Le réveil du volcan

I saw the TV-movie I mentioned when I was in Dallas (PRIOR to release of "Dante's Peak"). The plots of the two are rather similar: (1) both cases, a long-inactive volcano in a nice spot suddenly starts showing signs of activity (2) both cases, there is love-interest connexion with the volcano and vulcanologist (3) both cases, bickering vulcanologist and woman have to do the actual work to handle the eruption (4) obviously, both cases must have unrealistic solution ("Fire on the Mountain", the solution was to set off ACTUAL avalanche to counteract what vulcanologist described as "liquid avalanche"; I didn't see "Dante's Peak" to comment on the solution, other than it being unrealistic--as it oft is in movies).

Film delivered exactly what it set out to do

Obviously not a cinema standard film or a blockbuster, but an easy watch.

This sentence is fill to reach 150 characters. I'll be there soon.

I'm a critic but a very strange one. Some movies click to me and some don't, but "Volcano : Fire on the Mountain" pleased me all the way. Dante's Peak was too slow, Volcano was too unreal, but Volcano : Fire on the Mountain combined a little of both and got a great TV movie. The acting is no better than any other natural disaster film and the special effects are excellent! I just wish other made for TV films could be this good.

Well for a TV movie then the 1997 movie "Volcano: Fire on the Mountain" wasn't actually as bad as to be feared. Sure, this was by no means among the top of the line of natural disaster movies. But the movie actually fared well enough, taking into consideration what the movie turned out to be.

The storyline was pretty generic and straight forward as natural disaster movies go. So yeah, you know the outcome of the movie from the very moment the movie starts. Yeah, it was that predicable. And that was actually a bit amazing given the fact that they had no less than 5 writers working on the script; Merrill H. Karpf, Donna Ebbs, Scott Weinstein, Craig Spector and Steve Womack. So I am a little bit perplexed that five writers didn't manage to come up with something more original and outstanding.

However, director Graeme Campbell actually managed to bring the movie to life on the screen in a well enough manner. I mean, at least I was adequately entertained from start to end of the movie. Sure, this wasn't the finest moment in natural disaster movies, but the movie provided sufficient entertainment, so mission accomplished.

The acting in the movie was fairly good, though the characters written in the movie did suffer from being rather generic and lacking a proper backstory and drive. So you don't really invest any particular feeling into the characters as they are essentially faceless and one and the same.

For a natural disaster movie, then "Volcano: Fire on the Mountain" fared well enough in the special effects department. I mean, it wasn't top of the line, not even back in 1997, but the special effects were functional and served their purposes well enough.

My rating of "Volcano: Fire on the Mountain" , once the volcanic ash and snow from the avalanche settles, becomes a mediocre five out of ten stars. I think the movie is actually adequately entertaining enough for a single viewing if you have an interest in the natural disaster movies.

From a geologist perspective...the story is impossible. The situations that are portrayed could not occur in a real volcanic eruption. However, from at entertainment perspective...the storyline is pretty good for a TV action movie.

The story lines interrelate and there are characters that was reasonably interesting to watch. And if your a scientist, geologist or know anything about volcanoes it is really amusing to watch. The acting is pretty good for a TV movie. The movie creates an interesting relationship between a natural disaster and a overly dramatic plot. At times it appears as though the volcano is merely a catalyst for the drama.

Don't expect accuracy, but it's good for a quick, mindless entertainment.