This is a small complement site to another site called "It Probably Wasn't Important Anyway". Here I'll expand upon my movie listings on the parent site and make some informal, stream of consciousness notes on my thoughts. Think of it as Gonzo movie reviewing.

Saturday, February 12, 2005

Man on Fire (2004)

Director: Tony Scott
Starring: Denzel Washington, Dakota Fanning, Marc Anthony, Radha Mitchell & Christopher Walken

* * *


It'd been a while since I'd seen a good action movie before watching Man on Fire. The most important part of a good action film is the set up. Why do we care about the action? Film theorists compare musical scenes in musical films to action scenes in action films; both film genres are defined by these respective sequences, but it's these very sequences that interrupt the flow of the film. Effectively, the narrative stops during these scenes unless the writer or director is clever enough to interject some plot into the scenes. Thus, it's the set up that happens before the scenes that primarily define the action and diminish (or even abolish) the inherent gratuity. The best action movies start off with a bang--a promise to the audience or a sign of good will--then slow down considerably to define the context for the action of the rest of the movie. Think of action movies like The Professional and Mission: Impossible, and you'll get a good idea of what I'm talking about.

There are other action movies, however, that even eschew flashy openings, making the audience take it on blind faith that the action will kick in after the first act set up. Ronin--in my opinion, the best action movie ever made--does this, and so does Man on Fire. While Man on Fire doesn't have nearly the wit and wry humor in the script that Ronin has in its, the style of the cinematography, the quick pace of the plot and the chemistry between Washington and Fanning's characters is more than enough to keep the viewer interested despite not having much action. In fact, the first real action sequence doesn't occur until about an hour and a half into the film. It's a credit to the film that one doesn't really even notice that there hadn't been any action until the action actually starts.

The most notable quality of the film is the ultra-hip cutting and shooting with an inventive use of subtitles. If anyone saw Tony Scott's BMW Film, Beat the Devil, you'll be familiar with the style already. It's as if Scott took the much-maligned "MTV style" and figured out how to use it.

While Man on Fire won't go down as a classic of action cinema, it is a sleeper that offers an entertaining viewing experience and some better-than-passable acting for those that can get past Man on Fire being part of the glut of Washington action films that came out at basically the same time (John Q and Out of Time being some other). Also, any film with both Christopher Walken and Mickey Rourke is worth watching due to their participation alone. So you get a good action movie out of it, too? So much's the better.

February 10
friend's house TV, night

* * *


D

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home