User Reviews

Today's audiences, if they think of Bing Crosby at all, probably think of the musicals, and there were many good ones -- "White Christmas" and "Holiday Inn" to mention two. And then there's the comedy films -- the Road pictures with Bob Hope, for example. But few remember the dramas, and there were a number that were standouts for Crosby -- most noteworthy is "The Country Girl", along with "Little Boy Lost". This film falls in that latter group, and is another example of just how good an actor Bing Crosby was. He shared a talent with Spencer Tracy -- subtlety. No need to be loud when you're angry (and he was plenty angry in this film)...it just takes a glance or a facial expression. No need to make a comment when you are still longing for your former wife who is now remarried...just a glance is all it takes.

Crosby's performance wasn't the only good one here. E.G. Marshall as the lawyer is excellent...no surprise there. Inger Stevens did well here, although you'll wonder just what her character sees in Bing Crosby. Mary Fickett, as the ex-wife is very good, though I don't remember her being in many movies. E.G. Marshall was excellent here as the lawyer...but he was always an asset to any film. Malcolm Brodrick, as the son, was quite good, as was Richard Eastham as the stepfather. I was particularly impressed with Anne Seymour as the judge.

The only real criticism I have about this move is the cinematography. It's a puzzlement since it was a fairly well-known cinematographer. At first I thought it was my eyes. Then I thought it was because it was an old film. But as I watcher longer I realized that sometimes things like the upholstery of a sofa would be in crisp focus, but the faces of the actors would not be. A very sloppy job.

I have to agree generally with the range of other comments made about this film. Given the decade (1950s), the subject matter is particularly "brave," and is commendable. The acting is a bit uneven, but with Bing Crosby, Inger Stevens, and E. G. Marshall performing well. With only one short exception that I can identify, Crosby played his part honestly without overt pandering to his fans. For the bulk of the film, he was very much out of his normal character.

The style is late 1950s-ish, as is appropriate given the film's 1957 release. The issues still are relevant, but I also enjoy the feeling of place and time.

The film's significant weakness comes in the script. The script butchers King Solomon's well known ruling. Unfortunately, the film relies on this misunderstanding not only to set up the film's most dramatic moment in the judge's chambers, but then carries the resulting theme from that point forward through to the end of the movie.

I also think that the principle characters could have been developed more fully. This failure may come from over-attention to Crosby's face time. Why did Stevens' character love Crosby's character? We should have been told more. Why did Fickett's character divorce Crosby's character? We heard from Crosby, but why not from Fickett?

All in all, though, the film is enjoyable and worth seeing.

The acting in "Man on Fire" was quite good and much of the film impressed me. However, occasionally the writing disappointed....and a rewrite would have helped the movie rremendously because there is a lot to like in the picture.

The story begins with Earl Carleton (Bing Crosby) learning that his ex-wife was trying to regain custody of their son...at least partial custody. However, Earl is very bitter over the divorce and he won't budge...and insists that the ex-wife never have custody, though he would allow occasional visits. As for the son, he's 10 and in agreement with dad...and doesn't want to live with his mother and her new husband. What's next? Well, a LOT!

Any film that shows how ugly divorce and custody cases can be is a good thing, as hopefully it can prevent the real nastiness that often occurs in such cases. Unfortunately, towards the end of the move, it really didn't seem to know WHAT point it was trying to make...and it wasn't very convincing either. Worse, there's a tacked on relationship that simply doesn't make any sense. Inger Stevens' character professes her love for Carleton...but no real groundwork was set in order to make this the least bit convincing. Why would a pretty and much younger woman suddenly announce she's in love with an old grouch like Carleton? Had they dated or spent a lot time together, then perhaps it wouldl have made sense. Regardless, the film is very flawed but still interesting and worth seeing.

Right off the bat, I want to point-out that Bing Crosby was known to be a very stern father to his real-life kids......mostly boys. They were always in trouble......legal and otherwise.....so, maybe Mr. Crosby didn't need too much direction to be a meany.....

"bkoganbing" and "holly" wrote very good comments for "Man on Fire." One user made a big stink about the story of "Solomon". I think they had it all backwards. In the movie, the mother of the boy DID just as "Solomon" knew she would: give him up, to save her child's life. Ditto, "daddy" did the same thing in the end.

"Man on Fire" demonstrates that truly good people rarely get-over the hurt of divorce. Usually, it's hidden anger against themselves, for realizing they were stinkers and not the great folk they feel themselves to be.

This is a very good family-film - good acting never hurt anyone to watch, and true-to-life stories should not be kept from children. I would recommend this movie to any and all - do yourself a favor....

Every role was well-played in this movie. The direction, the cinematography, the sound all were excellent. For those who think it was a slightly poor version of "Kramer vs Kramer" may forget it WAS most likely a re-make.......TCM showed them back-to-back.

Bing Crosby was a two faced man. The Public Bing was happy go lucky; the Bing Crosby in Man on Fire is not happy go lucky or even likable. This is a bleak little film full of unlovable characters doing their best to behave in ways sure to offend each other and the audience.

The plot is simple, a business man fights to retain custody of his son when sued by his exwife for the rights to the teenager. The impact of the battle and what results from the feud is what this film focuses on - from fathers point of perspective.

While others have called this a very lifelike movie, showing the no win situation that divorce presents a la Kramer vs. Kramer, this film allows people to not only act badly, but behave poorly as well.

First, the characters overact. Bing Crosby plays a man who owns things - a factory and his son among them. As if playing his role as a parody of his real life abusive behaviors, Crosby adds bitter sarcasism to alomst every line he delivers after the judge rules against him in the custody fight. Smart Judge - this inner rage is no type of man to raise a son; no wonder his wife left him! Enter the ex-wife/mother, played by the forgettable Mary Fickett whose breathy delivery is better suited to the stif drawing room dramas that Hollywood cranked out in the early 1930s.

Inger Stevens, in her film debut is beautiful but plays a woman who loves to suffer: the character is smart and preachy, but she is in love with the abusive and unlikable Bing Crosby character. (In real life, the two had a tumultuous affair - Stevens never was able to get over Crosby. She killed herself in 1970 at the age of 35.) Even the party scene is full of unlikable extras playing their roles to the most obnoxious levels imaginable.

In the end Crosby's character does the right thing, and walks off screen with Stevens whose love for the man - who just evening previous had eluded to her character as a dime a dozen type of girl - is hollow. That's shear dysfunctionality.

This also explains why this little gem never made the Sunday afternoon television movie circuit - its just an unpleasant way to spend ones time; its the type of film that makes you wonder what else you could have done with your time that was more productive.

Just like divorces in real life, this film is a no-win for the bystander, in this case, the audience. Case closed.

studebaker: i've never seen this movie, but certain of your criticisms stuck in my craw. first of all, please think about what you mean by "overacting." i've heard acting defined as truthful behavior in imaginary circumstances, a simple explanation for a highly demanding craft. if by overacting, you mean behavior that rings false to you because you don't believe the actor or actress really believes what they're saying, then you and i have no quarrel. but if you find any display of extreme emotion to be overacting, you might as well accuse the actor of "overliving." as to the "poor behavior" of the characters, remember that the fulcrum of drama is conflict. conflict is one person wanting one thing and another wanting the opposite. if you want something badly enough, or are terrified of losing it, you're not always going to behave like an eagle scout. can you imagine anything duller (aside from my comments) than a movie called "two hours of appropriate behavior"? we go to plays and movies to see people solve seemingly insurmountable problems the best way they can, not do volunteer work at a hospital. if you don't believe me, read a little Shakespeare.

This is a very gritty movie for 1957. Divorce was not accepted like it is today. Hey you don't like your spouse get rid of them and get a new one. Bing plays a wealthy, divorced father who loves his son (plus he appears to still loves his ex) and has full custody of him. The ex wife shows up with her new husband, a man she met while still married to Bing (adultery anyone?). The new husband is a high powered attorney with the government and comes out with the ex to try and get a 50/50 custody agreement. Of course Bing elects to fight (like any father worth his salt would if he had money to do so). There are several well known actors in this one beside Crosby. Inger Stevens plays an assistant attorney to E. G. Marshall who is Bing's attorney in this case. The judge in the case, Jane Seymour, is extremely good. She is unbiased and just tries to get to the best solution for all sides. The son is played by Malcolm Brodrick and does a great job. When the judge awards full custody to the mother I was shocked. Her reasoning's are a little skewed in my opinion but hey it was 1957. Since this is an old movie you can see that romance will develop between Bing and Inger. Although how she could fall in love on short notice is beyond me, oh wait this is an old time movie. I think Crosby's acting in this movie might be his finest one. I think we get a look into his real inner self. He is reputed to have been pretty hard on his kids and possibly his wife. I am not sure why, unless it is because I am a guy, but I could never see the ex wife in any kind of a warm light. Yes the first marriage was just to give Bing a son but there have been many such in history. I am sure she got a lot of dough in the divorce. It does appears she has feelings for her son but are they from guilt? When she gives up custody of her son to the father I was rather surprised. Everything turns out for the best for the son as Bing sends his son to be with the mom.

Despite the occasional shortcomings, I rather like this film. I do suspect, however, that contemporary audiences may not have enjoyed it so much. Mainly because it presents Bing Crosby in a way that he typically was not shown. Most of the time Crosby was presented in lighter musical comedy fare. That is how people liked watching him on screen.

This production was part of a two-picture deal the star had with MGM. After more than twenty years at Paramount, he was now freelancing. A year earlier the Lion had cast him in its remake of THE PHILADELPHIA STORY- HIGH SOCIETY, alongside Frank Sinatra and Grace Kelly. It was to be Miss Kelly's last motion picture; she had previously costarred with Crosby in Paramount's THE COUNTRY GIRL. A picture like HIGH SOCIETY was everything Crosby's fans expected from him. It had music, comedy and an engaging romantic story.

MAN ON FIRE does not have any of those things. Probably Crosby was interested in the script because like THE COUNTRY GIRL where he played a drunk and won an Oscar, he was able to once again tackle a serious social issue. This time it would be the emotional quagmire of divorce, and how the separation of loving parents can psychologically harm a child. As the story begins, we see that Crosby's character is at odds with his ex-wife (played by Mary Fickett).

Fickett's character has remarried, and she would like to regain partial custody of their son (Malcolm Broderick). She had given up the boy during the divorce, but claims she signed away her rights under emotional stress. With help from her lawyer, the case is reopened. A hearing occurs. This time the judge reverses the earlier order, and grants Fickett full custody. The boy will now have to leave his father's home and go off to where his mother and her new husband live. It's a shocking development.

I didn't quite agree with this plot point, since I don't think Crosby was a negligent father and he would not have lost custody. His main sin was that he's a workaholic, but he still managed to provide well enough for the kid. Plus it was obvious he loved his son.

However, because Crosby is now without his son, he spirals into a deep depression. He neglects his business and starts drinking. A woman he knows (Inger Stevens) is in love with Crosby, but his self-pitying act makes a proper relationship nearly impossible.

Meanwhile, the boy has run away from his mother and wants to be reunited with Crosby. This prompts Crosby to devise a plan to whisk his son off to Europe, which would be kidnapping. As a domestic melodrama, the story pulls out all the stops.

Crosby does give a fine performance here, but again, this is not the type of role his fans enjoyed. Audiences did not want social realism from the star, they wanted fluffy entertainment. MAN ON FIRE lost money at the box office. Crosby never worked at MGM again, and he went on to make a few comedies at Fox, which revived his career.

But as I said above, I do like this film. I think it's an earnest attempt to examine the long-range repercussions of divorce, not only on a child, but also on the estranged parents. The courts become involved, and you do wonder if the best possible course of action is being undertaken. As a think piece about the sanctity and value of the nuclear home, it's worth viewing.