A Fire in the Sky (1978)

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Before such films as METEOR, NIGHT OF THE COMET, Armageddon, or DEEP IMPACT (though after films like DELUGE or WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE), there was the 1978 made-for-TV sci-fi/disaster movie A FIRE IN THE SKY, which depicted a collision between our planet and an interstellar visitor, specifically a meteor, an asteroid, or a comet.In the case of A FIRE IN THE SKY, it's a comet that is not only pinpointed at Earth, but at one specific target: Phoenix, Arizona. And there's only one sharp-eyed astronomer (Richard Crenna) who believes and realizes that fact, while everyone else refuses to believe, or wants to cover it up. Of course, this latter plot line is a common one among most disaster films, whether for the big screen or the small screen: a sort of post-Watergate "Enemy Of The People" situation, one far different from the situations seen in METEOR or DEEP IMPACT, where joint operations to stop these potentially cataclysmic deep-space visitors are put into effect.At the same time, however, A FIRE IN THE SKY, for all the flaws it shares with a lot of other disaster films made for the small screen, including some ripe overacting and dialogue that is a little bit too unintentionally humorous at times (even though the screenplay is based on a story by Paul Gallico, whose 1969 novel "The Poseidon Adventure" provided the basis for the classic 1972 disaster film of the same name), is boosted by some really effective matte work and special visual effects that one would not have ordinarily found in a made-for-TV film of the late 1970s. And it may as well be said that the director, Jerry Jameson, was known for being a specialist in this genre, with films like 1974's HURRICANE and TERROR ON THE 40TH FLOOR, as well as (for the big screen) 1977's AIRPORT '77.Crenna, always a very underrated actor (he may be most remembered for being Sylvester Stallone's commanding officer in the "Rambo" films, though he also starred with Steve McQueen in Robert Wise's 1966 classic THE SAND PEBBLES), gives a fairly good performance even with the sometimes dodgy dialogue; and the cast includes Elizabeth Ashley, Merlin Olsen, Lloyd Bochner, Kip Niven, and John Larch (who played the mayor of San Francisco in the original DIRTY HARRY back in 1971). The scenes of destruction and the cometary impact on Phoenix, while they may not match what was seen in DEEP IMPACT, are sufficiently spectacular to overcome the bumps and grinds of the screenplay, which merits my giving A FIRE IN THE SKY a solid rating of seven out of 10.

I saw this on TV decades ago, and finally got a (home made?) DVD after a lot of searching.This movie seems to be in the "love it or hate it" category, and I am one of the lovers. It's probably my favourite among the "giant meteor impact" stories that were so popular a few years back. For me it avoids some of the worst faults of the genre. In particular, super-science doesn't come to the rescue at the eleventh hour. The powers that be try to nuke the comet, but they fail, as in real life they almost certainly would. There is the inevitable "failing marriage with adultery" angle, but at least it is made relevant to the plot. The woman frantically searching for her kids and husband does not find them. They have to meet up at the refugee camp after it's all over and they have come through it without her rescue. For my money, this is how it would really be - for those lucky enough to survive at all.There is, of course, always room for the odd gripe. Given the split-second timing required, would those nuclear warheads really be fired manually? All in all, though, I like it, and am saddened that it seems to have been passed over for a proper DVD. I wonder if that is precisely on account of the things that appeal to me. Perhaps the failure of "Yankee know-how" to save the city is uncomfortable to some. Still, it has my vote and I hope the omission will soon be rectified.

Most people probably won't believe this, but I was actually in this movie. I was an extra, from the 997th Aviation Company, AZ National Guard. I was the driver of a jeep for Col. Standers. I almost didn't get in the movie. I blew two takes, before the director accepted it..... :) I'm looking for a copy of the movie to share with family and friends that have never seen it. Columbia Pictures sent me a check for $25 and change after taxes. They called me for a speaking part that paid $600, but I wasn't able to make the commitment; a couple guys I knew did... and one was shot by a looter in the movie. There was another movie titled Fire In The Sky, about alien abduction in Arizona that my friends think of when I tell them about my part in the other one. I would like to do another flick someday with a small speaking part, but that probably won't happen............ :(

This is perhaps my all-time favorite trash-TV movie. I have a theory that all of us secretly cherish at least one utterly indefensible object of art or entertainment - something we know is simply awful, but which we love nonetheless. Maybe it's pro wrestling, maybe it's "The Dukes of Hazzard." For me, it's this TV movie.I'm something of an amateur astronomy buff, so that may explain part of my attraction to this movie. However, virtually every moment, every plot device, every line of dialogue, every scene and every revelation of character in "A Fire in the Sky" is so stultifyingly formulaic that you wonder if the people who wrote it even graduated from grade school. It's no exaggeration to say that, twenty minutes into the movie, you can accurately predict the final outcomes of each of the several subplots. The characters are not the least bit real; they are complete and absolutely transparent stereotypes. And adding an element of incongruity to the movie is the fact that the actors attack their roles with surprising vigor. Richard Crenna and Elizabeth Ashley, in particular, seem to think they're in "King Lear," not this hokey, connect-the-dots, pre-fab drama.The result is a production that is not in on its own joke. It doesn't seem to know how bad it really is. It's a professional product that seems to have been offered seriously. And yet it's awful. The result is that it achieves a kind of exquisite stupidity. We're not laughing with it; we're laughing at it. And as such, for me, at least, it transcends its own badness and becomes highly entertaining.What can I say? There's no good reason anyone should like something this dumb. And yet I do.