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.
17 Reviews
Somebody SHOOT the cameramen so they stop jerking the darn thing
grrogers5524 December 2022
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!!!
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!!!
Overly Long-- Would Rate It Average Overall
larrys35 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I'm partial to disaster flicks and I found this DVD at Redbox, although it's a TV Miniseries. It's in two parts, each one about 90 minutes long, which I felt was overly long for this film. Of course, it's not up to the quality of classics like the original "Poseiden Adventure" or "Towering Inferno", although it had some positives to it adding up to an average rating from me.
Set in Oregon, it centers on an oil company, Trans Nova, using a supposedly environmentally safe laser drill to find oil in a naturally protected preserve. However, surreptitiously they're digging lower than legal depths and what they think is a vast oil reserve is actually a compressed magma (lava) deposit.
After a whistleblower, who works at Trans Nova, reveals this to the head scientist overseeing the project Dr. Matthew Cooper (Michael Vartan) and to the aggressive environmentalist opposing the project, Emily Booth (Lauren Lee Smith) they project a disaster unless the well is immediately shut down.
Even as livestock and wildlife begin to die, the head of the Trans Nova project Oliver Booth (Terry O'Quinn)--yes Emily's estranged father-- refuses to shut it down. You can guess what happens next--disaster with a huge volcanic eruption and the threat of triggering the Ring of Fire, whereby 75% of the world's volcanoes could be activated and erupt.
In addition to the length of the movie, other drawbacks I thought were rather wooden acting and dialogue plus too many scientific technical terms as it went along. I thought overall the special effects were so/so, but at times very well conceived. On the positive side, I thought it maintained tension fairly well and the rescue and survival stories, as is the norm in these epic films, were quite well done, and at times could be moving and touching.
Set in Oregon, it centers on an oil company, Trans Nova, using a supposedly environmentally safe laser drill to find oil in a naturally protected preserve. However, surreptitiously they're digging lower than legal depths and what they think is a vast oil reserve is actually a compressed magma (lava) deposit.
After a whistleblower, who works at Trans Nova, reveals this to the head scientist overseeing the project Dr. Matthew Cooper (Michael Vartan) and to the aggressive environmentalist opposing the project, Emily Booth (Lauren Lee Smith) they project a disaster unless the well is immediately shut down.
Even as livestock and wildlife begin to die, the head of the Trans Nova project Oliver Booth (Terry O'Quinn)--yes Emily's estranged father-- refuses to shut it down. You can guess what happens next--disaster with a huge volcanic eruption and the threat of triggering the Ring of Fire, whereby 75% of the world's volcanoes could be activated and erupt.
In addition to the length of the movie, other drawbacks I thought were rather wooden acting and dialogue plus too many scientific technical terms as it went along. I thought overall the special effects were so/so, but at times very well conceived. On the positive side, I thought it maintained tension fairly well and the rescue and survival stories, as is the norm in these epic films, were quite well done, and at times could be moving and touching.
first impression: good intentions, some problems
unbekannternutzer12 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
bad things first:
the main good character that is an environmentalist happens to be the daughter of the main evil character who is the head of a big oil company. that's so unbelievable. lets put some more conflict in it, shall we? why do they have to do this. and of course she has a son who she cant see because she's a criminal activist and also has no time for him due to her enthusiasm for environmental protection. oh, the conflict. many sad faces to be expected there. and of course many emotional scenes with her dad. great stuff. for women, i guess.
another thing that put me off was the soap-opera-style of many of the scenes. you know, when there is dialog and one character delivers a very well prepared line and then dramatically leaves the scene, and the camera focuses on a pondering face of the other guy? that happens like 10 times in the first part.
unfortunately the pacing is a little slow. it's not as annoying as in other series but a little less dialog and more action would be nice. no i don't mean Hollywood-action. i mean people doing things other than talking. this is probably only because of the introductory nature of the first part though. but the action scenes at the end of the first part have a big problem for me: the shaky camera again. it's too much. i cant see what's going on. stop that, please. i don't mind cheap special effects because i know it is not a movie and has a lot lower budget. but i do mind if i don't see what's going on. blurry shapes wont help with that.
aside from that, the story is not bad. it feels a little weak at the beginning but it's getting better. the protest scenes and the speech scene at the beginning were really not promising. but it makes up for that. it may not be scientifically accurate but i am not in a position to judge that. speaking of that, there is a scene where they happen to be a few meters away from an explosion and they don't react at all. 'what was that?' she asked with a an expression on her face that would make you think she's talking about some minor unusual sound she has just heard. and then they run to the crater as if there is no danger at all. why? that's not how you do it.
i did enjoy most of it though. i was focusing on the bad stuff. so keep that in mind. and i only have seen the first part. it's (probably) not a bad series. but those issues that i have described could have been avoided which is kind of sad because this could have been a much better series.
just one more thing: you should probably avoid this series if you don't like environmentalists. because in this series they are right. they are the good guys. i agree with that (not always and not entirely but mostly). but some of you might not.
edit: i've just watched the second part, and unfortunately it was worse than the first one. mostly for acting reasons. and it was very predictable.
the main good character that is an environmentalist happens to be the daughter of the main evil character who is the head of a big oil company. that's so unbelievable. lets put some more conflict in it, shall we? why do they have to do this. and of course she has a son who she cant see because she's a criminal activist and also has no time for him due to her enthusiasm for environmental protection. oh, the conflict. many sad faces to be expected there. and of course many emotional scenes with her dad. great stuff. for women, i guess.
another thing that put me off was the soap-opera-style of many of the scenes. you know, when there is dialog and one character delivers a very well prepared line and then dramatically leaves the scene, and the camera focuses on a pondering face of the other guy? that happens like 10 times in the first part.
unfortunately the pacing is a little slow. it's not as annoying as in other series but a little less dialog and more action would be nice. no i don't mean Hollywood-action. i mean people doing things other than talking. this is probably only because of the introductory nature of the first part though. but the action scenes at the end of the first part have a big problem for me: the shaky camera again. it's too much. i cant see what's going on. stop that, please. i don't mind cheap special effects because i know it is not a movie and has a lot lower budget. but i do mind if i don't see what's going on. blurry shapes wont help with that.
aside from that, the story is not bad. it feels a little weak at the beginning but it's getting better. the protest scenes and the speech scene at the beginning were really not promising. but it makes up for that. it may not be scientifically accurate but i am not in a position to judge that. speaking of that, there is a scene where they happen to be a few meters away from an explosion and they don't react at all. 'what was that?' she asked with a an expression on her face that would make you think she's talking about some minor unusual sound she has just heard. and then they run to the crater as if there is no danger at all. why? that's not how you do it.
i did enjoy most of it though. i was focusing on the bad stuff. so keep that in mind. and i only have seen the first part. it's (probably) not a bad series. but those issues that i have described could have been avoided which is kind of sad because this could have been a much better series.
just one more thing: you should probably avoid this series if you don't like environmentalists. because in this series they are right. they are the good guys. i agree with that (not always and not entirely but mostly). but some of you might not.
edit: i've just watched the second part, and unfortunately it was worse than the first one. mostly for acting reasons. and it was very predictable.
A Science Fiction Where the Science Was Made Up, and Facts Don't Count
magneto-161 September 2013
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.
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.
I think I might puke, really, I mean it
Rustybshackleferd4 August 2013
Utter crap, waste of time. The first episode was mildly bad, second one was horrible. The biggest complaint was camera work. I actually got a case of motion sickness from the overly active camera shaking. I think the camera operator had Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and had been given a near lethal dose of caffeine. I understand the idea behind it but damn it, come on, there is a thing as too much. And then of course there is the poor acting and terrible "science" behind the story line. Ring of fire left me burning and yearning for a barf bag. A few changes would have made a world of difference but it is was it is. A burning pile of yak squeeze that should never have seen the light of day. Or maybe I'm being mean due to several hours of my life taken from me trying to choke down this horrible excuse for entertainment.
Somebody pass the fire extinguisher...
TheLittleSongbird12 July 2013
If there was a redeeming quality, it was Terry O'Quinn. He was great on LOST, and while his character is nowhere near as interesting he does do his best here and is quite commanding. The same cannot be said for the other actors who are all unbearably wooden and emotionless. When they don't act like they genuinely care or are living their characters' situations, at best they were indifferent, it is very difficult to be properly drawn in. Good characters and writing would have helped, but Ring of Fire manages to not even have those either. The characters are badly underwritten ciphers(for a three hour miniseries there was no excuse for this), the sort of stereotypes that we see all the time in movies featuring on the SyFy channel, and they are never more than that. The dialogue is clunky, overly-talky and dissolves too much into tedious melodrama and overlong exposition, it is often very over-familiar stuff that is made even more painful by awkward line delivery. There is very little to be invested in the story either. It was increasingly predictable(especially in the second half) and takes far too long to get going, two thirds of the first half is set-up exposition, and the excessive padding isn't enough to let go of the feeling that there wasn't enough story to sustain a three-hour running time. That there are too many sub-plots and none are particularly engaging is part of the problem as well. If it was done in half the time, with less dialogue, fewer subplots, more action and more attention to character, Ring of Fire would have been much more successful. Ring of Fire even looks as though it was made in a rush, with a unappealingly drab and grainy colour palette. There's been worse use of shaky cam, but it was distractingly over-used and the constant jerky movements are enough to make anybody seasick. There's also been worse CGI but that's not saying much, it's still dully rendered. Overall, a disaster in itself really. Terry O'Quinn is the least bad thing about it but even at the halfway mark I found myself begging for a fire extinguisher, the fact that I make it my business not to judge a movie/series without seeing the whole thing was the sole motivation for sticking with it. 2/10 Bethany Cox
A rare experience! A disaster Movie I actually liked!
oesterby1 February 2014
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 :-)
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 :-)
completely nausiating mini-series
gofour72 November 2019
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.
Spelling counts
hamiltondl1 February 2019
Excellent Disaster Movie
LoveMyTwoFerrets21 July 2013
This movie is one of the better Disaster movies I have seen lately. Michael Vartan and Ian Tracey are two of my favorite actors and do a superb and believable job in this movie. The science is accurate as is the potential for the E.L.E. referenced. There were good subplots all interwoven into this dramatic series of events and each is well thought out and well written. I have now watched this movie three times trying to find little things I missed ... and I haven't gotten bored with it yet! KUDOS! The eruption scenes, particularly the pyroclastic flow and lava bombs are equivalent in quality and believability as those in both Dante's Peak and Volcano. I am very impressed that a TV movie could carry off this theme with such finesse!
You no it's bad when next to no one has even give the time of day to review this movie...
ShadowsBeneathTheLight23 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The Ring of Fire, a rather unpopular miniseries for many reasons. Essentially this oil company is drilling too deep and hits magma. As a result, this apparently starts off a chain reaction to set off all the volcanoes across the pacific rim and the whole world is doom for some reason. Also a mountain/hidden volcano blows up like Mt. St. Helen but on a much smaller scale. Sounds interesting if you like end of the world movies about geography like Day After Tomorrow or 2012, but alas this is no where close. Honestly, it seemed like the writer opened up his middle school/high school geography text book to a random paragraph on volcanoes and said "yeah that'll work!" then proceeded to ignore the rest of the laws of science and nature. Oh and the best part is that the show is 2 parts totaling over 3 hours of your life that you could've spent doing something better like, well, anything else. So for the fun of it I'll just list nothing but the "pros" of the movie. Warning most are sarcastic.
You should watch this movie if: 1) You liked Terry O'Quinn's performance of John Locke on lost and deep down always thought he was the true leader and now want to see him in a different show where he is the leader of a big giant oil company. (seriously though he does a good job and I liked him in Lost. The only reason why I gave this show 2 stars is because he alone deserves a star and there is no true zero rating). 2) You agree with the statement "all oil corporations are evil and will eventually destroy the world." 3) You love Michael Moore's movies because they stretch the truth so much about republicans and you'd like to see a director share that same type of attitude but direct it towards corporations. 4) You a tree hugger or a hippie 5) You want a new drinking game where you take a shot every time the camera is not focused (warning you WILL get drunk). 6) You really hate science and think that understanding it will just ruin movies for you 7) You think the teacher on the school bus is kind of cute (she is) 8) You love seeing people just stare as their dog chokes to death and do absolutely nothing about it even though they actually could save his life 9) You think meat is murder but killing them off 100 of them with CO2 gas pollution is OK 10) You love seeing government branches (in this case the EPA) ignore a situation that in real life they would immediately intervene in but instead blame it on lacking the necessary paper work. Oh the dreaded bureaucracies!!!
This list goes one but I think you get the idea.
You should watch this movie if: 1) You liked Terry O'Quinn's performance of John Locke on lost and deep down always thought he was the true leader and now want to see him in a different show where he is the leader of a big giant oil company. (seriously though he does a good job and I liked him in Lost. The only reason why I gave this show 2 stars is because he alone deserves a star and there is no true zero rating). 2) You agree with the statement "all oil corporations are evil and will eventually destroy the world." 3) You love Michael Moore's movies because they stretch the truth so much about republicans and you'd like to see a director share that same type of attitude but direct it towards corporations. 4) You a tree hugger or a hippie 5) You want a new drinking game where you take a shot every time the camera is not focused (warning you WILL get drunk). 6) You really hate science and think that understanding it will just ruin movies for you 7) You think the teacher on the school bus is kind of cute (she is) 8) You love seeing people just stare as their dog chokes to death and do absolutely nothing about it even though they actually could save his life 9) You think meat is murder but killing them off 100 of them with CO2 gas pollution is OK 10) You love seeing government branches (in this case the EPA) ignore a situation that in real life they would immediately intervene in but instead blame it on lacking the necessary paper work. Oh the dreaded bureaucracies!!!
This list goes one but I think you get the idea.
Scary Camera-work
John-Williams-978-79008118 March 2013
The only real point I want to make in this is to say that the endless field of out-of-focus foreground objects in front of almost every shot is a pointless, annoying distraction.
The camera never stops gliding from side to side in a completely irrelevant manner.
If the 'technique' is an attempt to give a fly-on-the-wall immediacy it fails completely.
In spite of the bad technique, I did stick with it to the end of part one, and overall the storyline was interesting even if it was all very slow paced until the explosions started.
I am not sure I will bother watching part two.
The camera never stops gliding from side to side in a completely irrelevant manner.
If the 'technique' is an attempt to give a fly-on-the-wall immediacy it fails completely.
In spite of the bad technique, I did stick with it to the end of part one, and overall the storyline was interesting even if it was all very slow paced until the explosions started.
I am not sure I will bother watching part two.
TV movie cheesiness, dragged out too far
Leofwine_draca22 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
MEGA ERUPTION: RING OF FIRE is your usual TV movie disaster nonsense, dragged out for two parts for some reason which means that it's even slower than usual. It's an American production shot in Canada and it feels the usual disparate bunch of scientists and heroic types battling to stop a volcanic eruption which might well spell the end of the world for mankind. The story is the usual jumble of silly action scenes, CGI-aided disasters wreaking local havoc, and cheesy, wooden line readings from the underwhelming cast members. Plus you get your usual square-jawed hero fearlessly going on the suicide mission to save mankind. Terry O'Quinn (THE STEPFATHER) co-stars.
Mindless entertainment, but entertaing, sort of
hamiltondl1 February 2019
Ok, environmentalists know best, oil companies are bad. Typical schlock and improbable courses of action and decision making. Way left wing. Totally 'save the planet'. Very one-sided, but, did I mention entertaining? Terry O'Quinn is always a solid performer.
Ring of 🔥- love it!
hannah-1369614 June 2020
I was looking for a cool disaster movie & found this great TV SciFi Series instead. Love it & how they tell the story, keeping you interested as it 'builds up, up, up ☝' ( nah, not gonna spoil if for ya) 🌋 🔥 & much h2O..💥💥
I can't believe the earth quakes during an earthquake!
yeahthatcee1 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Ignore all the idiotic trolls complaining about shaky cams; they're apparently unaware that in disaster action movies, the ground occasionally, uhm, shakes. And those talking about "The Agenda" of this movie as it relates to environmental concerns are the same subculture conspiracists on YouTube discussing the Illuminati, 9/11 cover-up, and other elaborate government plots. In this movie--as in all such disaster movies--the environmental concerns are only used as a thin plot device to kinda-sorta-maybe support the silliness of the movie premise. It's not at all presented in a heavy-handed way like some of the religion- themed movies on here--some quite good. It's just a plot device; I would tell you if it were "one of those" films. It's not.
Finally, the last bit of cuckoo in many of these reviews is that the science of the movie used to explain the potential end of the world is not sound or based on reality. Really? Are you trying to tell me that I shouldn't fear a mass volcanic reaction that could threaten everything globally? Whew! Thanks for clearing that up. Now all I have to worry about are sharks and tornados somehow uniting. You get the point. This is not NOVA on PBS. It's the same science and logic used to describe how Indiana Jones and John McClane can survive all those stunts, how the world can be covered completely in ice in 2012, and how gigantic robots from outer space can transform into cars. The pseudoscience in this movie works as well as it does in EVERY OTHER ACTION/DISASTER MOVIE. It's easy to suspend your belief with the science in this movie--it's 'sciency" enough.
As you should know by now, most reviewers cannot AT ALL be relied on to accurately review a movie, and of course, tastes are so subjective. Their comments ruin movies that I skip based on them only to discover later they were completely wrong. Find a movie you enjoy like, say, "TiMer," and then read the reviews and comments. The idiots who hate movies you like take far more time to write reviews than those left satisfied; and so negative comments from those groups disproportionately rise to the top. So take mine review worth a grain of salt; but I hope you at least find it Helpful enough to mark it as such.
Now onto the movie itself. Many will make fun of this B-movie. But it has a considerable amount of A-movie emotion, and far better than expected special effects, sound effects, and background music. As a straight masculine male who recognized some of the cheesiness of this movie, I have to admit that I inexplicably teared-up at *several* moments towards the ending of this movie. No spoilers. Simply, though this movie is not worthy of any best picture industry awards, it's one of those rare Netflix gems that perfectly succeeds as an entertaining mindless diversion—rather than just the standard subpar nonsense that litters the service.
I really appreciated that all talents involved didn't wing it; everyone tried, from the director and film crew to the producer. There is real acting in this movie above and beyond the limits of the improbable script, with recognizable and attractive new faces keeping the standard fare fun and fresh. The leads are excellent considering the material and the supporting actors carry their load. Ultimately, that's all that really matters at the end of the day: You'll be surprised to find that you like the characters...a lot, and even more surprised that--in what essentially is a silly disposable movie--you end up actually caring about what happens to them.
I personally departed the movie feeling satisfied, even to a point of wanting to see a little more in an ongoing series because the characters grow on you. No, it's not a top-notch movie, but it goes nowhere near the bottom of movies like Snakes on a Plane. So if you keep your expectations low, you'll end on a high. Enjoy!
Finally, the last bit of cuckoo in many of these reviews is that the science of the movie used to explain the potential end of the world is not sound or based on reality. Really? Are you trying to tell me that I shouldn't fear a mass volcanic reaction that could threaten everything globally? Whew! Thanks for clearing that up. Now all I have to worry about are sharks and tornados somehow uniting. You get the point. This is not NOVA on PBS. It's the same science and logic used to describe how Indiana Jones and John McClane can survive all those stunts, how the world can be covered completely in ice in 2012, and how gigantic robots from outer space can transform into cars. The pseudoscience in this movie works as well as it does in EVERY OTHER ACTION/DISASTER MOVIE. It's easy to suspend your belief with the science in this movie--it's 'sciency" enough.
As you should know by now, most reviewers cannot AT ALL be relied on to accurately review a movie, and of course, tastes are so subjective. Their comments ruin movies that I skip based on them only to discover later they were completely wrong. Find a movie you enjoy like, say, "TiMer," and then read the reviews and comments. The idiots who hate movies you like take far more time to write reviews than those left satisfied; and so negative comments from those groups disproportionately rise to the top. So take mine review worth a grain of salt; but I hope you at least find it Helpful enough to mark it as such.
Now onto the movie itself. Many will make fun of this B-movie. But it has a considerable amount of A-movie emotion, and far better than expected special effects, sound effects, and background music. As a straight masculine male who recognized some of the cheesiness of this movie, I have to admit that I inexplicably teared-up at *several* moments towards the ending of this movie. No spoilers. Simply, though this movie is not worthy of any best picture industry awards, it's one of those rare Netflix gems that perfectly succeeds as an entertaining mindless diversion—rather than just the standard subpar nonsense that litters the service.
I really appreciated that all talents involved didn't wing it; everyone tried, from the director and film crew to the producer. There is real acting in this movie above and beyond the limits of the improbable script, with recognizable and attractive new faces keeping the standard fare fun and fresh. The leads are excellent considering the material and the supporting actors carry their load. Ultimately, that's all that really matters at the end of the day: You'll be surprised to find that you like the characters...a lot, and even more surprised that--in what essentially is a silly disposable movie--you end up actually caring about what happens to them.
I personally departed the movie feeling satisfied, even to a point of wanting to see a little more in an ongoing series because the characters grow on you. No, it's not a top-notch movie, but it goes nowhere near the bottom of movies like Snakes on a Plane. So if you keep your expectations low, you'll end on a high. Enjoy!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
