If Mexican kidnappers abducted and killed a child that you had been hired to protect, what would you do to them? Would you tape one of their hands to a steering wheel and cut their fingers off one by one? Would you slowly shoot them to pieces with a shotgun? Would you stick explosives in their asses?
This is the challenge posed in Denzel Washington's new movie, "Man on Fire," and luckily for Washington, he doesn't have to decide between these savory options: he goes for broke and does them all.
John Creasy (Washington), a retired CIA operative and Special Forces soldier, has become a disillusioned drunk in his retirement years. Brought to Mexico City by his friend (Christopher Walken), he is hired by a shady businessman (Marc Anthony -- yes, that Marc Anthony) and his wife (Radha Mitchell) to protect their young daughter Pita (Dakota Fanning).
After Pita reinvigorates Creasy and gives him new gusto for life, she is kidnapped after a protracted gun battle, in which Creasy is injured. The family botches the ransom money handoff and Pita is supposedly killed in retribution. Creasy spends a few weeks recovering, and then goes on his torrent of killing tracking down, in his words, "anyone who was involved, anyone who profited."
"Man on Fire" is salivatingly close to being great, but falls short because it is a tale of two halves. The first half of this movie is interesting, fun, and excellent, but the second half is out of control, confusing, and cover-your eyes violent. The best parts of the film are the scenes between Creasy and Pita, and the extraordinarily realistic gun battle where she is kidnapped. After the kidnapping, the movie disintegrates. It's as if Director Tony Scott ("Spy Game," "Top Gun") didn't really write down or plan out the second half of the movie before starting to shoot.
Regardless of clarity, one thing that can be said throughout is that the film is visually stunning. Even in the horrifying torture sequences, cinematographer Paul Cameron manages to frame the shots beautifully.
The ultimate failure of the movie is that we, as an audience, stop caring about the brutal violence after half an hour. Creasy's rampage seems to be a killing spree without end. Many of the people he kills are never shown doing anything but begging for their lives; we have to just take his word that they are evil.
An elderly man, seeing Creasy shouldering a rocket launcher, tells him to forgive. "Forgiveness is between them and God," Creasy replies. "It's my job to arrange the meeting."
This movie is the latest in a trend of revenge films, most recently "Kill Bill" (Quentin Tarantino) and "The Punisher", (Jonathan Hensleigh) that have each tried to take on-screen violence to new heights. The finger cutting scene is here especially tasteful. Also apparent, though, is that Scott can't quite figure out how to handle the violence. Whereas in "Kill Bill," the audience gets the sense that Tarantino's two films are supposed to be about blood, the excessive violence in "Man on Fire" detracts from the film as a whole.
It is hard to fully explain how disappointing the second half of this movie is. It's the cinematic equivalent of the last episode of Seinfeld or the new "Star Wars" movies. The first half of "Man on Fire" is one of the best movies I've seen this year. The second half is a bad comic book movie. Normally bad comic book movies can be forgiven because they are, after all, just comic book movies, but "Man on Fire" could have been so much more.
Hopefully Hollywood's latest fascination with violence will subside soon, but it very well may not. These movies seem to be directed at Americans who sit at home watching soldiers dying in Iraq, wishing that they could punish those responsible. In the world of "Man on Fire," no bad deed goes unpunished. In fact, those responsible suffer fates usually worse than their victims.
Unsurprisingly there is a twist at the end, and, yes, it has something to do with Pita. But even that is unsatisfying; it's too little too late. The desensitized audience by this point has grown used to not caring.
"Man on Fire" isn't a bad movie. The first half is excellent; the second half, on the other hand, is optional. If you've ever wondered how violent a movie can get, perhaps the second half of this film would be a good case study. Who knows: maybe you've always wanted to watch someone have their wounds cauterized with a cigarette lighter. But I doubt it.
