IMDb RATING
3.5/10
1.1K
YOUR RATING
When the Ring of Fire starts heating up with an unprecedented amount of volcanic activity a team of scientists are gathered to prevent a global catastrophe.When the Ring of Fire starts heating up with an unprecedented amount of volcanic activity a team of scientists are gathered to prevent a global catastrophe.When the Ring of Fire starts heating up with an unprecedented amount of volcanic activity a team of scientists are gathered to prevent a global catastrophe.
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Usual awful movie... I'll not bother you about the synopsis, just put together The Core, Armageddon, an evil-planner Military Officer and one or two Solve-All Nukes and you'll have the movie, if I can call it that way.
Seriously, nukes in this kind of movies are more useful than Swiss Army Knives:
the Big One is approaching? Nuke some places and it's over... A tornado wants to destroy "Insert important city name here"? Nuke "Insert another important city here"... A volcano is erupting? Nuke it! A nuke is near to go off? Nuke it! Coffee is cold? Nuke it! You didn't like Transformers? Nuke yourself, but I can't assure this will fix things...
In the end, how many more movies like this can be made before they start copying one another? I doubt there are still many things to blow up with a nuke...
Seriously, nukes in this kind of movies are more useful than Swiss Army Knives:
the Big One is approaching? Nuke some places and it's over... A tornado wants to destroy "Insert important city name here"? Nuke "Insert another important city here"... A volcano is erupting? Nuke it! A nuke is near to go off? Nuke it! Coffee is cold? Nuke it! You didn't like Transformers? Nuke yourself, but I can't assure this will fix things...
In the end, how many more movies like this can be made before they start copying one another? I doubt there are still many things to blow up with a nuke...
This movie is a great movie ONLY if you need something to sit and laugh at the stupidity of it. As a geologist this movie gets most of the important facts wrong and uses actors that are too young to even be considered in the top of their fields. It is interesting how it shows spurting lava in massive caverns below the Earth's surface. It also is funny how seismically active areas are shown to have massive destruction from a 6.5 magnitude earthquake. They seem to forget the building standards in these areas would be higher needing a bigger quake to do this much damage. Also it is funny how much they make the coast line of Washington State and also Oregon to look as though they are nice beaches of Southern California. The Jelly donut analogy is very entertaining even if the way it is used is wrong. The director does a good job of adding more comic relief with the 2 "supossed" PhD's.
The SciFi Channel's 2005 movie "Descent" is a weak to fair reworking of the old "journey to the center of the earth" plot.
The movie appears to suffer from the classic failings of a SciFi Channel made for TV movie. Sets are limited and one gets redundant views of actors at sparse consoles intermixed with low budget animation of the vessel called "the mole." There is some action and some intrigue, but the movie gets a bit redundant with just three main sets (mole, cave, and control room) and the actors who try to twist the uninspired dialog into something entertaining.
Luke Perry does a good job as Dr. Jake Rollins, but Michael Dorn ( aka Warf from Star Trek) appears one dimensional with General Fielding's stilted dialog.
This might seem like another homage to Jules Verne's piece of classic of nineteenth century French literature "Journey to the Center of the Earth;" it is not. For that watch the 1959 classic "Journey to the Center of the Earth" with Pat Boone and James Mason. The "Descent" is another "tunnel digging vessel heading to the center of the earth movie." If you like this sci-fi theme try episode # 1.2 from "The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne" titled "Queen Victoria and the Giant Mole." If you desire the big budget modern special effects, there is 2003's "The Core" with Hilary Swank. These choices may entertain and stimulate your imagination more.
However if you love science fiction, have nothing else to watch, and want to rest your brain; "Descent" will suffice.
The movie appears to suffer from the classic failings of a SciFi Channel made for TV movie. Sets are limited and one gets redundant views of actors at sparse consoles intermixed with low budget animation of the vessel called "the mole." There is some action and some intrigue, but the movie gets a bit redundant with just three main sets (mole, cave, and control room) and the actors who try to twist the uninspired dialog into something entertaining.
Luke Perry does a good job as Dr. Jake Rollins, but Michael Dorn ( aka Warf from Star Trek) appears one dimensional with General Fielding's stilted dialog.
This might seem like another homage to Jules Verne's piece of classic of nineteenth century French literature "Journey to the Center of the Earth;" it is not. For that watch the 1959 classic "Journey to the Center of the Earth" with Pat Boone and James Mason. The "Descent" is another "tunnel digging vessel heading to the center of the earth movie." If you like this sci-fi theme try episode # 1.2 from "The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne" titled "Queen Victoria and the Giant Mole." If you desire the big budget modern special effects, there is 2003's "The Core" with Hilary Swank. These choices may entertain and stimulate your imagination more.
However if you love science fiction, have nothing else to watch, and want to rest your brain; "Descent" will suffice.
I like bad sci-fi movies but this was a very unoriginal.m, low budget copy cat of The Core. All of the characters were so cliche and predictable. The military guy was the worst part! He seemed like he read his lines from a card off camera.
Dr. Drake was overly arrogant considering the world was at the brink of disaster. I actually enjoyed Luke Perry and his 2 side kicks. They are the only reason I have this movie a 3. I actually played a game on my phone for most of the movie because it just didn't keep my attention.
If you don't have a lot going on and like bad sci fi, it's watchable but don't go out of your way!
Dr. Drake was overly arrogant considering the world was at the brink of disaster. I actually enjoyed Luke Perry and his 2 side kicks. They are the only reason I have this movie a 3. I actually played a game on my phone for most of the movie because it just didn't keep my attention.
If you don't have a lot going on and like bad sci fi, it's watchable but don't go out of your way!
I just watched Descent. Gawds what an awful movie. Right off the bat they depict a lava geyser and a note says that it is miles below the the surface of Washington State. Folks, there are no geysers deep in the Earth like that. They thought it looked neat and in typical Hollywood style they threw it in. And then there is that well that spewed lava. He dropped a stone and I heard a splash. Steam would have erupted out of that well before a blast of lava could, if ever.
And the acting was pretty bad as well. Micheal Dorn has sunk to a new low in jobs.
What a dog of a movie. I bet the vote goes no higher than a 3.5
It didn't look like SciFi Channel spent too much other than to have pretty boy Perry as an attempt to draw.
And the acting was pretty bad as well. Micheal Dorn has sunk to a new low in jobs.
What a dog of a movie. I bet the vote goes no higher than a 3.5
It didn't look like SciFi Channel spent too much other than to have pretty boy Perry as an attempt to draw.
Did you know
- TriviaThe "Spartan GT Supercomputer" is actually a Dell PowerEdge 4200 server.
- GoofsIn the final scene, Marsha Crawford says to the reporter, "It's time the public learn of the causes of these natural phenomenon." The plural of phenomenon is phenomena. Her character has a scientific background and should know this.
- Quotes
Dr. Jake Rollins: There's a lot of jelly down there.
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 30m(90 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content