Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall

Konterr Brilliant and touching

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

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Leofwine_draca 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.

magneto-16 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.

ShadowsBeneathTheLight 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.

unbekannternutzer 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.