Netflix’s Man on Fire draws criticism

Netflix’s new Man on Fire is not getting slammed for one obvious disaster. That’s the interesting part. Critics mostly agree the problem is smaller and more frustrating than that — Yahya Abdul-Mateen II is good, the premise still works, but the show around him often feels flatter than it should. For a Netflix thriller built on a famously intense property, that kind of reaction matters. This was supposed to arrive with heat. Instead, a lot of the early conversation is about why it never quite catches fire. (rogerebert.com) ### What is this version, exactly? This is a seven-episode Netflix adaptation of A.J. Quinnell’s Creasy novels, released May 1, 2026. Kyle Killen adapted it for TV, Steven Caple Jr. directed the first two episodes, and Yahya Abdul-Mateen II plays John Creasy — the wrecked former special-operations man at the center of the story. The show shifts the action to Rio de Janeiro and builds the season around Creasy protecting Poe Rayburn, played by Billie Boullet. (netflix.com) ### So why are people criticizing it? Basically, the reviews are saying the show has the right ingredients but not the right shape. RogerEbert.com says the emotional core works best when the series stays close to Creasy’s trauma and his bond with Poe, but keeps breaking that momentum with dull action and sprawling government-plot material. Rotten Tomatoes’ review roundup shows the same pattern in sh(netflix.com) or never fully “ablaze.” (rogerebert.com) ### Is the backlash about violence? Not mainly. The show is clearly being sold as gritty and suspenseful, and the setup is violent from the jump — dead teammates, bombings, armed pursuit, a traumatized lead who is barely holding himself together. But the early critical reaction is less “this is too graphic” and more “this is grim without enough payoff.” In other words, (rogerebert.com)thing especially gripping. (rogerebert.com) ### What are reviewers still liking? Abdul-Mateen, almost across the board. That’s the most stable point in the coverage. Variety calls his performance thrilling and fascinating to watch, even while arguing the series lacks some of the intrigue and heart people associate with the earlier film. RogerEbert.com lands in a similar place — compelling lead, shakier surrounding structure. So the criticism is not really “bad casting.” It’s more “good actor, limited vehicle.” (variety.com) ### Why does the Denzel comparison matter so much? Because this title already has a dominant modern version. For a lot of viewers, Man on Fire means Tony Scott’s 2004 movie with Denzel Washington and Dakota Fanning — hyper-stylized, emotional, and kind of untouchable in memory. The new series doesn’t just need to work on its own. It has to justify why this story needed to become a seven-episode streaming drama. Several reviews suggest it hasn’t fully cleared that bar. (variety.com) ### Is everyone negative on it? No — but the positive case is narrower. Some reviews and audience reactions say it’s a solid binge with enough action and momentum to keep moving. ScreenRant was strongly positive, and the Rotten Tomatoes page shows a mix rather than a total wipeout. But even the friendlier takes tend to circle the same caveat — the show works best when you stop expecting a reinvention and accept it as a decent, mid-weight action thriller. (screenrant.com) ### What does that mean for Netflix? The catch is that streaming thrillers do not need universal praise to survive. They need curiosity, recognizability, and enough completion to stay in the conversation. Man on Fire has the recognizable brand and a strong lead. But the early reviews suggest it may end up as a “watchable, not essential” Netflix release instead of the prestige-action breakout the title hints at. (ne([screenrant.com)-adaptation)) ### Bottom line? The criticism is real, but it is not about some shocking line the show crossed. It’s about missed intensity. Netflix brought back a revenge-thriller property with a strong star and a built-in audience memory. Early reviewers are saying the series burns, just not hot enough. (rogerebert.com)