Firewall Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x792 | 7478.81 MiB | 1080p | |
|
720x292 | 1125.05 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x240 | 592.02 MiB | divx | |
|
320x132 | 231.18 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
They will make him steal, but he will make them pay
Everything He loves Is About To Be Used Against Him.
They're Already Inside
Nothing Is More Dangerous Than A Man With Everything To Lose.
With his family held for ransom, the head security executive for a global bank is commanded to loot his own business for millions in order to ensure his wife and children's safety. He then faces the demanding task of thwarting the kidnapper's grand scheme, which makes him look guilty of embezzlement.
| Harrison Ford | Jack Stanfield |
| Paul Bettany | Bill Cox |
| Virginia Madsen | Beth Stanfield |
| Mary Lynn Rajskub | Janet Stone |
| Robert Patrick | Gary Mitchell |
| Richard Loncraine |
5.80 out of 10 (11566 votes)
Visitor Reviews
A Forgettable Popcorn Flick
posted on 20 Aug 2009As 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.
Excellent action, but a little disappointing ending
posted on 18 Aug 2009Wife and I just watched this movie, and we found it for the most part to be an excellent action/thriller. Good acting all around. Nobody should be disappointed that they spent the time watching it. I can't recall a Harrison Ford film that I can say I was truly disappointed in and this one was no exception. This movie ranks up there with Bruce Willis's Live Free or Die Hard, another excellent film with computer hacking and such being the main theme. The fact that a several sub plots were not tidied up at the end was a tad disappointing-one more scene tying up loose ends back at the office would have finished it properly.
Predictable, boring.
posted on 18 Aug 2009Entirely 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...
Entertaining for a non-computer professionals
posted on 31 Jul 2009OK, now I have been really enthusiastic about this movie, however, at the end, it really turned to be another "hacker" movie that has nothing to do with computers.It starts OK, Harrison Ford being a professional Security Manager in a bank, another of his work days starts, an ignorable hacker attack in the morning as usual :)..and from here the trouble with the movie starts. Although actors did their best to keep the suspense till the end of the movie, well, for me the whole movie was ruined from the very beginning. Now, just see the facts and decide for yourselves! 1. Is it likely that the security manager, instead of the commercial manager, accepts a new "reliable" customer into his office? How comes that a big potential customer, is not being chased by the sales managers of the bank, but instead goes straight to the security manager's office? 2. How often hacker attacks occur in the morning, and the attack is being effected through a port, that is most commonly being exploited?!!? And why only the security manager knows about this vulnerability, but the personnel on duty does not? 3. The best and my favorite in the movie - what kind of tetchy freak will figure out during a single night how to use the scanning mechanism of a fax machine, connect it to an iPod in order to use the iPod as a hard drive, and stick it on a computer screen with duct tape in order to scan information that has passed along the screen faster than a blink of an eye? And all of this without a single test of the new "device"!!! Well I give 3 of 10 because of the efforts of Harrison Ford and the rest of the acting crew to make a "watchable" movie, out of a script that is a complete junk!
Terrible
posted on 21 Jul 2009I won't give it a 1, I actually watched it all, but this movie is shocking. For me, it's simply not enough to have some action and explosions for a movie to be worthwhile. I think it's been proved that you can have a movie that has action AND makes sense. This movie just seems to jump from place to place with no rhyme or reason. Can someone explain to me what the deal with the guy whose cell phone he had to borrow was? I know that's the cell that he used to send the info, but WHY?? Why did they take the dog? Why did he go to his friend/boss's apartment (they never really clarified for me who he was), other than to set up the plot device of him seeing this guy killed, so we know that he was going to get blamed for it... And if you can answer that why the hell did he have to go jumping across rooves to get there? If you like your movies to make sense, have a believable and followable plot line and to not treat you like an idiot, steer well clear of this schlock.
Very Enjoyable
posted on 15 Jul 2009On 2/23/06,I saw Firewall at the theater and the critics are dead wrong about it. A lot of people think that Harrison Ford is getting too old to be an action star,but I'm not one of those people.People also SPOILERS thought the ending wasn't good enough,and I'm not one of those people.When I first see a movie,I expect it to be really good and it usually is.I recommend that when you see this movie if you haven't already,you try to enjoy it. If you don't try to enjoy it then you'll be unsatisfied.No one and I mean no one wants to be unsatisfied.Now do they? Harrison Ford's character Jack Stanfield was a good hero and Paul Bettany's character Bill Cox was a good villain.
here's the skinny
posted on 11 Jul 2009in a nutshell: old man beats young hackers at their own game(s). finishes off the baddest bad dude without so much as a 357 mag. (we don't need no stinkin' 357 mags!) hooray for the old guy, showin up the young guys so he can be a heee-row to his lil 'ol family! :D i found myself laughing at some of the amazing hardware/software conglomerations that just couldn't possibly ever work in the real world . . . i was wondering if they intended that to be funny? and the constant rain scenes were straight out of "bladerunner" as well as the main evil bad guy. like, huh????? also enjoyed the mix of "clockwork orange" at work with the evil bad guy's crew. but probably the funniest scene was the final scene. little house on the prairie? whut???? all-in-all, an enjoyable pic, probably unintentionally comedic. other audience members were sniggering too. :-)
Please pull your shades down for better viewing
posted on 07 Jul 2009On the tiny, blotched screen in an airplane, I watched this wretchedly formulaic schlock only because the headset was free. Not that it is a poorly made film, but everything in the story line was so predictable I fell asleep twice before it ended. Therefore, I confess I saw only the beginning, the middle, and the end. On all the scenes, Harrison Ford looked grim. Has he ever made any film in which he did not look continually grim? Wait...I do remember seeing him for the first time in American Graffiti where he was actually smiling, albeit in a sinister way. And then there was the happy ending in 1977's Star Wars. Mea culpa. But has he shrunk over the years, or is it only that he plays in the present film with a group of inordinately tall cast members? Worth viewing only to fill time.
Standard Stuff
posted on 29 Jun 2009What I liked: typing at the start; just gotta hear the rhythm .... the 2-door 74 dodge dart with at least a 318 .... no gratuitous gore or personal violence (for the genre, that is) .... the reappearance of T2 in the flesh .... a real Unix prompt!What I disliked: Harrison's secretary was the only character with some personality .... Ford being ushered away from the crime scene by the police .... never cared about any of the characters .... unremarkable acting .... action that was more drama than logical .... felt like a pretty routine guns and schemes thriller.Hollywood has perfected the shot and sound combo; you hold your breath and grip something or someone right on cue.Bottom line: GPS your dog; technology can save you.
It's Not 1993 Anymore!
posted on 29 Jun 2009First, why do reviewers feel it necessary to share the plot of the movie? Are there that many frustrated writers out there? I don't come to IMDb to read about what the movie is about, especially on page 13! Stupid.Now to this terrible movie. If it was 1993 this would have passed, but it is not! This genre of film has an audience that has seen this movie play too many times. With Netflics and all the movie watching, studio heads, directors and producers have a lot to worry about. There was no reason to make this movie the way they did.I will now write the stuff I want to read about.The acting was poor. I didn't buy the wife and kids. The daughter was just terrible. Paul Bettany held his own, but that was about it. The music score was weak, and music is the unknown star of most movies. If you saw 'The Clearing' with Redford, then that is what you get here, a real disappointment. I know I have a weak movie when I rent it from the library and still feel ripped off.
Another 'Harrison Ford Saves the Day' Tale, but with a Fine Cast
posted on 27 Jun 2009The story behind FIREWALL is just another variation of the 'thrillers' that made Harrison Ford popular: that is not a put down because Ford created a 'character type' that has been highly successful in generating a lot of movies light of weight in script but heavyweight in excitement.FIREWALL updates Ford's persona (though his physical presence now strains credibility that he could have young kids involved) to that of a computer expert, the man employed by a major back whom everybody loves and who just happens to be a top flight security brain protecting the bank's assets. At a meeting with a potential investor (Paul Bettany) our hero is kind and casual only to be kidnapped by Bettany and taken to his home where his wife (Virginia Madsen) and children are being held ransom by Bettany's crew (including handsome Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau who costarred with Bettany in 'Wimbledon'). The aim: get Ford to gain access into the bank's assets and transfer the funds to Bettany's off shore account. How this all tediously works out is the movies plot.An odd factor here: there are numerous famous actors in bit parts (Alan Arkin, Robert Forster, Robert Patrick) that seem like PR padding. The script is flimsy, the plot wanders, the outcome is obvious, but Harrison Ford, Paul Bettany, Mary Lynn Rajskub, and Virginia Madsen prove that good actors can overcome weak material, even in formulaic films such as this. Grady Harp
Great Production
posted on 25 Jun 2009FIREWALL ****1/2 Harrison Ford and Paul Bettany are in top form in this 'Air Force One'-type film; it's constantly entertaining, engaging, and suspenseful. It's a story of criminals planning a bank robbery with a twist: they're using a man on the inside to get the job done. When a wealthy bank worker (Ford) is infiltrated by the group of money exploiters (led by Bettany) at his home, Ford, in order to keep his family from harm, begins to orchestrate how they can steal money from the highly monitored, secure bank vault. Every step of Ford's hacking into the vault is intense and intriguing, because he makes every counteraction he can think of to get his family out of the house - out of danger - and to fumble the enemy's plans at the same time. A couple wrong turns in Joe Forte's script doesn't dramatically effect the production's whole. Excellent direction by Richard Loncraine.
suspenseful,thrilling(if unoriginal)action film
posted on 13 Jun 2009firewall stars Harrison Ford as a bank security specialist,who is forced into breaking into the system he has designed by a vicious criminal played by Paul Bettany.jack Stanfield(Ford) must steal millions of dollars from several bank accounts or his family will be killed.Bettany plays Bill Cox,the ringleader.Viginia Madsen plays Beth Stanfield.As far as this type of movie goes,this one is okay.it is suspenseful and thrilling,but aside from the basic premise,nothing new. Virginia Madsen is a standout in her performance as the wife who is terrified but must keep it together for the sake of her children.Ford is his usual reliable self,but it seems he is simply playing the same character he usually plays.he is also getting up there in age,so it might be time to retire the action hero persona,and try something more character driven.Paul Bettany is outstanding as the antagonist.he personifies evil.this is a departure for him,but he may have a career playing the baddie.His performance elevates this film. i give this film 7/10
Avoid this wall of fire
posted on 13 Jun 2009Sorry to say, this has to be one of the worst films I have EVER seen in my 60 years of movie watching. To witness one of my favorite actors flailing, huffing and puffing and did I also say blubbering. Oh to return to those days when he was fighting the bad guys in Star Wars, and he was shooting the man who dared to use his whip against his gun in Indiana Jones. Yes, those were the days. I think today he's only in it for the money. The past few years Mr. Ford has just been going through the motions. I really don't have too much else to say about this so called action-drama, but I was doing more laughing than anything else after the first half. Well, I am told I have a few more lines to enter before this comment will be OK'd by the powers that be. Great, I have over 10 lines. Now all I can say in four words is......don't waste your time.
Is there some secret conspiracy by movie critics to keep us from viewing decent movies like "Firewall"?
posted on 11 Jun 2009I 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.
Can't find a reference to the original in any of the reviews...
posted on 11 Jun 2009Interestingly enough, the director of Firewall (Richard Loncraine) made a very similar movie with a different cast way back in 1987. Bellman and True, starring Bernard Hill in the Harrison Ford role (can't you imagine him as a middle-aged computer geek?), and a lot of good English characters as the bad guys.Hill's step-son, referred to as "The Boy" all the way through the film, is an important, integral, mouthy character, as opposed to being a weepy, frightened little hostage. What violence there is in this movie is minimal but shocking. No surprise that the computer geek is a pretty timid, easily cowed guy, generally not the most physical of people.The bad guy characters are WAY more interesting, and certainly just as menacing. It's also a fascinating look into the mind of the working British gangster in the late 80s.You can find the VHS for sale (as a bargain-basement sale on Half.com), but this has never made it to DVD. Hopefully, Handmade Films will eventually give this wonderful movie the format it deserves.
Firewall your expectations first!
posted on 09 Jun 2009Lousy script packed in high quality and expensive Hollywood production results in this thriller only good to spend a rainy evening with a good stock of trashy snacks.What seems to be at the beginning a high-tech commando of hardcore professional criminals able to set up a bank information security chief, rapidly and with no sense at all, deteriorate in a pack of amateur weak jerks.The rest is a set of incongruences of this sort. Easy situations are hard to resolve when the impossible ones are resolved in a snap. That's how the sophisticated criminals turn dumb, and the dumb character portrayed by Ford (Jack Stanfield) becomes an action hero. Even though Ford manages to keep Jack looking dumb, since it seems that for the old Harrison this is the only mood he can pull out.The only performance to mention is that of Mary Lynn Rajskub portraying Janet Stone, Jack's secretary. She actually reenacts her character in the TV series 24 (Cloe) and even her boss has the same name as it does in the series. But whatever, at least she reminds you of better things to watch.
Good, but plot too contrived
posted on 30 May 2009Firewall was a fairly good movie. It seems as though the production team did their homework and put some time and effort into the story so there would be no holes. This was a cohesive chess match type of a suspense. The bad guys always had to stay one step ahead of Jack Stanfield (Harrison Ford) while Jack desperately searched for an avenue out for he and his kidnapped family. It was evident by the title that technology would play a big role in this film, and that it did. Again, the production team did well to make the technology use realistic and relevant to the plot. The only detractor though is that the plot seemed forced and contrived. The aim of the antagonists seemed outlandish from the start. It was almost like: they developed this entire movie to show the pluses and minuses of technology without first having a suitable plot to put it all to use. So, whereas the movie was suspenseful, the plot took away from deeming this movie very good.
What? not another British bad guy
posted on 28 May 2009As far a thrillers go, this was a good one, but couldn't wait to hear the accent of the bad guy and quite frankly I wasn't surprised to find that he was British, well what a surprise Hollywood you never fail to puke up the usual "all the good guys are American and all the bad guys are British" is it any wonder the people of America are so brainwashed and have no real inkling of world affairs. strange isn't it that the good guys or Hollywood "hero" come from the land of the free and the land of the brave which also has one of if not the biggest murder rate in the world and the "bad guy" the Brit comes from a country with a very low murder rate....... food for thought hey? isn't it time Hollywood forgave the British for once enslaving its nation? which when you come to think of it is one of Americas closest allies. or is it a case of American foreign policy is so screwed up at the moment that it is easier to stick to the usual nonsense and not use a french or German bad guy, but then most Americans think France and Germany is in Africa?
Competent but empty (and empty-headed) production
posted on 24 Aug 2009Harrison Ford is either slipping, or he just really wanted to work with the guy who directed that thumbs-up production of "Richard III" a number of years ago. "Firewall," which I caught on dollar night at a local second-run theater, is proof enough that Ford isn't picking projects that stretch his acting chops or the imaginations of his popcorn-munching audiences.Though noticeably darkly lit, the cinematography is quite good, as are the editing and most other technical aspects of the film. It's the script that's the let-down; you've seen absolutely everything before, in one like-minded film or another, several of them starring Harrison Ford. The plot is unsurprising and mundane: bank VP and computer security expert, Jack Stanfield, is blackmailed into hacking shekels from his own bank by Bill Cox, a homicidal suit--aptly played by the always capable Paul Bettany--out to steal 100mil in digital benjamins. The corporate takeover that makes Cox's scheme feasible in the first place ultimately bollixes the works, while Jack labors to take advantage of Bill's setbacks accordingly. All ends happily and predictably, with Jack and his family safely reunited, intact, with the villains suitably hoist by their own petards.Don't misunderstand; this isn't a *bad* film. Sure, Ford plays a commendably resilient sixty-something-year-old who does a lot of his own stunt work. I got my dollar's worth in time killing. But that's it. I won't be looking for it for the DVD collection, not this disappointingly ordinary thriller with a resolution that depends on the family pooch being dragged along as a hostage. How hard is it for bad guys to shoot a dog?