Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Noutions Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Leofwine_draca I seem to be dredging the bottom of the barrel with these SyFy Channel TV disaster movies. I thought things couldn't get any worse than the horrible JET STREAM, and now I've watched Miami MAGMA (aka SWAMP VOLCANO) and I discover that yes, it's just as poor and almost entirely without merit. It says something when the best thing about a movie is its title.First off, for viewers hoping to see Florida getting destroyed by an erupting volcano, you'll be disappointed: the disaster stuff is kept off-screen for the most part here. There are a few scenes of smoke clouds and flowing lava, but when I say few I mean it: they're few and far between and skipped over in favour of the usual, cheap, big-company-conspiracy plot as some oil drillers chase after a whistleblower threatening to reveal the truth about their dark dealings.The characters are one-dimensional and the acting not much better; the only familiar face they could get on board here was Brad Dourif, playing a suited bigwig who has a handful of scenes. Add in the usual bad dialogue and poor effects and you have a complete waste of time.

Paul Magne Haakonsen "World on Fire" as the DVD is titled when purchased from Amazon, or "Miami Magma" as titled here on IMDb is definitely one of the more boring and uneventful of natural disaster movies that I have seen. It even makes "Dante's Peak" seem like a masterpiece.The story is about an underground volcano that threaten Miami, and it is up to two scientists to save the city and avert a catastrophe.Of course it is, every single disaster movie follows this exact same script and mold down to the core - no pun intended. However, "World on Fire" just never made it out of the trench to so speak. The plot and storyline was as predictable as they come, and even for a natural disaster movie it was painstakingly predictable to the point where even a blind man would see it coming.Throughout the entire movie there is but a handful of oddly placed localized incidents involving magma or superheated steam. There was surprisingly little magma in the movie, which really was a disappointing lack of things for the movie, and it worked as an anchor around the movie, dragging it down severely in its enjoyment. And also throughout the entire movie there is not a single moment where you feel that the entire city of Miami was in any danger at all. And then it just ended - with the scientists saving the day of course.As for the acting in the movie, well it wasn't Oscar nominated material, let me just put it like that. I was mildly thrilled to see Brad Dourif's name on the cast list, but it was a short lived thrill and not even he could muster to lift up this movie.And don't get suckered in by the fancy DVD cover the way that I did. It promises a massive volcano erupting over a metropolis on fire, and for some reason there are celestial bodies on the sky also erupting with fire. But nothing, and I cannot stretch the word nothing enough here, even remotely like the DVD cover is to be found anywhere in the entire movie. It was just false advertising and luring with hopes of a massive natural disaster movie, that just turned out to be a fluke and nothing more than a fizzling lit match.If you enjoy natural disaster movies, then know that there are far, far better movies available on the market, and "World on Fire" is hardly worth the effort of spending 97 minutes on. "World on Fire"? Nah, more like "Nothing on Fire".

TheLittleSongbird I have made no secret of disliking a lot of SyFy's movies, but I do keep watching them for the novelty value(if any)and to see whether they actually do something worthwhile. Actually, like I have said a few times already, SyFy have thrown out some stuff that are not that bad in comparison to their usual standards. But most of the time, their movies range from lame to bottom-of-the-barrel.Miami Magma is far from SyFy's worst, seriously I'd rather watch this again rather than re-watch something like Titanic II, Quantum Apocalypse or Alien vs. Hunter, but it is not a good movie either. In fact after I'd watched it, apart from one or two decent actors, I'd found I'd already forgotten about it after 10 minutes. So does Miami Magma have its good points? Yes, actually it does. Compared to some of SyFy's movies the acting, excepting Melissa Ordway, is while not great a little above average. Rachel Hunter you may not initially believe as a scientist, but her turn as the lead is quite credible, and while his character is rather clichéd and thrown in Brad Dourif(though he has done much better work before) does what he can. I was taken as well by how likable the ex was.Also, the scenery and photography are decent, when they could have easily been slipshod. However, in terms of production values, some of Miami Magma is shot in a somewhat dull way, and although there have been much cheaper effects before and since here the effects do give the sense that it was done on low-budget and in a hurry(which I expect it probably was).The acting was not the problem here, and the production values while far from applause worthy wasn't a particularly huge part as to why Miami Magma didn't engage. The problems were the script, the pacing, the story and the characters. I will say before criticising any of these assets that all four assets have been done much worse in other SyFy movies, but that's not excusing the fact that they were very problematic here. To start with, I was intrigued in a sense with the idea and the start was promising. But the film was mostly dull and didn't thrill in any way which in a sense is what the genre is partly about. The script is cheesy and doesn't flow effortlessly from one line to another, also every line(and character) screams of been there, done that.Speaking of the characters, they are no more different to any other character from SyFy's other movies, meaning they are stereotypical and mostly underdeveloped. Except that not many other SyFy movies have characters that are very morally inconsistent, especially Melissa Ordway, whose performance consists of overacting and pandering. There is the brilliant yet misunderstood scientist, the big business villain of the piece, the hunky nerd, the estranged ex-husband and the (seemingly) innocent little sister(so far apart in age to the main character you actually question whether they're actually sisters). Stereotypes are not always a problem, but it is when the character in question has nothing interesting about them, which is the case here with all of them. The destructive scenes are lame at best, the best they get is a sequence where bikini-clad girls run away from a "steam tsunami". I personally don't see anything interesting about an oil rig and a warehouse being blown up in all honesty, how about blowing up Miami while you're at it? Not just that, but SyFy have never been reliable with science and geography, and Miami Magma is no exception, with scientific errors that would have even the worst scientist in the world groaning(ie. liquid nitrogen, really?) and in an attempt to give some plausibility to the whole Gulf of Mexico thing ignoring that Gulf of Mexico is on the wrong side of Florida to be affected by a volcano. Overall, I've seen worse, but Miami Magma fizzles more than it crackles sadly. 3/10 Bethany Cox

RovingWriter This was a very fun movie to watch, full of action. Dumb science, but not bad. Certainly it's not awful science, more like "implausible." Even if one supposed there might be a volcano in Miami, the special effects were not in accordance with what one might expect a true volcano to do. Also, I found the final scene of the movie startling. If it's what I think it was, then it was the final, most implausible special effect of all. On the other hand, if it were plausible, then it wouldn't be much of a movie, more like a docudrama perhaps. The characters were what made the movie interesting, though even there, it seemed that people were acting in contradiction. One minute, a character is acting moral and wants to do the right thing, the next, they are willing to throw everything they said out the window for a cut of the proceeds. Another character has a history of being dishonest, then suddenly they have a conscience. A young woman is flaunting herself, then suddenly she becomes mature. I guess it was the inconsistencies that amused me more than anything.Just one last comment: This movie played under the name "Swamp Volcano" on the SyFy Channel but it is the same movie.