GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

nerdomatic10-937-667230 Denzel's 2004 version is one of my favorite one-man-army revenge flicks, so when I saw this title at the truck-stop $1 bin, I grabbed it. It's a most excellent take on the same story and well worth watching. Scott Glenn is a top-notch tough-guy actor who never got his big break, but he always does a great job and this is clearly some of his best work, IMO (also check out "The Challenge", 1982). This French/Italian 1987 version had only a small fraction of the budget of Denzel's film and it quickly sank out of sight in America, but it works on different levels and is very entertaining in its own peculiar way.Glenn's Creasy is a great version of the burned-out, PTSD-suffering, haunted, depressed former Special Ops bad*** soldier who has seen and done too much and has totally given up on life. Yes, this character is an action movie stereotype, but Glenn breathes a lot of life into him. He starts out bedraggled, but unlike Denzel he stays shabby-looking when he gets hired for his ultimately redemptive bodyguard job. After all Hell breaks loose, then he shaves and gets a haircut and the audience knows he means business from that moment on.Jade Malle was a 12-yr-old French actress, so it's a very different dynamic from Dakota Fanning's little girl, but it's interesting in a special way. Glenn's Creasy still sees her as the daughter he never had, but being older she's more of a pain in the butt than a sweet little girl would be. Some people always put a Lolita angle on these types of stories, but anyone who's ever been a father or an uncle or a big brother to a needy tween girl knows it's far more likely to just feel protective towards these girls. Miss Malle does some very nice, naturalistic, unaffected acting while depicting a lonely, neglected girl who fixates on Creasy as a down-and-out loner well worthy of salvage and her friendship, even though he initially has no desire whatsoever to be her reclamation project or her friend. But Samantha is determined to pull this poor lost soul back into the world of the living, and she gradually brings him around.Of course, we all know Creasy's not going to stay a cheerful guy who's found a reason for living and is glad to be alive again. There's trouble right around the corner and when it hits, Glenn is extremely effective as an obsessed, highly-skilled, heavily-armed vengeance-seeker unconcerned with his own survival. Also, among many other great actors and actresses in the supporting cast, we have Joe Pesci in the Christopher Walken role and he's fantastic as usual.Anyway, for fans of the one-man-army revenge films, this is a fine example of the genre. I also highly recommend my own personal favorite, the Korean "The Man From Nowhere", made in 2010. Don't be afraid of the subtitles or you'll miss out on a classic film.

kosmasp I have to admit, I only watched this after I had watched the newer version (with Denzel Washington in it). So I guess I kinda knew most of the story before watching it. But it still could have made an impact on me, if it actually were better. As you can tell by my voting, I wasn't impressed. While there are remakes that could be deemed unnecessary (though studios never think that, especially financially), this one was more than ripe and really easy to top.While I do like Scott Glenn in general (you might also remember him from "Silence of the Lambs", but he's done quite a lot of other work, mostly small roles in a lot of movies), I don't think he adds anything to the mix here. Still I do like some of the ideas this introduced, although it never really got as raw as the budget was meant to be (or should have aspired for).

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?

TheUnknown837-1 When most people today hear the title "Man on Fire", they probably think right away of the 2004 film starring Denzel Washington and Dakota Fanning. Unbeknownst to many of them is that film is in fact a remake of a gritty, disturbing, and above all, unusual European film of the same title. The 1987 version of "Man on Fire" is probably a film that I would have to consider schlock. From the looks of it, it's budget was fairly decent for it has good acting, good effects, and good sound design. But the reason why it falls under the category of schlock is because of its very unusual and sometimes, inferior styles. This is a film that will meet viewers halfway. Some people will enjoy it just for what it is. And the other half will simply despise it.For me, "Man on Fire" was in deed unusual and strange and definitely not the most creative film ever made. But while that is true in my personal opinion, there is another factor that I cannot deny. And that is the factor that while the film was a bit shoddy, it was highly entertaining and in a way, a bit more complex and more compelling than the 2004 remake. It has some gorgeous scenery, absolutely wonderful acting, a fairly decent screenplay, and other things that I simply find attractive in a motion picture. Scott Glenn was absolutely flawless as Creasy and he pulled off the character as being mysterious, cold, and unusual. He wasn't quite the tough guy as Denzel Washington was in the remake. To be honest, I wanted him to be tougher, but it kind of worked out. Jade Malle, an actress who unfortunately did not do much acting after this debut, was fairly good as Sam. Yes, she wasn't the best child actress in the world and not a patch when compared to Dakota Fanning, but I found her to a fairly decent addition to the cast. And Joe Pesci, while definitely one of the unusual aspects of the film, pulled off a fairly good performance as well.Action sequences in "Man on Fire" were fairly decent. Many of them were flawed, but they were, for the most part, thrilling. There was one part that I personally felt did not work out. When one of the bad guys gets shot in the stomach, he just kind of stands there until he finally starts to slowly fall over. The camera doesn't change angles or anything like that to create a more distressful feeling. But other than that, the gunfights and action sequences were intense, gritty, and bloody. And the gore here is used at a controlled level. And what I will always remember about this film was that unlike the 2004 version, there was a scene here that just made me jump.So what doesn't work in "Man on Fire"? Basically, it's just a few aspects of the film's style. Some parts of the film I think could have used a few more takes. The scene where Creasy finds the first of the kidnappers probably could have been done differently, for I found it to be too disturbing and uncomfortable. And like I said, there are some wonderfully talented actors and actresses in this film. Jade Malle's parents were portrayed wonderfully, unfortunately, their characters are what I would call stick figures. Just in the background, so that you know they're there. The ending for the film is a mysterious one of the highest order. For a while, it doesn't make any sense. And I think the explanation of the ending just depends on an individual viewer's point of view. Maybe that's what the director intended.The original 1987 "Man on Fire" is not the kind of film for everybody. Some aspects of it are inferior to the 2004 remake, but other aspects exceed well above it. Personally, I might prefer this version for its colorful acting, its not-so-gangster style, Scott Glenn's wonderful performance, the great music score, and just the great thrills of a 1980s European thriller.