Man on Fire (1987) User Reviews

A bit slow but that's alright, actually.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 7/10 · 4 January 2012]

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/

a very unusual European film

[TheUnknown837-1 · 7/10 · 20 July 2007]

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. 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. The 1987 version of "Man on Fire" is probably a film that I would have to consider schlock. From the looks of it, it's budget was fairly decent for it has good acting, good effects, and good sound design. But the reason why it falls under the category of schlock is because of its very unusual and sometimes, inferior styles. This is a film that will meet viewers halfway. Some people will enjoy it just for what it is. And the other half will simply despise it.

For me, "Man on Fire" was in deed unusual and strange and definitely not the most creative film ever made. But while that is true in my personal opinion, there is another factor that I cannot deny. 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. It has some gorgeous scenery, absolutely wonderful acting, a fairly decent screenplay, and other things that I simply find attractive in a motion picture. Scott Glenn was absolutely flawless as Creasy and he pulled off the character as being mysterious, cold, and unusual. He wasn't quite the tough guy as Denzel Washington was in the remake. To be honest, I wanted him to be tougher, but it kind of worked out. Jade Malle, an actress who unfortunately did not do much acting after this debut, was fairly good as Sam. Yes, she wasn't the best child actress in the world and not a patch when compared to Dakota Fanning, but I found her to a fairly decent addition to the cast. And Joe Pesci, while definitely one of the unusual aspects of the film, pulled off a fairly good performance as well.

Action sequences in "Man on Fire" were fairly decent. Many of them were flawed, but they were, for the most part, thrilling. There was one part that I personally felt did not work out. When one of the bad guys gets shot in the stomach, he just kind of stands there until he finally starts to slowly fall over. The camera doesn't change angles or anything like that to create a more distressful feeling. But other than that, the gunfights and action sequences were intense, gritty, and bloody. And the gore here is used at a controlled level. And what I will always remember about this film was that unlike the 2004 version, there was a scene here that just made me jump.

So what doesn't work in "Man on Fire"? Basically, it's just a few aspects of the film's style. Some parts of the film I think could have used a few more takes. The scene where Creasy finds the first of the kidnappers probably could have been done differently, for I found it to be too disturbing and uncomfortable. And like I said, there are some wonderfully talented actors and actresses in this film. Jade Malle's parents were portrayed wonderfully, unfortunately, their characters are what I would call stick figures. Just in the background, so that you know they're there. The ending for the film is a mysterious one of the highest order. For a while, it doesn't make any sense. And I think the explanation of the ending just depends on an individual viewer's point of view. Maybe that's what the director intended.

The original 1987 "Man on Fire" is not the kind of film for everybody. Some aspects of it are inferior to the 2004 remake, but other aspects exceed well above it. Personally, I might prefer this version for its colorful acting, its not-so-gangster style, Scott Glenn's wonderful performance, the great music score, and just the great thrills of a 1980s European thriller.

Friends Like Us

[thinker1691 · 7/10 · 23 April 2007]

Although several films are entitled "Man On Fire", this one (1987) has Scott Glenn playing the lead. This precision and talented actor has accomplished many a role in which he so personifies and brought to life the living essence of his character, that few can deny his superior ability. So much so, when we view any performance he exhibits, he is truly remarkable. Much the same can be said for the gifts of Europe's Elie Chouraqui. He proves to be an adroit, and successful director. With the combined talents of both and then add Joe Pesci as David, Jonathan Pryce as Michael, Paul Shenar as Ettore and especially Danny Aiello as Conti, the film becomes a unique stage upon which abundance talent is configured to provide an explosive outcome. Interweaving, both classic literature and stirring quotes between Hero and his young charge for whom he has been assigned as bodyguard, it's hard not to picture a restrained tiger on a leash which had been wounded and left for dead. As a result, it convinces this audience member that at anytime during the dark, moody and poignant tale, the screen will detonate and shake the foundations of the theater. Instead, Chouraqui restrains Scott and his pent-up volcanic anger until the climatic finale which is both dynamic and emotionally touching. All in all, a great vehicle for Glenn and his acclaimed resume. ****

2004 vs. 1987 Slick vs. Disturbing

[supercygnus · 24 April 2004]

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!

That cast makes it worth seeing.

[Hey_Sweden · 6/10 · 17 June 2017]

"Man on Fire" is a trashy, simplistic thriller based on a novel by A.J. Quinnell. It stars Scott Glenn as John Creasy, a former C.I.A. agent living in Italy who forever mopes about his traumatic past. Then his good friend David (Joe Pesci) finds him some work, as a bodyguard for Sam (Jade Malle), the daughter of a financially well off couple (Paul Shenar, Brooke Adams). Not long after the adult and the kid actually form a bond, she's violently kidnapped by scuzzy terrorist-types. Once he's recuperated, he's determined to get her back using the most ruthless means available to him.

The 2004 version of the same story, directed by Tony Scott (originally considered as director of this adaptation) and starring Denzel Washington, Dakota Fanning, and Christopher Walken, may be much better known, but this version offers a well paced, watchable enough (and very rainy) revenge flick, full to the brim with violence. At first it seems as if it will be overly dreary, but it develops humor and heart as the crusty, sullen Creasy and the personable pre- teen girl start hitting it off. Still, it's pretty melodramatic stuff overall, with some decent but rather perfunctory action. The deeply affecting music score by John Scott will make you think you're watching a better movie than you really are.

It is somewhat fun to see the under-rated Glenn join the ranks of cinematic bad asses. For a while, the script allows him to look like a bum, until he begins his bloody mission and decides on a makeover. The excellent supporting cast is a major draw: Pesci, Adams, Shenar, Danny Aiello, Jonathan Pryce, Giancarlo Prati, Lou Castel. Pesci has one offbeat moment where he does an enthusiastic rendition of "Johnny B. Goode", and Aiello is memorable as a snivelling weasel, but the lovely Adams gets barely anything to do here. Young Malle is endearing.

One other major point of interest for viewers may be comparing this film to its 2004 counterpart. At least this one has less fat on the bones and less reliance on show-off stylistics. It's adequate entertainment and runs a trim 93 minutes.

Six out of 10.

"I've seen a lot of body bags. Never picture myself inside one."

[lost-in-limbo · 7/10 · 26 February 2011]

Not being fan of director Tony Scott's 2004 remake starring Denzel Washington and Dakota Fanning, it however did get my attention that this novel adaptation was also attempted in the late 80s in a very European style. Not as easy to get a hold off, but it turned out to be a solidly atypical, if unspectacular, lean revenge thriller with a striking performance by Scott Glenn in the central role as former CIA agent turned bodyguard Mr. Creasy. It's the cast that makes this one work (where can you get Joe Pesci doing what he does best; getting angry; yelling profanity, breaking radios and singing "Johnny Be Goode"), outside some methodically stylish directorial touches (like the opening slow motion intro) and stunning Italian backdrops and decors. The music score is atmospherically edgy and always complements the on-screen action with the cinematography fluidly projecting the details.

The pacing is rather stodgy, as it does take awhile before it builds up some momentum (soon after the ransom kidnapping by some terrorists), there it crackles along (Creasy gaining health and then going on the warpath finding those involved to only dispatch them) until reaching its abrupt, if confused climax. However the final frame really does paint a beautifully haunting picture, which does leave it open. While grimy and mean when it does explode (effectively staged too), it might be too short-lived, as it could have up the ante on numerous occasions (despite one bloody shoot-out and a brutal beat-up scene). Instead it's rather understated - more so moodily brooding in its activities (and Glenn's husky narration), as it's quite a lyrical character drama, spending a lot time developing upon the relationship of the young girl and her bodyguard. While not particularly deep, still it feels genuine in the thoughtful bonding and the transformations. Glenn's wearily lamenting, but hardy performance balances out nicely to Jade Malle's wholesomely bright turn. Danny Aiello shows up as one of the kidnappers. Also the cast features Brooke Adams (who we don't see too much of) and a little role for Jonathan Pryce.

I've Had Worse Sunburn!!!

[damianphelps · 3/10 · 6 March 2021]

I am a fan of the 2004 version so I was quite eager to investigate the original 1987 piece. I was ready to be set afire!

Well that didn't happen. This is an incredibly lacklustre movie that has had the tension and action sucked out of it and replaced with a Lolita feel. The relationship between the bodyguard and the girl in this movie is far more miss-directed love from the girl than a feeling of protective care provided in 2004. She doesn't want his protection she wants his love.

The dialogue is stilted and sterile much like the action.

The style of the cinematography is fundamentally unappealing, the use of sound is jarring.

Some nice moments from Pesci are the only small highlights.

For a quality revenge thriller, Man On Fire fits the bill.

[tarbosh22000 · 7/10 · 7 June 2012]

John Creasy (Glenn) is a grizzled ex-CIA agent who has seen it all. Thanks to his friend David (Pesci), he takes a job in Italy, protecting a 12-year-old girl, Samantha (Malle) from the kidnapping danger sweeping Italy at the time. Her parents, Jane and Michael (Adams and Pryce, respectively) are never around so Creasy ends up spending a lot of time with Sam, as she likes to be called. At first he resists the relationship, but eventually he warms to her and they forge a real and solid bond. It's just at that point, of course, that baddies get the jump on Creasy and indeed kidnap the girl. Now with nothing to lose, Creasy loads up on guns and sets out to find Sam and get revenge on her captors, especially ringleader Conti (Aiello). Will he do it? We really liked Man On Fire. It's sort of the Taken (2008) of its day, mixed with a little Death Wish (1974)...alright, maybe it's not quite as awesome as a mixture of those two classics might imply, but it is a worthwhile movie with a classier-than-usual vibe, and the top-notch cast and Italian settings add a lot. But truly the star of the show is Scott Glenn, who puts in a great performance as the troubled Creasy. Even his name sort of implies the world-weariness you can see on his face ("creases"). At first, he resembles Chuck Norris, but what's cool is, when he sets out on his revenge mission, he shaves his beard, cuts his hair and starts wearing sunglasses, as if to say, "No more games. You're all gonna die". The movie is worth seeing for Glenn alone.

Acting as his foil is Joe Pesci, who really rocks out on his own version of "Johnny B. Goode" on acoustic guitar. This display of musical talent was obviously a precursor to his eventual CD release. That aside, what sets apart Man On Fire is the fact that it takes its time to develop the relationship between Sam and Creasy. And because it's European, it's all done very artistically. Perhaps the only drawback is there should have been a little MORE revenge (and there are some parts that are a little confusing) but all in all Man On Fire is definitely worth seeing.

For a quality revenge thriller, Man On Fire fits the bill.

NOTE: The movie was released on Vestron on VHS in the U.S., and before the movie there is a trailer for Amsterdamned (1988). This is the only place we know where you can see this particular trailer.

For more action action insanity, please visit: www.comeuppancereviews.com

Man Luke Warm

[donaldricco · 5/10 · 31 July 2018]

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.

Not quite on fire but doesn't fizzle

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 9 November 2017]

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

A Very Basic 80s Film

[vukaroo · 5/10 · 10 February 2021]

Recently, I decided to take a look at 'Man on Fire' (1987), which is apparently the inspiration for the film of the same title with Denzel Washington. The selling points to see it include the fact that it's from the 80s, it's a thriller, and Scott Glenn is in the lead.

What I found fascinating about this film is that it takes place by lake Como in Italy and that it's supposed to feel "European." On the other hand, I found the script to be incredibly underdeveloped with underused actors. You nearly have an all-star cast with names such as Brooke Adams, Joe Pesci, Danny Aiello, Jonathan Pryce and Paul Shenar, yet it's if they're not in the film at all. I can't believe all of those actors were cast, just for the film to revolve around Glenn and the girl who gets kidnapped.

The kidnapping doesn't even take place until it's halfway over, so it feels clumsy. I get it, Glenn forms a fatherly fondness for the girl and we're supposed to see how that develops, but all in all it's just underwhelming. There's also no twist and very little suspense, so I'm not certain what the director wanted to accomplish.

All in all, the movie is simply okay and very straightforward, so if you're looking for something quite special, you may want to skip this one.

poetic revenge flick

[raegan_butcher · 9/10 · 19 August 2006]

I watched this after seeing the 2004 remake and was quite surprised by how good this one is. Scott Glenn gives a suitably haunted and melancholic performance, despite his dorky 80s wardrobe; no man can look cool with puffy shoulder pads like Joan Crawford and his coat-sleeves pushed up past his elbows. Jade Malle has just the right combination of loneliness and intelligence as the kidnap victim. Joe Pesci has a great weapons prep scene (opening a crate of handguns he says gleefully, "I ran into some old friends of ours. Do you recognize any of these guys?") but he isn't really given much to do. The violence is quick and dirty. The director, Elie Chouraqui, directs in a style that recalls Brian DePalma when he was at his peak.The ending is open to interpretation. Perfect. All in all I would say this version of Man on Fire is definitely worth seeing.

Before Denzel Scott - Gritty & Tender Story Upper/Lower Clash

[LeonLouisRicci · 7/10 · 2 March 2022]

Edgy Characters with Internal Turmoil is a Scott Glenn Type.

Here, Before the Hit Made by Tony Scott, Denzel Washington, and Dakota Fanning, is the Original.

Inferior Budget and Euro-Crime (Italy) are what is Done with its Story Split in 2 Parts.

First, the Introduction of Glenn to His New Job as a Protector/Babysitter for a 12 Year-Old Girl, Shuffled Off by Her Wealthy Parents.

After the Girl is Kidnapped by Low-Lifes Demanding $1Mil, Glenn, who has Gone from Work-For-Hire to Friend-For-Life to the Smart, Pretty, and Charming Adolescent

His Ex-CIA/Mercenary Training Kicks-In as He has Now Gone from Aloof/Cynical Lost Soul to a Soldier on a Mission.

To Obliterate the Opposition as a "Man On Fire" who is "Born to Kill".

The Movie is a Well-Done Work, Enhanced with the Aid of Joe Pesci as Glenn's Former Partner,

and the Girl (Jade Malle) who Brings just the Right Blend of Naive Curiosity as She Searchers for Someone to Befriend.

The Violent Scenes are Unstylish with Calculated Realism Delivered with a Punch and Not a Brawl.

It's More of a Neo-Noir and Character Study than an 'Action-Flick", Unreeling at a Slow-Pace (especially the 1st Half).

Definitely Worth a Watch for Fans of the Remake, that Tony Scott Turned Into a Hyper-Noir with Flash and Bang. Also for Fans of B-Movies, Neo-Noir, and Euro-Cinema.

The Remake is Better and it Needed to Be. They Used A-List Stars, Big-Budget and a Wild Director to Pull it Off.

Scott Glenn almost on fire

[kosmasp · 3/10 · 25 July 2012]

I have to admit, I only watched this after I had watched the newer version (with Denzel Washington in it). So I guess I kinda knew most of the story before watching it. But it still could have made an impact on me, if it actually were better. As you can tell by my voting, I wasn't impressed. While there are remakes that could be deemed unnecessary (though studios never think that, especially financially), this one was more than ripe and really easy to top.

While I do like Scott Glenn in general (you might also remember him from "Silence of the Lambs", but he's done quite a lot of other work, mostly small roles in a lot of movies), I don't think he adds anything to the mix here. Still I do like some of the ideas this introduced, although it never really got as raw as the budget was meant to be (or should have aspired for).

Man on Fire is more that what meets the eye

[billywallace · 1 August 2011]

I enjoyed this film when it first came out and even more when I had a chance to see it again this weekend. Though billed and treated by most as an action/thriller/revenge film it's much more than that. The aspect that really grabbed me was the development of the relationship of Scott Glenn's Chris Creasy and Jade Malle's Samantha. The gradual development of the Creasy character from an isolated and emotionally shut down loner first into a friend and finally into a surrogate father and mentor to Samantha is touching and believable. Touching and believable as well is Samantha's simultaneous evolution from a lonely if charming rich kid into Creasy's surrogate daughter and protégé. I just wish Ms. Malle, who exhibited such a strong screen presence in this film had gone on to make more films than the one other movie and one TV show credited to her on the IMDb site.

A burning ember for the most part

[Mr-Fusion · 6/10 · 10 April 2022]

Scott Glenn takes brooding to a new level in this neo-noir thriller that runs long on despair but short on . . . Well, substance really. Bodyguard loses his charge, vows revenge and goes right out there and gets it. As straightforward as it gets. I did appreciate the bond (ever so fleeting) that he develops with 12 year-old Jade Malle but the film really could've used more interactions between them. I'm happy I finally got around to seeing this, but it's a definitely curiosity, something to be scratched off the list.

Now since comparison to the '04 version is unavoidable, I will say that I liked the hard-boiled narration here; it helps flesh out the character's world-weariness; it was a nice touch. But overall, this '87 original lacks the emotional weight of the remake, which went to satisfying lengths to convey the guy's bloodlust. You knew Denzel was going to make them pay and he damn well delivered.

Good

[boblipton · 6/10 · 25 August 2022]

Scott Glenn gets a job driving and guarding Jade Malle, the daughter of wealthy parents. A first it's a job, and he tries to keep it professional. She, however,makes a friend of him. She is kidnapped and he is wounded. While the parents negotiate with the abductors, Glenn goes limping into action to recover the girl.

If this this-time-it's-personal story sounds familiar, it's because Tony Scott remade it 17 years later with Denzell Washington. The difference lies mainly in the leads: while Glenn is a fine actor and quite believable, Washington is a star, and always doing something to make you watch him to puzzle out what he is doing. Glenn is far more transparent in his performance. Director Élie Chouraqui fills in the gaps left by some dramatic shots of northern Italy, and performances from the likes of Joe Pesci -- who sings! -- and Danny Aiello. The result is good, if not much more.

Why break the window in the cement mixer

[duggies70 · 5/10 · 31 July 2022]

The door to the truck wasn't locked, so you break the glass, then sit on broken glass instead of opening the door?

Your job is security and your don't even lock the car doors when the young lady is kidnapped?

It all leads to oddities that make it hard for me to enjoy the movie. Additionally it seems the show more made the Italian audience more than the English speaking audience as it seems there is more Italian dialogue than English.

The cinematography is fair at best, the script was also lacking, when the director treated us with good weather; the scenery was enjoyable.

Another adaptation from Hell...

[A_Different_Drummer · 6/10 · 29 November 2013]

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.

Terrible

[mason25 · 1/10 · 18 January 2022]

Every character was under developed and some were barely given a name, yet we're supposed to feel for them or even know who they are ???

Maybe people expected less from their movies back in the 80s, but this seemed awful even for the time period.

From Bodyguard to Best Friend

[view_and_review · 7/10 · 8 September 2019]

I just found Millie Bobby Brown's look alike, not that I was looking.

Samantha Benetto (Jade Malle) is a carefree little girl that is the daughter of rich parents in Italy. That means potential kidnapping. The parents hire Creasy (Scott Glenn) to be Samantha's bodyguard. They form a tight bond and are inseparable until Samantha is kidnapped. Now Creasy will have to employ all of his skills to get her back.

I didn't like this as much as I liked the remake with Denzel Washington but it was decent. I didn't feel it as much as the remake--the relationship between Creasy and Sam or the sheer force of will that Creasy had become to get Sam back. It could simply be because I saw the remake first or it could be because Denzel is a superior actor.

If you are a fan of Scott Glenn, Joe Pesci, or Danny Aiello, I have two words "don't bother"

[merklekranz · 4/10 · 27 February 2012]

"Man on Fire" opens with a truly tedious relationship build up between Glenn and the twelve year old kidnapping victim, Jade Malle. I kept wondering, is she ever going to be kidnapped? The screenplay is very straight forward, with Scott Glenn miraculously recovering from several gunshot wounds, and then going after the kidnappers. Danny Aiello plays a very minor part as one of the bad guys. Joe Pesci more or less just revolves around Glenn's character, and really never gets involved in the action. Speaking of the action, a couple of explosions and a truck wreck, along with some gun blasting is about all there is. Character development is weak, and the film is way too dark in places. Despite the intriguing cast, I say don't bother. - MERK

Revenge flick fans, don't overlook this one

[nerdomatic10-937-667230 · 8/10 · 25 March 2017]

Denzel's 2004 version is one of my favorite one-man-army revenge flicks, so when I saw this title at the truck-stop $1 bin, I grabbed it. It's a most excellent take on the same story and well worth watching. Scott Glenn is a top-notch tough-guy actor who never got his big break, but he always does a great job and this is clearly some of his best work, IMO (also check out "The Challenge", 1982). This French/Italian 1987 version had only a small fraction of the budget of Denzel's film and it quickly sank out of sight in America, but it works on different levels and is very entertaining in its own peculiar way.

Glenn's Creasy is a great version of the burned-out, PTSD-suffering, haunted, depressed former Special Ops bad*** soldier who has seen and done too much and has totally given up on life. Yes, this character is an action movie stereotype, but Glenn breathes a lot of life into him. He starts out bedraggled, but unlike Denzel he stays shabby-looking when he gets hired for his ultimately redemptive bodyguard job. After all Hell breaks loose, then he shaves and gets a haircut and the audience knows he means business from that moment on.

Jade Malle was a 12-yr-old French actress, so it's a very different dynamic from Dakota Fanning's little girl, but it's interesting in a special way. Glenn's Creasy still sees her as the daughter he never had, but being older she's more of a pain in the butt than a sweet little girl would be. Some people always put a Lolita angle on these types of stories, but anyone who's ever been a father or an uncle or a big brother to a needy tween girl knows it's far more likely to just feel protective towards these girls. Miss Malle does some very nice, naturalistic, unaffected acting while depicting a lonely, neglected girl who fixates on Creasy as a down-and-out loner well worthy of salvage and her friendship, even though he initially has no desire whatsoever to be her reclamation project or her friend. But Samantha is determined to pull this poor lost soul back into the world of the living, and she gradually brings him around.

Of course, we all know Creasy's not going to stay a cheerful guy who's found a reason for living and is glad to be alive again. There's trouble right around the corner and when it hits, Glenn is extremely effective as an obsessed, highly-skilled, heavily-armed vengeance-seeker unconcerned with his own survival. Also, among many other great actors and actresses in the supporting cast, we have Joe Pesci in the Christopher Walken role and he's fantastic as usual.

Anyway, for fans of the one-man-army revenge films, this is a fine example of the genre. I also highly recommend my own personal favorite, the Korean "The Man From Nowhere", made in 2010. Don't be afraid of the subtitles or you'll miss out on a classic film.

Moody and atmospheric adaptation

[fredrikgunerius · 7/10 · 1 August 2023]

The first movie adaptation of A. J. Quinnell's novel is a moody and atmospheric European co-production. French director Elie Chouraqui sucks you into a world of detached relations and understated emotions, in many ways a typical setting for this melancholy tale of a disillusioned body guard (Scott Glenn) whose acquaintance with the precocious 12-year-old he is hired to protect (Jade Malle) revitalizes him and awakes his repressed emotions. There is a delicate balance to the interplay between Creasy and the girl, and debutante Malle gives her character expressivity and emotional curiosity, despite some below par line readings. A tough-looking Scott Glenn finds just the right tone for Christian Creasy, empowering his subsequent violent revenge spree, which retains a certain nerve despite its obvious triteness. Joe Pesci is spirited as Glenn's friend and former partner. And Danny Aiello has a great little bit part as an Italian-American mobster. Remade in 2004 with Denzel Washington as Creasy and Tony Scott as director.

how original movie compares to the remake

[jpclarke2005 · 5/10 · 8 December 2005]

I thought that the Scott Glenn movie doesn't go into the book as much as the denzel Washington remake but I found Scott Glenn character more in line with the books character and was more similar than denzel.

I know it is just a movie but I would have thought that the movie could have been better if they done it like the book as the remake (denzel) twisted certain elements and since it spawned a series of novels with greasy moving on and getting into more conflicts I thought that there could have been another series of films rather than the one off that was done though they can still do another film as nothing is impossible.

If you haven't read the book the film is based on then I suggest that you read it as there is more depth to the character and some background story to it. I think that I had read the book after seeing the film starring Scott Glenn as I had never heard of the author before reading the book man on fire.

The Scott Glenn movie may be a little dated as for the time that it was made but there is good value with the amount of stars that are in the movie and if you liked the remake it will be worth a look at the original as the book is set in Italy and this original movie is as well and I still feel that denzel Washington is too young for to play the character as he is an ex-legionnaire and had served in the army for decades.

I do like the remake but it could have done without the words coming up on the screen at certain points of the film and I would have loved it if he done what greasy had done in the book as he started at the little guys that carried out the actual kidnapping then ended up going after the top man in the mafia.