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

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Yvonne Jodi Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

donaldricco 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.

TheLittleSongbird 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

Boba_Fett1138 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/

dbdumonteil The eighties curse:how many movies have been made,featuring the tough guy ,single-handedly taming and finally killing a bunch of baddies? You're going to tell me that Scott Glenn is a much better actor than SS, Arnold and co:that's true and he looks sometimes jaded,depressed,and even moving.But it's the same old story all over again:the little girl,the daughter of rich wealthy Italians is kidnapped by villains and so begins the task. Main objections:why ,when the movie takes place in Italy and only one character is American ,does almost everyone speak English in the original version?This is not natural,particularly for the girlie ;why were the prologue and the epilogue filmed in slow motion:it does not bring anything. It's Elie Chouraqui's first thriller.his first works were mediocre comedies ("paroles et musique" featuring Catherine Deneuve)