There's style, and there's stupid: "Man on Fire"

You have to wonder about Tony Scott. Sure, he gave us "Top Gun," and I have a soft spot for "The Last Boy Scout" -- where a haggard Bruce Willis says, "This is the 90s. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first." I even kind of liked "Enemy of the State," although there was too much razzle-dazzle for me (more on this later).

But even with a few halfway-decent movies, how do you think Tony likes hanging around older brother Ridley Scott these days? It's bad enough that Ridley had the recent one-two punch of "Gladiator" and "Black Hawk Down." He also helmed a couple of sci-fi movies -- "Alien" and "Blade Runner" -- with huge followings. Meanwhile, you rarely hear someone claim to be a big "Beverly Hills Cop II" fan. (And let's not touch "Days of Thunder.")

I bring this up because I think ol' Tony just tried too hard with "Man on Fire." There's a good movie in here somewhere, but it's lost amid a story that drags and camera work that overloads the senses. Hard to believe anyone could work so hard to make a movie seem frenetic, yet still let it plod along for well over two hours. Bravo!

Our story has Denzel Washington ("Carbon Copy") as a burned-out CIA guy who gets a job as a bodyguard in Mexico, right about the time a lot of people have been kidnapped for ransom. His assignment: protect precocious Dakota Fanning as he ferries her to and from school, swim practice, piano lessons, etc.

Although the alcoholic Denzel tells the girl and her parents (Marc Anthony and Radha Mitchell) that he's a bodyguard, not a friend, little Dakota eventually penetrates his hard outer shell. Awwww. Too bad she gets kidnapped, then killed when a ransom dropoff goes wrong. Now Denzel is going to find the people who did this and make them pay ... with their lives!

As far as hostage stories go, it's better than "Proof of Life," especially given the whole police corruption angle. I'll also admit that while it was way too cute at times, the whole Dakota-Denzel dynamic was decently developed. If we don't see that, then we really would question why this washed-up guy would care about avenging her death. That vengeance wasn't bad, either, with Denzel mostly convincing as a tough guy who would stop at nothing to get answers.

Unfortunately, all of this is overshadowed by Tony Scott's stylistic overkill. First, the colors aren't quite right -- too washed out in places, too dark in others. Then we have quick-cut after quick-cut and stutter after stutter with the camera. It's really jumpy, and this is coming from a guy who thought "The Blair Witch Project" was just fine. Finally, between the Spanish dialogue, some muffled lines and the apparent need to just highlight certain words, we get a lot of subtitles that, for some reason, are all over the screen and in different typeface. Um, what's up with that? If you're going to make me read, at least keep the words in one place.

Sure, I understand a guy wanting to have a distinctive style, and I recall some of this stuff in "Enemy of the State" and "Spy Game." But it's really in overdrive here, and that's a shame because this story and these actors are probably compelling enough to not need too many whistles and bells. Washington is OK in a different kind of role; the guy's got a great smile, but we pretty much never see it. Fanning isn't as annoying as in other movies. Mitchell and Anthony are both fine as tortured parents, and Christopher Walken, Mickey Rourke, Rachel Ticotin and Giancarlo Giannini have good supporting roles.

Like I said, it comes down to the director just showing some restraint. If you've seen "True Romance," you know that's not Tony Scott's strong suit. But who am I to argue with a guy who's been nominated for three directing Oscars? Oh, wait ... that's Ridley.