BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

mkshtj For all calling this an action flick, there were hardly any shootouts, any hand to hand combat, any car chases. When I am watching a movie I dont care about acting, yes it helps but the acting itself helps does not make a movie good. The girl and Denzel put in good performances which make the movie watchable, but it still was a waste of my time. The hero in taking revenge hardly encounters any trouble, kills only a few people to get his revenge and seems to function well for 2 hours after being shot right in the centre of his chest. There is zero action, just some novel torture scenes where the hero elicits information, and voila we get to the end. The girl is cute and the bonding between her and Denzel is the only worth watching part. Walkens is massively wasted.

chinedu-jerome-okafor Best on-screen chemistry i've ever seen between actors. Denzel and Dakota were brilliant. Just acting at its peak.I'm also glad marc got limited screen time cos he kinda complicated the plot.

Blue_Pill Alcoholic mercenary Creasy (Washington) is all washed-up, until his friend (Walken) finds him a job in Mexico City, as bodyguard for a rich family's little girl Pita (Fanning). The taciturn man and melancholy girl slowly develop a strong bond... that is utterly shattered the day that Pita is kidnapped and that negotiations are sorely mishandled."Man on Fire"'s title works against it. It proclaims an adrenaline- fueled action film, when in fact what we get is very different. What could be mistakenly thought to be a prologue (Creasy is introduced, meets Pita and the relationship is shown) constitutes a good half of the film's running time. Washington and Faning are on top form, the former tortured and angry and the latter endearing without being cloying, so it is a tribute to Scott and screenwriter Helgeland that the film takes its time showing their odd relationship. This makes things all the more hurtful and outraging when she is captured in a kidnapping that leaves Creasy severely scarred, both emotionally and physically.The film earns its title in the second half, not because of non-stop action - which it fore-goes in order to give us something more pondered and cruel - but because Creasy is literally ablaze with silent fury. As he hunts down anyone who participated or profited from Pita's kidnapping, dismantling rings of Mexico City's tower of corruption, his methods get bloodier while his movement actually get slower. Creasy races against time and his own likely death, as a tragic figure who's newfound reason to live has been taken away from him.

said-buet10 This has a good story and some great actors in it. So it was bound to be enjoyable and it didn't fail to live up to that expectation.But I've got an issue with the making. The editing of some scene(where the camera shakes, a lot of cuts happens. I don't know the right term for this) was simply annoying. If I somehow saw this in big screen I wouldn't be surprised to see some people get dizzy!! If the movie lacked this annoying bit I would've given it 7/10 easily.One thing I loved about this movie is how adorable Dakota Fanning was. Her acting was superb and complementary to the great acting from Denzel. An on the topic of Denzel's acting we cant expect anything less from the great actor.All in all this is far far better than typical action movies which addressed some real life problem of that time period in an entertaining way. Without that one issue this could've been a perfect action film.