Man on Fire (1987)

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. ****

I watched this after seeing the 2004 remake and was quite surprised by how good this one is. Scott Glenn gives a suitably haunted and melancholic performance, despite his dorky 80s wardrobe; no man can look cool with puffy shoulder pads like Joan Crawford and his coat-sleeves pushed up past his elbows. Jade Malle has just the right combination of loneliness and intelligence as the kidnap victim. Joe Pesci has a great weapons prep scene (opening a crate of handguns he says gleefully, "I ran into some old friends of ours. Do you recognize any of these guys?") but he isn't really given much to do. The violence is quick and dirty. The director, Elie Chouraqui, directs in a style that recalls Brian DePalma when he was at his peak.The ending is open to interpretation. Perfect. All in all I would say this version of Man on Fire is definitely worth seeing.

I thought that the Scott Glenn movie doesn't go into the book as much as the denzel Washington remake but I found Scott Glenn character more in line with the books character and was more similar than denzel.I know it is just a movie but I would have thought that the movie could have been better if they done it like the book as the remake (denzel) twisted certain elements and since it spawned a series of novels with greasy moving on and getting into more conflicts I thought that there could have been another series of films rather than the one off that was done though they can still do another film as nothing is impossible.If you haven't read the book the film is based on then I suggest that you read it as there is more depth to the character and some background story to it. I think that I had read the book after seeing the film starring Scott Glenn as I had never heard of the author before reading the book man on fire.The Scott Glenn movie may be a little dated as for the time that it was made but there is good value with the amount of stars that are in the movie and if you liked the remake it will be worth a look at the original as the book is set in Italy and this original movie is as well and I still feel that denzel Washington is too young for to play the character as he is an ex-legionnaire and had served in the army for decades.I do like the remake but it could have done without the words coming up on the screen at certain points of the film and I would have loved it if he done what greasy had done in the book as he started at the little guys that carried out the actual kidnapping then ended up going after the top man in the mafia.

The eighties curse:how many movies have been made,featuring the tough guy ,single-handedly taming and finally killing a bunch of baddies? You're going to tell me that Scott Glenn is a much better actor than SS, Arnold and co:that's true and he looks sometimes jaded,depressed,and even moving.But it's the same old story all over again:the little girl,the daughter of rich wealthy Italians is kidnapped by villains and so begins the task. Main objections:why ,when the movie takes place in Italy and only one character is American ,does almost everyone speak English in the original version?This is not natural,particularly for the girlie ;why were the prologue and the epilogue filmed in slow motion:it does not bring anything. It's Elie Chouraqui's first thriller.his first works were mediocre comedies ("paroles et musique" featuring Catherine Deneuve)