I should start by explaining that my rating of "Magma" doesn't correspond with my enjoyment of it. I regard these movies as a guilty pleasure and I am a fan of Xander Berkeley, so I really enjoyed watching it, but that doesn't make it a good movie. However, since it's a Sci-Fi Pictures production I wasn't expecting one.
The plot, as other reviewers have pointed out, is predictable - though that's true of all disaster pictures no matter how large the budget. The special effects are really, really bad; the underground scenes look like they could have been shot in Tom Sawyer's cave at Disneyland (though in actual fact, the movie was filmed in Bulgaria). Berkeley is great; it's a treat to see him in a starring role and getting to play a good guy for a change. Reiko Aylesworth does a creditable job as his estranged wife, though she doesn't get pulled into the plot until the last third of the movie. It must have been Old Home Week for "24" alumni when they were casting this thing.
I have to commend the writers for one plot twist I wasn't expecting. Berkeley's character works with a cute young female geologist who obviously hero-worships him. I would have expected some romantic entanglement to ensue between the characters, but that doesn't happen. In fact, in one scene in a bar she gives him advice on how to make up with his wife! She winds up falling for the only other one of Berkeley's research assistants to survive the cataclysm. Nice work, writers.
The reviewer above who pointed out the nonsense of getting "superficial burns" from exposure to hot lava was right on the money, and the whole concept of a volcano going from total dormancy to blowing its top with absolutely no warning is just as silly. But that just adds to the fun. If it weren't ridiculous it wouldn't be a Sci-Fi channel movie, now would it? So, should you watch it? If you are a Xander Berkeley fan and/or a fan of cheesy disaster movies, go for it. It's your call.
The plot, as other reviewers have pointed out, is predictable - though that's true of all disaster pictures no matter how large the budget. The special effects are really, really bad; the underground scenes look like they could have been shot in Tom Sawyer's cave at Disneyland (though in actual fact, the movie was filmed in Bulgaria). Berkeley is great; it's a treat to see him in a starring role and getting to play a good guy for a change. Reiko Aylesworth does a creditable job as his estranged wife, though she doesn't get pulled into the plot until the last third of the movie. It must have been Old Home Week for "24" alumni when they were casting this thing.
I have to commend the writers for one plot twist I wasn't expecting. Berkeley's character works with a cute young female geologist who obviously hero-worships him. I would have expected some romantic entanglement to ensue between the characters, but that doesn't happen. In fact, in one scene in a bar she gives him advice on how to make up with his wife! She winds up falling for the only other one of Berkeley's research assistants to survive the cataclysm. Nice work, writers.
The reviewer above who pointed out the nonsense of getting "superficial burns" from exposure to hot lava was right on the money, and the whole concept of a volcano going from total dormancy to blowing its top with absolutely no warning is just as silly. But that just adds to the fun. If it weren't ridiculous it wouldn't be a Sci-Fi channel movie, now would it? So, should you watch it? If you are a Xander Berkeley fan and/or a fan of cheesy disaster movies, go for it. It's your call.