Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Scotty Burke It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

slightlymad22 Continuing my plan to watch every Clint Eastwood movie in order, I come to Firefox (1982)Plot In A Paragraph: A former army pilot (Eastwood) is sent into the Soviet Union on a mission to steal a prototype jet fighter that can be partially controlled by a neuralinkThis is, is a total snooze fest for me. I'm sure it may have its fans here, but it does nothing for me. I enjoy slow burning espionage thrillers, and I love Clint Eastwood, so it's some surprise that I don't enjoy this one. It's just so dull and dreary. I remember my Dad rented this and Blue Thunder (Roy Schieder) on video on the same day, when I was younger and his response was "What a waste of money that was!! They were both shi*t!!"The less said about Clint's characters post traumatic stress syndrome the better!! The CIA man who recruits him explains that the government isn't much worried, because you don't have the syndrome while you're in combat, you see, but only afterwards.Firefox grossed $46 million at the domestic box office to end the year as the 15th highest grossing movie of 1982.

Matthew_Capitano Clunk Eastwad was never an actor and his drab appearance in this stained toilet paper is further proof of that fact.The Government needs help in foiling some Bad Guys, so of course NO ONE ELSE is capable of carrying out a covert mission which involves flying a Russian jet than an old retired pilot jogging out in the sticks. Enter Eastwad.After a small eternity of eternally mundane events such as Eastwad trying to shake foreign spies by walking down corridors, hanging around in a train station toilet, and then walking and hanging around some more, we finally get to see the plane. Gee, I wonder if Clunk will be able to successfully fly it to the free world? Totally unexciting and dramatically anemic. Miss this flight on purpose.

janus-20 I really like this film, its a diverting, high tech, cold war thriller, which entertainingly subverts many of the tropes of spy and espionage movies of the time.It reasonably translates its source material intact to the screen, that being Craig Thomas's novel of the same name and manages to juggle the sci-fi / thriller genres, whilst allowing Clint to add a new facet to his tough guy persona. Being a long time Clint fan, its significant to me, as its his first movie i saw at the cinema, also as it was the first AA certificate film i manage to obtain admittance to here in the UK. Clint plays Mitchell Gant, a former USAF Major who is "encouraged" by the CIA to undertake a mission into cold war era Russia to steal one of the new fighter plane prototypes the Soviets have developed. The plane in question is the MiG-31, a hypersonic aircraft with revolutionary new stealth and combat capabilities. Handicapped by post traumatic stress disorder and a lack of intelligence mission experience, Gant must successfully steal the aircraft, failure would mean a dangerous shift in the balance of World power to the USSR.Can Gant pull off this daring heist? Well i'd be shocked if there's anyone reading this who doesn't know the answer by now, but thats the charm of this movie, its re-watch value, i feel, is significant and it makes a great "beer and pizza" night in movie.There are elements that date it, foremost the long gone cold war setting, some people may cite the miniature based special effects. These are primarily in the last third of the movie, some may claim they look a little dated in our whizzo CGI age, but i call foul on that. The effects have nice weight and heft to them that CGI still cant muster and the dramatic effects of Firefox's hypersonic footprint, make anything in modern movies look positively arthritic, well I think so anyway.The cast are all getting stuck into their roles, particularly Warren Clarke (who passed away recently and prompted me to write this today) who plays a disgruntled Russian dissident and underground operative.Firefox is a film that didn't perform financially as well as it may at the time of its release, but 1982 was a year over shadowed by ET and most things that year followed on that movies coat tails.Its a nice little thriller, out of a time where you knew where the bad guys were and could generally see them coming and its nice to immerse yourself in the nostalgia of that from time to time. There was a follow up novel written by Thomas, Firefox Down, which is a thumping good read, it never followed its precursor to the screen and would now seem a little out of its time if it did, thats a shame. I recommend Firefox, as a great thriller, sci-fi, espionage, action movie, if you can imagine such a thing and if you cant, then just think in Russian!

AaronCapenBanner Clint Eastwood plays Vietnam veteran Mitchel Grant, an expert pilot recruited for a top secret mission: to steal an experimental Soviet jet, that can evade radar, from the Soviet Union, and fly it back to American waters. The mission has many risks, though many allies in the Soviet Union help Grant, even at risk to their own lives.Though the film has many exciting aerial chase and dogfight scenes, and an interesting idea, it goes on too long, and only comes to life near the climax. Not to mention, the premise is highly unlikely in the first place, as it seems stupid to steal the plane, and not be worried about the consequences? At the very least, this would cause a huge international incident, possibly a war. Wouldn't American and British forces be better served by building their own Firefox, rather than undertaking such a risky mission? This problem is glossed over, harming its credibility, though it isn't bad really, but it does fall short.