Wordiezett So much average

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Alice I should start by explaining that my rating of "Magma" doesn't correspond with my enjoyment of it. I regard these movies as a guilty pleasure and I am a fan of Xander Berkeley, so I really enjoyed watching it, but that doesn't make it a good movie. However, since it's a Sci-Fi Pictures production I wasn't expecting one.The plot, as other reviewers have pointed out, is predictable - though that's true of all disaster pictures no matter how large the budget. The special effects are really, really bad; the underground scenes look like they could have been shot in Tom Sawyer's cave at Disneyland (though in actual fact, the movie was filmed in Bulgaria). Berkeley is great; it's a treat to see him in a starring role and getting to play a good guy for a change. Reiko Aylesworth does a creditable job as his estranged wife, though she doesn't get pulled into the plot until the last third of the movie. It must have been Old Home Week for "24" alumni when they were casting this thing.I have to commend the writers for one plot twist I wasn't expecting. Berkeley's character works with a cute young female geologist who obviously hero-worships him. I would have expected some romantic entanglement to ensue between the characters, but that doesn't happen. In fact, in one scene in a bar she gives him advice on how to make up with his wife! She winds up falling for the only other one of Berkeley's research assistants to survive the cataclysm. Nice work, writers.The reviewer above who pointed out the nonsense of getting "superficial burns" from exposure to hot lava was right on the money, and the whole concept of a volcano going from total dormancy to blowing its top with absolutely no warning is just as silly. But that just adds to the fun. If it weren't ridiculous it wouldn't be a Sci-Fi channel movie, now would it? So, should you watch it? If you are a Xander Berkeley fan and/or a fan of cheesy disaster movies, go for it. It's your call.

julian kennedy Magma: Volcanic Disaster: 5 out of 10: The always watchable Xander Berkley (24) and the impish Amy Jo Johnson (Pink Power Ranger) lead a surprisingly solid cast down made for television disaster movie hell.With Made for TV disaster movies the questions are not how good are certain elements but how mind numbingly awful will these elements be. Stack the deck with the terrifying fact this is a made for Sci-fi Channel Disaster movie (Only PAX is worse) and anything above pure pain is a feat of cinematic luck. This is not pure pain.As I said the leads were watchable and the screenplay liked to actually kill off characters on screen which is a nice touch. In addition Amy Jo Johnson's attempts to simultaneously bed Xander Berkley and save his marriage were more entertaining than anything else in the movie. (Usually in disaster movies these subplots put the "T" in tedium.) Alas the rest of the movie is a true disaster and both the screenwriter and the effects/sets departments share blame. First off all most natural disasters are not caused by man. Perhaps a look near a dictionary for the definition of natural might clear this up.The idea that nuclear testing and chemical waste is polluting the core of the earth (it's solid by the way and starts about 400 miles below the surface) causing it to expand is not the most ridiculous premise for a movie (that is shared by this film's bigger sister The Core, The Day After Tomorrow and Sixteen Candles) but it is close.As for the special effects guys I know the CGI lava looks bad and the model subs are wanting but if you're going to put the characters in a lava tunnel perhaps one without actual lights attached on the walls would be better. And what kind of underground mine was that anyway? It looked like a Styrofoam tunnel house.The movie simply falls apart at the end with nuclear weapons once again coming to the rescue and a Yellowstone finale which was one of the funniest things I've seen all year. Magma is average in a field where the competition is awful.

Joanna Poe Yet another example of a made-for-cable film that started with a workable premise and a couple of really good actors, but managed to screw it all up. Low budget isn't always a bad thing, but somehow the biggest deficit here is in the imagination column. Absurd situations, ridiculous plot oversights and contradictions, supporting actors who just recite lines, and awkward dialogue make this painful to watch. When you find yourself awake and channel-surfing at 3AM, if you happen across this, go ahead and take a look, but don't go out of your way to find it otherwise. Honestly, the Sci-fi channel has talented people at its disposal, couldn't they have managed one more script treatment before production started? At least buy the poor writer a thesaurus and a geology textbook!

PhillyPartTwo This seemed like a typical Sci-Fi channel disaster movie that would be 4 hours over two nights. I didn't believe the TV Guide listing. But in the last 5-10 minutes, it wrapped up everything at warp speed. The end had more senseless death than I imagined. It was like a bad episode of '24' or like 'Atomic Train'. The only reason I completed watching was for two of my favorite beautiful actresses, Reiko Aylesworth ('24') and Amy Jo Johnson ('Power Rangers', 'Felicity'). Not bad clap-trap for a Friday night of nothing to do, but don't go out of your way for it. I am usually up for a good made-for-TV disaster, but this did not satisfy my excitement for world destruction. But then again, it was better than '10.5'. Test patterns are better than '10.5'.