User reviews

American journalist, latino revolutionaries, evil dictator, screaming extras and endlessly recycled volcano stock-footage. Okay for what it is: Producer Roger Corman up to his old tricks, rethreading big budget movie fads on a shoestring budget.

What a ridiculous plot. I think story was overloaded. It should have been either a volcano or a political film. Nothing was clear. The characters were not developed well. Often I wonder what is the point of some of the characters.

I have seen many bad movies but this one is really bad. The plot is silly. I don't think politics go well with the mother nature. Acting is bad and visual effects are one of the worst that I have seen lately. It is hard to believe that it was made in 1997.It looks like it is from the bad 80's. I am sure you can find plenty of good, better, slightly better, is even bad films which are better than this one. Waste of time and money.

If there is a worse movie, I pity the people who have seen it. This has now become the worst movie I have had the misfortune to watch. Both my husband and I voted after 25 minutes to stop watching, it really is that bad.

I'm not even going to waste your time by telling you the plot, just avoid it!

I so concur with the previous review - this is a TERRIBLE movie, badly acted, produced and appears to have been made with the most minuscule budget imaginable....Avoid unless you suffer from severe insomnia, this could do the trick....F.Murray Abraham must have been really short of work to have got involved, at least he got a trip to Peru. I see Gwyneth Gibby directed - also responsible for the dreadful "Nightfall" and "Black Scorpion" so it wasn't a mistake... The plot - such as it is - Involves an American photojournalist (Cyril O'Reilly) on assignment in South America to cover a visit from the pope, enter revolutionary guerilla's, despotic leader and an active volcano! This could have been at least entertaining in the right hands, but sadly misses on all fronts..