ScoobyMint
Disappointment for a huge fan!
Glucedee
It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.
pointyfilippa
The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.
Abegail Noëlle
While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.
dbdumonteil
The movie essentially focuses on the documentary side :how the fire fighters worked in the fifties,how they often risked their lives (still do today)and how(sometimes) they were unjustly accused of cowardice .their relatives are not forgotten :Widmark's wife and Hunter's mom are present and are even together when they are waiting for their men to come back after a dangerous mission.The plot concerns a fire fighter who suffers from amnesia:he does not remember what happened during a mission in which all his men were killed:a man among them was the father of a young fire fighter who cannot forgive him because he thinks he abandoned his men to save his life.Without any flashback,we do understand the whole thing during the final mission ,much to the credit of the film.
lexyladyjax
As time travel is yet impossible, this film was not based on the book, Fire, written by George R Stewart, as claimed by another reviewer. Since that book was published February 1, 1984, 3 years after Richard Boone's death from oral cancer, it would have been impossible to have filmed this book. The film was shot in 1952, long before the book was published.The F/X are amazing for their time. There's no CGI and the flames are from burning trees and forest. It's remarkable no one was killed making this film. One wonders how much acreage was consumed during filming.At the time it wasn't known that controlled fire was a healthy part of forest growth and management. Times have changed. All the Smokey Bear campaigns preventing forest fires caused a buildup of materials on forest floors and when forest fires occurred they were hotter and too destructive for the forests to survive.The actors are better than the plot.
fbrusca
'Red Skies of Montana' is a loose adaptation of George R. Stewart's book 'Fire.' After Stewart sold the rights to Hollywood, the story was so altered that it bore absolutely no resemblance to the book. A fourth rate movie, to be sure. Read the original book - it is a much better use of your time.
teuthis
Red Skies of Montana is one of a series of outstanding adventure films in which Richard Widmark starred during the 1950's. It portrays the dangerous lives of smoke jumpers, who fight fires in the great northwest by parachuting into the flames. Richard Widmark is a team leader, under suspicion after he is the sole survivor from a group of smoke jumpers killed in a massive fire. He can remember nothing of event, yet must resume life amidst the doubts of his comrades. The film adeptly the blends personal lives of the men and women involved, excellent firefighting action, and the suspense created by Richard Widmark's flashbacks of his near fatal event. Jeffrey Hunter plays the vengeful son of one of Widmark's slain team; and Richard Boone adds dimension as the stern, professional commander of the unit. This film is utterly believable. The fire scenes are awesome. Red Skies of Montana portrays a lifestyle that needs no "over the top" fiction or outlandish action to make it thrilling. I think this is a timeless film, and a truly entertaining one. And if you do enjoy it, I recommend "Destination Gobi"; another outstanding Widmark adventure.
