Monday, September 12, 2005

Is it me? Or is Man on Fire really kind of sucky? I actually tried to change the channel, and I think the batteries are worn down in the remote - so now I'm looking for new batteries.

Anyway, I have only seen parts of it, I can't really sit down yet and give undivided attention to it - so, to be fair, maybe it's OK. I don't know though, so far, it's just not that great. So, someone tell me, should I bother trying to see the whole thing?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

It really is that sucky. Too much violence, pathos, bathos, blahblahblah. Not one of his better works, IMNSHO.

MaryKay said...

Thanks Anonymous, for your input. I may watch it fully at some point, but I'm not going to rush to do it.

I wonder if Dakota Fanning is the new William H. Macy? Getting a lot of face time on the big screen.LOL

Aaron Fleming said...

Yes! I agree! To hell with Man On Fire. I moonlight as a sometime video store clerk, and one of my fellow employees recommends that film to everyone. It's ok, but not great, far from it.

Actually Dakota Fanning is the best thing in it (see Spielberg, that's how you use her, ref to War of the Worlds).