User reviews

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.

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.

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.

My wife brought this one home from the store one day, having mistaken it for the Tommy Lee Jones movie. Rather than have her return it, I decided to open it up and throw it in, just because... well, just because. It was bad, man... just plain bad. Even for a TV movie. The acting, the "special" effects (the red glowing light that simulated lava underground was a side-splitter), it just stunk. But you know what? We kept it, and I'm glad. It, along with Summer Lovers, came in quite handy for keeping my kitchen table from wobbling on our uneven floor. Buy a copy today! Or just use a scrap of wood.

Ow. Pain. Lots of pain. From the horrible acting, to the impossible situations, to the complete and utter lack of geology, this movie left a bad taste in my mouth. Even When Time Ran Out had a more realistic eruption. I've never seen such a pathetic pyroclastic flow in my life. "Forming a new magma chamber under the west face," my foot.

If you want to see a volcano movie that makes only a few mistakes (most of them being exaggerations), watch Dante's Peak.

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 beginning of the movie, a couple of minutes in, and the coordinates of the volcano are shown on the computer screen as Lat 23.75 degrees Lon 78.65 degrees which puts it in the middle of Sagar, India, not Angel Lake Peaks, California. I made it that far, but no farther.

A great movie about a volcano that was going to go off and no one listened to the experts until it was too late. Just like that other really good movie about a volcano that was going to go off and no one listened to the experts until it was too late and the other 50 or so movies about a volcano that was going to go off and no one listened to the experts until it was too late.

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!

Has anyone noticed the ski slope sign in the movie with Heaven's Gate with the two black diamond ski symbols.

This came out the same year the true to life story of a bunch of cult folks committed group suicide as in March 1997 cult believers thought the Hale-Bopp comment of that year brings closure to "Heaven's Gate ...our 22 years of classroom here on planet Earth is finally coming to conclusion-'graduation' from the Human Evolutionary Level. We are happily prepared to leave 'this world' and go with Ti's crew."

The rest of the story is pure formula tv screen play written by high school kids likely.

They did shoot this on a small budget as the special effects rise to the level of an Ed Wood effort.

About 24 minutes in I had to stop and watch paint dry vs looking at the remaining film time of 1 hour 28 minutes and 14 seconds of a most forgettable tv movie

I do not think any of the main actors in this lamentable film went onto anything worthwhile or something they list on their acting resume.

This is just a forgettable movie that I watched. The story is similar to other disaster movies with one guy suspect something bad will happen while people decides to ignore him until it happen. It's predictable to guess what happened in the movie and doesn't do anything too interesting about. There's also a couple of plotlines that aren't that interesting to learn about and are generic. The acting is pretty bland throughout and isn't that impressive at all. Even when it gets to the disaster scenes its doesn't have that tension to be found in it because it happen pretty quickly and there's not that much disaster to be found in it.

Volcano: Fire on the Mountain is best be forgotten on how bland it is.

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.

This film features two actors that I like: Don S. Davis (Macgyver and Stargate) and Brian Kerwin (Torch Trilogy), both very experienced actors. I enjoyed the action and suspense, even though the romance storyline was predictable. For a lunchtime tv movie it was a good choice for me.

I give it 6.5 stars. Acting was pretty good. The CGI was ok.

I'm a critic but a very strange one. Some movies click to me and some don't, but "Volcano : Fire on the Mountain" pleased me all the way. Dante's Peak was too slow, Volcano was too unreal, but Volcano : Fire on the Mountain combined a little of both and got a great TV movie. The acting is no better than any other natural disaster film and the special effects are excellent! I just wish other made for TV films could be this good.