I like Harrison Ford. He was fun to watch as Indiana Jones and Han Solo. Even his Jack Ryan films were, for the most part, watchable. (They were certainly easier to sit through than that piece of nonsense starring Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan, that's for sure.) But as Ford ages, he really should work on playing more character roles. He's played Jack Stanfield-like roles so many times that there is nothing more or new he can bring to his performances.<br /><br />He's also not the most diversely-ranged actor. He pretty much runs the gamut of emotions from highly enraged to enraged when he plays these roles, be they in "Frantic" (1998), "Patriot Games" (1992) or "Air Force One" (1997), all of which I enjoyed far more than "Firewall." Once again, Ford plays someone who has to rescue his family from danger and get the bad guys at the same time. Even ignoring the one gigantic plot hole in this film - Bill Cox (Paul Bettany) meticulously plans his dastardly deed after seemingly months of research, but then is ignorant of one incredibly crucial point - the film sputters along without much energy.<br /><br />There certainly are very few thrills in this thriller. And for a thriller that is meant to be taut, this one's awfully loose and riddled with coincidences, no more so than in the climax. The manner in which Stanfield finds the bad guys is truly laughable.<br /><br />Virginia Madsen got a well-deserved boost from "Sideways" (2004). And if her filmography is any indication, it seems she has attached herself to some interesting films. However, as brilliant as she was in "Sideways," she thoroughly wasted in "Firewall," serving merely as a decoration for Ford. Substitute Anne Archer from the Jack Ryan films or Wendy Crewson from "Air Force One" and you'll know what I mean.<br /><br />The infuriating thing about watching "Firewall" is knowing that, considering the cast, its above-the-line costs alone were in the millions of dollars. Throw production and publicity costs in and you're talking a good fortune.<br /><br />Now, just imagine how many wonderful $3-million-to-$5-million, or less, pictures could have been made instead of this rubbish.