Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Taha Avalos The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

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.

Rustybshackleferd Utter crap, waste of time. The first episode was mildly bad, second one was horrible. The biggest complaint was camera work. I actually got a case of motion sickness from the overly active camera shaking. I think the camera operator had Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and had been given a near lethal dose of caffeine. I understand the idea behind it but damn it, come on, there is a thing as too much. And then of course there is the poor acting and terrible "science" behind the story line. Ring of fire left me burning and yearning for a barf bag. A few changes would have made a world of difference but it is was it is. A burning pile of yak squeeze that should never have seen the light of day. Or maybe I'm being mean due to several hours of my life taken from me trying to choke down this horrible excuse for entertainment.

gt-jcvh Not a bad plot and acting for a made-for-TV/Cable Miniseries, but the "shaky-cam" is WAY overdone and makes it a pain to watch. Almost every scene (at least the ones I could endure) used this technique, subsequently this was more of an "on in the background while I did other things movie". The constant jittering and jarring, lack of any real time focused on any actor or scene really detracted from the product. Certainly DOES NOT add realism. Too bad for us viewers. As far as scientific accuracy goes, seems about half of it was at least plausible. Most of it was pure Hollywood. The real problem nowadays is too many people are starting to think this stuff is real, as opposed to just fun entertainment.

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.