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 :-)

ShadowsBeneathTheLight The Ring of Fire, a rather unpopular miniseries for many reasons. Essentially this oil company is drilling too deep and hits magma. As a result, this apparently starts off a chain reaction to set off all the volcanoes across the pacific rim and the whole world is doom for some reason. Also a mountain/hidden volcano blows up like Mt. St. Helen but on a much smaller scale. Sounds interesting if you like end of the world movies about geography like Day After Tomorrow or 2012, but alas this is no where close. Honestly, it seemed like the writer opened up his middle school/high school geography text book to a random paragraph on volcanoes and said "yeah that'll work!" then proceeded to ignore the rest of the laws of science and nature. Oh and the best part is that the show is 2 parts totaling over 3 hours of your life that you could've spent doing something better like, well, anything else. So for the fun of it I'll just list nothing but the "pros" of the movie. Warning most are sarcastic.You should watch this movie if: 1) You liked Terry O'Quinn's performance of John Locke on lost and deep down always thought he was the true leader and now want to see him in a different show where he is the leader of a big giant oil company. (seriously though he does a good job and I liked him in Lost. The only reason why I gave this show 2 stars is because he alone deserves a star and there is no true zero rating). 2) You agree with the statement "all oil corporations are evil and will eventually destroy the world." 3) You love Michael Moore's movies because they stretch the truth so much about republicans and you'd like to see a director share that same type of attitude but direct it towards corporations. 4) You a tree hugger or a hippie 5) You want a new drinking game where you take a shot every time the camera is not focused (warning you WILL get drunk). 6) You really hate science and think that understanding it will just ruin movies for you 7) You think the teacher on the school bus is kind of cute (she is) 8) You love seeing people just stare as their dog chokes to death and do absolutely nothing about it even though they actually could save his life 9) You think meat is murder but killing them off 100 of them with CO2 gas pollution is OK 10) You love seeing government branches (in this case the EPA) ignore a situation that in real life they would immediately intervene in but instead blame it on lacking the necessary paper work. Oh the dreaded bureaucracies!!!This list goes one but I think you get the idea.

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.

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.