Man on Fire (2004)

140mins.... TOO LONG! Top Gun was 105, that felt ok, after all it is Top Gun.

This is a remake of a 1987 film, both of which based on a book of the same name. I haven't seen the other or read the book, but I do want to see the original film, partly as it's only 92mins and i want to see how it compares (there are significant differences between the two, the 1987 one being closer to the book).

What was good about this one? Denzel Washington wasn't as annoying as he usually is, he was reasonably good (although please do look out for the trademark lip smacking and tongue in bottom lip), Dakota Fanning wasn't that annoying, although in the special features she comes across as a mature yet smarmy shit of child, stuff blows up in a pretty good way, it's a revenge film, they can be pretty good as it deals with darker issues.

What was bad about it? Radha Mitchell, it's faaar to stylised (watch the extras to see just how over the top they went, whilst still feeling it justified, although I think the DP had his doubts), it's a bit weak, not entirely gripping, one of those films that fall into the category of "it's not quite boring enough to turn off", I think that's down to the length....I feel the need, the... well you know.

NB: and Denzel's not on fire.


Man on Fire (2004) - 6/10