Scott LeBrun "Man on Fire" is a trashy, simplistic thriller based on a novel by A.J. Quinnell. It stars Scott Glenn as John Creasy, a former C.I.A. agent living in Italy who forever mopes about his traumatic past. Then his good friend David (Joe Pesci) finds him some work, as a bodyguard for Sam (Jade Malle), the daughter of a financially well off couple (Paul Shenar, Brooke Adams). Not long after the adult and the kid actually form a bond, she's violently kidnapped by scuzzy terrorist-types. Once he's recuperated, he's determined to get her back using the most ruthless means available to him.The 2004 version of the same story, directed by Tony Scott (originally considered as director of this adaptation) and starring Denzel Washington, Dakota Fanning, and Christopher Walken, may be much better known, but this version offers a well paced, watchable enough (and very rainy) revenge flick, full to the brim with violence. At first it seems as if it will be overly dreary, but it develops humor and heart as the crusty, sullen Creasy and the personable pre- teen girl start hitting it off. Still, it's pretty melodramatic stuff overall, with some decent but rather perfunctory action. The deeply affecting music score by John Scott will make you think you're watching a better movie than you really are.It is somewhat fun to see the under-rated Glenn join the ranks of cinematic bad asses. For a while, the script allows him to look like a bum, until he begins his bloody mission and decides on a makeover. The excellent supporting cast is a major draw: Pesci, Adams, Shenar, Danny Aiello, Jonathan Pryce, Giancarlo Prati, Lou Castel. Pesci has one offbeat moment where he does an enthusiastic rendition of "Johnny B. Goode", and Aiello is memorable as a snivelling weasel, but the lovely Adams gets barely anything to do here. Young Malle is endearing.One other major point of interest for viewers may be comparing this film to its 2004 counterpart. At least this one has less fat on the bones and less reliance on show-off stylistics. It's adequate entertainment and runs a trim 93 minutes.Six out of 10.

Peet McKimmie Is it just me, or is Joe Pesci in this movie a dead ringer for Sylvester McCoy of the same time period (1987)? When he was wearing the sunglasses it could have been outtakes from "Doctor Who".That's really all I have to say, but there's this dumb "10 line" restriction.Ho, hum.It was a good movie.I can't see what prompted Denzel Washington to remake it; he added very little to the role.Is that enough text yet?

thinker1691 Although several films are entitled "Man On Fire", this one (1987) has Scott Glenn playing the lead. This precision and talented actor has accomplished many a role in which he so personifies and brought to life the living essence of his character, that few can deny his superior ability. So much so, when we view any performance he exhibits, he is truly remarkable. Much the same can be said for the gifts of Europe's Elie Chouraqui. He proves to be an adroit, and successful director. With the combined talents of both and then add Joe Pesci as David, Jonathan Pryce as Michael, Paul Shenar as Ettore and especially Danny Aiello as Conti, the film becomes a unique stage upon which abundance talent is configured to provide an explosive outcome. Interweaving, both classic literature and stirring quotes between Hero and his young charge for whom he has been assigned as bodyguard, it's hard not to picture a restrained tiger on a leash which had been wounded and left for dead. As a result, it convinces this audience member that at anytime during the dark, moody and poignant tale, the screen will detonate and shake the foundations of the theater. Instead, Chouraqui restrains Scott and his pent-up volcanic anger until the climatic finale which is both dynamic and emotionally touching. All in all, a great vehicle for Glenn and his acclaimed resume. ****

supercygnus Man on Fire may be one of the most underrated thrillers of the 80's. While a bit slow and uncomfortable (which it clearly meant to be) to watch, it is also an excellent trip into a desperate man's rampaging mind. Glenn truly is the epitome of the title of the film, and is far less methodical than the 2004 updated version (this aspect is neither better nor worse, but different). Actually if you took attributes of both films and combined them you would have a perfect version. The 2004 version features some stylish camera work and editing, along with some exceptional dialog and memorable quotes, not to mention excellent performances by the entire acclaimed cast.The 80's version is harsh and sometimes even bleak, but far edgier and while also visually very unique, is far less superficially artistic (there's no sometimes interesting, sometimes downright distracting zig zag editing of the remake here) than Tony Scott's music video style (don't get me wrong, I really dig both of the Scott brothers' work!). The 80's version does not have same pyrotechnics featured in the latter film, and the action is a bit less satisfying. On the other hand the action in the 80's Man On Fire is disturbing, brutal and ugly. Just like real violence. This gives the film a very unpredictable and gritty flavor. Like a train wreck Glenn's Creasy does not seems to approach his "mission" like his 2004's more surgeon precise counterpart, but as a man who's finely honed training keeps him alive smashing a maze of the grimy underworld his obsessed mind propels him through. Where the slick action, high production values and more articulate script of the 2004 version does give it's film some major advantages, the 80's film's ending has it beat in spades. **MINOR SPOILER ALERT** (don't read following paragraph if you don't want to be spoiled, even if it is minor!)The two films follow a very similar path throughout most of their respective journeys, but the end of the road for both could not be more different. More satisfying than the far more melancholy ending with Denzel Washington and a rather obvious tacked on final resolution to the final baddie yet to be dealt with on Creasy's list (watch it, it looks like it was filmed at the last second with just 2 actors in someone's backyard), the 80's film has an interesting bookend with it's unusual opening and ending. The finale is almost nightmarish as Scott Glenn's Creasy is insanely calling out his young charge's name, but it all ends with a far more sweet resolution than what we would have predicted. Without giving away who all lives and dies, it is a long belief of mine that the best films make you feel for characters that you are convinced will die, but then don't. It's like being on a thrillride, particularly simulation ones. People love the illusion and sensation of being in some great danger, but (barring strange accidents) walk away just fine.**END SPOLIER**Scott Glenn's Creasy deserves to be seen. It is a different experience than Denzel's, but it has equal merit in very different ways. And although Fanning is absolutely amazing as Denzel's charge in the remake, the original has the rare distinction of having a bit more ethnic child being the focus of Creasy's devotion and not the unlikely blond and very pale skin offspring of Marc Anthony. Yes, this was an intentional choice. There just are not many major Hollywood films that use an ethnic child to focus all of the efforts of the hero to save (and you can't say Golden Child! That kid had all kinds of special powers, a regular Asian sterotype...unless you really think we can all run up walls and teleport and whatnot). Give it a look, just be prepared to follow a dangerous crazy man on a mission for 90 minutes! It's sometimes very harrowing!