Review of Man on Fire (1987) by Bobby W — 03 Oct 2015

Another decade-old movie here. This one's from 2004. I remember seeing it before, when it was new. I liked it then. Let's see how I like it now.

This movie takes its time. With a running time of about two and a half hours, the first half is dedicated solely to set up the who, where and why of the story. Even though the first few minutes of the film already give away the obvious plot, the movie manages to keep a certain level of suppressed suspense throughout half its running time. John Creasy (Denzel Washington) reluctantly takes a bodyguard job in Mexico City. He's a former special ops agent, now an alcoholic, who is at the brink of taking his own life. To his surprise, this new job gives him something to live for: Lupita Ramos (Dakota Fanning), the young girl he's hired to protect. Of course, she eventually gets kidnapped, but not after she's touched his heart.

Denzel Washington is one of the greatest actors of our time. And while Man on Fire is not the best of his career, he certainly hasn't received the praise he deserves. Most unfavourable reviews of this film state that all the visual beauty and impeccable production of this movie only serve one purpose: the gory and violent second half of this film.

I disagree. Not only do the visual beauty and impeccable production serve the story as a whole, I will postulate that the second half of this movie isn't half as bad as it's made out to be. Yes, Creasy clips some fingers. Yes, Creasy obliterates an entire hand with a shotgun. Yes, Creasy even kills a man with a MacGuyver-style explosive in his rectum. Sounds violent, doesn't it? Now that would be a problem for me if those actions were solely for entertainment purposes or for Mr. Creasy's personal satisfaction. But they aren't. He very clearly strategizes to connect the dots that will lead him to the man responsible for Pita's kidnapping.

Of course you can condemn the violence just for the acts in themselves. But what you'd be doing at the same time is reveal how naive you are about the world we live in. If sitting these criminals down with a soda or a cup of coffee was sufficient to get some credible information out of them, I'm sure Creasy would have done it. If waiting for Mexico's judicial system was sufficient, he'd done that too. But Creasy is not as naive as these movie critics. He doesn't commit violent acts because "bloody=good" in the movie theater or because he enjoys separating fingers from hands. He merely adapts himself to his environment and starts speaking the languague of the degenerates he's dealing with.

In doing so, he manages in no-time what the combined do-gooders police officers and truth-hunting journalists never managed in decades: get to the people who are responsible.

It seems like the audience is split on the subject, which is fine in itself. It's just unfortunate that I get to read attempts by 'critics' like movie-mom Nell Minow from 'Common Sense Media', who will get full credit for the following quoted review:

"Parents need to know that this movie has extreme and graphic violence, including torture and attempted and actual suicide (portrayed as honorable). Children are in peril. A character has a drinking problem. Characters use strong language. The movie's strengths include strong inter-racial friendships and respect for spiritual values.".

What? Since when do parents not know that when they see 'Rating: R' on movie that they will get at least some if not all of the above? 'R' has been the new 'NC-17' for quite a while now. The tagline of the quoted review is "Extremely violent; not for kids." Well Duh. What did you expect, go check the R-rated isle on Netflix and see if you can find something that is actually very much suitable for kids. In her defense, Minow's description of the movie is spot-on. But then 'Sex' gets a 3/5 warning for this film and 'Drinking, drugs & smoking' gets 0/5? Did we really see the same thing?

Long story short: most critics are either so lost that they forgot that 'R' means there is some clearly adult-only material here; or they are showing signs of extreme naiveté about their world view and how to deal with organized crime sydicates.

Pros: good production value, good acting, etc.

Cons: If you believe that violence does not and should not exist in this world, go see something else.

Verdict: Go see.