drystyx
This film about an impending volcanic disaster that threatens the planet has a lot of upside.Formula films like this depend on writing and directing, even more than the acting. The direction here is logical, and the writing is pretty good.What makes or breaks such a film is the writing of the characters, and of being natural, or what we call in writing, "not expository".This pretty well does that. The characters are good for the most part. There are two poorly written characters, though, that bring this down. The usual naysayer, like the mayor who denies there is a shark at the beach, and the martyr.The movie would have been more of a "film" with these two characters toned down, especially the martyr. It must have been a tough role for the actor, because he seriously doesn't have motivation written into the role.What really works for this film is the lack of "contrivance", the ability to not "play God". This is something that movies did too much from about 1965 till about 1985. Whether you play God to kill ogres or to kill nice people, it looks contrived when you do it.This movie lets the cards like where they lie. It's as though they rolled the dice to see who might become a victim of the volcano. The people who are engulfed in lava are credible people, likable enough, not overly, but three dimensionally. One doesn't feel like one is being preached to.Hoping that isn't a spoiler. I hope instead that it gives an idea of what to expect, and if you're into a natural film with good characters and writing, you will appreciate this. If you are into the usual preachy movies, you won't.
TheLittleSongbird
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
Vic_max
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.
PhillyPartTwo
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'.
AD
