I have just read the reviews of this show by a number of alleged viewers & I am at a loss as to what they think they actually viewed. It was convenient, in hindsight, that the date of the supposed action was "5 years in the future". This makes the date irrelevant with regard to it referring to any particular year, 2012, 2013, 2025 or any other year as obviously if I watch it now (2011) it becomes 2016. In any case the film should have been released in 2007 to be "5 years" in the future of 2012. Some reviewers were unable to figure out how long the drought was. One, was unable to use the automatic spell checker & obviously did not read his review - how long has anyone lived in "Sidney, New Soth Wales". The same person also doesn't understand that the abbreviation PM means Prime Minister when the reference should have been State Premier (or just Premier), and since when have we "brung" anything.Unfortunately, some reviewers also may have spoken in 'tongues'. I have lived in Australia for more than 60 years & I still don't know what the AIIMS... is, incidentally the ABC might mean American Broadcasting Corporation (or Company, or .....). Please, space out acronyms as full words at least once in your review as not everyone knows what they mean.Thanks to those members of the Australian Rural Fire Service for their input on how it actually related to the Service Aussies are very proud of these people who volunteer their time (mostly FREE) to help others. It should be appreciated that real fire-fighters thought enough of the film to even make comments, it also shows how seriously Aussies take the danger of bush-fires & willingness of everyone to chip in. Of course the actual supposition that there is 'absolutely no water anywhere' to use to fight bush-fires does stretch the imagination, just a l i t t l e {LOL}. There are so many creeks & dams around Sydney, New South Wales, Australia (and all Australia) that the drought would have to have been a lot, lot (many lots) longer than 200 or so days of the film. Even when the film was made some localities in Australia were in areas declared drought for a lot longer than that.Well, after all that my review of the film is that while it is definitely not in same league as 'Armageddon', 'The Day After' or other similar disaster movies, it was a film worth watching, especially for those who like the nitty-gritty of the interaction between persons who could be 'you' (or/and maybe 'me').(NOTE: LOL = laughing out loud)

I don't really think that this was intended as a political statement, it was never going to be more than a 'disaster movie' for TV. In that respect it succeeds. Ch 9 did a good job on the action scenes (mostly if not all Canberra Feb 2003 - certainly the burning embers blowing across the road and past the windscreen of the truck were Cbr) and the dramatisation and depiction of fire-ground action was true to life - and life's a bitch under those conditions. Can't comment about the Emergency Response Room scenes but looked pretty representative of an AIIMS set-up. It was a good drama, well written and well acted. Without spoiling the story the political aspects portrayed certainly echo a lot of 'nasties' which surface in most states - and ably portray the 'say one thing and mean another' pollie-speak which seems to be so common. As a rural firefighter I can't say I 'enjoyed' the movie - too close to my everyday realities - but I did think it was a worthwhile watch.

this could possibly be the worst TV movie ever. Way to many plot holes and terribly written i cant believe this ran for 2 hours! they cut so much out of it. Im ashamed to even be in NSW its a lame attempt in trying to make a movie based on 2012 (so called Apocalypse) and on the bushfires over the past several years. "Set 5 years in the future. "After years without rain fire engulfs the entire city." this really confused me the fire didn't even reach sydney! just smoke. And what is it with the soap stars? they brung 2 home and away stars who barely had a role. there was no emotion in this. The only good thing in the movie was "Cameron daddo" he done a great job

apologies to all actors concerned , as they all did a decent job throughout, unfortunately the plot was weak, and the story appeared to be cut to ribbons. upon the death of one particular character we, the audience, are supposed to feel sad, but as we had only met this character once, and don't really care its a completely hollow moment. there is no real feeling of danger at any point in the film, and the whole affair feels like a watered down disaster movie. when we live in an age of films like, the day after tomorrow, the core, volcano and dantes peak (admitedly not great films, but still the spectacle in these films is huge) this below average telemovie just doesn't cut it. im all for Australia trying to branch out from the usual Aussie battler stories but this was a limp effort.maybe the 2 hours added to the DVD will help the viewer care more about all the characters, but i wont be watching it to find out, good luck to those of you who do.