अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंA USGS scientist attempts to convince his boss and the residents of Angel Falls, California that a nearby volcano is about to erupt.A USGS scientist attempts to convince his boss and the residents of Angel Falls, California that a nearby volcano is about to erupt.A USGS scientist attempts to convince his boss and the residents of Angel Falls, California that a nearby volcano is about to erupt.
Don S. Davis
- Mayor Bob Hart
- (as Don Davis)
William deVry
- David
- (as Will deVry)
Cyrus Thiedeke
- Doug
- (as Cyrus Theideke)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
Being a TV movie, 'Volcano: Fire on the Mountain' can't be compared to big budget films like 'Dante's Peak' and 'Volcano', but this was surprisingly good still.
It might not be the best disaster film ever made, and is laded with cliches, but it nevertheless was thoroughly entertaining. If you're into this genre, though, and expect topnotch visual effects, you should rather opt for 'Dante's Peak', which - in my opinion is still the best volcano movie ever made.
But this review is about 'Volcano: Fire on the Mountain'. The performances are not bad, but also nothing to write home about. As mentioned, the story is cliched. We have a guy who believes a volcano will erupt, and no-one believing him - until it is too late. The characters are also pretty standard with nothing new to the stereotypical characters of the genre. The visuals are also clearly CGI.
Despite these issues, the film delivered loads of action and adventure and was better than expected (for a TV movie). There were still enough thrills to keep be entertained. In the end, it was all good fun.
Would I watch it again? Yes.
It might not be the best disaster film ever made, and is laded with cliches, but it nevertheless was thoroughly entertaining. If you're into this genre, though, and expect topnotch visual effects, you should rather opt for 'Dante's Peak', which - in my opinion is still the best volcano movie ever made.
But this review is about 'Volcano: Fire on the Mountain'. The performances are not bad, but also nothing to write home about. As mentioned, the story is cliched. We have a guy who believes a volcano will erupt, and no-one believing him - until it is too late. The characters are also pretty standard with nothing new to the stereotypical characters of the genre. The visuals are also clearly CGI.
Despite these issues, the film delivered loads of action and adventure and was better than expected (for a TV movie). There were still enough thrills to keep be entertained. In the end, it was all good fun.
Would I watch it again? Yes.
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).
This is a very basic film, I feel Irwin Allen's talent would have made it more exciting to watch, it is a TV movie so I cannot expect more, I was kind enough to give it 6 for it's effort.
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.
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.
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.
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.
क्या आपको पता है
- भाव
Soldier: We came in late. We fought like hell. We did our job, and we went home. That's the way a war should be fought.
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें