Theo Robertson It's always a sign of a poor movie when the title of a film is entirely different from the credits is contradicted by its title elsewhere . Apparently the credits have WILDFIRES as they name of the movie but the channel that broadcast and the IMDb refer to it as FIRESTORM: LAST STAND AT YELLOWSTONE . Why is this ? Is it because someone somewhere realises that they've a terrible movie and they don't want to be associated with it ? Couldn't the entire cast and crew just refer themselves as " Alan Smithee " thereby saving themselves the embarrassment ? perhaps they could have made another movie thereby sparing us the ordeal of watching this one Good to see other contributers to this site noticed the ridiculous opening sequence to the movie but it'd be impossible to not notice . A couple of backpackers see an inferno blazing a couple of miles away , decide it's too close for comfort then before you know it the fire is upon them . They manage to escape but this is a false ending and they get killed in a superimposed fireball . It's almost like a horror film where instead of a monster creeping up on people it's a fire And the rest of the story continues in a similar manner . It's almost like watching a SF B movie from the 1950s cross bred with a soap opera . Tough butch firefighters argue with intellectual college frat boys . All this arguing has nothing to do with fighting fires though since they're both trying to impress the female fire ranger . Meanwhile a picnic is ruined when a tree suddenly decides to burst in to flame . There's no internal continuity to this . If hundreds of square miles of forest burn no one seems to notice . If the plot demands it there'll be a fire materializing from nowhere . No matter what the laws of science such as fire burning up surrounding oxygen are totally ignored in a film that is more concerned with the camera lens zooming in and out rather than telling a story

BPW1221 When I heard this movie was going to be on I thought it would be a nice docu-drama of what happened during the fires.After watching the first ten minutes I knew I was watching something made by someone who didn't know the meaning of research or common sense. How about those two guys watching a fire miles away seconds later get engulfed by flames? Or better, watching the yummy little tart of a ranger, with her form fitting uniform, checking cars/people into the park? No deference to park rangers but they usually aren't moonlighting Playboy bunnies.Then, the crass special effects watching the fire spread or the silly cartoon of a helicopter....never mind.The delete button on the DVR was poised for delete but I kept watching more for humor. Like the time Scott Foley and his band of roughneck fire eaters save the town by attempting a feat of self immolation.It's bizarre that they didn't have the sense to have someone from the NIFC or perhaps even a volunteer firefighter act as a consultant on this goat rodeo. Perhaps they spent all their money of the fine special effects.Maybe the guys at A&E, where the programming isn't half bad, needed to fill some space and/or were looking to spend their money so they can get better funding for next year. Like the person a comment or two above, the only reason why it didn't get one star was because of the ranger and the entry gate....

ShiningMtnsGuy I lived within 12 miles of the fires this is based upon when they occurred in 1988 and this is a gross misrepresentation of the danger, both then and now. I also have been a firefighter and am trained in the use of fireline explosives.While the sensationalism and misleading information about firefighting and crew relationships may keep the novice viewer on the edge of their seats, it does an injustice to both the opportunity to educate the public and to the crews that fight the fires. The special effects are dramatic, but fires do not simply appear out of nowhere and rangers would not be letting people set up camps, or even picnic, if there was imminent danger. The only thing I see that even comes close to accuracy is the misunderstanding and poor implementation of the "Let Burn Policy". While this did happen in '88, it would not happen today, as those fires served to clarify this policy long ago.Finally, firefighters in general treat their superiors respectfully, even when they disagree, just as in the military, because their very lives depend on doing so. If they disagreed with a decision they would handle that disagreement by giving feedback with respect for the process that achieves fine-tuning of an evolving and effective plan.This movie is simply a disservice to the entire process of forest firefighting, and is tacky to boot. Its only saving grace is that it has a pretty decent cast. Unfortunately this isn't enough to redeem what could have been a pretty good film if more thought, consultation with experts, and attention to detail had gone into its production.

davidhi1 The cast was nice looking. That is why I didn't give it a 1. Being a firefighter for 35 years I could not conceive that this movie ever made it through production. There must not have been any technical advice from the National Park Service, National Interagency Fire Center, or any legitimate wild land fire fighting organization. I can not give you the policies and safety requirements that must be met before a firefighter goes on the ground, but it is for sure that this movie misrepresented many of those critical factors. The Park Service would never wait for a fire to reach a half a million acres before it asked for help. I am not going to belabor the whole pointlessness of this movie. The production staff never applied special effects as they are in a real situation. That may have been on purpose for sensationalism, but it tends to give the wrong information. A lack of research evidently. Some of the footage of real forest fires was shown and it did not show lots flame because it is covered by smoke. That is true. The bad special effects showed large tracks of land in 100 foot flames and no smoke. I don't know about the underlying scenario of lack of federal funding, but why should I believe that in a movie so heavily laden if other falsehoods.