Being a TV movie, 'Volcano: Fire on the Mountain' can't be compared to big budget films like 'Dante's Peak' and 'Volcano', but this was surprisingly good still.
It might not be the best disaster film ever made, and is laded with cliches, but it nevertheless was thoroughly entertaining. If you're into this genre, though, and expect topnotch visual effects, you should rather opt for 'Dante's Peak', which - in my opinion is still the best volcano movie ever made.
But this review is about 'Volcano: Fire on the Mountain'. The performances are not bad, but also nothing to write home about. As mentioned, the story is cliched. We have a guy who believes a volcano will erupt, and no-one believing him - until it is too late. The characters are also pretty standard with nothing new to the stereotypical characters of the genre. The visuals are also clearly CGI.
Despite these issues, the film delivered loads of action and adventure and was better than expected (for a TV movie). There were still enough thrills to keep be entertained. In the end, it was all good fun.
Would I watch it again? Yes.
Volcano: Fire on the Mountain
1997
Action / Drama
Volcano: Fire on the Mountain
1997
Action / Drama
Plot summary
A USGS scientist attempts to convince his boss and the residents of Angel Falls, California that a nearby volcano is about to erupt.
Uploaded by: FREEMAN
Director
Top cast
Tech specs
720p.WEB 1080p.WEBMovie Reviews
Not bad for a TV movie.
Why bother?
VOLCANO: FIRE ON THE MOUNTAIN is a typical disaster movie made for television. Expect melodrama in spades, indifferent performances, plenty of cheese, a dated feel, and extremely limited special effects including red glows and the occasional CGI cloud. Honestly, there's very little reason to tune in to this boring and drawn-out production when you could just watch the proper volcano flicks of the 1990s, i.e. DANTE'S PEAK and VOLCANO.
Entertaining enough for what it turned out to be...
Well for a TV movie then the 1997 movie "Volcano: Fire on the Mountain" wasn't actually as bad as to be feared. Sure, this was by no means among the top of the line of natural disaster movies. But the movie actually fared well enough, taking into consideration what the movie turned out to be.
The storyline was pretty generic and straight forward as natural disaster movies go. So yeah, you know the outcome of the movie from the very moment the movie starts. Yeah, it was that predicable. And that was actually a bit amazing given the fact that they had no less than 5 writers working on the script; Merrill H. Karpf, Donna Ebbs, Scott Weinstein, Craig Spector and Steve Womack. So I am a little bit perplexed that five writers didn't manage to come up with something more original and outstanding.
However, director Graeme Campbell actually managed to bring the movie to life on the screen in a well enough manner. I mean, at least I was adequately entertained from start to end of the movie. Sure, this wasn't the finest moment in natural disaster movies, but the movie provided sufficient entertainment, so mission accomplished.
The acting in the movie was fairly good, though the characters written in the movie did suffer from being rather generic and lacking a proper backstory and drive. So you don't really invest any particular feeling into the characters as they are essentially faceless and one and the same.
For a natural disaster movie, then "Volcano: Fire on the Mountain" fared well enough in the special effects department. I mean, it wasn't top of the line, not even back in 1997, but the special effects were functional and served their purposes well enough.
My rating of "Volcano: Fire on the Mountain" , once the volcanic ash and snow from the avalanche settles, becomes a mediocre five out of ten stars. I think the movie is actually adequately entertaining enough for a single viewing if you have an interest in the natural disaster movies.