IMDb > Lightning: Fire from the Sky (2001) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Lightning: Fire from the Sky (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 11 reviews in total 

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

100 year storm! interesting idea.

Author: reeves2002 from Canada
29 August 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I bought this movie because it was inexpensive and I love disaster movies especially ones about weather.I knew it was a low budget movie that was possibly made for TV but I enjoyed it.There were parts that were stupid like when the mayor(played by Barbara Crampton)was driving in the storm and her car goes off the road.Her performance was terrible.It was soap opera type acting in some areas.Barbara you should have stuck to your former gig on the young and the restless where you played a really campy,funny role.No offense,but this movie should have casted someone who could have portrayed the character with more professionalism. Excellent performance by Jesse Eisenberg playing the 14 year old playing the weather expert in that small town.Obviously this would not really happen in reality since the experts should have detected it and warned the public,but this is just a movie and was fun watching it. And as always,excellent and believable performances by John Schneider,Michelle Greene,and Stacy Keach. The whole idea of 2 giant storms on a collision course wreaking havoc on a city or town is an interesting idea and I wonder if it's ever occurred for real.Or maybe it's not possible i'm not sure. I enjoyed this movie because it was about a regular storm with thunder,lightning and rain and not another goddamn movie about tornado's.Twister was a good movie,but there were tons of other movies(mostly made for TV)made after it which were basically all the same including one called night of the twister also starring John Schneider in a similar role. I would love to see a big budget feature film about the same kind of storm in lightning:fire from the sky terrorizing a large city with an all star cast with better special effects making the storms look more real.When are the makers of these movies gonna realize that thunder happens after the lightning flashes and not at the same time.This is why a lot of the storms in movies look fake(especially the older films).Some of the newer ones i've seen in the theater have made them look and seem real.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Family Friendly meets Believability

Author: colcam
5 November 2001

And Family Friendly wins. There are times some things have to become compromises when you make a movie, and sometimes you have to compromise on the theme to fit a market.

But unless you are setting up a pure fantasy you should not have to compromise on believability. In this feature, in an attempt pump up the dramatic side at the same time they tried to remain family friendly, lighting was made to "jump through hoops" (sorry about the pun) and things were happening that simply do not happen in the real world. This story had promise, this movie had potential. The direction was fitting, the photography was acceptable, the editing, acting, sound-- all made the grade. Unfortunately, like a wonderful house built on an inadequate foundation, it cracks and falls apart as it ages.

So much potential.

Was the above review useful to you?

Good and Bad

Author: Dominic Wade from County Durham, England
27 May 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I am always intrigued by made for TV movies and although I enjoyed watching this there is one serious problem, the bad science used to push the story forward.

Acting - Very average characters portrayed with no depth to them, they lacked emotion; they are simply there to move the story on. The acting was almost contrived in parts, especially the mayor.

Story - The idea of two storms merging due to them being attracted to an area made of iron is in itself very bad science. Thunderstorms are controlled by atmospheric conditions including updrafts, downdrafts and upper-level winds, etc. Thunderstorms that do merge can become larger more intense storms until they dissipate. A thunderstorm will not last in the same area forever.

The lightning effects are good, although I wish movie makers would get it right in regard to lightning flashing before hearing the thunder. Not all lightning creates instant thunder; lightning flashes at various distances from the observer and therefore the speed the thunder travels will also vary. They did get it right in that lightning can travel through phone lines, plumbing, etc. Although the movie takes this to the extreme with having things blow up.

As for the ending, what on Earth is going on there? Absolute rubbish science to say the least.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Very poorly researched and poor acting overall.

Author: tngmic72 from Kansas, United States
2 September 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

While this film was somewhat entertaining at times, it completely lacked plausibility. For starters, lightning doesn't travel slowly. It travels at nearly the speed of light and it doesn't take five minutes to jump around a school hallway and zap the principal. Also, two merging storms wouldn't create a huge surge of lighting and the storm wouldn't go on forever if left alone. They all dissipate their energy eventually. The film also suggested that an explosion at a small refinery could dissipate a storm that stretches across the entire state of Missouri. That is completely ridiculous. The characters in the film also think that if a fire burns off all of the oxygen, a vacuum is left in its wake..... Just because there is no oxygen, it doesn't mean that there is a vacuum. Other gases exist (CO2, Nitrogen etc.). As far as acting goes, Stacy Keach and John Schneider did fairly well given the movie they were in.

In the end, if you like terrible movies that are not well acted or researched, this film is for you.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:


Author: bill-2261 from United States
19 August 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

To call this movie anything but fantasy would be wrong. From the start to the end every fact of science is ignored just to make this movie. Where to start? First, lightning does not lope along power lines - it moves at nearly the speed of light. Second, power lines are protected from lightning. Lightning does not bounce around inside of buildings and randomly hit people. Lightning cannot travel through water pipes and come out of faucets. Lightning strikes the tallest object, not the ground randomly. A car struck by lightning does not have its tires melt. There is no generator towed by a pick up that can power an entire hospital, let alone through an extension cord. Propane is not stored in vertical tanks. And the kid's rocket couldn't lift the weight of the wire more than a few feet. Watch this movie as a disaster - not as a disaster movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Good special effects and a visitor from WKRP!

Author: Nolan Price from Shawnee, OK
18 May 2007

NOT the best acting, but the special effects were the highlight. Far above normal for these type of movies. John Schneider & Stacy Keach do well in their roles, but as far as acting goes I vote for Gary Sandy's (WKRP In Cincinnati) performance. I just fell in love with his character. His character fit the small town man that you would enjoy drinking coffee with. Science looks like it took a back seat here on logic, but I could be wrong. The ending just seemed too unbelievable and convenient. The stats are correct for the most part as well as advise on being in electric storms. You don't think they used FEDMART in place of WALMART, do you?

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Quite unrealistic

Author: Ole' Max from Munich, Germany
17 August 2002

This movie is quite unrealistic. Obviously the story writers didn't bother collect information on weather phenomena. The big problem with colliding weather system isn't lightning but torrential rains accompanied with floodings, and strong storms, even tornados. It is also obsolete that a boy would find out more about the weather than the weather forecasting organisations like the NOAA and others. There are so many exciting scenarios for weather-related disasters--so why did they choose something so unrealistic?

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

A Highly Unenjoyable Movie

Author: Chris Winston from Fairbanks, U.S. Territory of Alaska
3 August 2004

Here we go again - yet another Made-for-TV movie related to weather and/or a natural disaster... and again in the end there'll be a hero to save the day.

Ooops, did I give away the ending? Come on, there's nothing to give away here. This movie is as predictable as watching grass grow. Actually, watching grass grow might even be more exciting than this movie! There was just about nothing good here. The Eisenberg kid in the lead role is good but he's such a nerd. John Schneider was good despite the crappy role he had and the same's true for Stacy Keach. Michele Greene was just completely out of place. Why was this made? People actually sat down and checked off the list of wacky weather to see what wasn't turned into a movie yet? 'Nope, no movie about killer lightning terrorizing a town in Missouri. Let's give it a twist - two storms converging because they're attracted to a mountain made of iron on top of which our hero's town sits.' AHHHHHH, stop, Hollyweird, stop with this NONSENSE. And if you're going to continue with nonsense like this then spend a few bucks for a few rewrites and a director who knows what he's doing 'cause this movie suffered badly in both departments leaving me about 99.4% unsatisfied at the end. Boring garbage and a waste of my time. All this movie accomplished is it has added two more hours of bad programming to the airwaves: more junk on TV. My grade: D-

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Seen this before

Author: Pro Jury
18 November 2001

The "Little Wesley" character from Star Trek is renamed and played by a new actor in LIGHTNING: FIRE FROM THE SKY -- a 2001 made-for-TV movie.

Here, Little Wesley has superior knowledge about weather patterns and dangerous thunder clouds. LIGHTNING burdens our boy genius with an assortment of ignorant adults who will forever fail to grasp the fact that Wesley is always right.

The lead victims of LIGHTNING are veteran actors John Schneider and Stacy Keach who both deserve better treatment.

With camera point-of-view and editing, the director attempted to give the thunder clouds a "personality" (for lack of a better word). It is a stretch and ended up being a distraction to the viewer.

This made-for-TV movie has little going for it and is best avoided.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

If only Mystery Science Theatre was still on...

Author: abellenz from Boston
17 November 2002

This film would be perfect. Even without commentary, it's so stupidly hillarious it's worth watching. Clearly directed by some kind of partially trained monkey and edited by his cousin. While it starts a bit slow, it quickly kicks in with various scenes of lightning mischief. Who ever know lighting could go so slow!? Highly recommended!

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history