MovieChat Forums > Man on Fire (1987) Discussion > Well the remake looks appealing.

Well the remake looks appealing.


This movie was garbage, but the remake coming out with Denzel Washington looks to be a dramatic improvement.

reply

I havent seen this one, what was wrong with it?

reply

Frankly, they both look awful! At least this one seems to be more true to the book - have any of the other folk commenting here read it? The book is superb and one of my favourites.

Firstly, the story is set in Italy (not Mexico as in the 2003 film!).
Secondly, Creasy has no CIA ties.
Thirdly, it is not terrorists but the mafia who are the 'bad guys'.

In the book Creasy is an ex-marine, Foreign Legionnaire and mercenary for hire who is burnt out by too much killing, unfit and drinking hard.
Via his ex-Foreign Legion buddy Guido, he is hired as a cheap 'premium' bodyguard by an unscrupulous Italian industrialist to guard his daughter, Pinta.
Pinta proves to be a bright child who gradually gets under Ceasy's guard and when she is kidnapped by the mafia and dies while he is in hospital recovering from gunshot wounds received during the kidnapping, he is devastated and vows revenge.
He goes to the Maltese island of Gozo to Guido's in-laws to get fit and forms a relatuionship with the daughter of the family. This subplot is a PRIMARY thread in the story and his determination to succeed and try to return alive.
He uses his former mercenary contacts to arm himself as a one man army and proceeds through the levels of th mafia from the low men up, killing all who wre involved or profited by Pinta's death.
The secondary characters of a Carabinieri colonel and his side-kick are superb, inject some humour and pathos, and again, are necesary adjuncts to make the story work.
If this was filemd as written it would be a superb film and I beleive would be a huge box-office success.

reply

The new version blew my socks off, however I haven't checked this version or the book out yet.

reply

The previous version is vastly inferior.

reply

Thirdly, it is not terrorists but the mafia who are the 'bad guys'.


I would argue that the Mafia are terrorists.

reply

>I would argue that the Mafia are terrorists.

Argue away. I'd guess you weren't thinking it through properly and didn't have a fully formed idea of why each do what they do. Motivation and purpose are the key distinction between the two.

One of the key points to "the mafia" is that they're about business and about making money. Any political involvement has to do with affecting business and how it would affect income. Terrorism is all about politics and influence of power.

Remember that both police and criminals have guns... just because they have means of force doesn't mean they're after the same things.

reply

>Remember that both police and criminals have guns... just because they have means of force doesn't mean they're after the same things.

REALLY? Think about that last phrase. Actually, I kind of agree, the police are closer to the terrorists than the Mafia in that they are also about politics and infuence of power! But read a book written about police corruption-like Serpico, maybe. Or any account of abuse of power by police- rarely is there a conviction, and most are determined by an "Internal investigation" to be unfounded, but the great majority are never heard of outside the affected organization.

Violence is always about infuence, money and power/control. This may put violent groups in different classes, but always in the same category.

"If you do whatever you want, you must be responsible for the consequences!"

reply

[deleted]

>I would argue that the Mafia are terrorists.

< Argue away. I'd guess you weren't thinking it through properly and didn't have a fully formed idea of why each do what they do. Motivation and purpose are the key distinction between the two. >


What does it matter who the bad guys are and what they do when they both kidnap and hold a girl for ransom? Do you need a more dispicable enemy to be able to get into the story or are you just a mafia admirer??

reply

<One of the key points to "the mafia" is that they're about business and about making money. Any political involvement has to do with affecting business and how it would affect income. >


The mafia terrorize legitamate businesses and harrass them through intimidation and violence in order to extort money from them. They routinely destroy businesses that oppose them and often force builders to pay more to complete projects. They are insidious parasites on society - they are bad people.

reply

The "La Hermandad" in the remake with Denzel is a Mexican crime syndicate related to the abduction of children in Mexico City. It is a real organization, or at least was, I'm not sure if it still exists or not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hermandad

http://goliath.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/pdinventory.pl?pdlanding=1&referid=2750&item_id=0199-1959527&words=La_Hermandad_Existe

"La Hermandad" translated to English means "The Brotherhood"; the only difference between the old version and the new version is that the old one is an Italian mafia and in the remake it is a Mexican mafia. Just because they are darker skinned and some of them have beards does not mean they are terrorists, there are no terrorists in the remake with Denzel. They are a Mexican crime organization, concerned with business and making money. Some ways of doing so being kidnapping and extortion. One of the things you hear some of the "bad guys" in the remake saying over and over is "I was just doing business" and "I'm a professional".

The older cop guy in the new version mentions that Creasy once did "counter-insurgency" for the CIA, though if you actually pay attention to the movie it is completely obvious that he is killing off members of a Mexican organized crime syndicate, starting at the lower ranks and working his way up until he gets the president of "La Hermandad", and then the family of "The Voice", which the cop kills at the end of the movie.

You could really enjoy the movie a lot more if you weren't so uptight about semantics. Yeah little details are changed to fit modern times. Kidnapping and extortion really are huge problems in Mexico, especially in Mexico city; MUCH more so than in modern Italy.

Mexico City is a place of beauty and passion, yet it is also suffering and full of such sadness and desperation. Creasy is a man looking for forgiveness, and questioning if his God will accept him in to heaven. His own sadness and desperation to find something real to live for fit well in to the story of Mexico City(If you remember just before the end credits it says "A special thanks to Mexico City, a very special place). He finds something beautiful that shows him how to live again, and then it is taken from him by greed and lust for money.

It is a very powerful story, whether it is set in modern Mexico City, or 1970s Italy. The beauty of art, especially in the case of movies, and turning a novel into a motion picture, is that each person interprets it a little different. Just because the director of the movie didn't translate the book word for word, doesn't mean it's any better or worse, it's just different. Mexico City was a much better place for this story to be told than Italy, there's just a lot of artistic vision in the remake that the old version is severely lacking in.

reply

What an insightful post! In the beginning what does Creasy ask his old friend? "Do you think God will forgive us for what we've done?"

Pita gives Creasy the St. Jude medal and in the end he gives up his life for hers...Creasy's soul has been redeemed.

reply


Nope, they're just Bussiness men.

reply

"If this was filemd as written it would be a superb film and I beleive would be a huge box-office success"

-I don't think it would have been a huge box-office success when a little girl... get's killed off in the middle of the movie. It's a piece of the story that would have turned off any Hollywood producer. You can't kill off little girls in American main-stream, box-office movies.

reply

[deleted]

"why redo such a turkey, which screeplay has been used ten thousand times or more?"

OK you made the statement, now back it up. List the 10,000 films that used this screenplay or even variations on it. Your review sucked as well. 6 of the 7 main characters are American born. Did you really expect the film to be in Italian, only to have it fail to realise a profit because of no American sales. What a dope you are? Do us all a favour and don't speak of anything you have no knowledge of.

reply

[deleted]

Arggghh!! Please, you are not going to suggest that the ratings placed on this or any other film by members of IMDB mean anything at all are you?? That would be the same as saying the Academy Awards are based on merit or that US presidential elections are honest.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

< JUst have a look at "man on fire" rating. >


Thanks for the reminder that i can also vote for the silly stars rating.
I gave it a 7.

I also dont agree with your review - most of the actors are Americans so that took away its credibility.

reply

I thort the origional was *beep* But i have just watched the remake and i have 2 say it was awesome. It's better set in mexico because, as it says in the beginning, there is 1 kidnapping every hour in latin america. And there is nothing to do with the mafia, its just for money....like it really is in mexico. Even if you hated this one, go watch the remake!

*I'm not mean, I'm just hardcore*

reply

I must say that it is obvious that the remake was set in Mexico. You just have to look at it this way. In the seventies Italy was known for its organized crime around the time the movie came out. Today it would be mexico.

reply

Its not only that, when this movie came out Italy was the kidnapp capitol of the world, in 2003 there were like a total of three kidnappings. Latin america however, the stuff in the film such as 24 kidnappings in 6 days, really happened while the crew was down there filming.

reply

[deleted]

Personly I liked the remake better.

Im gonna cut your fingers off.

reply

this isn't bad movie at all but the 2004 remake is far superior IMO



When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

reply

I think Scott Glenn did an excellent job here, and this film is far from "garbage" but it certainly could have been better. Denzel Washington generally leaves me cold, but I'm willing to give the remake a chance because this film is a bit muddled. The performances and intrigue were enough for me to give it 6/10 stars.

reply