Man on Fire

I think I'm getting old. There have been a bunch of signs: I can reflect on how similar to my mother I'm becoming, I used the phrase "you're getting so big!" to a younger person yesterday, and I'm actually willing to discuss politics on occasion. These are things that three years ago I would have rolled my eyes at in any context. But now I feel like an old person is taking over, I've been possessed by the spirit of the aged. The film Man on Fire seemed to me to be another sign of the times, because I realized after I watched it that it is a movie I would have enjoyed in days past, but now have outgrown.

I didn't have very high hopes for this movie in the first place. It was recommended to me by a friend who tends to have very different movie taste than me, and I've never really loved Denzel Washington or Dakota Fanning. Plus, the title is just audacious enough to annoy me.

Anyway, the movie was long and intense. The opening scenes are aggressively done and immediately pull for an emotional response: we see snatches of innocent people being kidnapped in Mexico while upsetting statistics flash before our eyes. From then on, it doesn't let up. Dakota Fanning plays Pita, the daughter of a Mexican industrialist Samuel Ramos (Marc Anthony) and American Lisa Ramos (Radha Mitchell). Because kidnapping is so prevalent there, (we're told 24 occurrences within a six day period) it is important for certain people, mainly rich and/or white, to have bodyguards to protect themselves. Unfortunately, the Ramos family can't afford a good one because of debt, but Samuel Ramos is willing to hire anyone to keep up appearances.

At the same time, John Creasy (Denzel Washington) meets up with friend Rayburn (Christopher Walken) in Mexico City. He's pretty washed up, doesn't have anything or anyone, and drinks. A lot. We're informed that he used to be a very dangerous person in his prime, and would have made an exceptional bodyguard, but he's out of practice and can't put down the bottle. When people need money, though, they'll sign up for anything. He's desperate for employment, and the Ramos family is desperate for protection.

Creasy is determined to stay detached from the family, and shoots down Pita's attempts at beginning a friendship. It doesn't take long, however, for Pita's sweetness, care for Creasy, and genuine likability to break through, and soon a strong bond forms. The large, drunken assasin befriends the mature-yet-friendly schoolgirl. Since he is more emotionally involved, he now starts to take his job more seriously. But as the back of the DVD case will tell you, they're still in for some trouble.

Regardless of their relationship and Creasy's protection, Pita is kidnapped and Creasy is seriously injured in the process. He also gets blamed for involvement by the local authorities. Once he regains his health, he rediscovers his inner too-cool-for-school assassin to get revenge on the local kidnapping ring, and here is the bulk of the movie.

This is my problem with Man on Fire. We hear about a tragic situation in Mexico where innocent people are being taken and killed, putting them and their loved ones through unimaginable suffering. We are introduced to a character who can help, but needs some redemption. And how does he get his redemption? By doing what he does best: killing and torturing. Rayburn, when describing Creasy's talent, equates it with the talent of artist Leonardo da Vinci, saying that Creasy is about to paint his "masterpiece." This analogy made me ill. The film molds our expectations so that the only way any good can come of the situation is if there is bloodshed and pain. The fact that Creasy is once again embracing his assassin lifestyle is totally glorified. The way that he avenges his loss is to kill and hurt people in creative ways meant to make the audience pleased and even make us laugh. I was disgusted. This is the main thing that bothered me about Man on Fire, because I'm getting old, and I can't handle all this violence anymore.

There were other sticking points, however. At almost 2 1/2 hours it's not a short film, and from beginning to end there's no break for the audience. Even in the beginning of the film when the characters are being introduced, the camera work and music gave me a sense of "something's going to happen..." The cinematography was made up of a lot of very fast, short camera shots, filled with flashes of light and some occasional bullet-time work thrown in for good measure. It was well done and interesting, but lasted the entire time. It ran me ragged, and came too close to triggering a seizure for me to enjoy.

I'll go back to my comments about Washington and Fanning. Denzel was very, very good. I haven't seen him in a lot of movies, but I liked him in this one. I understood his character, even his character's contradictions, and it's hard not to get swept up in whatever he's doing. Even if it is dismembering people. Fanning was also very good. My main problem with her is that she always seems way too old--like she always plays the 40-year-old child. There was nothing new here in Man on Fire, but it worked pretty well and wasn't overdone.

Rating: -2

Regardless of the good performances, I didn't really like the movie. Too fast and furious, too violent, and the message it sent about redemption made me feel nauseous. There were definite positives, such as the aforementioned acting, the compelling plot and the caring relationship between Pita and Creasy that changed his life, but the negatives (for me, anyway) far outweighed them. And while I'm thinking about it, the names "Pita" and "Creasy" are a strike against the film as well. That tips the scale in at slightly below zero at a -2.