Customer Reviews

Man on Fire [VHS]

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Based on a book by the best selling author A.J. Quinnell this is a slightly wooden film in parts. However it is surprisingly very watchable despite this minor flaw.

Creasy, played by the excellent and underrated actor Scott Glenn is a hard-bitten, no nonsense body-guard whose young charge Sam portrayed by Jade Malle, is kidnapped whilst he is left for dead. Desperate to save her, Creasy goes on the rampage, systematically torturing and killing those who dared to hurt the one person who had given his life true meaning.

With a star studded cast (though most weren't famous when this movie came out) like Joe Peci, Jonathan Pryce, Brooke Adams, and Danny Aiello this little film didn't get the attention it deserved, in fact I am not even sure if it made it to the big screen.

Touching yet violent, (there's a very nasty but satisfying scene with explosive bullets and ramming them were the sun doesn't shine if you get my gist...) with some some good camera shots, look out for the white billowing curtains, the audience is slowly drawn into the brutal uncompromising world of kidnappers and gangsters as a man with a flawed but totally human soul finds his last hope of redemption lies with a child whose suffering is now comparable to his own...

I have no idea why this did not make a bigger splash. Most of the main characters in this movie have gone on to have awesome careers. Maybe they should have played it as an art house movie! Thís interpretation of Quinnel's novel is much slower paced and thoughtful (if a violent, revengeful, crime type film can go there)than the current production. More importantly to me, after reading the book, Scott's performance was dead on. The scene where the kidnapping has occurred and he is about to be killed is hair raising in how well he played his character (once you watch, you will definitely understand!!!) This is not a "fun" film to watch, but is a great study into the human condition and shows that even the toughest cases are redeemable. Let's start a DVD petition... :)


Oh, by the way.... I highly recommend the book too.. either before or after the movie.

The original, starring Scott Glenn. A little more true to the book than the remake, with a slightly different take on the story. Both are good, but worth watching for different reasons. The original was filmed in Italy vice Colombia, but the basic theme is the same: a conflicted man trying to escape his past and find something in the world worth living for. If you like the movies, I would also highly recommend the book of the same title, by A.J. Quinnell.

Enjoy!

I watched this after seeing the 2004 remake and i was quite surprised by how good this one is; Scott Glenn gives a suitably haunted and melancholic performance (despite his dorky 80's wardrobe; no man can look cool with puffy shoulders & his coat-sleeves pushed up past his elbows) and Jade Malle has just the right combination of lonliness 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. All in all i would say this version of MAN ON FIRE is definitely worth seeing. Its no surprise that when Quentin Tarantino was a video store clerk he used to recommend it to people. Check it out.

I gave this movie 3 stars because I like Glenn Scott and enjoyed the book by A.J.Quinell. If it wouldn't be for Glenn Scott I would rate this movie much lower. For those who read the book, this movie would be a great disappointment as it was for me. But as with all great books, one gets lured into a joy that a favored book made it to the screen. This one did it - limping.

I saw this movie on television one evening, years ago, but didn't catch the title, and it's been haunting me ever since. As I recall, despite the violence (and rather shallow plot), the relationship that develops between the lonely little rich girl and her hard-core body guard is quite poignant. It is a "coming-of-age" story in a sense, for both. Now that I've found it, I think it's worth buying it, just to see it again.

Please don't judge A.J. Quinnell's excellent novel by this (or even Denzel Washington's far superior though still mediocre) film adaptation. Man On Fire is one of my favorite books and I remember how disappointed I was when this movie first came out 25 years ago. It was on Cinemax the other night and I decided to watch it again, thinking that perhaps my expectations had been too high at the time and it really wasn't as awful as I remembered it. It wasn't. It was worse. So bad, in fact, that I found myself watching it with a perverse sense of fascination: would it ever get better? It had to . . . didn't it? For a supposed action movie, the first half dragged along with rambling voice-overs, wooden dialog, and long, pointless scenes that did little to establish character or a believable relationship between the principals. But surely things would pick up once the action started? Nope. Between the senseless screenplay and the director's 'artful' way of implying violence without really showing it, the last half was a confusing collage of Scott Glenn running through shadows, and bad guys suddenly popping up out of nowhere, firing their guns, and disappearing again.
As for the acting, any director who can make Scott Glenn and Joe Pesci seem like high school talent-show rejectees should seriously consider a career in the fast-growing custodial services business, while the actress (and I use the term loosely) who played the little girl was so wooden and un-engaging that when she's finally kidnapped, instead of feeling shock and horror, the only feeling is one of immense relief that she's finally gone. (Though once again, the screenwriter has to share the blame--how he could start out with such rich source material and reduce it to this mind-numbing dreck is utterly baffling.)

Speaking of baffling, I see that a few reviewers actually gave this train-wreck of a movie 4 or 5 stars. I can only assume that they are the producers of this mess trying to recoup some of their losses. The Denzel Washington version, mediocre as it is, at least had a story that made sense and characters with personalities, but this first version is just a cheap Italian rip-off of the Death Wish movies. And in that sense, I suppose the movie is a success, for you have to have a death wish to watch it.

The new version is a lot better--this one was hard to follow and really had a plot that was bad. I would not waste my money on it.

Was really looking forward to seeing this movie, loved the book and loved the new version. Scott Glenn is one of my favorite actors, very underrated. But this movie put me to sleep. No where near as edgy as the newer version. If you watch this one, don't compare it to the remake.

I loved the book so was very disappointed by the movie. This reminded me of one of those aweful Chuck Norris movies, but with Scott Glen instead of Chuck.

For me his character was nothing like how I imagined Creasy to be from the books. Apart from lacking the physique, Scott Glen totally lacked that menacing look, for which Creasy is so famed.