Lluvia de fuego

Even the action flicks are becoming chick flicks. We have a hero with what looks like a 200 inch chest riding a motorcycle through out the film, and that just begins the clichés. Everything in the film is completely cliché. Not one fresh idea.

The plot is something about meteors showering the Earth, and some guy in the military being dense to the hero, who controls what everyone in the world thinks, by the way, and commands the attention of a news crew for no reason. A news crew that follows a hunk instead of the usual slouches that they choose 100% of the time. Yeah, what planet is this on? Director Tukacs not only dwells in every cliché, but also makes this unwatchable for guys. If there is a cute girl, he kills her off as quick as he can, leaving only the pale plain girls that women identify with, making this the ultimate chick flick.

Across the board, the acting is as poor as the directing, which lends one to think they were directed to act this horribly, and the worst takes kept for the final cut.

There is nothing good about this film, nothing exciting, nothing interesting, nothing to care about.

An astro-physicist is tapped by the government to figure out why the city of San Francisco is being besieged by anti-social meteorites. BB-sized pellets crash a meteor light show stargazing event, and victims run for cover. Immediately, scientists and the military team up to repel the onslaught.

Time out for obligatory clichés: Obnoxios dumbbell TV news crew getting in everybody's hair. General wants to nuke something. Hero guy is married to scientist, and they argue a lot. Their stupid brat kids blunder into perilous locations, always at the exact time and place meteors show up. Hero guy diverts from saving the world to rescue his idiot brat kids. The ratio of cliché stuff to actual plot elements is about 70% to 30%.

The pseudo-scientific ramblings about why San Fran is being singled out are actually pretty imaginative (although ludicrous). Acting is fair. Action and CGI are fair. 99% of the budget was invested in the 500th movie depiction of the collapse of the city's most famous structure. It's done in spectacular fashion; the film's blazing glory moment. But sloppy editing also gives you glaring goofs: like light traffic in the background of a scene, during a supposed massive evacuation of the Bay area. Some evac.

As cheaply done as it may be, it's amusing enough to make it entertaining.

Yes, it is yet another disaster movie about an asteroid threatening our very existence of Earth. Like we haven't seen that story being told in movies like dozens of times before.

So what sets "Meteor Storm" apart from the other movies of similar character on the market? Well, nothing actually. I has all been seen before. From the storyline, to the characters and to the bizarre way how disaster and meteoroids seem to be tailing and chasing the protagonists of the movie wherever they go.

One thing that is over-the-top-stereotypical in a movie like this, is how one of the lead "heroes" always manages to get to a scene and rescue someone (be it from a burning helicopter, burning car, or crumbling skyscraper) just in nick of time before it explodes or collapses. That was just antagonizing to watch, because it is such ludicrous crap.

Anyway, moving on to the story. The basic layout of the story is as it is in most other Asteroid disaster movies. A massive asteroid is speeding towards Earth, it manages to wreak some havoc, and then... well, the ending is (without giving it away) a typical Hollywood ending that includes a nuclear missile. Yeah, indeed!

The acting in "Meteor Storm" wasn't actually too bad, but it wasn't any award-winning performances either. Fairly average stuff to be seen here.

In overall, then "Meteor Storm" is good enough entertainment for an evening if you got nothing better to do, and if you are a sucker for natural disaster movies.

Does anyone really think that the local director of and emergency management agency would be able to do their job during an emergency while they were spending most of their time getting family members out of emergency situations? Would the responses of the other people involved in that emergency to a director of an emergency agency doing this be as supportive as in this movie? Whoever wrote this plot has no understanding of the difficulties encountered in emergency management and didn't do any research on it.

The 'science' was rubbish. Electrostatic attractions are only effective over short distances, they do not have an 'frequency' associated with them (as implied by the 'static' part), and like charged substances repel, rather than attract. Even if the authors couldn't pass high school science they should have done the research on this.

The saving graces of the movie are the special effects and, to some degree, the actors. The director and technical staff also seemed to be competent. The writers do not appear to have been competent.

Of all the films I have seen of Syfy and on the Syfy channel, Meteor Storm is not one of the best, though I have yet to see a Syfy movie that I would deem good. But it is not as bad as Titanic II, Mega Piranha, Shark Attack and that Moby Dick movie they did. To be honest, Meteor Storm is nothing to rave about, but unlike the movies I have cited the acting while again not award-worthy was tolerable, particularly from Michael Trucco. The film is not visually stunning by any regard as the editing is rather slip-shod and the effects are largely inconsistent, but there are much cheaper productions out there. Despite these, there are a lot of things in this movie that I don't like about Syfy in general. A major problem is the plot, if I had to sum it up in one word, it would be nonsensical. The ideas put forward are somewhat imaginative and intriguing, but explained and executed ridiculously. The script is clichéd, illogical and just plain bad really, the characters are cardboard and I didn't really connect to them, the pace is uneven with a dull middle section and the less said about a vast majority of the direction the better. All in all, there have been worse, but this is not really something to savour on repeat viewings and such. 2/10 Bethany Cox