Ring of Fire

I think this could have been a pretty OK program. Whoever made the decision to have so much of the camera work be on the shakiest hand held camera should be banned from the industry for life. I could have done better filming it with an old hand held movie camera without any image stabilization. It felt like they were doing it on purpose to add to the suspense. But instead all they did was make it nearly impossible for most people to watch without throwing up from motion sickness. I was interested in the story so I soldiered on, but I had to watch it with many long breaks over a number of days because of how bad the camera work was. One strange thing was that the only shots that weren't shaky were the CGI shots. Those were perfect. I guess they were too cheap to try to keep the Dramamine effect going during those (thank goodness). I probably would have given up on this after the first 20 minutes if Terry O' Quinn hadn't been in this. I won't say how it ended; only that I was glad when it was over so I could put away the Dramamine. If I had it to over again, I would have skipped this one just because of the really terrible camera work. These producers and camera people should be ashamed.

Normally I turn off the TV or fall asleep, when I watch movies like this one. But not this time, thanks to brilliant acting by the actors!

I did not see it as a two part Series, but as a movie - so it was a bit to long. But a good plot and great acting made me watch it till the end! I can't understand the critics about the cameras, but maybe it's because I'm from Denmark... It was definitely not a problem during the film.

Personally I liked the way, the persons was connected in the movie. It gave a good flow in the story.

A lot of great pictures from the beautiful nature was definitely a plus :-)

Not a bad plot and acting for a made-for-TV/Cable Miniseries, but the "shaky-cam" is WAY overdone and makes it a pain to watch. Almost every scene (at least the ones I could endure) used this technique, subsequently this was more of an "on in the background while I did other things movie". The constant jittering and jarring, lack of any real time focused on any actor or scene really detracted from the product. Certainly DOES NOT add realism. Too bad for us viewers. As far as scientific accuracy goes, seems about half of it was at least plausible. Most of it was pure Hollywood. The real problem nowadays is too many people are starting to think this stuff is real, as opposed to just fun entertainment.

I enjoy a good disaster movie. There's something fun about it, and I'm not sure why.

I read the premise to "Ring of Fire" and thought it would be good, silly fun, kind of like the recent "Eve of Destruction", where bad physics ran amok. Then, I watched it.

I expected bad geology to be a part of it, but I didn't expect the whole movie to be based on it. The science issues began right away, with an Evil Corporation drilling for oil...in a volcanic caldera? The science only got worse from there--including one of the main plot points: that causing a volcanic eruption on one volcano can trigger hundreds of others around the Pacific Ring of Fire to erupt--by the way, Yellowstone is NOT part of the Pacific Ring of Fire.

Along with the bad science, there were the typical, modern movie stereotypes: evil corporation headed by a charming, charismatic white man with larceny in his heart, and the environmentalist with a heart of gold, who is heroically willing to sacrifice everything in order to do the right thing, and who is always right about everything scientific and environmental. And, let's not forget the cast of 2-dimensional bit players, most of whom seem to be there just to die stupidly.

I did think the acting was a cut above many low-budget TV movies. I also have to be impressed that these guys can keep a straight face and not wink at the camera while delivering their lines.

Did I enjoy it? Oddly, yes, sometimes. I didn't think it was a good movie; the entertainment value lies in how bad it is. Between the eye-rolling and occasional sigh--brought on by yet another science error--I got some good laughs. I wasn't offended by the shaky cam, the way some people were, but I will agree it was overused. Conclusion? If you believe science should be accurately portrayed in movies, don't watch this one. If, instead, you can laugh well at the ignorance of filmmakers and think drivel like Sharknado is fun because it's awesomely silly, then you might just enjoy this movie.

Look, when an earthquake or tremor happens it's one thing, but looking at actors talking or walking through debris or on a street THE CAMERA IS TREMORING, it's IRRITATING!

Hey, What's the purpose of having vibration correction of it's shut off and the cameras INTENTIONALLY shaken for some stupid effect!

Try this at home-move your head around while staring at something in the foreground. What MOVES is the background behind the object and the object of your view only changes in perspective: instead of looking straight on at the subject you're at an angle, BUT in the whole process the PICTURE doesn't JERK!!!

WHY CANT THEY DEVISE A CAMERA THAT MOVES BACK AND FORTH A LITTLE, maybe an inch or five, WHILE LOCKED ONTO THE OBJECT OF THE PHOTOGRAPH! The background will move but the subject will stay in the camera's center... NO JERKING!!!