[go: up one dir, main page]

    कैलेंडर रिलीज़ करेंटॉप 250 फ़िल्मेंसबसे लोकप्रिय फ़िल्मेंज़ोनर के आधार पर फ़िल्में ब्राउज़ करेंटॉप बॉक्स ऑफ़िसशोटाइम और टिकटफ़िल्मी समाचारइंडिया मूवी स्पॉटलाइट
    TV और स्ट्रीमिंग पर क्या हैटॉप 250 टीवी शोसबसे लोकप्रिय TV शोशैली के अनुसार टीवी शो ब्राउज़ करेंTV की खबरें
    देखने के लिए क्या हैसबसे नए ट्रेलरIMDb ओरिजिनलIMDb की पसंदIMDb स्पॉटलाइटफैमिली एंटरटेनमेंट गाइडIMDb पॉडकास्ट
    OscarsEmmysToronto Int'l Film FestivalIMDb Stars to WatchSTARmeter पुरस्कारअवार्ड्स सेंट्रलफ़ेस्टिवल सेंट्रलसभी इवेंट
    जिनका जन्म आज के दिन हुआ सबसे लोकप्रिय सेलिब्रिटीसेलिब्रिटी से जुड़ी खबरें
    मदद केंद्रयोगदानकर्ता क्षेत्रपॉल
उद्योग के पेशेवरों के लिए
  • भाषा
  • पूरी तरह से सपोर्टेड
  • English (United States)
    आंशिक रूप से सपोर्टेड
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
वॉचलिस्ट
साइन इन करें
  • पूरी तरह से सपोर्टेड
  • English (United States)
    आंशिक रूप से सपोर्टेड
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
ऐप का इस्तेमाल करें
वापस जाएँ
  • कास्ट और क्रू
  • उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं
  • ट्रिविया
IMDbPro
Magma: Volcanic Disaster (2006)

उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

Magma: Volcanic Disaster

31 समीक्षाएं
5/10

Absolute Average

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.
  • Vic_max
  • 26 दिस॰ 2006
  • परमालिंक
3/10

An exercise in killing off gratuitous characters with lava

  • dwr246
  • 5 अप्रैल 2007
  • परमालिंक
3/10

Magma Volcanic Disaster: Exactly what you'd expect

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
  • Platypuschow
  • 21 अग॰ 2017
  • परमालिंक
5/10

Needs help

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!
  • Joe-386
  • 21 जन॰ 2006
  • परमालिंक
3/10

Volcanic Disaster? Movie Disaster more like.....

  • Rob_Taylor
  • 26 अग॰ 2007
  • परमालिंक
3/10

Seemed like it should be a Part 1 of 2 until the end

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'.
  • PhillyPartTwo
  • 20 जन॰ 2006
  • परमालिंक
5/10

Rotton at the Core

  • juliankennedy23
  • 27 दिस॰ 2006
  • परमालिंक
3/10

Yawn

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.
  • gtc83
  • 25 जन॰ 2006
  • परमालिंक
6/10

Disaster movie - what can I say?

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.
  • toni_fsf
  • 26 मई 2007
  • परमालिंक
4/10

The earth is trying to tell humanity something.

  • michaelRokeefe
  • 4 जन॰ 2007
  • परमालिंक
8/10

A good movie

  • jack-mart
  • 30 मार्च 2010
  • परमालिंक
7/10

Solid low-rent disaster movie.

I love disaster movies, the cheesier the better ;> What I liked about this movie, and therefore gave it 7 stars for, is that it wasn't a long-drawn-out affair, like some I've seen. It got done in 1 1/2 hours everything it needed to do. The cgi wasn't spectacular but it's a low budget movie, and it's pretty old. I think that the European crew was more than up to their task, which is also nice in a movie of this sort. The actual acting was pretty good across the board. It's kinda funny, that it was good drama within the framework of a kinda not great disaster movie. So, yeah, good plot, good solid acting from a bunch of accomplished actors. I also liked the guy who played the American Prez. Usually they go for glamour types in that role (unless the Prez. in the movie is a snivelling rat ;> ). All the characters were believable, there weren't any annoying teenagers screwing up the works... plenty to like in this movie. Fairly decent hopeful ending. For a low-rent disaster movie, it's pretty good quality!
  • asage19
  • 5 जन॰ 2021
  • परमालिंक
3/10

How many cliches can you pack into a B-movie?

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.
  • gerrgrady-86307
  • 28 अग॰ 2022
  • परमालिंक
4/10

Watch it, if you must, for Berkeley

  • Leofwine_draca
  • 3 नव॰ 2017
  • परमालिंक
3/10

Bland Disaster, If That's Not an Oxymoron

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.
  • TheExpatriate700
  • 15 अग॰ 2009
  • परमालिंक
1/10

As seen on UniMás, "Magma" is a typical disaster flick w/ excessive CGI.

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.
  • keith_xyz
  • 31 जन॰ 2013
  • परमालिंक
2/10

Once again it's the fault of humans

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.
  • sarakmiles-68184
  • 23 सित॰ 2020
  • परमालिंक

Not a disaster, unless you were one of the victims

The movie does not start well. The writing, acting and sound are all about as bad as it gets, suggesting the entire movie may end up being a disaster. Not true. But the long-dormant Iceland volcano with an unpronounceable name starting with "Troll" does erupt suddenly and quickly, with terrible consequences for the people we didn't likely enjoy watching.

This is on the level of a TV-movie, but not as much of a disaster as some disaster movies. The actors playing Peter and Bree are actually pretty good, once Bree is no longer perky (or perhaps you can count her perky behavior as good acting). Bree is too perky and enthusiastic to be believable as an intelligent scientist, but that will change later.

The writing is about on the same level as the typical movie of this type, but the last half-hour or so is quite exciting. Some actors with only a few lines seem like they are sitting around the table reading their lines for the first time.

The President of the United States is no Kiefer Sutherland, but he does a good job.

The visual effects are competently done but not spectacular. In most scenes we see only the minimum necessary to communicate what is happening, but toward the end we get a little more detail. Violence is not graphic (unless you count people catching on fire, but even then you can't really see anything) but several people surely die. In one case we are told the person died.

This isn't bad enough to be good, but it's good enough not to be bad.
  • vchimpanzee
  • 18 मार्च 2018
  • परमालिंक
1/10

ATLAS HAS SHRUGGED

  • nogodnomasters
  • 15 मई 2019
  • परमालिंक
6/10

Upside the volcano

  • drystyx
  • 24 जन॰ 2013
  • परमालिंक
3/10

Pretty poor, but it could have been worse

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
  • TheLittleSongbird
  • 25 मई 2011
  • परमालिंक
4/10

Could of been worse.... Could have been allot better!

  • tombo19842000
  • 6 मई 2007
  • परमालिंक
2/10

So bad, it was good

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.
  • Sergiodave
  • 16 अग॰ 2020
  • परमालिंक
2/10

Scientifically ridiculous.

This movie is insane. Those volcanoes are stratovolcanoes, they were erupting the wrong type of lava. I guess the pyroclastic flows were okay. Also, Yellowstone is on a Hotspot, not a fault line. The mine scene makes no sense, where did the "magma chamber" even come from. As well as the cause of the eruptions, this would not happen. If I were to have directed this movie, the eruptions would have been much more explosive, and much less lava involved. The type of magma composite volcanoes contain is very thick and sticky, this the result of the explosive eruptions. If you were to remake this movie with the correct scientific facts, I'd watch it.
  • bigmommaasteria
  • 19 मई 2024
  • परमालिंक
3/10

Bad But Fun

  • alicedick
  • 8 अग॰ 2011
  • परमालिंक

इस शीर्षक से अधिक

एक्सप्लोर करने के लिए और भी बहुत कुछ

हाल ही में देखे गए

कृपया इस फ़ीचर का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए ब्राउज़र कुकीज़ चालू करें. और जानें.
IMDb ऐप पाएँ
ज़्यादा एक्सेस के लिए साइन इन करेंज़्यादा एक्सेस के लिए साइन इन करें
सोशल पर IMDb को फॉलो करें
IMDb ऐप पाएँ
Android और iOS के लिए
IMDb ऐप पाएँ
  • सहायता
  • साइट इंडेक्स
  • IMDbPro
  • Box Office Mojo
  • IMDb डेटा लाइसेंस
  • प्रेस रूम
  • विज्ञापन
  • नौकरियाँ
  • उपयोग की शर्तें
  • गोपनीयता नीति
  • Your Ads Privacy Choices
IMDb, एक Amazon कंपनी

© 1990-2025 by IMDb.com, Inc.