That was an excellent one.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

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.

I have to wonder, did you people rating this movie even bother watching it first? This movie has EVERYTHING! It has absolutely EVERYTHING that a movie needs to be successful. Volcano, check. Super volcano, check. Super volcano hidden under a major city, check. Evil business mogul who demands to drill for oil directly into the super volcano underneath the major city, check. Gigantic disaster, check. Hero fighting the good fight against evil businessman and super-lava (Cleavant Derricks in one of his finest roles), check.Some people just aren't satisfied by a movie no matter how good it is... I sincerely feel sorry for you!

I recently picked up a DVD of this movie as it looked good (nice cover) but I was rather disappointed when I watched it.Illegel oil drilling causes a series of eruptions but the bosses of the oil company orders output to be increased. Not a good idea.I found this movie rather slow moving, although it does have its moments. It was more of a political thriller that a sci-fi in my opinion.The cast includes Brad Douriff (Childs Play) and Rachel Hunter.In all, a rather disappointing movie.Rating: 2 stars out of 5.

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