User reviews

It's hard to figure out what to rate a movie that's basically gives you a neutral feeling: nothing to get excited about and nothing that seriously disturbs you. In light of that, I'd have to say this movie is a 5.

This movie is entirely based upon one of the flimsiest of reasons - one that is explained in one sentence at a top government meeting. Basically it is this: humans have released toxins into the environment and this is causing the internal core to heat up.

Normally, I'd be outraged. In this case, I didn't really care because my expectations are so low that the movie can only go up in value. Somehow this movie slightly redeems itself if you're sympathetic to volcano disaster movies. In this case, many characters (both genders) are "allowed" to die by dripping magma and simply being overrun by lava flow. Generally this doesn't happen in most volcano movies.

Also, large populations of people also get wiped - another thing which doesn't typically happen in volcano disaster movies. So on these marks, I commend the filmmakers/screenwriters for daring to actually create a "disaster" in a volcano movie (most movies in this area typically avert all disaster).

The atmosphere, tone and performances in the movie are decently serious (except for Amy Johnson's character - way too nutty). The special effects reminded me more of 1970s film-making - but they were passable.

I'd rate this a '5', where a '7' is what it would take for me to actually recommend a movie. See it if you're under 15 and are easily impressed, or in the background if you're really into natural disaster movies - esp. volcanoes.

You know the flaw with disaster films? It's not a foe that can be fought. Each follows the same formula, run away, talk, run away, talk, run away, then a finale that essentially involves the disaster simply ending or some ridiculous pseudoscience.

Ontop of that every such movie needs a scientist who relays his/her fears regarding the forthcoming disaster to the government and gets ignored.

Magma: Volcanic Disaster is exactly what you'd expect for a movie of it's sort. Scyfy original with poor sfx, generic writing and absolutely no originality at all.

Credit where credit is due the movie doesn't have the worst cast but there isn't much they could do to raise this paint by numbers affair above the mediocre.

The Good:

Amy Jo "Pink Power Ranger" Johnson

Xander "So very tired veteran" Berkeley

The Bad:

SFX

Lack of originality

Yet another example of a made-for-cable film that started with a workable premise and a couple of really good actors, but managed to screw it all up. Low budget isn't always a bad thing, but somehow the biggest deficit here is in the imagination column. Absurd situations, ridiculous plot oversights and contradictions, supporting actors who just recite lines, and awkward dialogue make this painful to watch. When you find yourself awake and channel-surfing at 3AM, if you happen across this, go ahead and take a look, but don't go out of your way to find it otherwise. Honestly, the Sci-fi channel has talented people at its disposal, couldn't they have managed one more script treatment before production started? At least buy the poor writer a thesaurus and a geology textbook!

This seemed like a typical Sci-Fi channel disaster movie that would be 4 hours over two nights. I didn't believe the TV Guide listing. But in the last 5-10 minutes, it wrapped up everything at warp speed. The end had more senseless death than I imagined. It was like a bad episode of '24' or like 'Atomic Train'. The only reason I completed watching was for two of my favorite beautiful actresses, Reiko Aylesworth ('24') and Amy Jo Johnson ('Power Rangers', 'Felicity'). Not bad clap-trap for a Friday night of nothing to do, but don't go out of your way for it. I am usually up for a good made-for-TV disaster, but this did not satisfy my excitement for world destruction. But then again, it was better than '10.5'. Test patterns are better than '10.5'.

Well, this isn't the worst Sci-Fi Channel Original Production that I've seen, but it may just be the most boring. We start with a college professor and a few students going to explore a volcano in Iceland. Of course the volcano erupts, and they barely escape with their lives. Turns out the professor knows some genius who has worked out a theory of how all the world's volcanoes will start erupting, and we see the scenario played out via the usual cheap looking computer generated special effects. Loads and loads of cheap looking computer generated effects. Toss in the stupendously clichéd government bureaucrats who don't take the threat seriously, some utter nonsense about how humans have caused the Earth's core to expand, and a breathtakingly dull subplot concerning the professor's ex wife, and that about wraps it up. Oh wait, I almost forgot the environmentalist speech at the end, where we're supposed to learn from our mistakes...and some other stuff. Sorry, I'm afraid I nodded off there for a minute. I'm sleepy after sitting through this thing.

Overall, you've got a pile of characters we couldn't care less about, a plot that's identical to a dozen other really crappy disaster movies, a script that sometimes sounds as if it was written by someone who wasn't a native English speaker, and there you have it.

These film makers really need to hire a consultant to at least give them enough technical insight into their subject matter so that it doesn't make the average layman laugh at the absurdity of it.

Edit: Kind of funny, I apparently wrote this review on January 26, and here it is February 6, and I can't remember ever having seen this movie.

I'm beginning to curse UniMás (formerly TeleFutura) as well as SyFy for such awful films like "Magma: Volcanic Disaster." But UniMás could be doing me a favor in dissuading me from cable, since Syfy also shows reality programming alongside bad TV movies. This movie uses CGI perhaps to emphasize it's a 90s/00s film as opposed to black-and- white or 70s/80s disaster films better enjoyed on "Mystery Science Theater 3000." (As a MSTie I couldn't help but think of "Lost Continent" of which shaking the camera was essential to the cinematography.) But I must also point out the computer graphics were rather excessive. How humorous when the magna's victims died just by covering 'em! Not only that, but the submarines & even some infernos were computer- generated. Talk about lazy or low-budget filmmaking when you can't show real pyrotechnics or marine footage or perhaps a bigger make-up department to portray burn victims. Of course, "Magma" follows the template of disaster cinema: natural disasters get outta control. Experts exclaim the sky is falling. The government scoffs. But once we see more CGI carnage, they suggest nuclear warfare. It works. The end. The only recognizable name was Amy Jo Johnson (Mighty Morphin Power Rangers). She looks like Jennifer Garner or Hilary Swank, so she'll come in handy after the last two laugh & hang up upon being approached to do "Magma." (Incidentally did Garner do the same when she did "Arthur"?) & of course there was the subplot of the lead scientist hoping to reconcile w/ his park ranger wife. In the times I had to watch those parts when I wasn't playing the Wii U or tweeting, I was hoping Xander would schtup the Pink Power Ranger. Yeah, I learned Johnson's character was into some other dude but she sure shared a lotta screen time w/ the lead scientist. In conclusion, "Magma: Volcanic Disaster" was good background entertainment, something to have on the TV while doing other stuff.

The movie was fine, a little cheesy, a little predictable. The special effects were like in any disaster movie I've seen - kind of fake and hard to believe (I'm not sure whether this was a budget issue or maybe that's what things would really look like and viewers are generally looking for something more real than real). Nevertheless, it was refreshing to watch. It had an underlying moral, and some pretty cool things happened. What I can say for sure is, that the main actors did a fantastic job with what they were given. If you are considering watching this because you're a fan of Xander Berkeley, Reiko Aylesworth, or another actor with a bigger role in it, you will not be disappointed. By the way, it was shot in Bulgaria, so the scenery is lovely as well.

We tuned in to this movie to waste time before bed - it looked like a fun way to kill some time. It has Xander Berkeley and George Sheffey both whom are known character actors to give it some cachet, along with the female actor that was in a Mighty Morphin Power Ranger movie (Amy Jo Johnson). It also has a Dr. Evil character. We were not disappointed - it really is funny and ridiculous and a goodtime-waster. The characters are cliche and the CGI is terrible but then it is a b-movie so those elements are to be expected. I guess we'll never know how it turned out since its time for bed now. I recommend that this movie be be viewed with good humor.

Somebody lied to me. The description said these volcanic eruptions were caused by a comet hitting the Earth. Nope. Once again a natural disaster isn't natural. Somehow humans are the evil creatures of the planet and are going to destroy it one way or another, by preferring progress over staying in the caves where they belong.

Another disaster movie where the science is shoddy, the plot predictable, and the characters cliché, with long boring dialogue I actually fast-forwarded through. Also, the CGI is VERY obvious and nowhere near what volcanoes actually look like when they erupt.

A lame disaster movie with amateurish special effects, Magma: Volcanic Disaster is another lame feature length entry from the Sci-Fi Channel. In a nutshell: A maverick scientist struggles against the usual obstacles in a race against time to save the earth from cataclysm.

The special effects are glaringly awful, with lava and smoke effects that could have been produced by any sophomore at a first rate tech university. Even the soundtrack sounds like it was lifted from a dozen other disaster movies.

The only saving grace of this film is the acting, led by a solid performance from character actor Xander Berkeley. Be forewarned, though, if you're watching this film solely for Reiko Aylesworth, she appears in all of ten minutes of it, and looks rather bored to be there.

The movie does not start well. The writing, acting and sound are all about as bad as it gets, suggesting the entire movie may end up being a disaster. Not true. But the long-dormant Iceland volcano with an unpronounceable name starting with "Troll" does erupt suddenly and quickly, with terrible consequences for the people we didn't likely enjoy watching.

This is on the level of a TV-movie, but not as much of a disaster as some disaster movies. The actors playing Peter and Bree are actually pretty good, once Bree is no longer perky (or perhaps you can count her perky behavior as good acting). Bree is too perky and enthusiastic to be believable as an intelligent scientist, but that will change later.

The writing is about on the same level as the typical movie of this type, but the last half-hour or so is quite exciting. Some actors with only a few lines seem like they are sitting around the table reading their lines for the first time.

The President of the United States is no Kiefer Sutherland, but he does a good job.

The visual effects are competently done but not spectacular. In most scenes we see only the minimum necessary to communicate what is happening, but toward the end we get a little more detail. Violence is not graphic (unless you count people catching on fire, but even then you can't really see anything) but several people surely die. In one case we are told the person died.

This isn't bad enough to be good, but it's good enough not to be bad.

Magma:Volcanic Disaster was an example of a movie that was pretty poor overall, but on the other hand, it could have been a lot worse. What saved it, surprisingly, was the acting. Xander Berkeley gives a very solid lead performance and Amy Jo Johnson is decent too. Because of their performances, their characters manage to be somewhat likable. All the other characters though aren't so fortunate. The cast do do their best, but the characters are poorly written, underdeveloped and I think clichéd too. The script with a lot of cheesy and banal moments is weak, the direction is risible and the sound effects are not that well-incorporated and some feel recycled. What really let Magma:Volcanic Disaster down particularly were the story and effects. I did like the concept to start with, even if it screamed of been here, done that, but the story itself is predictable, sluggishly paced and hampered by subplots that weren't necessary to the development but were there anyway. The effects are pretty amateurish and fake, and they don't do much to add to the atmosphere, which I don't think there's enough of. I also think some tighter editing wouldn't have gone amiss either. Overall, not a complete waste but not something I would see again willingly. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Think of a mix between 'The Core', Dante's Peak and 'Volcano' on 1000/th of the budget and you get the idea. How some of the actors kept a straight face, I have no idea. The script is really bad, the acting, by some is terrible, as for the effects, a 12 year old on a Mac could probably do better. Why did it get 2 stars; it was so bad it made me laugh.

Blessed are the visual effects artists, who I'm inclined to believe could do much better if not for, presumably, limitations of budget, time, or input from the producers. The CGI that we get varies from FMV sequences in mid-90s PC videogames, and the polygonal textures we see in first-generation Sony PlayStation games. Blessed are the cast, who embrace their roles with as much sincerity as they can, though the material they're given to work with somewhat countermands that effort and forces them into a corner. It's clear that Xander Berkeley and Amy Jo Johnson are the stars, and given the most opportunity to meaningfully act, and they make the most of it; supporting cast members aren't so lucky (the smaller the part, the flimsier the writing), though I trust they'd prove themselves given the chance. And blessed are screenwriter Rebecca Rian and director Ian Gilmour, who have signed on to make a disaster movie under the auspices of the Sci-Fi Channel (now SyFy), and therefore have guaranteed some measure of both formula and schlock. This seems to be the only credit for either in their respective capacities, but recognizing the nature of the feature, I think both demonstrate suitable capability that would surely also be proven if they were to work on a more earnest production. Yes, there's no getting around what 'Magma: Volcanic disaster' is at its "core," but even at that, I appreciate the work that everyone put into it - and despite all its shortcomings, I don't think it's half bad.

Experts embrace fringe theories that skeptics shoot down, but those theories are proven to bear fruit as the calamity expands and accelerates. Any death scenes shown on-camera are emphatically, weakly fake. Relationships between characters tend to be forced (not least those of professor Shepherd and "not even a student" Bri, played by stars Berkeley and Johnson), and dialogue is often decidedly on the nose. Moments that in another picture should bear weight and emotional impact are mostly rendered too curtly, with CGI too glaring, to have nearly the desired hopeful effect. Astonishing risks are taken without nearly the appropriate level of equipment and safeguards. Rudimentary kernels of scientific fact are teased out into wild extrapolations (including tying in environmental themes that in these circumstances strain believability) appropriate for the network producing this TV movie. In the broad strokes there are no surprises here, and the only mystery is in the details of the B-movie before us. Yet for everything that this is and represents, I can't say it's not modestly enjoyable. There's occasional cleverness in the dialogue (even earning a laugh or two!), and for all the less than seamless digital creations and far-fetched sci-fi notions, on a basic level of craftsmanship this is reasonably well made. I kind of like Nathan Furst's score, and while the precise iteration seen here struggles to stand on its own feet, there are strong ideas in the writing. I'd go so far as to say that 'Magma' is just interesting enough to keep one watching through to the end to see where it's going to end up.

Of course, keep in mind that to extract any entertainment from this, any degree of investment or baseline appreciation, requires first that we accept the level on which the film operates. Only the willfully obtuse could possibly take this for anything but the low-grade fare that it is; all involved put in the best work that they could, but the most finely made snowman doesn't become real just because it's wearing fancy clothes. I think it's safe to say, however, that most anyone coming across this will know even from a glance exactly what it is. What it comes down to is that this is the sort of title that one can "watch" without actively engaging with it, something to put on in the background or otherwise passively relax. If you want anything more from your cinema, look elsewhere. For anyone who can get on board with the type of bluster on hand, though, you could definitely do a lot worse. Recommended for diehard fans of disaster flicks or of the cast, there's no reason whatsoever to go out of your way for this, but if you happen to come across 'Magma: Volcanic disaster,' it's good enough for a lazy day.