely incorrect. The truth is that, once upon a time, there was a reclusive European author with the pen-name A.J. Quinnell who gained notoriety among a select group of fans for his excellent series of novels about an ex-merc named Creasey who lived on a remote Greek island, and only left that island from time to time to take special "jobs;" or to seek revenge for friends that had been wronged. When he would take these special jobs, he almost always did so with a "team" formed of his old buddies, also mercs. The novels were uniformly excellent but never found a mainstream following. In fact one of the last ones had a very limited print run and you want to read it you may have go to a rare bookseller and pay a steep price. Of the set of Creasey novels, MAN ON FIRE was the odd man out, featuring the protagonist on his own (not in a team) and having some stress issues to boot. Just like (see my other reviews) the actor chosen to play the lead in SHOOTER looked nothing whatsoever like the character as described in the source novel by Stephen Hunter, Scott Glenn in this film looks nothing like Creasey in the Quinnell series, nor does he act like him. (Creasey was huge, and a stone-faced killer.) Which is not to say this is a bad film -- I ACTUALLY PREFER IT OVER THE DENZEL VERSION -- merely to point out that this is just one more sad example of the film biz "having its way" with a good work of fiction, and leaving mainly ashes in its wake. Once you overcome the fact that the director is not really following the source material very closely, you end up with a passable film, that perhaps makes up for in passion what it lacks in technique. Compared to a Bourne film, for example (one of the only examples I can think of where the films do actually resemble the source material -- HOW RARE IS THAT?) the deficiencies soon become obvious, however.

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/

Man on Fire may be one of the most underrated thrillers of the 80's. While a bit slow and uncomfortable (which it clearly meant to be) to watch, it is also an excellent trip into a desperate man's rampaging mind. Glenn truly is the epitome of the title of the film, and is far less methodical than the 2004 updated version (this aspect is neither better nor worse, but different). Actually if you took attributes of both films and combined them you would have a perfect version. The 2004 version features some stylish camera work and editing, along with some exceptional dialog and memorable quotes, not to mention excellent performances by the entire acclaimed cast.The 80's version is harsh and sometimes even bleak, but far edgier and while also visually very unique, is far less superficially artistic (there's no sometimes interesting, sometimes downright distracting zig zag editing of the remake here) than Tony Scott's music video style (don't get me wrong, I really dig both of the Scott brothers' work!). The 80's version does not have same pyrotechnics featured in the latter film, and the action is a bit less satisfying. On the other hand the action in the 80's Man On Fire is disturbing, brutal and ugly. Just like real violence. This gives the film a very unpredictable and gritty flavor. Like a train wreck Glenn's Creasy does not seems to approach his "mission" like his 2004's more surgeon precise counterpart, but as a man who's finely honed training keeps him alive smashing a maze of the grimy underworld his obsessed mind propels him through. Where the slick action, high production values and more articulate script of the 2004 version does give it's film some major advantages, the 80's film's ending has it beat in spades. **MINOR SPOILER ALERT** (don't read following paragraph if you don't want to be spoiled, even if it is minor!)The two films follow a very similar path throughout most of their respective journeys, but the end of the road for both could not be more different. More satisfying than the far more melancholy ending with Denzel Washington and a rather obvious tacked on final resolution to the final baddie yet to be dealt with on Creasy's list (watch it, it looks like it was filmed at the last second with just 2 actors in someone's backyard), the 80's film has an interesting bookend with it's unusual opening and ending. The finale is almost nightmarish as Scott Glenn's Creasy is insanely calling out his young charge's name, but it all ends with a far more sweet resolution than what we would have predicted. Without giving away who all lives and dies, it is a long belief of mine that the best films make you feel for characters that you are convinced will die, but then don't. It's like being on a thrillride, particularly simulation ones. People love the illusion and sensation of being in some great danger, but (barring strange accidents) walk away just fine.**END SPOLIER**Scott Glenn's Creasy deserves to be seen. It is a different experience than Denzel's, but it has equal merit in very different ways. And although Fanning is absolutely amazing as Denzel's charge in the remake, the original has the rare distinction of having a bit more ethnic child being the focus of Creasy's devotion and not the unlikely blond and very pale skin offspring of Marc Anthony. Yes, this was an intentional choice. There just are not many major Hollywood films that use an ethnic child to focus all of the efforts of the hero to save (and you can't say Golden Child! That kid had all kinds of special powers, a regular Asian sterotype...unless you really think we can all run up walls and teleport and whatnot). Give it a look, just be prepared to follow a dangerous crazy man on a mission for 90 minutes! It's sometimes very harrowing!