man on fire vs taken
very similar films in my opinion, 'taken' edges it on the imdb rating with 7.8, maybe i have to rewatch taken, but i thought man on fire takes the edge with cinematograghy and character development..
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Man on Fire (2004) Discussion > man on fire vs taken
Do any lawyers get decapitated in Taken?
No?
Man on Fire wins.
Easily the best comment in this thread, haha! Man on Fire for me too even though in my opinion it's a flawed movie and far from a masterpiece like others are claiming. It is a solid, well made movie though and I really enjoyed the first hour that was devoted to developing the relationship between Creasy and Pita as it gives meaning to his actions in the second half and gives the viewer an emotional investment, something you usually don't see in films in this particular genre. The second half is a bit less interesting since it's more the typical hunting down the bad guys and extracting information, but it's entertaining as hell and I love how it actually earns it's R rating by not flinching away from the cold, brutal vengeance Creasy hands out. Also, Denzel is REALLY good in this movie. His performance, along with Dakota Fanning's, significantly elevates the film.
On the other hand, Taken was boring, formulaic and evoked no emotion out of me at all, including the action scenes. The very definition of a forgettable, popcorn action flick. Liam Neeson was good though, he made it watchable. The thing that really elevates Man on Fire above it besides the relationship between the two principal characters and the emotional payoff, is that it has a real edge to it with the hardcore second half and the awesome setting of Mexico City. Ultimately, Taken was a toothless, generic movie with a strong central performance while Man on Fire was an edgy, brutal action flick with 4 strong central performances(Denzel, Dakota, Walken and Radha Mitchell) while Gianni was great in support. Seriously, name me a character from Taken other than Liam's that really stood out in a good way.
How is the cinematography by Paul Cameron, A.S.C. better in this film compared to the cinematography by Michel Abramowicz, A.F.C. for, "Taken," (2008)?
shareI understand why you make the comparison, but Man on Fire is on an entirely different level than Taken. As much as I enjoyed watching Liam Neeson shoot his way across Europe, Taken has the depth of a piece of paper. It is a mindless summer action movie with wooden characters and a plot that makes only a modest bit of sense.
This movie was one of Denzel Washington's very best. And young Dakota Fanning matched him scene for scene. This movie is grittier, more dramatic, more emotional, with more human characters across the board. It's a story about a man who rediscovers what it means to be human. It is a story about redemption and sacrifice. On top of that, Tony Scott nailed the script and the cinematography, and the score was incredible. This is one of the best action films of the 2000's decade. The comparison is not even close.
the concept is really similar but they are really different, both great movies. Taken is from an ex CIA father that tries to bring back his daughter from women traffic in europe. Man on fire is about revenge (remember that Pita was supoused to be dead before they made the exchange)
shareMy vote is for taken.
Both films are very good and yeah maybe man on fire had a better character development but I like more Liam Neeson as an actor than Denzel Washington.
I like both, but i choose Taken.
Prostitute: What the *beep* are you doing?
Johnny: I'm gonna kill a bunch of people.
Man on Fire.
share