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.

Niels-Jørgen Østerby Normally I turn off the TV or fall asleep, when I watch movies like this one. But not this time, thanks to brilliant acting by the actors!I did not see it as a two part Series, but as a movie - so it was a bit to long. But a good plot and great acting made me watch it till the end! I can't understand the critics about the cameras, but maybe it's because I'm from Denmark... It was definitely not a problem during the film.Personally I liked the way, the persons was connected in the movie. It gave a good flow in the story.A lot of great pictures from the beautiful nature was definitely a plus :-)

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.

John-Williams-978-790081 The only real point I want to make in this is to say that the endless field of out-of-focus foreground objects in front of almost every shot is a pointless, annoying distraction.The camera never stops gliding from side to side in a completely irrelevant manner.If the 'technique' is an attempt to give a fly-on-the-wall immediacy it fails completely.In spite of the bad technique, I did stick with it to the end of part one, and overall the storyline was interesting even if it was all very slow paced until the explosions started.I am not sure I will bother watching part two.