IMDb RATING
4.6/10
823
YOUR RATING
A USGS scientist attempts to convince his boss and the residents of Angel Falls, California that a nearby volcano is about to erupt.A USGS scientist attempts to convince his boss and the residents of Angel Falls, California that a nearby volcano is about to erupt.A USGS scientist attempts to convince his boss and the residents of Angel Falls, California that a nearby volcano is about to erupt.
Don S. Davis
- Mayor Bob Hart
- (as Don Davis)
William deVry
- David
- (as Will deVry)
Cyrus Thiedeke
- Doug
- (as Cyrus Theideke)
Featured 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Volcano: Fire on the Mountain is best be forgotten on how bland it is.
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.
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.
Did you know
- Quotes
Soldier: We came in late. We fought like hell. We did our job, and we went home. That's the way a war should be fought.
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content