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. ****

As has been said, when people think of the title 'Man on Fire' one immediately think of the far better known 2004 film. Which is actually a remake of this film from 1987. This version was not well received by critics at the time and is a poor adaptation of the book (almost unrecognisable and the book's author AJ Quinell disliked it intensely for that reason), but to me it is a perfectly serviceable film in its own right.

One of those times of me going against the general critical consensus. Tend to be along the same lines and on the same page as critics, who tend to be unfairly bashed on the internet for no reason, but there have been times where a panned film is not that bad to me and an acclaimed film considered not that good or not doing much for me. The former is an example here. 'Man on Fire' is not a great film exactly and can totally see where the critics are coming from. Personally do share some of their criticisms. However, 'Man on Fire' does have a lot of things in its favour, so if asked whether it is that bad my answer would be no. Not a lot is done exceptionally, nothing also is done disastrously.

'Man on Fire' is an interesting film visually. The locations are stunning, especially the palazzo, the industrial loft and the boat dock, and the film has some of the best location shooting from personal opinion of any film from that year. Not perfect by all means, some of the editing is choppy and incomplete-looking and count me in as another person or didn't see the need for the slow-motion, which has very rarely been a favourite camera technique of mine in film. The music is dynamic and haunting.

The script has some nice tension and, contrary to what some critics have said, it does have wit and coolness (especially Scott Glenn's lines). The story could have been better, the build-up of the first half tends to be slow and take too long, some of it is routine and other parts forget to make sense and come over as ludicrous. However, the second half generally really picks up the momentum, fun and suspense levels, leading to an exciting and touching ending.

Don't agree that it completely lacks emotion, though there could have been more and it does for my liking come too late. The action mostly (a few routine moments) is gritty and suitably uncompromising without going unnecessarily over the top. The direction has been criticised, can understand as it is sluggish to begin with but there is a real sense that Chouraqui is more comfortable.

Scott Glenn is an intensely charismatic lead and carries the film brilliantly. Jade Malle is more charming than she is irritating, which was great. Her and Glenn's chemistry is the heart of the film and it is dealt with a believable amount of charm and that it developed gradually rather than them hitting it off straight-away was a good move. In support, a fun Joe Pesci and sinister Danny Aiello (despite an inconsistent accent) stand out.

Not everybody comes off well, more to do with screen time than performance quality. Jonathan Pryce and Brooke Adams just have too little to do to make much impression, Adams in a role little more than the smallest, blink-and-miss of cameos is particularly wasted.

In summary, not a bad film and has enough to not make it fizzle but some elements bring it down from being on fire. 6/10 Bethany Cox

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).