Man on Fire (1987 film)

In Italy, wealthy families often hire bodyguards to protect family members from the threat of kidnapping. A wealthy family that needs a bodyguard hires Christian Creasy, a burned-out ex-CIA agent turned mercenary, to protect their daughter, Samantha "Sam" Balletto. Creasy has been broken down from all of the death and horror of combat he witnessed in the Vietnam War and in Beirut, Lebanon. Although Creasy is not interested in being a bodyguard, especially to a twelve-year-old youngster, he accepts the assignment because he has no better job offers.

Creasy barely tolerates the precocious child and her pestering questions about him and his life. But slowly, she chips away at his seemingly impenetrable exterior, his defenses drop, and he opens up to her. They become friends and he replaces her parents in their absences, giving her advice, guidance, and help with track. Creasy's life is shattered when Sam is kidnapped by the mafia. Despite being seriously wounded during the kidnapping, Creasy halts his recovery to get weapons from his former partner, David. Creasy vows Sam's safe return, as well as vengeance on the kidnappers.

Tony Scott was originally slated to direct, but, the studio balked because at the time they felt he was not accomplished enough to pull off the project. He would go on to direct the remake 2004 version with Denzel Washington as Creasy. [2]

Producer Arnon Milchan wanted Sergio Leone to direct Robert De Niro, while Tony Scott wanted either Marlon Brando or Robert Duvall as his leading man when he was slated to direct.[3] The screenplay underwent several revisions.[4]

The film was screened at the 13th Deauville American Film Festival in Deauville, France. It was one of 40 films screened during the festival. The 13th Deauville film festival ran from 4 to 14 September 1987.[1]

The film was released in 1987 on VHS. It had originally been released on DVD overseas, but not in the United States, save for bootlegs. However, on 15 November 2016, Kino Lorber released the first official Blu-ray Disc and DVD. [5]

Leonard Klady of the Los Angeles Times said that the film's script "limps along as badly as its protagonist" and that the film "is simply cold-comfort movie-going."[6] Michael Spies of the Houston Chronicle said that the film "not only lacks emotion, it lacks wit and cool. It just has lots of atmosphere."[7] Caryn James of The New York Times said that the film "always seems about to slip into unconsciousness."[8] Lloyd Sachs of the Chicago Sun-Times said, "Unfortunately, when it's required to make sense, 'Man on Fire' doesn't. Which is too bad, because Glenn's strong physical and emotional presence deserves better. All things considered, it's one of the best things he's done."[9] Eleanor Ringel of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution said that the film "burns itself out well before it's done" even though Scott Glenn "manages to strike a few sparks along the way."[10] John H. Richardson of the Los Angeles Daily News called Man on Fire "a pretentious revenge picture."[11] He argued that since the film is "basically just another Death Wish, [...] directed with the crawling elegiac pace and visual luxury of a big-budget European art film," it demonstrates "the worst of both worlds."[11] Desmond Ryan of The Philadelphia Inquirer, who gave the film two stars, said Man on Fire is an extremely empty film" and "For all the movie's handsome gloss, I doubt if we are missing much."[12]

Bill Kaufman of Newsday said that the film was "suspenseful, with some exciting moments despite the choppy direction."[13] Kaufman argued that the film "plods along for its first half-hour or so, dwelling too long" on the relationship between Creasy and Sam, but "things pick up, and the movie's tempo changes dramatically" when Sam's kidnapping occurs, and "only then does the picture come into its own as a suspense film with some taut moments."[13] Kaufman said that people who like action films would find Man on Fire entertaining.[13]

According to the Times of Malta obituary of A. J. Quinnell, he and the cinema-going public were not satisfied with the film.[4] Quinnell said that the film "was so bad it became a cult movie in a European country. The director had never read the book and when I travelled to Paris to see the finished product I couldn't recognise anything I wrote."[14] Quinnell was much happier with the 2004 version of film,[4] which was a major box office success. Sachs said that he consulted a young expert of A. J. Quinnell books about the film, and that the individual said, "About all they kept was the title. What garbage!" except that the individual did not use the word "garbage."[9]

Ringel said that the film "is actually two movies rather clumsily stitched together"; she believed the first part was "a likable character study" that was the superior portion of the film while the remainder was "a routine vigilante flick" that had the "most distracting production design".[10] Ringel added that Man on Fire is part artsy European, part shoot-'em-up American, and the parts are so self-consciously constructed that they refuse to have anything to do with one another."[10] The Lexington Herald-Leader said that the film "veers erratically between existential meditation and conventional vengeance drama."[15]

• Man on Fire at IMDb
• Man on Fire at the TCM Movie Database
• Man on Fire at AllMovie
• Man on Fire at Box Office Mojo
• Man on Fire at Rotten Tomatoes