IMDb > Firewall (2006) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Firewall
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Firewall More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 3 of 31: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 303 reviews in total 

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

The Firewall has been breached!

3/10
Author: Installation_At_Orsk from United Kingdom
24 July 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Pretty much the only reason I watched this was for Mary Lynn Rajskub (so entertaining as the grouchy Chloe in '24'), and here she played... well, Chloe from '24', only not quite as rude.

Apart from that, Firewall has really nothing to commend it. The villains' plot has so many potential points of failure that they would have been more likely to succeed by pulling stocking masks over their faces, donning black-and-white hooped jumpers and running into the bank carrying a sack marked 'SWAG'. And the villains themselves are a weak and stupid bunch - Bettany's character has Ford's family at his mercy, and to teach him a lesson for going against his wishes he kills... one of his OWN men!?! Hans Gruber he is not.

Great character actors like Robert Patrick and Robert Forster are wasted in one-note background roles, and there is literally nothing here which hasn't been done before - and better - in other thrillers. Actually, I take that back - I don't think any other film has ever been quite so stupid as to have the entire climax rest on a yipping dog wearing a GPS collar which can be tracked on the move using the world's largest and most reliable wi-fi hotspot!

"I'm going to find my dog" is not a catchphrase on a par with "Snakes... Why did it have to be snakes?" or "Get off my plane!" Sorry, Harrison, your days as an action hero are over.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Firewall your expectations first!

5/10
Author: Rebel Philos from Uruguay
21 June 2006

Lousy 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Bad (Spoilers)

Author: Bneidl from U.S.A.
27 January 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There were many plot holes in this film, and so much of the character behavior made no sense. For instance, see if you can make better decisions in the following circumstances than the film's characters did:

1. If a pyschopath has your family hostage, and he forces you to fire your loyal secretary or he'll hurt one of your kids, do you say to the secretary:

(a) "I'll explain later, I have no choice, but for now you're fired"; or (b) "I'm sorry, but the company is cutting back and they're making me fire you"; or (c) "GET YOUR SH#T AND GET OUT OF HERE!"

2. Later, when you try to reconcile with said secretary to enlist her help in rescuing your family, do you:

(a) Say, "That guy in the office before was a psycho who forced me to fire you"; or (b)"Trust me, I fired you before because I had no choice, I need your help"; or (c) Burst into her apartnment and wrestle her to the ground with your hand cupped over her mouth.

3. While your family is held hostage, they send you to work with a small pen camera in your shirt pocket, so that they will be able to listen in on any conversations you have. But you want to secretly alert someone, anyone, in your office about your dilemma. Do you: (a)Scribble a note on a piece of paper (out of camera view) that says, "Help, my family is being held hostage and I'm wired, call the police" and pass it to a co-worker and walk away; (b) Pin the camera pen to your chair, facing your computer screen, so that the bad guys think you are just sitting there -- go tell a co-worker what is happening; or (c)Try to type a "HELP" email with one hand, off-camera, on a compter that the bad guys have probably hacked and are monitoring.

4. You and a group of thugs have invaded a home and taken a family hostage. The phone rings. You and your co-horts watch the family's young son approach the phone to answer it. Do you: (a) Say, "Hey, kid, don't answer that phone."; or (b) Walk over to the phone and block the kid from answering it; or (c) Look at each other dimly, LET THE KID ANSWER THE PHONE without telling him not to, and then pounce on the kid and point a gun to his head, whispering that he had better hang up.

The characters in Firewall answerd "C" to all four questions, so if you answered differently, you probably could have written a better movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

What a waste of time

1/10
Author: gailhyer from United States
13 January 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

What studio exec(s) greenlighted this POS? When the boy wants to take the dog's collar off and the mom says, no, he needs it -- my BS meter went off the chart! The dog has a GPS collar? How is this relevant? Then the merciless terrorists take the friggin' dog WITH them on their escape and, instead of shooting the dog when it's barking, RELEASE it 1000 yards from their hideaway, within sight of where they are staying!!!! So Harrison Ford can track his family and rescue them?!?!? Give me a flippin' break! And then the climactic fight scene -- men throwing each other out of windows, not unlike bad John Wayne movies of the 30s? With the same bogus sound effects?? It's laughable! And in the end, HF's family are miraculously no longer manacled and they all walk away free and clear? I hate to be the bearer of sad tidings, but HF is going to prison after what he's done! By the way: sorry, but HF is WAY past being a big, macho hero. He's shrinking and his neck is collapsing into his torso, which is natural part of aging, but it precludes his participation in macho hero roles. He needs to age gracefully and begin accepting Granddad roles! I mean it! Or at least character roles that don't involve having kids under 10 years of age! I wouldn't be so cranky about HF's physical liablities if it weren't for this fact: I only watched this movie because I believed HF still had some credibility -- well, it's shot now! This was a total waste of and hour and three quarters.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Hi Tech = Bad Technical Advisors

Author: lanewooten from United States
12 June 2006

This is a spoiler - I would like to comment on the technical aspects of the movie - Firewall. I work on routers and networks for a living. At the beginning of the movie when Jack is "saving the day" from the brute force hacker by typing in a couple of parameters, the screen is showing a standard Cisco Router interface with an access list that denies a private address and then permits any and all access. His "rule" that he creates only says "rule activated", after the permit deny entry without anything else being typed - pretty lame. I don't know where the technical adviser gets his mumbo-jumbo about a "Black Hole" ISM that will slow the hacker down and block "false positives". I was saying, "yeah right, whatever". Also they needed to get somebody that knew how to type when they showed Jack's hands on the keyboard. Any VP of Networking that writes security software and programs routers isn't going to be hunting and pecking like Harrison Ford.

The most laughable technical aspect of the movie is where Jack takes a fax machine scanner head and plugs it straight into an Ipod. First, there is no way the scanner head would interface into an Ipod communication port and function, especially using the original electrical connector attached to the scanner. I think Jack tells Cox when he is "designing" this MacGyver invention that "Files are files, the Ipod won't know the difference". Taping the scanner head to the computer screen to capture the screen information is a joke and wouldn't work. Even if the scanner head was hooked up to the fax electronics, anything captured would be unreadable.

Aside from the ridiculous technical lameness of this movie I was aghast that after Jack thinks his wife is leaving him for his best friend he and his wife are still "in love" and go running up to hug and kiss each other at the end of the movie. I would have saved the children but gave the wife "The Boot". Also the dog's GPS collar would have been obvious to the crooks, especially since they had a Techie "Guru" with them. The dog would have been fertilizer before they even left the house. Any dog that barks incessantly for no reason would have been shot by the crooks. I have to say this was the worst Harrison Ford movie I have ever seen and I hope the producers weren't stupid enough to pay him the twenty million I heard he was getting per movie. I give this movie about a two, only because of Jack's milfy wife and hot secretary.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Pretty Average but entertaining nonetheless

6/10
Author: jpwhite3 from United States
12 March 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Plenty of action in this movie to keep you awake, but one doesn't leave the theater with any special feeling like a good movie leaves you with. Hardly thought provoking. It's difficult to 'attach' yourself to any of the characters (well except maybe for the dog). Why the movie is entitled 'Firewall' is mystery to me.

Harrison Ford heads up the 'perfect family'. Successful businessman and husband, good looking wife, son, daughter and a dog. Ford's secretary is one of the main characters from the TV show 24, you know the girl that always looks like she is in pain (and probably is).

There are some problems with the storyline. How for instance did Ford reverse 10,000 thefts of $10,000 from the banks top 10,000 customers with just 4 hand typed commands? The original theft was for 100Million, but apparently only 80 million was stolen and subsequently returned. Why did the cops usher the 'getaway car' away when responding to a bank robbery at the airport, especially since Ford ran to it looking stressed? Not very believable.

My wife liked the movie, so for non techies the inevitable errors are apparently of no consequence. I did like the portrayal of Ford as a very competent technical manager who had his wings clipped as a consequence of an unfriendly merger, very believable, I felt his pain.

None of the good guys got hurt too bad while all the baddies got what was coming to them. The dog was rescued like you'd expect with any 'good movie', all together now.... ahhhhhh.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Ain't worth watching

4/10
Author: Oleg Astakhov from Latvia, Riga
11 March 2006

Oh gee, I really hoped this would be one of the movies I like, you know, there are certain types of movies you just like, for example, I like movies about bank robberies, casino robberies, where there are team efforts and careful planning, movie such as AirCon I like too, and simply well done movie without any obvious goofs, or just clumsy scenes. You know, after watching this movie, it feels like Harisson Ford is the only one who actually acted, unlike for example his wife (in a movie that is). The movie was simply unnatural, there were no seriousness, bad actors, I somewhat tried to compare this one with the Die-Hard, but this one is just incomparable, nowhere near as good as Die-Hard is. I'm very disappointed, I barely watched it till the end. Just don't waste your time, please :) Cheers, Oleg

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

a waste of time

7/10
Author: rbigalke-1 from United States
5 March 2006

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

meh.

Author: simons-27 from Long Beach, CA
4 March 2006

This movie was very underwhelming for me. Harrison Ford was great, as he always is, but after seeing this, it made me wonder why he'd agree to do this film.

First of all, the one thing that irritated me that I absolutely could not shake was the fact that this movie had, quite possibly, the wimpiest badguys I have ever seen in any movie, ever. Not even one of them was remotely menacing. Paul Bettany looks like a kindly Conan O'Brien-lookalike - and what was with that skinny little guy with the black plastic emo glasses? He looked like he was more likely to be playing guitar at a Starbucks than holding a family hostage. I'm sorry, but I like my badguys menacing, and this movie flopped miserably in that respect.

Second of all, the daughter had like, one line the entire movie. I know that teenage girls are usually pretty boring (Lisa Simpsons, Meg Griffin, etc.) and that this fact is often made light of, but come on.

This wasn't really a horrible movie, overall, but I can't help thinking that if it were anyone but Ford in the lead, it might have been.

** (two stars out of four)

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

A Forgettable, Predictable and Full of Inconsistencies Thriller

5/10
Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
25 June 2006

Jack Stanfield (Harrison Ford) is an executive responsible for the security of the computer system of a small bank. He is very connected to his family, composed of the architect Beth (Virginia Madsen), a teenager daughter and a young son. When the gang leaded by the criminal Bill Cox (Paul Bettany) invades his house, they force Jack to transfer a hundred million dollars to a bank account in Cayman Islands as ransom for his family. When Bill does not release his family, Jack tries to save them by his own.

"Firewall" is an average thriller, with a screenplay full of inconsistencies mostly due to commercial reasons. The first one, of course, is the name of Harrison Ford, too old for the lead role of Jack Stanfield. He could be the grandfather of Andy, and unfortunately he is awful in the action and dramatic scenes. Paul Bettany is excellent, as usual, but his mean and cold character is restrained and could be more evil, for example breaking the legs of the boy, as promised to Jack, or killing Jack's family in the end. But this is a Hollywood movie, it must be a pleasant and profitable entertainment, therefore the conclusion is always predictable, with the good guy killing the bad guy and saving his family. When Jack leaves the bank after hitting Gary Mitchell, he goes home and the police never arrives there. When Jack transfers the funds from the Bill's account, the bank clerk calls the police, but nothing happens later. There are so many "holes" in this forgettable story that it is impossible to like it. Harrison Ford must retire from action movies, or at least select better screenplays more suitable for his age. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Firewall"

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 3 of 31: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history