Film

City on Fire

Name: City on Fire
Genre: Action
Released: 1979
Cast: Barry Newman, Susan Clark, Shelley Winters, Leslie Nielsen, James Franciscus

Other titles called City on Fire: the 1987 film.

Disaster
Crime
Very dark
Relentless

A 1979 disaster film where a vengeful refinery worker triggers catastrophic fires that consume an entire city. It's earnest, sprawling, and packed with B-movie charm—all disaster-movie beats played straight, with a strong ensemble cast doing their best in an inherently silly premise. Perfect if you want disaster spectacle without irony.

TMDb rating

2.6

Should you watch it?

Watch it if you enjoy disaster movies where the spectacle is the point and the characters are gloriously sincere about their own panic, with a 1970s pulp energy that doesn't apologize for itself.

Skip it if you want a disaster film with tight characterization or restrained tension, since this one leans on broad performances, clunky dialogue and a plot that sprawls more than it builds.

What it asks of you: Settle in for about 106 minutes of loosely connected threads that cut between many people, with a rhythm more episodic than tightly paced, and a tone that alternates earnest and campy.

Not sure? Find tonight's pick in a minute.

If you liked this

The Towering Inferno1974

The gold standard of 1970s disaster cinema. Packed with A-list stars, real scale, and genuine tension as a luxury high-rise burns. If you want to see how it's done at the highest budget, this is it.

But Nearly three hours long and takes itself very seriously, which some find exhausting. The dialogue can be clunky and the romance subplot drags.

The Poseidon Adventure1972

An ocean liner capsizes and a ragtag group must escape from below. It has real suspense, an excellent ensemble cast, and the kind of practical disaster spectacle that holds up beautifully. Hugely influential.

But The pacing sags in the middle act. Some of the social commentary feels dated, and the younger characters are broadly drawn.

Earthquake1974

Los Angeles comes apart at the seams in one of the most fun disaster films ever made. Great cast, good humour, incredible destruction sequences, and it knows exactly what it is. Pure popcorn.

But The plot is thin and the characters mostly serve the spectacle. The social messaging is heavy-handed and often unintentionally funny.

Not sure tonight? Get a pick in a minute, starting from City on Fire

The wildcard

Something you would not have found on your own.

Inferno1999

Both use a catastrophic infrastructure failure (refinery and submarine) to trap ordinary people in escalating danger, exploring how systems fail and how people react when escape seems impossible.

A British import about a submarine disaster beneath the Arctic ice. It's tense, intelligent, and uses real claustrophobia to create dread. The submarine sequences are genuinely impressive—no CGI crutches, just craft and tension.

But It's slow-burn and deliberately unglamorous. The dialogue is dry and technical, and there's no action-movie heroism—just ordinary people in a bad situation trying to survive.

The Hindenburg1975

A mystery unfolding aboard the famous doomed airship, with real craftsmanship in the model work and an excellent ensemble cast. It's tense and beautifully made, with genuine stakes.

But The pacing is deliberately slow. The mystery plot can feel convoluted, and some will find it more interested in mechanics than character.

Skyscraper2018

A modern take on the disaster-movie formula with Dwayne Johnson as a one-armed former soldier trying to save his family from a burning supertall building. Great action, genuine laughs, and real heart underneath the spectacle.

But It's a bit silly and the plot doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The romance subplot feels obligatory and the ending is predictable.

Deep Blue Sea1999

Genius-enhanced sharks terrorize a research facility underwater. Tight pacing, real scares, and it's not afraid to kill off characters you expect to survive. Smart action filmmaking that's genuinely fun.

But Some of the CGI looks dated. The characters are fairly thin and the science is nonsense, which undermines the realism it's going for.

The Day After Tomorrow2004

A climate catastrophe turns New York into a frozen hellscape. It's ridiculous but committed—Dennis Quaid against impossible odds, spectacular set pieces, and that goofy earnestness that makes it hugely entertaining.

But The science is laughable. It's schmaltz dressed up as environmental messaging, and the politics are clumsy.

San Andreas2015

Dwayne Johnson and a rescue helicopter racing across a California devastated by massive earthquakes. Relentless pacing, good humour, and some genuinely impressive destruction sequences that use scale effectively.

But The plot is predictable. The family drama is thin and the characters feel more like plot functions than people.

Journey to the Center of the Earth2008

A pulpy adventure film about a descent into the Earth's interior, based on Jules Verne. Genuinely creative set pieces, good-natured fun, and a real sense of wonder underneath the spectacle.

But The science is purely fantasy. The acting can be stiff and the plot is basically a checklist of cool things to find rather than a coherent story.

Journey to the Center of the Earth poster

Threads1984

Both films show a city consumed by cascading disaster, but where City on Fire finds spectacle and heroism in catastrophe, Threads removes all comfort and asks what really happens when infrastructure dies and survival becomes meaningless.

A nuclear attack destroys Sheffield, Britain. Brutally realistic, unflinching, and genuinely harrowing—it's the anti-spectacle disaster film. No music, no heroism, just the slow collapse of everything. It haunts you.

But It is a devastating, almost unwatchable experience of societal collapse. Bleak, ugly, and it offers no catharsis or escape. Not entertaining in any conventional sense.

La Bête Humaine1938

Both use industrial machinery as metaphor and stage—the refinery and the railway are not just settings but characters themselves, environments that expose and magnify human weakness and conflict.

Renoir's masterpiece about a railway engineer and the violence that erupts around him. It's gorgeously shot and deeply humane—a story about fate, desire, and the machinery of fate spinning people through extraordinary events. Pure cinema.

But It's a French film from 1938 in black and white with subtitles. The pacing is slow and philosophical rather than propulsive. There's almost no action, just character and atmosphere.