Volcano - Senza via di scampo

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.

OK, Volcano: Fire On The Mountain is not a blockbuster movie. It doesn't pretend to be - it's a TV movie! It doesn't have any actors I've ever heard of which, in itself, seems to pre-determine some viewers' opinion of it. But why does an hour-and-a-half's free entertainment need to be studded with mega-stars for it to be appreciated? My contention is that it doesn't! In some ways, this movie is fairly "ordinary" in that it portrays a very believable event in a very believable way. Sure, it needs to have some super-heroic deeds incorporated into it (which it does) otherwise it would just be a news broadcast! Nevertheless, those dramatic events are, in this movie, dramatically realistic.

I don't intend to detail exactly what those dramatic events are (because I would then have to click the spoilers box and I think it would be better for you to judge for yourselves). Suffice to say that real things happen to real people in real situations and those things are told in an exciting way.

No, Volcano isn't ever going to get mentioned at the Emmys - but then how much of what we watch on our TVs ever is? It isn't boring and, to be honest, I enjoyed it and I think you will too. Just remember - you get what you pay for and, since this costs nothing, it is worth a lot more than that!

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.

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.

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.