Taken vs. Man on Fire

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

These are similar man-on-a-mission movies. In both, a bunch of lowlives kidnap a young girl, and it's up to the hero to save her because the system is incompetent. But which is the better movie?

Taken is better than MoF in that it really gets right into the action and doesn't stop until the end.

MoF's story is better, there's twists and turns. But it is also slow. The kidnapping didn't happen until the halfway point I believe.

Man on Fire's hero, Creasy, is a better hero because he actually sets out with the intention of revenge. Liam Neeson is merely forced to kill in self-defense, although it's still cool.

Man on Fire has better kills overall.

Just wanna know what you people think about these movies.

That's a tough choice right there D.B. I really loved both movies, but I think in the end Taken takes the cake (Man on Fire had some scenes that weren't as interesting)

I've always been kind of split on the two. I suppose it depends on my mood really.
Taken is just like a twenty minute set up and then the rest of the movie is moving and killing.
MoF is slower but holy hell he does some seriously brutal stuff and there is a bit more emotion driving it.

I'll say Taken because of Liam and the throat punches, but MoF was a much better movie overall.

Man on Fire was the only one where fingers were severed, so it gets my vote.

MoF is more realistic (since it is based on a true story) and the character is not another lame jason borne ripoff like in taken.

MoF main character has alot of problems, which is why he is a body guard down in mexico. The movie about redeption and coming to terms with your demons. Taken is just another cookie cutter super action spy killer. Both are good movies, but taken is not on the same level as MoF.

Uh yeah, MoF is based on a true story like Saving Private Ryan is based on the Normandy Landings. There's kidnappings in Mexico and everybody's corrupt, that's about it. Not to mention that it's a remake of a 1987 movie with Scott Glenn that was set in Italy which was itself based on a novel.

While some might confuse Tony Scott's style over substance approach with depth, I prefer Taken's straightforward no-nonsense style as an action movie. It's not original, it's not clever but it's fast paced and damn entertaining. MoF just overly draws out its predictable plot of gruff has-been who becomes friends with the cute little girl and just as we all go "awww" TRAGEDY STRIKES and the worlds bodyguard learns why kevlar vests are so popular in the business. On top of that, this supposed revenge movie is more interested in gleefully depicting torture scenes as opposed to, you know, action.

So yeah, if I wanna see an entertaining revenge movie, it's gonna be the 93 min. Taken, not Scott's 146 min. long experiment in cinematography. At least it wasn't as bad as Domino.

Originally Posted by Rapax

While some might confuse Tony Scott's style over substance approach with depth, I prefer Taken's straightforward no-nonsense style as an action movie. It's not original, it's not clever but it's fast paced and damn entertaining. MoF just overly draws out its predictable plot of gruff has-been who becomes friends with the cute little girl and just as we all go "awww" TRAGEDY STRIKES and the worlds bodyguard learns why kevlar vests are so popular in the business.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say these differences are due to the fact that Man on Fire wasn't an action movie.

On top of that, this supposed revenge movie is more interested in gleefully depicting torture scenes as opposed to, you know, action.

And while we're talking about torture scenes(that were never depicted as action scenes in the first place) let's not even get started on where Liam Neeson hooks the kidnapper up to the city's electrical grid.

Originally Posted by Rapax

Uh yeah, MoF is based on a true story like Saving Private Ryan is based on the Normandy Landings. There's kidnappings in Mexico and everybody's corrupt, that's about it. Not to mention that it's a remake of a 1987 movie with Scott Glenn that was set in Italy which was itself based on a novel.

While some might confuse Tony Scott's style over substance approach with depth, I prefer Taken's straightforward no-nonsense style as an action movie. It's not original, it's not clever but it's fast paced and damn entertaining. MoF just overly draws out its predictable plot of gruff has-been who becomes friends with the cute little girl and just as we all go "awww" TRAGEDY STRIKES and the worlds bodyguard learns why kevlar vests are so popular in the business. On top of that, this supposed revenge movie is more interested in gleefully depicting torture scenes as opposed to, you know, action.

So yeah, if I wanna see an entertaining revenge movie, it's gonna be the 93 min. Taken, not Scott's 146 min. long experiment in cinematography. At least it wasn't as bad as Domino.

My thoughts exactly. I've never been a Tony Scott fan. Perhaps the only good movie Tony Scott did was Crimson Tide. And even The Hunt for the Red October was the better movie. The cinematography and pacing of Man on Fire is just terrible. I cannot stand a movie that bounces all over the place expecting the audience to know what's going on. It's not even a documentary feel. It's a bad sign when you can tell that the DP is shaking the camera purposefully with no goal to be achieved by it, especially during important shots.

That being said, Taken was slimly better, because it doesn't attempt to be anything more than it is. The filmmakers of Taken were more confident and clear-cut in what their goal was and the pacing works impeccably. However, neither movie is all that good. :/

Originally Posted by Rapax

Uh yeah, MoF is based on a true story like Saving Private Ryan is based on the Normandy Landings. There's kidnappings in Mexico and everybody's corrupt, that's about it. Not to mention that it's a remake of a 1987 movie with Scott Glenn that was set in Italy which was itself based on a novel.

While some might confuse Tony Scott's style over substance approach with depth, I prefer Taken's straightforward no-nonsense style as an action movie. It's not original, it's not clever but it's fast paced and damn entertaining. MoF just overly draws out its predictable plot of gruff has-been who becomes friends with the cute little girl and just as we all go "awww" TRAGEDY STRIKES and the worlds bodyguard learns why kevlar vests are so popular in the business. On top of that, this supposed revenge movie is more interested in gleefully depicting torture scenes as opposed to, you know, action.

So yeah, if I wanna see an entertaining revenge movie, it's gonna be the 93 min. Taken, not Scott's 146 min. long experiment in cinematography. At least it wasn't as bad as Domino.

I don't need to comment now...someone else said what I wanted to say.

Man on fire, and we all know why don't we?

I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.

Pretty much why Taken is awesome.

Originally Posted by Nouvelle Vague

Pretty much why Taken is awesome.

Agreed.

Man On Fire for me.

I only saw Man on Fire, and I loved it. It's just a brilliant piece of cinema. Very original and realistic, different from the mass produced action movies we see these days.


''I wish... You had more time.''

No joke, I was JUST talking about this earlier today with my friend!

Haven't seen MoF, but he thought it was better than Taken.

Originally Posted by D.B. Cooper

These are similar man-on-a-mission movies. In both, a bunch of lowlives kidnap a young girl, and it's up to the hero to save her because the system is incompetent. But which is the better movie?

Taken is better than MoF in that it really gets right into the action and doesn't stop until the end.

MoF's story is better, there's twists and turns. But it is also slow. The kidnapping didn't happen until the halfway point I believe.

Man on Fire's hero, Creasy, is a better hero because he actually sets out with the intention of revenge. Liam Neeson is merely forced to kill in self-defense, although it's still cool.

Man on Fire has better kills overall.

Just wanna know what you people think about these movies.

Both great movies and until reading this I wasn't aware of the similarities but in the end I think the accent and the acting of Liam Nieeson wins.

Dude, in Taken the guy goes to Albania to find his daughter and ends up on a yacht where he kills off bodyguards with a golden dinner-plate and then he shoots the owner of the yacht when he tried to make a bargain while holding the guy's daughter hostage, right beetwen the eyes.

Tell me what movies equalizes this in bad-ass.

Originally Posted by Lord of the Drunk Penguin

Dude, in Taken the guy goes to Albania to find his daughter and ends up on a yacht where he kills off bodyguards with a golden dinner-plate and then he shoots the owner of the yacht when he tried to make a bargain while holding the guy's daughter hostage, right beetwen the eyes.

Tell me what movies equalizes this in bad-ass.

Dude the guy goes to Paris. Watch the movie before you rant in favor of it.

Originally Posted by Gaidin

Dude the guy goes to Paris. Watch the movie before you rant in favor of it.

Dude, that room was full of Albanians = ALBANIA
Who cares if it's located in Paris?