curtiscee Ignore all the idiotic trolls complaining about shaky cams; they're apparently unaware that in disaster action movies, the ground occasionally, uhm, shakes. And those talking about "The Agenda" of this movie as it relates to environmental concerns are the same subculture conspiracists on YouTube discussing the Illuminati, 9/11 cover-up, and other elaborate government plots. In this movie--as in all such disaster movies--the environmental concerns are only used as a thin plot device to kinda-sorta-maybe support the silliness of the movie premise. It's not at all presented in a heavy-handed way like some of the religion- themed movies on here--some quite good. It's just a plot device; I would tell you if it were "one of those" films. It's not.Finally, the last bit of cuckoo in many of these reviews is that the science of the movie used to explain the potential end of the world is not sound or based on reality. Really? Are you trying to tell me that I shouldn't fear a mass volcanic reaction that could threaten everything globally? Whew! Thanks for clearing that up. Now all I have to worry about are sharks and tornados somehow uniting. You get the point. This is not NOVA on PBS. It's the same science and logic used to describe how Indiana Jones and John McClane can survive all those stunts, how the world can be covered completely in ice in 2012, and how gigantic robots from outer space can transform into cars. The pseudoscience in this movie works as well as it does in EVERY OTHER ACTION/DISASTER MOVIE. It's easy to suspend your belief with the science in this movie--it's 'sciency" enough.As you should know by now, most reviewers cannot AT ALL be relied on to accurately review a movie, and of course, tastes are so subjective. Their comments ruin movies that I skip based on them only to discover later they were completely wrong. Find a movie you enjoy like, say, "TiMer," and then read the reviews and comments. The idiots who hate movies you like take far more time to write reviews than those left satisfied; and so negative comments from those groups disproportionately rise to the top. So take mine review worth a grain of salt; but I hope you at least find it Helpful enough to mark it as such.Now onto the movie itself. Many will make fun of this B-movie. But it has a considerable amount of A-movie emotion, and far better than expected special effects, sound effects, and background music. As a straight masculine male who recognized some of the cheesiness of this movie, I have to admit that I inexplicably teared-up at *several* moments towards the ending of this movie. No spoilers. Simply, though this movie is not worthy of any best picture industry awards, it's one of those rare Netflix gems that perfectly succeeds as an entertaining mindless diversion—rather than just the standard subpar nonsense that litters the service.I really appreciated that all talents involved didn't wing it; everyone tried, from the director and film crew to the producer. There is real acting in this movie above and beyond the limits of the improbable script, with recognizable and attractive new faces keeping the standard fare fun and fresh. The leads are excellent considering the material and the supporting actors carry their load. Ultimately, that's all that really matters at the end of the day: You'll be surprised to find that you like the characters...a lot, and even more surprised that--in what essentially is a silly disposable movie--you end up actually caring about what happens to them.I personally departed the movie feeling satisfied, even to a point of wanting to see a little more in an ongoing series because the characters grow on you. No, it's not a top-notch movie, but it goes nowhere near the bottom of movies like Snakes on a Plane. So if you keep your expectations low, you'll end on a high. Enjoy!

TheLittleSongbird If there was a redeeming quality, it was Terry O'Quinn. He was great on LOST, and while his character is nowhere near as interesting he does do his best here and is quite commanding. The same cannot be said for the other actors who are all unbearably wooden and emotionless. When they don't act like they genuinely care or are living their characters' situations, at best they were indifferent, it is very difficult to be properly drawn in. Good characters and writing would have helped, but Ring of Fire manages to not even have those either. The characters are badly underwritten ciphers(for a three hour miniseries there was no excuse for this), the sort of stereotypes that we see all the time in movies featuring on the SyFy channel, and they are never more than that. The dialogue is clunky, overly-talky and dissolves too much into tedious melodrama and overlong exposition, it is often very over-familiar stuff that is made even more painful by awkward line delivery. There is very little to be invested in the story either. It was increasingly predictable(especially in the second half) and takes far too long to get going, two thirds of the first half is set-up exposition, and the excessive padding isn't enough to let go of the feeling that there wasn't enough story to sustain a three-hour running time. That there are too many sub-plots and none are particularly engaging is part of the problem as well. If it was done in half the time, with less dialogue, fewer subplots, more action and more attention to character, Ring of Fire would have been much more successful. Ring of Fire even looks as though it was made in a rush, with a unappealingly drab and grainy colour palette. There's been worse use of shaky cam, but it was distractingly over-used and the constant jerky movements are enough to make anybody seasick. There's also been worse CGI but that's not saying much, it's still dully rendered. Overall, a disaster in itself really. Terry O'Quinn is the least bad thing about it but even at the halfway mark I found myself begging for a fire extinguisher, the fact that I make it my business not to judge a movie/series without seeing the whole thing was the sole motivation for sticking with it. 2/10 Bethany Cox

John-Williams-978-790081 The only real point I want to make in this is to say that the endless field of out-of-focus foreground objects in front of almost every shot is a pointless, annoying distraction.The camera never stops gliding from side to side in a completely irrelevant manner.If the 'technique' is an attempt to give a fly-on-the-wall immediacy it fails completely.In spite of the bad technique, I did stick with it to the end of part one, and overall the storyline was interesting even if it was all very slow paced until the explosions started.I am not sure I will bother watching part two.

unbekannternutzer bad things first:the main good character that is an environmentalist happens to be the daughter of the main evil character who is the head of a big oil company. that's so unbelievable. lets put some more conflict in it, shall we? why do they have to do this. and of course she has a son who she cant see because she's a criminal activist and also has no time for him due to her enthusiasm for environmental protection. oh, the conflict. many sad faces to be expected there. and of course many emotional scenes with her dad. great stuff. for women, i guess.another thing that put me off was the soap-opera-style of many of the scenes. you know, when there is dialog and one character delivers a very well prepared line and then dramatically leaves the scene, and the camera focuses on a pondering face of the other guy? that happens like 10 times in the first part.unfortunately the pacing is a little slow. it's not as annoying as in other series but a little less dialog and more action would be nice. no i don't mean Hollywood-action. i mean people doing things other than talking. this is probably only because of the introductory nature of the first part though. but the action scenes at the end of the first part have a big problem for me: the shaky camera again. it's too much. i cant see what's going on. stop that, please. i don't mind cheap special effects because i know it is not a movie and has a lot lower budget. but i do mind if i don't see what's going on. blurry shapes wont help with that.aside from that, the story is not bad. it feels a little weak at the beginning but it's getting better. the protest scenes and the speech scene at the beginning were really not promising. but it makes up for that. it may not be scientifically accurate but i am not in a position to judge that. speaking of that, there is a scene where they happen to be a few meters away from an explosion and they don't react at all. 'what was that?' she asked with a an expression on her face that would make you think she's talking about some minor unusual sound she has just heard. and then they run to the crater as if there is no danger at all. why? that's not how you do it.i did enjoy most of it though. i was focusing on the bad stuff. so keep that in mind. and i only have seen the first part. it's (probably) not a bad series. but those issues that i have described could have been avoided which is kind of sad because this could have been a much better series.just one more thing: you should probably avoid this series if you don't like environmentalists. because in this series they are right. they are the good guys. i agree with that (not always and not entirely but mostly). but some of you might not.edit: i've just watched the second part, and unfortunately it was worse than the first one. mostly for acting reasons. and it was very predictable.