MovieChat Forums > Man on Fire (2004) Discussion > Should have fired the director

Should have fired the director


The movie is mediocre, I suppose it's okay for an action thriller if you have a couple hours to pass and nothing better to do.

However, large parts of it were unwatchable for me. The director has this annoying habit of flashing the screen at you with this stroboscopic effect, brightening and darkening in rapid succession like a light flickering. This is especially noticeable in action scenes, specially when he wants Denzel to look badass. Apparently, he does not trust his actors to look badass enough, so he helps them along with blaring mexican rap music while the screen flickers in synchrony with the beat. Like if you can't afford good actors or realistic sets, you flash the screen so the audience can't see anything anyway. Which is a shame, because the actors are adequate, they don't need this kind of help. Why give your audience seizures with flashing lights?

Another trick he uses is overlaying several scenes on top of each other. You know, like when you want to change perspectives, you fade out one scene and fade in another on top. Well, if that's a cool effect, our director is extra special cool. He overlays not two, but 3 or 4 scenes all on top of each other until everything is a blur. And it's not a transition, it's an effect he wants you to appreciate for itself, so he lingers. Expect quite a few cool breaks in the action when you can see 3-4 simultaneous fade ins and fade outs all piled on top of each other. Don't worry if you can't make out what's happening, it's the effect that's cool, the action doesn't matter.

This amateurish choice of photography ruins what could have otherwise been a halfway decent film. I wonder that he didn't include lots of lens flares, I've heard all the cool kids are using them.

The other problem is that a substantial part of the movie is in Spanish, with absolutely no translation whatsoever. If you don't speak Spanish, you are out of luck, because you will have no idea what they're saying. However, this isn't a huge loss, because really you could watch the whole movie with the sound completely off, and still guess what's happening. It has no plot worth speaking of, so nothing is lost by not understanding the dialog. But it is still annoying. These days you can turn on subtitles, but I wonder what people thought when they saw it in theaters. Assuming it didn't go straight to video. I didn't bother, because subtitles distract me, and really the movie doesn't make you care enough to want to understand the dialog. It's enough to know "okay, gangster saying gangster things" or "police officer saying police officer stuff" or "reporter, must be talking reporter stuff in Spanish".

It makes me wonder why relatively decent actors like Denzel Washington sign up with such amateurish directors. They must know that no matter how well you act or even if you manage to hire an okay writer, the director will still manage to ruin it with his adolescent screen flashing because I guess at his age that's cool.

reply

I'm not a fan of the movie either, largely because it's stylistically obnoxious as you say, but your rant makes you seem like a buffoon. For one thing, it was directed by the late Tony Scott, who had been making movies for many years. He was hit and miss, but you seem to think it was directed by some young filmmaker, outing you as an old fart with an almost xenophobic fear and disdain for the youthful. Also, what's this about finding subtitles "distracting"? Hilarious. Don't miss WILD STRAWBERRIES or I VITELLONI, pal.

reply

The problem with Millennials is that they have 0 common sense and respect for things older than themselves. They are the most selfish, narsisstic generation ever born and should have been taught how to behave like adults instead of the spoiled brats they are

reply

Hi.
I wanted to respond to the original poster rarmst0202, but your comment, morn1960, caught my interest as well. There is a lot of talk about Millennials these days after the Simon Sinek video. I wish I could add to that discussion as well, but I'm not that eloquent.

I also like the other responses on this thread.
Even though I agree with everything you say in your comment, it sounds a bit harsh and simplistic.

@rarmst0202
I like movies in general, and I like the whole experience, not just being entertained.
I like Toni Scotts movies, I like all his collaborations with Denzel Washington, I adore Christopher Walken, I thought Dakota Fanning was great.
I guess we could exchange opinions about flashing screens in Toni Scotts movies (I think there are similar effects in "Deja Vu"), and discuss it as his "style".
Very often (if not always), directors choices of tone, effects, lens choices, music, sound, feel, have their reasons.
I think that the chaotic, stroboscopic, overlaying scenes where meant to help audience understand better how the character Creasy felt, and how it must have been in his head... considering his drinking, his past, his new found will to live, just to be replaced with rage... I don't know. I like it :)

About the language/translations.... I saw today a version of the movie which had subtitles incorporated in the film, sometimes in the middle of the screen (if I remember right), so I guess, a different release, perhaps for video.
In Croatia, we watch all foreign films with subtitles. I am used to them, and they are very helpful even if I do understand all the dialog (even the spanish one)

reply

the director will still manage to ruin it with his adolescent screen flashing because I guess at his age that's cool


Tony Scott turned sixty the year this was released.

It makes me wonder why relatively decent actors like Denzel Washington sign up with such amateurish directors.


Presumably he enjoyed working with Scott, given that he starred in five of the sixteen films he directed.

reply

I agree that a different director would have been better but this is still a great movie. You make it sound like this is some third tier popcorn film.

reply