City on Fire (1979)

I'm a disaster movie fan and completist so I've been tracking this down for years, I wish I could say it was worth it. It's good for a laugh or two at the improbable idiocy of the plot but that's about the end of its worth.Closing in on the bottom of the barrel this flick makes no sense, picking up and dropping plot points at random intervals. The villain of this thing is so sketchily drawn you have only the vaguest idea of what his motive is. That is the largest failing of the film there is no clear focus to anything. None of the characters are compelling enough to invest in and the special effects are laughable. Not a single one is clearly drawn enough for the viewer to know who they are so you can root for them. Full of one time stars this uses them ill. Shelley Winters at least tries to give a performance but Ava Gardner and Henry Fonda, both looking the worse for wear, obviously did it strictly for the loot and are phoning it in, Henry being the worst offender. If you're a disaster movie junkie this is a must see but for anyone else its a Grade Z mess.

Poor Henry Fonda. In the end of his career, he had to be in City on Fire. This movie had the most ridiculous dialog ever. I actually cringed when some of the characters said their lines. None of the B-plots made enough sense to follow through on. The start of the fire was absurd. There was no attempt to build up to an actual motive. The writers thought that CPR was the only action to take in an emergency and that old men using a bedpan was necessary for the audience to see. This movie was made purely to burn some gasoline for the big fire scenes and so that stunt men could be lit on fire. 1 out of 10 is generous.

This movie had a good idea at a start: the city being burned the same way as Chicago in the 19th Century, London on the 18th Century or Rome, under Nero's rules in about 70 A.D. And shall we say Pompei in 79 A.D. under the wrath of the Vesuvius volcano ?But in the 20th Century. Good idea ! But the genre has passed an earthquake, a high rise building, a cruiseship and so on... And passing again the City of Montreal as a Midwest city, with a big oil field next to it...Bring on some big stars, some washed up, others who still has it and some second rates, then throw this scenario like The Towering Inferno with soap-like intrigue, with the center subject: the opening of a brand new hospital...The result: a boring, too slow and predictable movie, with low-rated special effects and the worst cinematography ever for a movie. And noticing for the climatic scenes that it remained in one city street set build on an old quarry in East End Montreal. And to think of it, looking closely, all cardboard...Sad that the genre was washed-up at the time.Acting was so-so. Thank God Mr.Fonda did won an Academy Award two years later in a better film (On Golden Pond), but I believe he should have passed this one...And to listen to the French Dubbing made in Paris... Wondering who dubbed this crap... Unbearable !Maybe this film should be redone one day... But hey, aren't we tired of seeing those artificial catastrophes when real ones occurred recently ?A movie to forget... Despite its all-star cast...

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)