The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

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

"Man on Fire" opens with a truly tedious relationship build up between Glenn and the twelve year old kidnapping victim, Jade Malle. I kept wondering, is she ever going to be kidnapped? The screenplay is very straight forward, with Scott Glenn miraculously recovering from several gunshot wounds, and then going after the kidnappers. Danny Aiello plays a very minor part as one of the bad guys. Joe Pesci more or less just revolves around Glenn's character, and really never gets involved in the action. Speaking of the action, a couple of explosions and a truck wreck, along with some gun blasting is about all there is. Character development is weak, and the film is way too dark in places. Despite the intriguing cast, I say don't bother. - MERK

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. ****

I thought that the Scott Glenn movie doesn't go into the book as much as the denzel Washington remake but I found Scott Glenn character more in line with the books character and was more similar than denzel.I know it is just a movie but I would have thought that the movie could have been better if they done it like the book as the remake (denzel) twisted certain elements and since it spawned a series of novels with greasy moving on and getting into more conflicts I thought that there could have been another series of films rather than the one off that was done though they can still do another film as nothing is impossible.If you haven't read the book the film is based on then I suggest that you read it as there is more depth to the character and some background story to it. I think that I had read the book after seeing the film starring Scott Glenn as I had never heard of the author before reading the book man on fire.The Scott Glenn movie may be a little dated as for the time that it was made but there is good value with the amount of stars that are in the movie and if you liked the remake it will be worth a look at the original as the book is set in Italy and this original movie is as well and I still feel that denzel Washington is too young for to play the character as he is an ex-legionnaire and had served in the army for decades.I do like the remake but it could have done without the words coming up on the screen at certain points of the film and I would have loved it if he done what greasy had done in the book as he started at the little guys that carried out the actual kidnapping then ended up going after the top man in the mafia.