"Man on Fire" is a trashy, simplistic thriller based on a novel by A.J. Quinnell. It stars Scott Glenn as John Creasy, a former C.I.A. agent living in Italy who forever mopes about his traumatic past. Then his good friend David (Joe Pesci) finds him some work, as a bodyguard for Sam (Jade Malle),the daughter of a financially well off couple (Paul Shenar, Brooke Adams). Not long after the adult and the kid actually form a bond, she's violently kidnapped by scuzzy terrorist-types. Once he's recuperated, he's determined to get her back using the most ruthless means available to him.

The 2004 version of the same story, directed by Tony Scott (originally considered as director of this adaptation) and starring Denzel Washington, Dakota Fanning, and Christopher Walken, may be much better known, but this version offers a well paced, watchable enough (and very rainy) revenge flick, full to the brim with violence. At first it seems as if it will be overly dreary, but it develops humor and heart as the crusty, sullen Creasy and the personable pre- teen girl start hitting it off. Still, it's pretty melodramatic stuff overall, with some decent but rather perfunctory action. The deeply affecting music score by John Scott will make you think you're watching a better movie than you really are.

It is somewhat fun to see the under-rated Glenn join the ranks of cinematic bad asses. For a while, the script allows him to look like a bum, until he begins his bloody mission and decides on a makeover. The excellent supporting cast is a major draw: Pesci, Adams, Shenar, Danny Aiello, Jonathan Pryce, Giancarlo Prati, Lou Castel. Pesci has one offbeat moment where he does an enthusiastic rendition of "Johnny B. Goode", and Aiello is memorable as a snivelling weasel, but the lovely Adams gets barely anything to do here. Young Malle is endearing.

One other major point of interest for viewers may be comparing this film to its 2004 counterpart. At least this one has less fat on the bones and less reliance on show-off stylistics. It's adequate entertainment and runs a trim 93 minutes.

Six out of 10.

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).