Related Movies:

Fire with Fire (2012), directed by David Barrett, is a fast-paced action thriller that delivers relentless chases, explosive confrontations, and a classic tale of personal vengeance. Starring Josh Duhamel as a firefighter turned witness in peril, Rosario Dawson as his determined ally, and Bruce Willis in a supporting role, the film dives into a crime-ridden world where survival hinges on defying a ruthless gang leader. While its high-energy action and solid performances keep viewers engaged, Fire with Fire struggles with a predictable plot and underdeveloped characters, making it a thrilling but unremarkable entry in the genre. This review explores why the film is a solid pick for action fans, despite its flaws.

Plot Summary: A Firefighter’s Fight for Survival

Fire with Fire centers on Jeremy Coleman (Josh Duhamel), a Long Beach firefighter who witnesses a brutal double murder by Aryan Brotherhood leader David Hagan (Vincent D’Onofrio) during a convenience store robbery. After identifying Hagan, Jeremy enters witness protection under U.S. Marshal Mike Cella (Bruce Willis), but his new life unravels when Hagan’s gang targets him and his girlfriend, Talia Durham (Rosario Dawson), a deputy U.S. Marshal. As the body count rises, Jeremy abandons the system, taking matters into his own hands in a high-stakes battle against Hagan’s criminal empire.

The screenplay by Tom O’Connor draws from real-world witness protection tensions, crafting a narrative that pits survival against vengeance. While the premise offers potential for emotional depth, the story leans heavily on action tropes—car chases, shootouts, and a climactic showdown—leaving little room for character development or nuance. The film’s 97-minute runtime keeps the pace brisk, but its reliance on predictable twists and a formulaic resolution limits its impact.

Cinematography and Atmosphere: Gritty and Explosive

David Barrett, a seasoned stunt coordinator making his directorial debut, brings a dynamic visual style to Fire with Fire. Cinematographer Christopher Probst captures the gritty streets of Long Beach and New Orleans (standing in for California) with a vivid, high-energy aesthetic. Fast-paced chase sequences, fiery explosions, and intense shootouts are sH๏τ with kinetic flair, immersing viewers in Jeremy’s desperate flight. The film’s standout set pieces, including a blazing warehouse showdown, leverage authentic stunts to amplify the realism, a nod to Barrett’s stunt background.

The score by Trevor Morris pulses with adrenaline, complementing the action without overpowering the drama. However, some scenes suffer from overly dark lighting or frenetic editing, which can make the action hard to follow, a common critique in reviews. Despite these hiccups, the film’s visual energy and gritty atmosphere effectively convey the chaos of Jeremy’s world, making it a feast for action enthusiasts.

Performances: Duhamel and Dawson Shine, Willis Underused

Josh Duhamel delivers a solid performance as Jeremy, blending earnest grit with vulnerability. His transition from everyday hero to reluctant vigilante is believable, though the script’s thin characterization limits his emotional range. Duhamel’s physicality shines in action scenes, making him a convincing lead, even if he lacks the gravitas of genre heavyweights like Liam Neeson.

Rosario Dawson is a standout as Talia, bringing fierce determination and quiet strength to a role that could have been one-dimensional. Her chemistry with Duhamel grounds the film’s romantic subplot, adding a spark of humanity amidst the chaos. However, her character’s underdeveloped backstory, a common complaint in reviews, leaves her arc feeling incomplete.

Bruce Willis, as Mike Cella, is underutilized, appearing in a handful of scenes with his trademark stoicism but little depth. Vincent D’Onofrio, as the sadistic Hagan, steals scenes with his chilling intensity, though his character leans into cartoonish villainy at times. Supporting players like Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson, Vinnie Jones, and Julian McMahon add menace but are sidelined by the script’s focus on action over character. The ensemble’s talent elevates the material, but the lack of depth holds them back.

Themes and Tone: Vengeance Versus Justice

Fire with Fire explores themes of justice, survival, and the personal cost of defying a corrupt system. Jeremy’s journey reflects real-world witness protection challenges, as noted in discussions of similar films like The Hitman’s Bodyguard. The film questions whether vengeance can coexist with morality, though it rarely digs deeper than surface-level drama. The tone is relentlessly intense, with bursts of violence punctuated by brief moments of tenderness between Jeremy and Talia.

The film’s gritty, action-driven approach evokes Death Wish or Taken, but its lack of originality prevents it from matching their emotional weight. Critics note that the narrative’s focus on spectacle over substance makes it feel like a B-movie, despite its A-list cast. Still, the visceral stakes and fast pacing keep it engaging for genre fans.

Pacing and Execution: All Action, Little Depth

With a тιԍнт 97-minute runtime, Fire with Fire maintains a breakneck pace, jumping from one high-stakes sequence to the next. The first act sets up Jeremy’s predicament effectively, while the second builds tension through relentless pursuits. However, the final act’s shift to full-on vigilante mode feels rushed, with plot holes—like Hagan’s uncanny ability to track Jeremy—undermining credibility. Barrett’s direction prioritizes action over character, delivering thrilling set pieces but neglecting the emotional depth that could have elevated the story.

Technical flaws, such as inconsistent editing and implausible action beats, draw criticism, as seen in reviews calling the film “competent but forgettable.” Despite these issues, the relentless energy keeps viewers hooked, making it a satisfying, if disposable, thrill ride.

Reception: A Divisive Action Flick

Fire with Fire holds a 6% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes (based on 18 reviews) and a 5.6/10 on IMDb, reflecting lukewarm critical and audience reception. Critics like Roger Ebert’s site dismissed it as a “generic actioner” with a predictable plot, though some praised Duhamel and Dawson’s chemistry. The X post’s 7.9/10 rating aligns with fans who enjoy its high-octane thrills, but the broader consensus sees it as a formulaic B-movie. Its direct-to-video release in many markets underscores its niche appeal.

Where to Watch Fire with Fire (2012)

As of May 2025, Fire with Fire is available on streaming platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Tubi (check regional availability). It can also be rented or purchased on YouTube, Apple TV, and Fandango at Home.

Final Verdict: A Thrilling but Forgettable Ride

Fire with Fire (2012) is a pulse-pounding action thriller that delivers on chases, shootouts, and gritty stakes, anchored by strong performances from Josh Duhamel and Rosario Dawson. However, its predictable plot, underdeveloped characters, and reliance on genre clichés keep it from greatness. Fans of Taken or Man on Fire will enjoy its relentless energy, but those seeking depth may find it lacking.

Rating: 6.3/10
Perfect for: Fans of action thrillers, Josh Duhamel, or Bruce Willis completists.
Skip if: You want complex characters or a fresh take on the genre.

Stream Fire with Fire for a fiery, action-packed escape that burns bright but fades fast.

Keywords: Fire with Fire 2012, Josh Duhamel, Rosario Dawson, Bruce Willis, Vincent D’Onofrio, action thriller, witness protection, movie review 2025, David Barrett, crime drama.

A Farmer’s Misplaced Hammer Led to the Largest Roman Treasure in Britain

---

November 16, 1992 was the day which changed Suffolk-resident Eric Lawes’ life in a huge way. What he thought would have been an innocent search for a hammer he had misplaced on his farm in Hoxne Village, Suffolk, England ended up bringing him much more than he had bargained for — namely, uncovering the hiding spot of a long-hidden treasure. Based on the Guardian’s coverage of the story, Eric Lawes had been previously gifted a metal detector upon his retirement as a parting token. He decided to put his retirement gift to good use in order to locate the hammer which he had had some trouble finding. According to a 2018 Smithsonian Magazine article, when the device started recording that there was a strong signal coming from the earth, he knew that he was about to discover something big. As he started digging, it soon became clear to him that he had unearthed a treasure trove.

The Guardian reports that, when Lawes saw that his preliminary digging had yielded a few gold coins and silver spoons, he immediately contacted both the local archaeological society and the police department. Archaeologists came to the property the following day and had the area of earth holding the treasure carefully sectioned-off and removed. Their hope was that at a later stage, in their laboratory, they could examined the items in order to identify both their age and how they were stored.

When all was said and done, close to 60 pounds of items made from silver and gold were found on the site. These included more than 15,000 Roman coins, 200 gold objects, and several silver spoons. For archaeologists, this find — which later became labeled as the Hoxne Hoard — was an incredible discovery. AP News reported that archaeologist Judith Plouviez was over-the-moon about the discovery, saying that it was “an incredibly exciting and amazing find.” What’s more, another archaeologist, Rachel Wilkinson, told Smithsonian Magazine that this discovery was “the largest and latest ever found in Britain.”

Ordinarily, archaeologists would use radiocarbon dating as a means of identifying the age of ancient relics. However, they couldn’t locate any suitable material from the haul. Consequently, they determined the age by examining writing on the coins, as well as the ruler carved into them, estimating that the treasure was probably buried in either 408 or 409 AD.

Roman-era archaeologist Peter Guest told Smithsonian Magazine that “if you look at them a little more carefully, then they should be dated to the period after the separation of Britain from the Roman Empire.” He offers as part of his evidence the fact that almost all of the coins found in the Hoxne Hoard were clipped – in other words, small chunks of their edges had been taken off. These clippings would have been used to create coins which were similar to the Roman coins of that era.

Guest has a logical reason for this, arguing that “The Roman Empire wasn’t supplying Britain with new gold and silver coins, and in light of that, the population tried to get over this sudden cutoff in the supply of their precious metals by making the existing supplies go further.”

Archaeologists also believe that the treasure belonged to a Romano-British family. During that time, considering that there was so much societal discord and upheaval, it was common for Romans who had settled in Britain to bury their most prized possessions.

That said, one archaeologist is of the belief that the hoard had a lot of sentimental value for the Romano-British family to whom it is believed to have belonged. In her book The Hoxne Late Roman Treasure: Gold Jewellery and Silver Plate, Catherine Johns claims that the manner in which the treasure was kept supported this claim. Some of the items which were recovered had been packaged in small, wooden boxes which were lined with leather. What’s more, pieces of wood, locks, and nails, among other things, surrounded the gold and silver pieces. This leads Catherine to assert that the package was carefully buried and not simply chucked away in a rush.

Interestingly enough, the items unearthed might shed some light on the identity of the family who owned them. They cite a gold bracelet bearing the inscription “UTERE FELIX DOMINA IULIANE,” which roughly translates to “use this happily Lady Juliane”. A second name “Aurelius Ursicinus” has also been discovered. This has consequently led some to believe that Juliane and Aurelius were the couple and the original owners of the treasure. That said, that has yet to be confirmed.

All in all, the discovery was a real treasure for archaeologists, and by extension, for Lawes. According to Smithsonian Magazine, in recognition of his discovery and willingness to contact authorities, the British government rewarded him with over £1.7 million, an amount which he shared with the farmer whose land was dug out in order to get the treasure. Funnily enough, apart from the treasure, Lawes also found his lost hammer — which now resides in the British Museum.