One of my all time favorites.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

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.

Miami Magma, or whichever of the apparently numerous titles this film goes by, isn't a particularly bad movie in itself however it has flaws that simply can't be overlooked.OK so it's a somewhat generic low budget disaster movie but that should really only be an excuse for few or ineffectual special effects. In contrast it certainly doesn't mean you can automatically get away with poor scripts and acting, both of which are in abundant supply here.The movie starts with the loss of an Oil Rig off the Florida coast. Now in reality this would cause great consternation to all involved and a major and long running intervention by local, state and government departments (and probably a good deal of international attention too)? Apparently not though and apart from a few questions at a press conference it is quickly excused and forgotten. This isn't twisting reality for the sake of the movie, rather its ignoring it completely as it would just slow things down and complicate the writing task.So all is clear for the Evil Corporation to bulldoze their plans through and hit trouble - and disaster. No problem in theory, however the bad guys are simply wooden and ridiculous, and Imo this is down to both poor writing and bad acting. I point much of the blame on Cleavant 'Sliders' Derricks who is simply awful, and Wallace Merck, and...well all the baddies!!! In contrast the good guys are a fairly decent overall, although I am getting somewhat tired of the lead roles being both Intelligent & Supermodel material...but maybe that's just what Hollywoodesque scientists are nowadays. But putting this one gripe aside they are at least far from cringe worthy, and maybe even fair to say above average for the SyFy movie universe. However one cannot balance the other entirely and so overall its a thumbs down on the casting account too.The story as a whole follows a somewhat predictable routine once you've gotten past the shoddy beginning. There a definite lack of the big Volcano effects one would usually expect, and for some odd reason even the low tech, low budget magma and lava is kept to an absolute minimum. For a disaster movie it sure does seem to minimise the actual disasters!So how do I rate the movie??? I initially wanted to add a few points because or the decent good guys, however immediately these and more were knocked off by the terrible baddies who ruined any scene they were in. And the SFX...well there really weren't many to speak of so that doesn't help either. What finally made the difference as to which aside of average the score would fall was the apparent apathy of the authorities from beginning to end (The Major and a few National Guard is all they could muster!?!). If they don't care why should I?4/10...lazy writing, lazy (bad guy) actingPs. If you want a similar film bit done not only with bigger budget but also better writing, standards and definitely better all round acting then stick to Volcano or Dantes Peak, neither of which are classics but still offer a better experience without the bad-bad guys making you throwing your popcorn at the screen!

We decided to watch this because my 10-year-old likes volcanoes. "But there're no volcanoes in it," he complained, with just a little exaggeration. Mostly this is about the machinations of conscience-less, greedy oil drillers. If that's your idea of a compelling plot line, this movie is for you. The storyline is improbable: A long-dormant volcano under Miami is reawakened by venal drilling overhead. What this has to do with an off-shore oil rig that explodes spectacularly in the opening sequence is unclear. Why would Brad Dourif, an actor with a fine acting pedigree extending back to "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," appear in claptrap like this? He gets killed off within the first 30 minutes.New Zealand-born Rachel Hunter, once a supermodel, is of normal body proportions here, in the role of a humorless volcanologist who has an American sister (Melissa Ordway). Go figger. And Cleavant Derricks is the (sometimes very badly written) villain. Imagine one's dying words being, "You bitches!" Well, his are. This film does offer a few good special effects. Ever wonder what it would be like to have liquid nitrogen thrown all over you? You'll find out here. How 'bout what Miami would look like cloaked in lava? Or the havoc a "steam tsunami" would wreak on a beach bikini contest? Some of these scenarios impress, but aren't sufficient to redeem this magma-ficent flop.

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