Magma: Volcanic Disaster (TV Movie 2006) Poster

(2006 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
30 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Absolute Average
Vic_max27 December 2006
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.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
An exercise in killing off gratuitous characters with lava
dwr2466 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Let's face it, volcanoes need little embellishment when it comes to producing fear. Why Hollywood writers don't understand that is beyond me, but their efforts to provide an "entertaining" story usually result in a silly movie. While this movie was no exception, it was better than I expected, which is a definite plus. Still, all in all, it was a pretty bad movie.

The movie starts out with a geological survey team on a dormant volcano in Iceland. When the volcano unexpectedly roars back to life, the team is unable to get off the mountain before being engulfed in lava. Enter our hero, Peter Shepherd (Xander Berkeley), a vulcanologist teaching in Rochester, NY. The term has just ended, and Shepherd, along with four of his TA's, is off to Iceland to find out why the geological survey team has gone missing (apparently no one saw the eruption?). History repeats itself when the volcano erupts again while Shepherd and his team are on the mountain, but this time they escape without injury. Confused by this turn of events, Shepherd consults his old mentor, a now wheelchair bound old man, who claims that this is the start of his "Exodus theory" in which mankind has somehow caused the core of the earth to heat up and expand, which is causing all of the volcanic eruptions. This will result in the possible extinction of life on earth. Shepherd takes this to the government, but the chief geologist, whose only motive seems to be to discredit Shepherd, balks. When Mt. Fuji erupts, killing Shepherd's mentor, Shepherd feels he must act to convince the government that he's right. His trip to South America to investigate more vulcanism results in the death of one of his students, the serious injury of another, and the discovery that his rival in the US government is stealing his theory. Shepherd races back to the states with a daring plan to ease the vulcanism. Along the way, he is also trying to reconcile with his estranged wife, Natalie (Reiko Aylesworth), getting advice on this from the female member of his team, Briana Chapman (Amy Jo Johnson). Will he be able to convince the government to adopt his plan? Will he be able to get his wife back?

It's a classic disaster movie plot. The problem is, it's exceptionally poorly written. The science is a bit off, although perhaps not as much as some of the other volcanic offerings we've seen. Still if our use of nuclear radiation is causing the problem, it doesn't make sense to us it to solve the problem. Shepherd and his team take senseless risks that cost them dearly. It's hard to believe a skilled vulcanologist would keep losing members of his team that way. In addition, the whole subplot about Shepherd's estranged wife was pretty lame, and more confusing was Briana's fascination with Shepherd. Was she falling in love with Shepherd? What about her boyfriend, who was also on Shepherd's team? Equally strange was Shepherd's mentor's insistence on being on Mt. Fuji when it erupted. At first, it seemed that he was there to study the volcano, perhaps to help convince the Japanese of the danger. However, all he seems to do is watch and wait for the pyroclastic flow to get him. Was this supposed to be an honorable suicide? And why did his companion stay when he'd asked her to leave? And why such animosity between Shepherd and the chief geologist for the government? Oddest though, were several scenes of characters we knew nothing about succumbing to the lava. These were purely gratuitous, and seemed to make little sense. Overall, there is much in this movie that could have been left out, in favor of a few more scenes explaining some of the more confusing aspects of the story.

The acting was a mixed bag. I liked Xander Berkely as Shepherd, and felt that he breathed some life into the character. Likewise Amy Jo Johnson did a good job with Briana, although her interactions with Shepherd were a bit confusing. Berkeley and Johnson had better chemistry than either had with their love interest in the story. Most of the rest of the acting was relatively wooden, and really didn't help liven the story any.

In the end, this could have been much better. But I do take some heart in the fact that it could have been much worse.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Needs help
Joe-38622 January 2006
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!
14 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Volcanic Disaster? Movie Disaster more like.....
Rob_Taylor27 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Ho-hum. Another SciFi Channel production and another direly tedious, badly acted, poorly produced effort with sub-standard effects and story. Who woulda guessed, huh? The SciFi Channel seem to think that getting the crews' four year old kids in as science advisers is a good idea. Hence we have the laughable technobabble on display here that makes Star Trek look like science fact.

The Earth is rebelling against us, since we've poisoned it with radiation and chemical pollutants etc. How very Gaia-like. Also how terribly intellect-insulting. I'm not sure what is worse. The fact that they hope we'll swallow this garbage or the decision to try to send an eco-message to the viewers (albeit only in passing).

Clearly no one even proof-read the script or they'd have noticed the glaring gaff involved in solving the problem of the erupting Earth. You see, having poisoned the world with radiation and such, the only solution to save the planet is to detonate nuclear warheads, thereby adding more radiation. It really isn't just me that noticed this ridiculously counter-intuitive nonsense? Right? Other intelligence insulting details include the apparently limitless diving abilities of nuclear ballistic submarines and the attendant ability of their torpedoes to likewise survive the crushing pressure at the tremendous depths of ocean trenches.

My favourite nonsense though, was the scene where a guy gets dripped on by molten lava and later, in hospital, we're told that he only has "superficial burns".....

All in all this was complete rubbish, like most SciFi productions and is best avoided by all.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Seemed like it should be a Part 1 of 2 until the end
PhillyPartTwo21 January 2006
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'.
13 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Rotton at the Core
juliankennedy2328 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Magma: Volcanic Disaster: 5 out of 10: The always watchable Xander Berkley (24) and the impish Amy Jo Johnson (Pink Power Ranger) lead a surprisingly solid cast down made for television disaster movie hell.

With Made for TV disaster movies the questions are not how good are certain elements but how mind numbingly awful will these elements be. Stack the deck with the terrifying fact this is a made for Sci-fi Channel Disaster movie (Only PAX is worse) and anything above pure pain is a feat of cinematic luck. This is not pure pain.

As I said the leads were watchable and the screenplay liked to actually kill off characters on screen which is a nice touch. In addition Amy Jo Johnson's attempts to simultaneously bed Xander Berkley and save his marriage were more entertaining than anything else in the movie. (Usually in disaster movies these subplots put the "T" in tedium.) Alas the rest of the movie is a true disaster and both the screenwriter and the effects/sets departments share blame. First off all most natural disasters are not caused by man. Perhaps a look near a dictionary for the definition of natural might clear this up.

The idea that nuclear testing and chemical waste is polluting the core of the earth (it's solid by the way and starts about 400 miles below the surface) causing it to expand is not the most ridiculous premise for a movie (that is shared by this film's bigger sister The Core, The Day After Tomorrow and Sixteen Candles) but it is close.

As for the special effects guys I know the CGI lava looks bad and the model subs are wanting but if you're going to put the characters in a lava tunnel perhaps one without actual lights attached on the walls would be better. And what kind of underground mine was that anyway? It looked like a Styrofoam tunnel house.

The movie simply falls apart at the end with nuclear weapons once again coming to the rescue and a Yellowstone finale which was one of the funniest things I've seen all year. Magma is average in a field where the competition is awful.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Yawn
gtc8326 January 2006
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.
16 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Magma Volcanic Disaster: Exactly what you'd expect
Platypuschow22 August 2017
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
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
The earth is trying to tell humanity something.
michaelRokeefe5 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
A far fetched contrivance. Professor Peter Shepard(Xander Berkeley),in his dedication to volcanology, realizes that unexpected volcanic activity spanning the globe, is earth's way of signaling a warning of imminent catastrophic danger nearing mankind to extinction. Shepard and a group of his students take a field trip to gather information to devise a plan to ward off disaster and save the planet. This low budget made-for-cable action drama at times depends on ridiculous situations and painfully awkward dialogue to move the story along. The CGI is not exactly top notch and neither is most of the cast. Players of note: Amy Jo Johnson, Reiko Aylesworth, David O'Donnell, George R. Sheffey and Michael Durrell.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Watch it, if you must, for Berkeley
Leofwine_draca4 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
MAGMA: VOLCANIC DISASTER is a low key disaster film of the 2000s, barely remembered by anybody a decade later. It stars the constantly underrated Xander Berkeley, an actor I've been a fan of ever since I saw him in TERMINATOR 2, playing a vulcanologist who warns of the imminent eruption of volcanoes around the world. What follows is a by-the-numbers thriller full of insipid performances from everyone who isn't Berkeley, alongside poor scripting and the usual gamut of terrible and cheesy CGI effects. It's a shame that Berkeley's protagonist is so dull here because he alone carries the film and is the only worthwhile thing in it.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A good movie
jack-mart31 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This was a good movie.I like the story.The cheap special effects were good. It may be cheesy but if you a natural disaster fan then check this one out. Now the plot.

Appertinly nuclear power is heating up the core and starting volcanoes around the world. Volcanologiost Dr. Sheprerd starts to notice that it's starting to happen when a volcano erupts according to a theory he has to convince the government to save the earth and keep his marriage from falling apart.

I loved this Movie.

Its one of my favorite

8/10
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Disaster movie - what can I say?
toni_fsf27 May 2007
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.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
How many cliches can you pack into a B-movie?
gerrgrady-8630729 August 2022
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.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
As seen on UniMás, "Magma" is a typical disaster flick w/ excessive CGI.
keith_xyz1 February 2013
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.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Once again it's the fault of humans
sarakmiles-6818424 September 2020
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.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Bland Disaster, If That's Not an Oxymoron
TheExpatriate70016 August 2009
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.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
ATLAS HAS SHRUGGED
nogodnomasters16 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This is an incredibly bad volcano disaster from from Sony, worse than most Asylum productions. It seems the earth has eaten a large double burrito and is trying to get rid of it. As the core expands, magma is coming to the earth and will kill all the mommies, puppies, and kitties. And like everything else, man has caused this, which wasn't really explained as somehow toxins in the crust have made it down near the core. Amy Jo Johnson provides the token smart girl and eye candy. Yes, and nuclear weapons must be used with precision. Seriously?

The CG effects were bad. The guy who burns up in beginning was laughable. There is one scene where kids are standing in front of a painting of Old Faithful constantly blowing steam, it was so pathetic looking. Didn't anyone see how bad that looked?

The film has some camp appeal. Certainly students of volcanology could have a party watching this film.

Guide: No f-bombs or nudity. One brief scene of implied tent sex.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
So bad, it was good
Sergiodave17 August 2020
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.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Pretty poor, but it could have been worse
TheLittleSongbird26 May 2011
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
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Could of been worse.... Could have been allot better!
tombo198420007 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Has to be said that for a volcano disaster movie it was pretty pants. I mean no matter how much of a hurry you are your always going to be careful of where you put your foot aren't you... I mean when that chap accidentally 'steps' in the lava at the start...? Oh and 'i think there is lava inside that mine, why don't we go and have a look' seems to spell disaster...

Plus you don't see any famous landmarks being destroyed, you just hear about them...? Oh no most of Rome's been destroyed...? Yeah well lets see? This could have been a brilliant film... Especially if they switched a couple of characters about and gave the lass that played Michelle in 24 more screen time...

My biggest moan is when the people are trapped between the burning woods and lava in the Yellowstone national park. They just stand there and let themselves be melted by he lava... *beep* that, id make a run through the burning trees! So many things disappointed me about this film... Oh well... Lets hope the next volcano disaster movies are better.

Watching Terror Peak and Volcano in New York soon... Fingers crossed... So far my fav out of this one, Volcano (LA), Dantes Peak and The Volcano Disaster is The Volcano Disaster... A very underrated movie which i love...
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Upside the volcano
drystyx25 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
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.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Considering everything this is and represents, it's not half bad
I_Ailurophile6 December 2022
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.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Watch at your own peril
wstetler515 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
As is typical of these low budget disaster movies the plat was moronic the acting so so special effects were abysmal costuming was mediocre for example U.S. Navy submarines do not say U.S. Navy on the sides, The navy uniforms were wrong for example the commander at headquarters had his Rank Insignia almost to his elbow when the bottom edge should've been no more than 2 inches above the cuff and on the submarine the majority of submarine commanders are full captains and the insignia on the collar devices on the captain of one of the subs we're too large. In addition if a submarine where to take a hit from a large rock like it did in the movie at that depth would more likely have caused the ship to implode. Also radios do not work underwater submarines have to rise to near the surface and raise an antenna or surface to use the radio. And no US submarine or Russian or British can dive to Depths necessary to reach near the bottom of the Marianas Trench which is over 32,000 feet deep most submarines are limited to maybe 3000. Submarines can communicate underwater using ELF but Are limited to coded messages non-voice.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Disaster movie that was running low of destruction...
paul_haakonsen10 April 2011
For a disaster movie, then it wasn't too shabby. But for entertainment, then "Magma: Volcanic Disaster" didn't fully live up to other movies of the same genre.

The story in "Magma: Volcanic Disaster" is pretty much as in most other disaster movies. A series of cataclysmic events, in this case; volcanic eruptions, are threatening our relatively peaceful planet. And of course, a scientist predicts this, but no one listens - not before it is almost too late, anyway. And of course now, it is up to a very small group of people to stop the coming of the end of days. Yes, there you go, end of the story summary. Sounds like something you've seen in other movies before this one? You got it!

The effects in "Magma: Volcanic Disaster" were actually decent enough. Though there are other disaster movies available out there with far better effects. That being said, then it should be noted that the effects in this movie are not bad, and there are disaster movies out there with far worse effects.

A fairly decent group of actors and actresses are on the list in this movie. Though the movie was carried almost exclusively by Xander Berkeley (playing Peter Shepherd).

Now, "Magma: Volcanic Disaster" is a movie without any real roller-coaster effects of thrills and suspense. It is a pretty flat ride from start to end. Sure, there are a couple of scenes that could come off as dramatic, but they were far apart and were just there to keep you interested. The movie could have used more destruction and mayhem from Mother Earth's side, but that was not to be.

Having sat through this movie, I can honestly say that it wasn't a super great movie, nor was it a horribly bad movie. However, it is not a disaster movie that I will be returning to for a second watching, it just doesn't have that much value in it. Especially because the story wants you to buy into these volcanic eruptions will result in the end of humanity and the world, if they are not hindered, but the movie never builds up the feeling of the end of the world is at hand.

If you like disaster movies, then give "Magma: Volcanic Disaster" a chance. It might not be the best of movies, but it is a good attempt at the genre.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Could've been better, but for two bucks, hey, it was good.
Jinn19 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Well with the opening of atrocious acting and laughable SFX, I prepared for the worst. Actually, to be honest, I wasn't expecting much from a movie which cost more to buy brand new and sealed, than it did to hire.

I thought I'd give it a go as I have a fascination for volcanoes. Fortunately it did get better for the most part. Xander, Amy Jo and their two companions acted well. The guy with the long hair had a sexy voice. Amy Jo as Brianna was so believable as an enthusiastic student wanting to get out there and make a name for herself, without being too annoying. And George's character, Kincaid *was* an annoying snot, but that's because he played him well ;)

I felt for Peter, Xander's character, (even though the story was not original) of a scientist struggling to prove a 'doomsday' theory to a band of rigid authorities, however, it was an interesting premise of worldwide disaster and the hope of humanity. It showed his own humanity trying to smooth things over with his estranged wife as well. She played a convincing part also and her humanity came through.

Now they probably didn't have the budget of 'The Day After Tomorrow'" or "Volcano" but I honestly think that they could've done better effects with the lava (particularly in the beginning) and tightened up the acting in parts, but other than that it was good for what it was.

I'll pass on my copy at a DVD swap, though I am glad I saw it.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed