I have to wonder, did you people rating this movie even bother watching it first? This movie has EVERYTHING! It has absolutely EVERYTHING that a movie needs to be successful. Volcano, check. Super volcano, check. Super volcano hidden under a major city, check. Evil business mogul who demands to drill for oil directly into the super volcano underneath the major city, check. Gigantic disaster, check. Hero fighting the good fight against evil businessman and super-lava (Cleavant Derricks in one of his finest roles), check.Some people just aren't satisfied by a movie no matter how good it is... I sincerely feel sorry for you!

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

Since we've had volcanoes destroy LA (Volcano) and NYC (Disaster Zone: Volcano in New York), someone decided to let Miami in on the action. The original title, Miami Magma, had both alliteration and assonance, and was really quite clever. Unfortunately, SyFy decided to change it to Swamp Volcano, which is merely confusing, since swamps do not evoke Miami and vice versa, and only a very small portion of the movie actually takes place in a swamp. And unfortunately, the rest of the movie is on equally unsolid ground.This cautionary tale about oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico starts off with an explosion on an oil rig owned by Holter Energy. The explosion occurs when they drill into magma instead of oil. Unfortunately, the CEO (Brad Dourif) and head of PR (Cleavant Derrick) seem to be more concerned about misleading the public, and hiding an illegal, although very lucrative, drilling operation in downtown Miami. Geology professor, Antoinette Vitrini (Rachel Hunter) becomes concerned when her ex-husband, Brad (J.D. Evermore) informs her that Holter's drilling activities seem to parallel her unpublished research. She has even more to be concerned about when she learns that her assistant, Brandon (Griff Furst), on whom her much younger sister, Emily (Melissa Ordway) has a crush, has sold her research to Holter. When she confronts Holter, she only manages to convince them that they need to kill her to keep her silent. Unfortunately, by this time, volcanic activity has started cropping up around Miami, so Antoinette must race against time, and potential assassins to save not herself and her sister, but all of Miami. Can she and Brandon do it? I'll give the writers credit for some plausibility in suggesting that the Gulf of Mexico could be the caldera of a supervolcano, even though it's pretty widely accepted that the gulf is the result of continental drift. However, apparently they don't know geography terribly well, since Miami is on the Atlantic side of Florida, and therefore highly unlikely to be affected by vulcanism in the Gulf of Mexico. They really should have set the movie in Tampa. Equally hard to buy was the whole concept of a "steam tsunami" generated by an underwater eruption. Volcanoes erupt underwater all the time. They have to be pretty close to the surface in order to generate any kind of steam plume that could be threatening, and steam plumes don't behave the way they did in this movie. The "steam tsunami" really behaved more like a pyroclastic flow, which might have worked better. And I'm not sure I buy that liquid nitrogen could be used to redirect the flow of lava from an eruption. All in all, not very credible science.The rest of the writing wasn't terribly credible, either. Antoinette and Emily appear to be very far apart in age, almost too far apart to be sisters, and it might have worked better if they were written as mother and daughter. It's also hard to buy that Antoinette, who is supposedly an experienced professor, wouldn't take better care to make sure that all of her students were accounted for before leaving one behind to get boiled in the swamp. Emily starts off as rather immature, and there's really nothing to indicate the kind of growth her character experiences throughout the movie. Brandon's motives both for selling Antoinette's research, and for his altruism at the end of the movie aren't really clear. And just about everyone involved with Holter seems to be motivated solely by greed, which just makes all of them seem one dimensional.Oddly, in spite of the bad writing, I actually found the acting to be quite enjoyable. I expected to have a hard time buying Rachel Hunter as an academic, but she turns in a credible performance, and I enjoyed watching her. Likewise, Melissa Ordway does a good job of making her character likable, in spite of her early flightiness. Griff Furst does an excellent job of playing the hunky nerd. J.D. Evermore is quite likable as Antoinette's ex, so much so that you wonder why she treats him with such hostility at first. Cleavant Derricks does manage to make his character a little more complex, although the complexity rapidly disappears as greed takes over. And Brad Dourif use his intensity well to show a man who is so driven that he allows his greed to overtake his sensibility.The effects are rather cheesy, and the movie could have used some scenes of destructions of familiar landmarks (I mean, there must be some in Miami). Likewise, the scenes of those who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time could have been better done. The steam tsunami scene was hard to buy into. And one would assume that the tennis players might have noticed that the ground was getting hot before it opened and spewed forth lava, turning a tennis ball into a deadly hot object (I'll give them points for good CGI showing the hole in the coach's chest, as well originality in the writing of that scene).All in all, it was about what I would expect from a SyFy original film, which sets the bar pretty low. However, if you're in the right the mood, don't expect too much, and don't take it too seriously, it can be an enjoyable film.

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.