To be honest, I wanted him to be tougher, but it kind of worked out. He wasn't quite the tough guy as Denzel Washington was in the remake.
Scott Glenn was absolutely flawless as Creasy and he pulled off the character as being mysterious, cold, and unusual. It has some gorgeous scenery, absolutely wonderful acting, a fairly decent screenplay, and other things that I simply find attractive in a motion picture. And that is the factor that while the film was a bit shoddy, it was highly entertaining and in a way, a bit more complex and more compelling than the 2004 remake. But while that is true in my personal opinion, there is another factor that I cannot deny. For me, "Man on Fire" was in deed unusual and strange and definitely not the most creative film ever made. And the other half will simply despise it. Some people will enjoy it just for what it is. This is a film that will meet viewers halfway. But the reason why it falls under the category of schlock is because of its very unusual and sometimes, inferior styles. From the looks of it, it's budget was fairly decent for it has good acting, good effects, and good sound design. The 1987 version of "Man on Fire" is probably a film that I would have to consider schlock. Unbeknownst to many of them is that film is in fact a remake of a gritty, disturbing, and above all, unusual European film of the same title. When most people today hear the title "Man on Fire", they probably think right away of the 2004 film starring Denzel Washington and Dakota Fanning. Maybe it's only just a half successful movie but it's still really worth giving a go! 7/10 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. 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. And for such a low key movie, it definitely has a great cast in it. especially of course when you are expecting a more straightforward action flick. I however don't think simply just everybody will be able to appreciate this approach. But this approach is actually what makes the movie work out as something special and refreshing.
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. 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. 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. Besides, director Élie Chouraqui was obviously far more at ease with telling a story than at handling the action really. 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. I just liked the story and far slower pace of the movie its first half way better. 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. And you would think that this is when the movie becomes truly good and interesting. It of course is still being filled with plenty of straightforward action, in its second. And having said that, it's not like the movie is all drama. It actually makes this movie a pretty refreshing and original one within its genre. It seems more focused on its characters and drama really but this of course is not necessarily a bad thing. It's definitely not an usual revenge flick. 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 more the sort of action-thriller we are accustomed to of seeing now days, with a better- and more slow build up to it. 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.
0 kommentar(er)
