User reviews

I was quite surprised that Massive Attack's Angel was chosen to accompany the opening credits, which consisted for mostly CCTV / voyeuristic shots of a team conducting surveillance on the movements of Harrison Ford's Jack Stanfield and his family. I know it's a cool track, but Angel is perhaps becoming one of the more overused tracks in Hollywood pictures already.

But it hints well at what Firewall is going to become. Cliché and overused sequences which will probably make you scream "haven't I seen this somewhere before"? Firewall offered nothing very new in terms of plot outline, as it contains modified scenes from even Ford's own works like Air Force One (the family's survival being threatened, and it's up to one man to save the day) and The Fugitive (the frame up and one man's run from the law). Ford has already become comfortable in the role of an all-American one man hero, that this role offered no surprises at all.

It's basically standard fare with the usual chases and action fight sequences. Stansfield is a VP of (network) security of a bank, and has designed the bank's software, with other operational duties like making sure the bank can respond to external online threats. However, as the saying goes, almost 80% of intrusion are committed knowingly or unknowingly from the inside, and with a head honcho part of the act, you can be sure that he has the know-how to siphon out cash if he wants to.

In comes Bill Cox (Paul Bettany), scheming con man, who with his team of merry men, take Stanfield's family hostage and lapses into the usual psycho-mumbo-jumbo routine. With the family's antics at escaping, you really wonder if Cox, as a villain, has what it takes to call the shots in a hostage situation. While he might have the upper hand, it's his weakness in being ruthless to the hostages that proved his downfall, and make him a very weak cinematic villain. Here's someone who would rather shoot at his own men than to teach them hostages a lesson. Probably he has this noble subscription to "women and children first". And it doesn't help when there's the usual good guy amongst his merry men who offers the family sympathy points.

Word of caution though, for those who might think that this film offers some cool technology on screen. Leave the techno-babble at the door, there's no "firewall" to hack into in the first place, and the "hacking" is actually a no-brainer. And unless the USA offers wireless internet access like everywhere, it's pretty incredible with what a laptop can do in the movie.

It has your expected twists and seemingly smart moments, but nothing that will truly make you go "wow". The fist fight choreography can get pretty intense, however, there's no need to reach the end of the road before you know who's gonna emerge tops. It isn't exactly a bad movie, but one which doesn't even have a single sequence that can redeem this picture from really bad mediocrity.

I saw that 'Firewall' was coming on TV a couple of nights ago and wanted to catch Harrison Ford in action, as I'm a huge fan of his and I had not seen this. I have to say I was fairly entertained by the film. The plot is not so much different from the other films of this genre, but what stands apart from the rest is Harrison Ford's and the antagonist, Bill Cox's very real performances and some clever twists.

Computer security specialist Jack Stanfield (Harrison Ford) works for the Seattle-based Landrock Pacific Bank. A trusted top-ranking executive, he has built his career and reputation on designing the most effective anti-theft computer systems in the industry, protecting the bank's financial holdings from the constant threat of increasingly sophisticated internet hackers with his complex network of tracers, access codes and firewalls. His regular life is put into turmoil after his family taken is taken hostage by Bill Cox and his cronies.

Even though most of the story was predictable, that doesn't mean it wasn't entertaining. It has everything you can ask - big explosions, smart thinking actors, great acting (only by Harrison Ford and Paul Bettany). Cox played by Paul Bettany was very unnerving as the calm, cold, collected and clever villain. He was ruthless in killing his own men to make his point. I mean that is fairly common in this genre, still it was pretty good. Jack's repeated attempts to try and save his family along with the money was good to see. You could look at his eyes and you can see how much he loves his family and how scared he is for them and really wants their safety more than anything. The little kid, Andy with the allergy and Jack's secretary, Janet Stone played by Mary Lynn Rajkub are also very good. The climax with the burning car was not so believable. But even so, this is a more than average thriller that you would want to see. A rating of 5.6 on IMDb? I am shocked. Come on people, this is so much better than that. I really enjoyed the movie immensely.

7/10

Jack Stanfield may be an old man but he has a young wife, couple of young kids AND is pretty hot on the old computers, working as he does as head of systems security for a small bank chain that has recently merged with a larger firm. His comfortable life is thrown into disarray when a group of armed men led by the distinguished and cruel Bill Cox seize his house and his family. The deal is simple – unless he helps them transfer millions of pounds from many of the banks accounts by accessing the system, they will kill his family one at a time. Given that none of the men are masked, Jack suspects that this will happen anyway and, while going along with them, frantically tries to work out a way to safety.

This film did reasonable but unspectacular business at the box office and perhaps that is only fair given that is also a very adequate on the film itself as it is solid but nothing special at all. The plot is a bit of the problem as the computer world and the house both act as constraining factors that do not allow for a great number of set pieces to get the heart racing. Nor does it provide much in the way of mystery although it is clever enough to provide distraction and a general sense of peril. Much of this comes from the performances though, which despite not being brilliant are at least functional for this film. I didn't need a fourth Indiana Jones film to tell me Ford was getting old, because he demonstrates it here with an absurd fight scene at the end. Up till then though he is not actually too bad and age doesn't prevent him from doing anything in particular. Bettany is pretty good alongside him and plays a bit of a cookie-cutter character with a bit of class. Madsen is lumbered with the "wife in peril" role but fills it well (better than the two kids anyway). The support cast features very minor turns from faces such as Forster, Patrick, Arkin, Rajskub and a few others of note – not sure what attracted them but they add a bit of class to the film anyway.

Ultimately director Loncraine cannot make the most of all these bits and, while doing a good job, he doesn't really ever get the tension ratcheted up to the level of any of the many better "normal guy in peril" type roles that Ford has done over the last few decades. It is "OK" but I was a bit disappointed that he didn't manage to make the house feel "smaller" with the gang in it, or that he never really got anything crackling between Bettany and Ford. It is a reasonable film nonetheless and it distracted me but only that – it will certainly fade in my memory quickly and certainly doesn't do anything for Ford other than keeping him busy.

First off Harrison Ford is still capable of playing these roles, he certainly did not come off as unbelievable for the most part.

The first hour or so of the movie is top notch and plays out exactly as any good action film should, the bad guys outmaneuvering the good guy at every turn so the audience hates them even more.

Unfortunately the second half of the movie is nowhere near as strong and I believe part of this is because Paul Bettany just does not play a convincing bad ass. He's a good actor, don't get me wrong, but he's far too lenient and soft compared to similar characters from other action movies. There is a scene where Ford and family attempt an escape, only to be foiled by their captors. Following this, Bettany does respond with a nasty act, but I kept expecting him to shoot (non-fatally) one of the family members or beat them with a club or other blunt object. There were also some logic issues that bugged me, but I won't get into them here as I do not want to spoil the film for those who haven't seen it.

Despite what I mentioned above, I found the movie to be well worth the cost of admission and a fun way to spend two hours.

The movie was better than I thought it would be. I really enjoyed it. Seeing Harrison Ford back in action was an added bonus. He can definitely still bring it. It was great to see him back on the big screen as feisty as ever still kicking butt. The villain was played by Paul Bettany who is always brilliant when playing a dirty rotten scoundrel. I didn't realize how tall he (Paul) is until this movie, (he is a good inch taller than Harrison Ford, who is over 6 ft) The film was a bit slow in parts, but the ending makes up for it. I wouldn't suggest taking small children as it is a bit violent for its PG-13 rating. There are also a couple funny / cute moments that were really well played. If you are a Harrison Ford fan, you won't want to miss Firewall.

Take a gray-haired Harrison Ford, place him in a business suit and then have him fight someone conveniently wearing all black, and you'd swear you were watching any number of movies from the last fifteen years. Name Ford's character Jack, and you'd think that would narrow it down to a good one. Then again you could just be suckered into seeing "Firewall" which borrows and doesn't add from the Ford post-Jones collection.

In a play-it-safe campaign to show the world that he isn't too old, Harrison Ford is pushed into "Firewall". It's been fourteen years since, "Patriot Games", in which Ford played a man that seemed over the hill then, and here he is today in the same situations. To jog your memory, Ford has been making a living playing essentially the same character in similar situations for years, thanks to the aforementioned "Patriot Games", "The Fugitive", and "Air Force One".

"Firewall", directed by Richard Loncraine, concerns the tale of Jack Stanfield, played by Harrison Ford, being forced through the methods of Bill Cox (Paul Bettany), into electronically stealing from the bank he keeps hackers out of on a daily basis. Cox has a bargaining chip, the Stanfield family. Eventually Cox and his team baby-sit the hostages and circumvent there own success. Jack then hunts them down, and none of this comes as a surprise due to the formulaic structure of the picture.

Some may find "Firewall" a difficult film to dislike because it plays all the clichés. It isn't artistic but rather commercial film-making. Borrowing from every film mentioned above, it uses elements from what worked and safely combines them in a coherent, yet unexciting manner. The action scenes don't come till the end of the picture, and those five minutes offer little more than stunt work put on by actors half Ford's age. This is a vehicle for Ford and as the audience we are supposed to subconsciously see this as a practice run at a fourth Indiana Jones film. With such blatant disregard for a plot and even unique action, you can view this movie as the precursor to "Indiana Jones and the Gated Community".

There is an element that seems realistic and that is the acceptable number of henchmen who are employed by the leader. If they are trying to steal money, then having less people to divvy up the bounty would result in a greater payday. Cox has a modest four men working with him. Unfortunate for both him and the viewer, their lack of common sense is staggering. For example, the family dog Rusty, plays a prominent role when the bumbling fools take him hostage. There should be a logical reason for taking Rusty. With his family already held captive in an unknown locale; I'm sure Jack Stanfield was ready to walk away from them and start a new life. But wait, Rusty is missing too, now I have to comply with their demands. This ultimately destroys the credibility of the screenplay.

Performances in the film are convincing. Virginia Madsen is good as the relaxed wife considering the situation her character is put through. My favorite role was of Paul Bettany as a sometimes caring villain that flips a mean pancake. Despite this, director Richard Loncraine has crafted a film that is best described as what a computer would spit out if the command was: thriller. Everything functions to drive the story on its merry way. Lacking character nuances, rich emotions, and beautiful scenery is OK for a suspense film about robbing a bank. Where "Firewall" betrays the genre is in not providing twists, originality, or an intriguing story.

I have absolutely *had* it with today's major film critics. I'm not sure if it is simply an occupational hazard where film critics (who are forced to view hundreds and hundreds of movies each year) simply become jaded to anything but the most original, different, off - the - beaten - path, out - of - the - box, innovative motion pictures or if they simply are so far out of touch with the average viewer that they are incapable of wallowing at our level of intellectual stimulation.

Whatever the cause, film critics continue to prove that only regular moviegoers who happen to have multiple graduate degrees in film, literature, and visual arts will understand their explanations of *what* is so good or bad about a particular movie. Further, only those of us who have actually *seen* the 12,000 or more films required to maintain a mental database of "what has already been done in film" can appreciate their basis for phrases like "tired", "cliche'", "retread", etc. The almost universal panning of "Firewall" may be the best example to date of this trend.

OK, I'll admit it...I must be a typical brain-dead consumer who plays right into the hands of the studios who attempt to regularly pry my hard - earned money away from me by pumping out "formulaic" films designed to optimize profit at the expense of "art". The simple truth, though, is this: films like "Firewall" are sometimes *exactly* what I am after...an escape! "Firewall" manages to put the viewer into the shoes of another "everyman"...or at least into the shoes of a man that an average Joe would like to someday be. Is it fantasy? Yes. But is it *plausible* fantasy and this is precisely what makes such stories so exciting. In this case, the 'normal guy who has started to arrive' at the rewards of his life's work is played (as perfectly as he has in so many similar roles) by Harrison Ford.

The plot them revolves around placing this character into a situation that we, if given the same stakes, would like to believe that we could also work through. Suffice to say that there are heroes and villains and a number of characters in - between who serve to help or hinder Ford's character...and in the process some of the complexities of our world land right in the lap of a man who would have preferred to not know about them to begin with. However, faced with the realities of the situation, Ford's 'Jack' rises to apply his own measure of right and wrong as best as he can.

To identify with this goal is not something that we should be ashamed of as viewers.

In the end, of course, sacrifices are made but the unwilling hero finds some measure of closure...no doubt with a more broad view of his world. The price to be paid, the extent to which his journey ends nicely (if at all), and the lessons learned (at least by the viewer) would require spoilers to disclose....suffice to say that some are predictable and some are not.

In the end, as long as we (the "average viewers") continue to watch the 6 to 36 movies per year that we do and as long as our lives continue to only cross the path of Hollywood on occasion, films like "Firewall" will continue to be an excellent escape for us and (I hope) we will continue to reward the studios for producing them without apology.

Unfortunately, the career critics will continue to become more and more distanced from the sensibilities of regular people and they will continue to discount such motion pictures as "below them".

For me, this is just fine....in a strange way, the critics are still serving their purpose: providing guidance as to what I should or should not view. The difference, of course, is that I believe now more than ever that I will be happy with the results if I do exactly the opposite of what they suggest.

In this case, viewing "Firewall" against their advice was absolutely the right decision to make.

As someone with an interest in computers, I was looking forward to the release of this movie for quite a while. Seeing Harrsion Ford in the cast of a movie typically guarantees at least a minimum standard of quality. I couldn't help feeling somewhat underwhelmed by it's progression.

The movie has some positive points that I should highlight first. I had hoped a movie titled "Firewall" would portray accurate use of technology where other computer genre movies such as "Hackers" missed the boat. And for the most part it does, we see VPN, unix terminals, and other real technology set up to deliver what could have been an intriguing story about a techno-heist. There are a few glaring flaws, but generally accurate enough to draw me into a believable and entertaining story.

If the movie had kept with the technology theme for the remainder of it's run, I think it could have been a hit (at least with the IT sect). But it devolves into another mindless chase movie.

If they had fixed the bugs and not applied the 'action flick' patch, this film might have staved off obsolence and had a place in the server room.

I'll have to say. When i first saw the trailer my first thought was "why doesn't this man just give up?". Hollywood Homicide wasn't exactly the greatest. But since my friend had free passes and the star himself was supposed to show up for a Q&A I went. WOW! The movie definitely surpassed my expectations. Harrison ford did an excellent job. The cinematography was fabulous. I enjoyed the way the scenes were shot (trying to find the right words, but can't seem to do it justice). I know some folk are saying the children also did a great job, but, quite frankly Dakota Fanning and Haley Joel Osmet they're not. And there were a few times I wanted to reach into the screen and slap his daughter. But outside of that. I would say great job! Fire the people who did the preview because it doesn't do the movie justice.

Nothing extraordinary, but simply another solid and suspenseful Harrison Ford thriller.

Harrison Ford's family gets kidnapped and in return for their release Harrison Ford has to digitally steal millions of dollars in a high security bank heist.

The start is rather slow and a bit silly now and then. But towards the end this story gets way more suspenseful and thrilling.

Overall, an enjoyable movie, until the end when it felt like the director got sick of the movie and said "that's a wrap. everyone leave".

Fortunately, they didn't go overboard with the usual lousy computer scenes you normally see in a movie. In fact, the whole name of "Firewall" is poorly chosen.

If you're looking for a simple pseudo-thriller that follows the typical script, you'll enjoy this.

If you're looking for more than that, look elsewhere.

I give it a 5 out of 10. Had some enjoyable moments, but like I said, it simply ends poorly.

"Jack Stanfield" (Harrison Ford) is a security expert for a bank that has recently merged with another financial institution in another city. This merger requires him to coordinate everything with an executive named "Gary Mitchell" (Robert Patrick) who works for the other bank and is not a very pleasant person at all. This becomes even more difficult when a group of high-tech thieves invade his home and kidnap his wife, "Beth" (Virginia Madsen) and their two children. Their demand is quite simple-either Jack helps them to gain access to the bank's computer in order to withdraw $100 million or they kill his family. And the leader of the thieves, who goes by the name of "Rich" (David Lewis) is quite serious. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this turned out to be a decent film all things considered. I especially liked the manner in which the director (Richard Loncraine) managed to maintain the suspense from start to finish. On the other hand, I thought that the ending was a bit too unrealistic and could have used a little more imagination. But even so, the film kept my attention and because of that I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.

Well I have loved all Harrison Ford movies since I can remember. I found Firewall to be a pretty solid movie. The main criminal seems ruthless which I like and his followers seem to hold their own which made it seem way more believable to me.

Harrison Ford's acting was useful to the movement of the movie because honestly to it would have dragged on if it had been a lesser actor. The story line is the same old one from many movies about this subject matter but at the end of the day Firewall really isn't as bad as it could have been.

I am going to say that if you haven't seen this or even heard of it. Give it a look , you will see that its not so bad.

I love movies like Die Hard where the criminal element is real , uses logic, has a mission that they will do anything to attain in a believable way. I feel like a lot of people get to caught up in the review and forget some people want to see it based on the movie info not just what they think..

I was expecting this movie to be really horrible. I'd heard that the critics were panning it. As well, I saw the trailer and it looked really dumb. But I decided to see it because I adore Harrison Ford.

I was pleasantly surprised. I found the movie immensely entertaining. Perhaps the trick to enjoying it is in letting go of questioning whether or not it is believable and simply go with the flow. That, I did. And I found myself shifting in my seat because, as the cliché says, the suspense was killing me.

Many people have criticized the film for being another bank robber film, executive's family kidnapped --- etc. But for me it worked. If Harrison Ford was not in the film, I don't know if the movie would have worked as well. But the man is gifted at showing vulnerability and drawing in an audience and playing the role of hero against bad guys I guess, then, if you're a Harrison Ford fan, go see the film. If you're not, don't see it. If you don't like clichés, avoid the movie. But if you're willing to forgive film makers for clichés because you are a fan of Harrison Ford, go. I guess it all comes down to being a fan of Harrison Ford.

One thing I noticed in this film was the cinematography. I haven't noticed anyone else comment on this, but I found the angles fascinating. As well, some of the scenes were stunning. There was a lot of rain in this movie, and some scenes, particularly where cars drove into a driveway lined by flowers, looked almost like Monet painted them.

I just saw this movie today ... opening day in my hometown ... and on the whole really liked it. Then again I like this kind of movie: great non-stop action, great suspense, some good twists, a satisfying wind-up.

The acting and characterizations were very convincing. Harrison Ford's persona in this is one we've certainly seen before; and the overall feel of the movie reminds me in many ways of The Panic Room. But I like both so encountering these here were positives from my angle.

The plot and scripting were great at the beginning and in the last third or so; in the middle there were some very unconvincing "holes" in the plot and it seemed to me that things slowed down a bit in the middle as well. However, there were some great twists later on, and the early plot was flawless, as far as I could see, with some really good, witty dialog to go along with the action.

The pace was good, the cinematography was good. Oh, and the opening lead-in ... with the opening credits ... was really, really cool.

All in all, a good action/suspense flick.

Entirely predictable. Full of clichés. Not even one clever line to alleviate the monotony. Harrison makes another few mill. (yawn) Don't bother.

Shameless product endorsements galore.... "Buy a Dell with Windows XP, they were featured in Harrison's last crap film!!"

It's a shame to see such obvious pandering to a mass audience. The title should have given it away. Firewall? What did this movie have to do with technology? The movie was clichéd, shallow and lacking in creativity, humor or cleverness.

Characters are all one dimensional. It tries, lamely, to suck you in with slick visuals like the nice house, office, cars, etc... then delivers nothing by way of plot that you haven't seen 10,000 times before.

It's a real shame Hollywood makes crap like this so often. I know that sounds elitist, but I'm not. Hollywood keeps going for the sure bet, easy money stuff like this. No creativity whatsoever...

The movie starts with black-and-white surveillance tapes and fragmented voice-overs: Someone is watching Jack Stanfield. Jack has been working at a Seattle bank and knows his way around IP addresses, bank security, and wire transfers.

Starting with Six Days Seven Nights (1998), Harrison Ford has played some cheesy roles that fizzled. (C'mon. Random Hearts? Hollywood Homicide?) In Firewall, however, Director Richard Loncraine stages some intense scenes between Ford and villain Paul Bettany (who played Geoffrey Chaucer in A Knight's Tale and the Surgeon in Master and Commander).

The pacing of the film feels more like Patriot Games, or my Ford favorite: The Fugitive. The common element is that you see a smart guy trying to save his wife and kids while keeping the bad guys at bay.

Harrison Ford delivers in this enjoyable action/adventure.

First off, I have to say that I don't understand all these people who say that Harrison Ford is too old to play the hero. In this movie he may have played the hero father/husband but it was done in such a way as to show him as struggling in the fight scenes and not being invincible. The movie overall was decent enough, the low points to me are the kid who played Ford's son (very annoying) and the pacing which at times had the audience on the edge of a nap. The story itself may have been mostly rehashed former movie plots but was done in an updated way to incorporate technology. The very end of the movie was pretty cheesy, the ultimate movie ending shot (see the movie and you will see what I mean). I would recommend this movie for a decent 2 hour movie.

This is like "24", it's all phony, but exciting enough so you don't care. You know what Ford is going to do. Having Chloe as his admin assistant even added to the ambiance. The cinematography was very good, and the acting was all standard. It's just, as usual, the bad guy has to have a few idiots working for him to make the story go easier. The dog bit was too much of a ploy to keep the plot moving, totally out of sync with what characters would have done. Bottom line is poor quality of enemies for Ford to deal with, so even though events proceeded apace, they required too much suspension of disbelief for my money. I wouldn't have gone myself, it was just my wife wanted to see it. There was never truly enough of a sense of danger. They should have hurt one of the family more. Even the son's allergy reaction wasn't scary enough. And people would have figured out things at the bank a lot sooner.

I went to this film with my companion because Harrison Ford is one of our all-time favorite action/adventure actors. But at the end of this film, we looked at each other in astonishment. We could not believe we had actually paid good money to see such a hack-kneed plot, with such a lame ending. The next day I saw "Hostage" for the first time. It's basically the same story- a kidnapped family being held by bad guys to force an upright citizen into doing what the bad guys want. It was amazing to see how much better a film it was! Heart-pounding action, a sensible plot, and a much better hero- Bruce Willis kicked ass, while Harrison Ford was mumbling and stumbling thru this often nonsensical plot. And don't get me started on the product placement and commercial tie-ins. The 2006 Chrysler 300? Fageddabowdit. What was he driving when they got in the trail of the bad guys? A 1980's vintage sedan. Don't waste your time on this dog.