On Fire

Good movie!

This was the worst disaster movie I have ever watched, and I've seen them all. It is not even possible for not only one, but pretty much every single character to be so effing stupid in everything they do. From running to the fire to a random neighbor in flames, one hundred yards from the nearest blaze. The poor lady must have spontaneously combusted while her whimpers sounded more like she bit her lip than if she were ablaze. Nothing about this movie would make sense to anyone with an IQ over 50. If you want to see a decent forest fire movie or tv show, watch "They want me dead" or"Fire Country". Or watch this To see for yourself and be compelled to write a review like me for the first time in a decade.

I had high expectations for this film. It was such a letdown. Bad acting. Bad directing. But storyline. So unrealistic. The characters would have died in the early moments of the film if it was a real life scenario. Why did they go back to their home where the fire was??? That's what you should not do. And why didn't the fire touch their house? They used a sprinkler to put out the fire... yeah okay, like that would do anything. The lines were so dumb too... like couldn't the writers provide the actors with better things to say/ do? I did not have the strength to finish it. I'm sorry, but find a different movie to watch😂.

The fire was done very well, and showed the real dangers of living in the woods and how fire can spread so fast. And with featuring the 911 staffing, showed how quickly things can change when fire spreads from strong winds. What seems couldn't happen becomes what does happen. The weakness is the script, as the actors do a good job showing their skill, their danger and the ability to think quickly. And the father Dave, risked everything for his family. Rated PG-13, it was watered down into too much of a formula driven script. But that is more the reality of what is necessary than the fault of the execution of the production. It needed to be acceptable for family viewing. It seems to be a lot of real fire, along with some CGI fire, but maintained the tension.

Yet another movie that I had never heard about, "On Fire" from directors Peter Facinelli and Nick Lyon immediately caught my attention when I saw that cover. I am a sucker for natural disaster movies, despite the majority of the movies being questionable. But I had never heard, much less seen, "On Fire" before, so of course I opted to give the movie a chance. The storyline is pretty straightforward, and I will say that it is a fair enough watchable movie, though hardly anything outstanding. So writers Nick Lyon and Ron Peer didn't really deliver something out of the ordinary here. And yeah, it was essentially also a very predictable and somewhat generic storyline actually. But hey, if you enjoy natural disaster movies, "On Fire" is definitely well-worth sitting down to watch. There are a couple of familiar faces on the cast list, with the likes of Peter Facinelli (whom also co-directed the movie), Fiona Dourif, Glenn Morshower and of course the iconic Lance Henriksen. So I will say that the the cast ensemble in the movie was definitely good. The acting performances in the movie were good. Visually then "On Fire" was good. The effects were fair and looked real enough, though I have to admit that I had a hard time buying into the characters ever were in any real danger. And that sort of took away from the overall impression of the movie. Watchable for what it was, "On Fire" is hardly a movie that warrants a second viewing, as there isn't enough contents to the storyline for that. But it definitely is a movie worth sitting down to watch if you enjoy natural disaster movies. Ultimately, then the movie's cover/poster over-sold the movie by a landslide. The cover/poster was way more interesting than the movie turned out to be. A sad fact, actually. My rating of directors Peter Facinelli and Nick Lyon's 2023 movie "On Fire" lands on a five out of ten stars.

Awful in every regard. Acting: Atrocious. Writing: Wow. Do NOT waste your time with this. I don't want to write anything more about this because there's not much to say and it isn't worthy of any more of someone's time, but I'll continue typing in order to help save even one person from wasting another minute of their life thinking whether they should watch this or, God forbid, actually watching it. I hated all of the characters and laughed at every terrible piece of dialogue and story that came along to the climax of this terrible film. I beg you to please not waste your time with this. There. Done.

The movie was good, worth watching, easy to get wrapped up into as so many people have been sadly impacted or killed in these wildfires, and it continues to happen, so a lot this can't be dismissed. I'm not gonna get bogged down by CGI as I don't imagine the film's budget can afford it, but it was good enough to let the story carry my interest. The only thing I couldn't understand which is something everyone is missing on (spoiler so stop here) was the ending. How could the family afford to rebuild a new home considering how much in debt they were at the beginning of the film on top of them losing both their vehicles and their home which had no insurance? Where would this magical money be coming from? Sure, they inherited land, but they have no money for anything. All they could do would be to sell the land (not build on it) and I don't imagine who would buy it from them. Good movie, but the ending made zero sense.

It was good however,feel a few changes might of made this better.. It had clichés,plotholes & parts might feel contrived. Although love Fiona in past work,she was miscast for this part. The CGI was decent enough to draw you into the fire storyline,however some dialog & such failed occasionally. The cinematography felt low quality,but have seen worse in productions. Overall acting & casting was ok,was hoping Lance H would of had a more pivotal role. This movie was poorly marketed & considering enjoy Peter F movies,plus him having major involvement such as directing that's unfortunate. This movie is worth seeing-even once.. It brings family,faith & survival during a desperate time.

I always enjoy watching a movie based on true event. After watching it, it is just like a Hollywood movie! I couldn't believe how they went through this horrible incident. The ending was such a relief. Great directing as well. I always enjoy watching a movie based on true event. After watching it, it is just like a Hollywood movie! I couldn't believe how they went through this horrible incident. The ending was such a relief. Great directing as well. I always enjoy watching a movie based on true event. After watching it, it is just like a Hollywood movie! I couldn't believe how they went through this horrible incident. The ending was such a relief. Great directing as well.

Perhaps the best thing about this film is that it will convince many people that it is really necessary to keep those 50 or even 100 meters without trees around the houses. And even then... the example given here of the ingenious care taken by the owner of that house literally going up in smoke was interesting: you're never safe from the recklessness of your neighbors. The story of a family of 3+1 who survived a forest fire provides the pretext for a production in which we are placed inside the burning forest, in a terrifyingly realistic reconstruction of the scenario that someone in those circumstances has to face - with virtually no chance of survival. Great value is placed on unity, as each element of these three will contribute in its own way to an improbable outcome. The production (pyrotechnics and everything else) is stupendous, the actors very convincing and the filming impeccable. But there are a few problems, namely the script, which is too formulaic and predictable, and with inconsistencies: there's the manslaughter of two old people, with no culpability and (almost) no remorse, and there's the final shock of seeing those trees, so green, on the shores of Lake Chilton...