Chase_Witherspoon Not the lemon it's often branded, "City on Fire" is an entertaining Canadian disaster movie with a capable cast, some good sets and special effects, and better than average dialogue. Two separate fires converge to create an inferno of biblical proportions, with various notables becoming victims. The plot focuses on a disgruntled oil refinery employee (Welsh) who triggers one of the blazes, while in another part of the city, pre-pubescent kids discover that cigarettes really do kill. Local surgeon's (dependable Barry Newman) disenchantment with bureaucracy, goes on temporary hiatus as he tries to save his hospital, that lies in the path of destruction. His valiant efforts hampered by the mayor's (Nielsen) ill advised attempts to achieve martyrdom, spurred on by the lure of the polls.Sad Ava Gardner plays an alcoholic has-been news anchor, a timely reflection of her status as a faded Hollywood star at the time, while James Franciscus is wasted in a frivolous supporting role as her line producer. Many recognisable local faces fill out the peripheral roles (Donat, Linder, James), and heavyweights Winters and Fonda provide nice human touches to their dedicated civil servant types. Overall, there's plenty of coverage and a nice symmetry between the righteous and the wrongdoers. Unlike "Towering Inferno" the varnish has been stripped by the flames, and there's no holding back on special effects - as such, expect to see a few gory burns victims.Not overlong, perhaps not unrealistic (so the tag-line warns anyway), and certainly not as clichéd as most disaster movies, "City on Fire" is an involving film with some impressive credentials and doesn't warrant the unfavourable response it often garners. It's not as sophisticated or indeed convoluted as "Backdraft", but is perhaps an improvement on the Irwin Allen production line that had a mortgage on this genre throughout the 70's. So give this so-called lemon a try and I think you'll find the juice is worth the squeeze.

LAKERS34 Wow...this film isn't worth the $3.00 someone said they paid for it on DVD... What little story there was made no sense; the depicted behavior of the fire and the use of firefighting equipment were a joke; totally inaccurate, and the large ensemble cast literally ran in circles around and through this disaster of a film...A bigger question than how this film was ever made in the first place would be HOW DID THEY GET THE ALL-STAR CAST TO APPEAR IN THIS DEBACLE? Did they owe the producer a big time favor? Were all their agents away that weekend? Were the stars too old and blind to read the script? Did they read the wrong script, sign on, and then realize too late they were trapped? We'll never know... If you want some misplaced laughter, go ahead and take a look; otherwise head for the hills when this turkey pops up on the boob-tube.

aspreadb1 Forget that Ed Wood has ever made the worst movie in history....this by far is the WORST. It's bad. Very very bad. Unbelievable that Henry Fonda or Shelly Winters even looked at the script let alone agreed to star in it. Did I mention how dreadful this movie is? I'm Canadian and I'm completely ashamed that this is a Canadian movie.

slbp_99 Why don't people like this movie???I enjoyed a lot! Ok, the only bad things about it, is that it is slow in the beginning. The reason why is because, they introduced everyone which was slow. The second and final thing is that in some scenes you can see the shadow of the camera. THAT IS A GOOF! But it is still a good movie. Don't ask me why it was on MST3k. I think if you like disaster movies this one be one of them. (I am one of those persons, that likes disaster movies.) Even if you do not like disaster movies it is still a good movie. So I would say go out and rent it and if you like it buy it. Or just go and buy it. 9/10 (reason slow in the beginning and you can see the shadow of the camera)