As Marty McFly prophetically stated after his breakthrough performance at the Enchantment Under the Sea dance in 1955, “I don't think you guys are ready for this yet. But your kids will love it.” This sentence perfectly sums up the phenomenon of revaluation in art, especially in cinema. Whether a film is truly pioneering and ahead of its time, or simply lost in the shuffle due to extenuating circumstances, the (relative) immortality of films allows them to be periodically rediscovered and appreciated anew for what they are, once removed from the cinema. the weight of expectations and other contemporary factors. This doesn't just apply to movies that fly under the radar; even the most famous premieres, i.e. films with big stars and shot by great directors, may initially meet with a lukewarm reaction, only to become a real classic after years, or maybe even decades. To see examples of this, just look at any “Best” list published in the last 20 years; chances are you'll find films like John Carpenter's The Thing and Ridley Scott's Blade Runner on them, two movies that infamously bombed upon release and are today widely considered classics.
Ridley's brother, Tony Scott, unfortunately left us in 2012 and therefore could not enjoy the wave of recognition that his filmography has gained over the last 12 years. It would be wrong to say that Scott was underrated in his lifetime; after all, he created hits like “Top Gun,” “Beverly Hills Cop II” and “Crimson Tide.” The latter film marked the beginning of his most fruitful acting collaboration, pairing him with Denzel Washington, who would eventually star in four other films for Tony: “Déjà Vu,” “The Taking of Pelham 123,” “Unstoppable” and “Man on Fire” , which is widely considered to be the duo's masterpiece. Unfortunately, there was no such consensus when the film was released in April 2004: the film's overall score on Rotten Tomatoes is a dismal 39% Rotten. Yes, many critics hated the film at the timewith the likes of Nathan Rabin (writing for the AV Club) describing it as “an exercise in excess violence” and “a drunk guy who won't leave.”
Fortunately, this isn't an opinion shared by most in 2024, as Scott and Washington's Man on Fire currently has a 7.7 on IMDbA 3.7 on Letterboxdi done /The film ranks #7 on our list of “Denzel Washington's 21 Best Movies.” The reason for this discrepancy depends on personal taste, of course, but it also indicates how ahead of his time Scott was when making the film.
Critics disagreed with Man on Fire's violence
A large number of the negative reviews from professional critics, which contributed to this 39% Rotten score, were people who were clearly put off by the violence in Man on Fire; a trait that neither Scott, Washington, nor screenwriter Brian Helgeland shied away from while making the film. Adding insult to injury is Scott's increasingly experimental style, something the director has been building towards over the past few films (if not his entire career), but it really comes into its own here. Scott, cinematographer Paul Cameron and editor Christian Wagner weave the film into a tapestry of memories, emotions and immediate sensory overload to better transport us into John Creasy's (Washington) space as he first tries to protect the daughter (Dakota Fanning) of a wealthy Mexican, and then tries to find and/or avenge her after she is kidnapped for ransom. Scott deliberately makes Man on Fire gritty, mixing moments of beautiful photography and idyllic calm with harrowing violence, suspense and, ultimately, tragedy.
This contrasts with the way A. J. Quinnell's source novel was originally adapted into a film in 1987 by French director Élie Chouraqui, which is much more aesthetically pleasing than Scott's film (Chouraqui's style was similar to the Cinéma du look movement of the period). Legend has it that Scott was originally intended to adapt the novel in the mid-1980s, before Top Gun came out, so he had many years to consider what to do with the material. That's partly why his “Man on Fire” clocks in at 146 minutes (the length is another point of contention with modern critics), but Scott doesn't waste a moment of that time, especially as Washington holds the screen with his mix of magnetism and bleak interiority.
Tony Scott was on fire filming Man on Fire
“Man on Fire” is indeed many films: part love story of a surrogate parent and child, part revenge thriller (the film acts almost as a precursor to the Washington series “The Equalizer”), and part melancholic character study. It's really about its brutality, as Scott wants Creasy's violence to be as questionable as it is thrilling and cathartic, with the film being made with eyes open after 9/11 and the US government's subsequent response to terrorism.
Although the initial critical response to the film was poor, it seems that audiences accepted it quite early on, as the film's CinemaScore reached a satisfying A-. Since then more people discovered the film and vocalized their appreciation for it, considering it a highlight even in Scott's generally respected filmography. In some ways, the movie itself seems to include Scott's sly acknowledgment of what a good job he and Washington did while making it. During one scene in which Creasy's friend Paul (Christopher Walken) is questioned about Creasy, the man explains, “A man can be an artist in anything, in food, in anything. It depends on how good he is at it. Creasy's art is death. He's about to paint his masterpiece.” Tony Scott and Denzel Washington's art is cinema, and with “Man on Fire” they painted a picture that is becoming more and more popular.
