Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Justina The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

fredcdobbs5 The previous reviewers have pretty well summarized this SyFy Channel "epic". It's a by-the-numbers--for the SyFy Channel, anyway--story about a disaster threatening a large city and caused in part by the actions of a corporation that will do anything to increase its profits. It's better than some SyFy Channel movies, and worse than others--if you know anything about the kinds of movies SyFy makes, you'll know what I mean--and about the only REAL reason to watch it is a poolside bikini contest that's interrupted by a volcano turning Miami into a giant steambath. SyFy seemed to have put more money into hiring scads of incredibly hot bikini models--and there are, thankfully, a LOT of them--for this scene than it did for the entire special effects budget, for which they have earned my undying gratitude. Otherwise, there's not really much of a reason to watch this.

evening1 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.

TheLittleSongbird 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

RovingWriter This was a very fun movie to watch, full of action. Dumb science, but not bad. Certainly it's not awful science, more like "implausible." Even if one supposed there might be a volcano in Miami, the special effects were not in accordance with what one might expect a true volcano to do. Also, I found the final scene of the movie startling. If it's what I think it was, then it was the final, most implausible special effect of all. On the other hand, if it were plausible, then it wouldn't be much of a movie, more like a docudrama perhaps. The characters were what made the movie interesting, though even there, it seemed that people were acting in contradiction. One minute, a character is acting moral and wants to do the right thing, the next, they are willing to throw everything they said out the window for a cut of the proceeds. Another character has a history of being dishonest, then suddenly they have a conscience. A young woman is flaunting herself, then suddenly she becomes mature. I guess it was the inconsistencies that amused me more than anything.Just one last comment: This movie played under the name "Swamp Volcano" on the SyFy Channel but it is the same movie.