Scorched

2009 "How do you put out a fire, when there's no water?"
5.4| 1h30m| NA| en| More Info
Released: 08 November 2009 Released
Producted By: Essential Media and Entertainment
Country: Australia
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Info

In a climate change ravaged world in 2012, after 240 days without rain Sydney has only two weeks of water left. When the city is then ringed by severe bushfires, the question becomes, how do you fight fire when you have no water?

Watch Online

Scorched (2009) is currently not available on any services.

Director

Tony Tilse

Production Companies

Essential Media and Entertainment

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime.
Watch Now
Scorched Videos and Images
View All

Scorched Audience Reviews

Protraph Lack of good storyline.
Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated
Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.
PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.
ladymidath I can't understand all the negative reviews that this movie received. I thought it was a well acted and fast paced film that explored several important themes such as, climate change, drought, natural disasters and political corruption. The Cassie Has Dreams segments were eerie and very atmospheric, in fact I thought the whole thing was one of the better offerings that we have had. It is nice to see that important issues are finally being addressed in films like this. It is a nice change of pace and proves that we can do an intelligent disaster movie, if there is such a thing. I have lived through both bush fires and flood and I have seen the devastation of both and I would like to see more films like this, especially since climate change is a very real problem that we are all facing.
Scotty-97 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)
trapp_p 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.
lolliesRyum I'm not quite sure if I watched the same Australian film as the majority of the other reviewers (or if they in fact are employees of channel nine!) This was a really disappointing film...The casting was spot on... the acting was great... the script was useless.It was badly paced... some story lines were wrapped up too quickly, others not even explained...I feel like there was never any connection felt between any of the characters or story lines... if I felt anything it was because of the wonderful acting on the show.