Man on Fire

Didn't he die from internal bleeding caused by getting shot to hell when Pita was kidnapped? I don't remember him taking much damage once he started his crusade.

Really, he should have died by blowing himself up once he got in the car with the kidnappers.

Yeah he had those injuries from the kidnapping, but also he got shot during the crusade. He sorta shrugged it off, if I remember correctly. Winced a little and kept going. It was when he captures the brother, unless my memory is playing tricks on me.

After the kidnapping, everyone tells him if he doesn't rest, he'll die. So he's basically on a suicide mission for the last half of the movie. Then he's officially on his way out when he gets shot in the chest while walking into the brother's house.

in the theatrical version he basically bleeds out. In the directors cut, he has one of those "ass bombs" in him, meets the main baddie and blows up his house with this big perfect smile on his face. In my opinion the alternate ending is the better of the two. Love the movie though, no matter the ending...

I wish somebody would give Tony Scott an ass bomb.

Edit:

I just noticed on IMDB that he's directing the remake of The Warriors. So let's get on that ass bomb thing ASAP.

I love "Man on Fire", the ending being a major component. Yes, his original injuries, coupled with the later wound, has punched his ticket. That's he's effectively a walking corpse, willing himself to stay alive just long enough to see Pita to safety, is a pretty compelling death.

If he would have blown himself up, the baddies would have probably gone after Pita for revenge. He should have blown himself up if Pita died.

Oh yes, and loved the movie.

Maybe. But the mom was surely taking Pita the hell out of Mexico right away. Do you think the kidnappers would have been fast enough to get to her again before they left the country? I'd guess they'd not care too much about the loss and move on to the next target.

has anyone here seen the original "Man on Fire", with Scott Glenn and Joe Pesci? I saw a trailer on Video Detective, it looks pretty fun. It's not on DVD though, and a VHS copy has been pretty hard to come by.

Avoid the original, Stew. It was on cable a few months back and even though I had heard it was bad I thought the combination of Glenn and Pesci sounded interesting. It's so dull and essentially has zero moments worth mentioning. I'm not a fan of the '04 version but it is light years better than the original.

Denzel was great in MOF, but Tony def earned one assbomb for his epileptic use of cuts and filters. Gave me a headache. This and Domino. At least MOF was a good flick at such.

Tell me about it. If they could have locked Scott out of the editing room this might have been a really great film. Instead I had to keep a bucket next to my seat while watching.

Scott's style worked in "Man on Fire" but he took it way too far in "Domino". In MoF it's just offbeat enough to convey Creasy's mindset. It complements, it doesn't overshadow, while the reverse situation is true of "Domino".

I had no idea that this film was a remake. I knew that it was just a clone of a story that saw its best incarnation as Commando, but I really did not know that it was a remake.

Anyhow, I was sadly disappointed by the end of this film... and during it. If I have to hear that little girl scream "Creasy!" one more time... I'm gonna go Michael Douglas in Falling Down on everyone.

Anyhow, this movie really lacked a Schwarzenegger. I mean Washington showed some potential with the ass bomb (something I thought belonged in a Van Damme film), but he pussied out when it came to kills and let himself die in the end. Arnie never woulda let that happen.

Dumb Bad-Guy: "We have your little girl. You have to do what we tell ya, right?"

The Austrian Oak: "Wrong!" (Blows Dumb Bad-Guy away)

Despite Tony Scott's spastic editing and various filter effects bullshit, I really enjoyed the hell out of MAN ON FIRE. Denzel is great, playing against his typical character type. He does a good burn-out in the first half of the movie, albeit slightly overdone in one or two scenes. Most people think the ending is a cop out, and it is to an extent (Can't let cute little Dakota Fanning get killed off!), but I bought into it regardless. And, for being essentially a revenge flick, it has good character moments.

I hated it- the filmmaking was far too self-conscious, it was way too long and it was needlessly ugly. Not a very smart movie either, as I recal.

It did get an unintended laugh at the end though, when the filmmakers gave that little tribute to Mexico in the credits.

Mickey Rourke gets his head sliced off by a samurai sword- OFFSCREEN.

Yes, an assbomb for Mr. Tony Scott is in order.

For as long as I live, I will never, ever understand the lifetime free pass that film geeks have given Tony Scott. The man is an incompetent storyteller. He's not just a "flash over substance" artist, or somebody who favors look over story. He's incompetent. What is it about this guy that causes so many people to become apologists for his sizeable shortcomings? Yes, he creates interesting visual touches, but any average music video does that. It's not enough. He simply doesn't care about anything that makes a movie a movie, such as plot, character, or emotion. The man sucks, plain and simple.

"He simply doesn't care about anything that makes a movie a movie, such as plot, character, or emotion. The man sucks, plain and simple."

Have you seen True Romance ?!!! And no, it wasn't just Taratino's script which made that film great. What about Crimson Tide ?

I love Man on fire. Scott's wierd choices worked. I didn't have a problem with the Fanning surviving. The movie earned it.

He's capable of some crap to be sure. But I've really enjoyed the films he got right. Namely his recent stuff like "Man on Fire" and "Spy Game". The latter film especially was sort of tricky. You feel like its an action film when its largely a bunch of middle-aged white guys sitting in a board room.

The problem with True Romance is that every single supporting and walk-on character is more interesting than the leads. This has a lot to do with the quality of the supporting cast, obviously, but a director with a strong sense of character would have seen that the leads needed some shoring up. And there's still very little story on display here. It's a movie that's all about moments, with not much big picture.

And where are you getting the idea that Crimson Tide has a lot of plot and character? That's an odd choice to defend his career with. Although the fact that Tarantino worked on both says something about what it is you really like about those movies.

Very true. Each and every time I watch that movie, it feels like Tarantino. The most you could say of Scott is that he let QT's script breathe. Wholeheartedly agree with you regarding the leads too.

I think Slater and Arquette get a bad rap in ROMANCE. There are a ton of great supporting characters who serve to steal every scene they are in but as far as "couples on the run" flicks go, the leads in ROMANCE fit the film perfectly.

I will agree that Scott tends to make his best films (ROMANCE, BOY SCOUT) when he has a hell of a blueprint from the writer. Take that away and he usually churns out a mess.

I like where this thread went. Scott has been hit or miss for me on the whole during his career. I felt he hit with Man on Fire.

His standout work for me would be The Last Boy Scout and Crimson Tide. As far as lowpoints Revenge and The Fan. I really thought Spy Game was pretty stupid too.

Haven't seen Domino but I really liked Deja Vu.

His fun but forgettable output would be Beverly Hills Cop II, Days of Thunder and Enemy of the State.

Far as True Romance goes I never got the love. Outside of Val Kilmer's wacky Elvis performance and the scene between Walken and Hopper I thought the film was pretty vapid and hollow.

Back to MOH some hilarious trivia here if you know the word Puta " In A.J. Quinnell's novel Dakota Fanning's character was named Pinta and in early drafts of Brian Helgeland's screenplay, the character's was "Puta". After director Tony Scott's discovered that in Mexico, Puta was slang for "whore", he had the name changed to "Pita" and made her full name Lupita or Lupe. ".

and the Tarantino connection continues... " Writer Brian Helgeland first saw the original Man on Fire (1987) when he was renting videos in the late-'80s. He walked in to the video store where Quentin Tarantino was working, and asked what was good. Tarantino recommended Man on Fire (1987). "

I remember the original Scott Glenn film its slow but I agree with Tarantino its pretty good for what it is.

As I recall, the original MAN ON FIRE with Scott Glenn was pretty terrible. Mostly Glenn being hyper-serious and dour and giving a dull voiceover. Also, Joe Pesci has an odd scene in which he's playing "Johnny B. Good" on an acoustic guitar and starts to throw an ing-bing. Post traumatic stress, I think it was.