*Movie Battle (Action): #6 The Terminator vs #27 Man On Fire

[knapplc]

Denzel shoved a high-explosive up someones anus. What more can you ask for?

I WISH... YOU HAD... MORE TIME!!!

Good scene.

[josebach]

Explosives up the butt???

Denzel really was a flaming man in that movie... er, I mean man on fire.

[Jimboozie]

Man on Fire should have been renamed "Eyes on Fire", cause mine felt like they were.

Director Tony Scott has always been more interested in stylistic tics than in plotting, but his touch here is off. The first hour of the film--filled with pregnant pauses and pointed dialogue--is largely a wash. When young Pita's life is placed in peril, tension inevitably builds. The vigilante heroics that make up the last 90 minutes of Man on Fire are powerful, but they are undercut by Scott's relentless tricks. Washed-out footage mixes with artfully desaturated shots and blue-tinged nightmare scenes. Titles pop up, for English as well as Spanish dialogue. But dropped frames and jump cuts can't hide how poorly paced and ineptly structured many of the action scenes are. Scott skips over much of the plot, treats crucial scenes in a cursory fashion, and is shameless in forcing a happy ending. Giving credit to Mexico City as 'a very special place' after spending more than two hours depicting it as the most wretched locale in the hemisphere shows how clueless the director can be.

[RiffRaff]

Man on Fire should have been renamed "Eyes on Fire", cause mine felt like they were.

Director Tony Scott has always been more interested in stylistic tics than in plotting, but his touch here is off. The first hour of the film--filled with pregnant pauses and pointed dialogue--is largely a wash. When young Pita's life is placed in peril, tension inevitably builds. The vigilante heroics that make up the last 90 minutes of Man on Fire are powerful, but they are undercut by Scott's relentless tricks. Washed-out footage mixes with artfully desaturated shots and blue-tinged nightmare scenes. Titles pop up, for English as well as Spanish dialogue. But dropped frames and jump cuts can't hide how poorly paced and ineptly structured many of the action scenes are. Scott skips over much of the plot, treats crucial scenes in a cursory fashion, and is shameless in forcing a happy ending. Giving credit to Mexico City as 'a very special place' after spending more than two hours depicting it as the most wretched locale in the hemisphere shows how clueless the director can be.

Who is this guy?

[josebach]

I like Tony Scott a lot actually. He's directed some damn good movies. I didn't much care for either Deja Vu or Domino, though.

Deja Vu (2006)
Domino (2005)
Man on Fire (2004)
Spy Game (2001)
Enemy of the State (1998)
The Fan (1996)
Crimson Tide (1995)
True Romance (1993)
The Last Boy Scout (1991)
Days of Thunder (1990)
Revenge (1990/I)
Beverly Hills Cop II (1987)
Top Gun (1986)

[Jimboozie]

Man on Fire should have been renamed "Eyes on Fire", cause mine felt like they were.

Director Tony Scott has always been more interested in stylistic tics than in plotting, but his touch here is off. The first hour of the film--filled with pregnant pauses and pointed dialogue--is largely a wash. When young Pita's life is placed in peril, tension inevitably builds. The vigilante heroics that make up the last 90 minutes of Man on Fire are powerful, but they are undercut by Scott's relentless tricks. Washed-out footage mixes with artfully desaturated shots and blue-tinged nightmare scenes. Titles pop up, for English as well as Spanish dialogue. But dropped frames and jump cuts can't hide how poorly paced and ineptly structured many of the action scenes are. Scott skips over much of the plot, treats crucial scenes in a cursory fashion, and is shameless in forcing a happy ending. Giving credit to Mexico City as 'a very special place' after spending more than two hours depicting it as the most wretched locale in the hemisphere shows how clueless the director can be.

Who is this guy?

I don't know. Some critic from RottenTomatoes that I wholeheartedly agree with.

[knapplc]

Daniel Eagen is the writer. I watched the same movie he watched, and I'm a reasonably tough critic, and I don't agree with anything he's saying here. Case in point - Creasy dying of his wounds suffered in a brutal campaign against Pita's kidnappers hardly qualifies as a "forced happy ending" to me. But it made for a compelling enough article, I guess.

Nobody is wrong for not liking this movie. I was just curious why.

[josebach]

Daniel Eagen is the writer. I watched the same movie he watched, and I'm a reasonably tough critic, and I don't agree with anything he's saying here. Case in point - Creasy dying of his wounds suffered in a brutal campaign against Pita's kidnappers hardly qualifies as a "forced happy ending" to me. But it made for a compelling enough article, I guess.

Nobody is wrong for not liking this movie. I was just curious why.

I don't get it either. Denzel was an absolute badass in it. The only thing I can figure that's making people say they don't like it is the Dakota Fanning factor.

[treat24]

Daniel Eagen is the writer. I watched the same movie he watched, and I'm a reasonably tough critic, and I don't agree with anything he's saying here. Case in point - Creasy dying of his wounds suffered in a brutal campaign against Pita's kidnappers hardly qualifies as a "forced happy ending" to me. But it made for a compelling enough article, I guess.

Nobody is wrong for not liking this movie. I was just curious why.

yes... it's all subjective and preference...

As Raff knows well, I've been able to predict every M. Night Shyamalan movie within 20 minutes... several (including the sixth sense and the village) from just the the previews. When I was younger I would hammer people, calling them idiots for actually being surprised at that movie (6th sense). I hate everything that director does. He is the most predictable director in Hollywood for my money. Many people like him. It's all about taste. Some people go in to movies not trying to figure them out. I don't. I like to try and figure out what will happen next. This is just an example of how a director can really taint a movie for some people. I'm a harsher critic on everything M night directscrapalot does. It's my guess why this writer is so hard on Tony Scott knapp.

[treat24]

Daniel Eagen is the writer. I watched the same movie he watched, and I'm a reasonably tough critic, and I don't agree with anything he's saying here. Case in point - Creasy dying of his wounds suffered in a brutal campaign against Pita's kidnappers hardly qualifies as a "forced happy ending" to me. But it made for a compelling enough article, I guess.

Nobody is wrong for not liking this movie. I was just curious why.

I don't get it either. Denzel was an absolute badass in it. The only thing I can figure that's making people say they don't like it is the Dakota Fanning factor.

boozie, raff, and i all didn't really think it was great and we said nothing about fahning?

I'm so rewatching that movie today, maybe tomorrow. I have to now.