Meteoro

I just watched this again and it still stands as an OK disaster flick. Not as good as the underrated "Cassandra Crossing" perhaps, but much better than "Earthquake" and "Airport 1975", for example. Some of the effects are dated (the comet itself never looks particularly big or threatening), some are just stock footage (the demolition of New York skyscrapers) and others are quite impressive for their time (the tidal wave). The "muddy" finale is quite boring and fails to create any tension, and big-name actors like Henry Fonda and Trevor Howard have essentially cameos. However, one of "Meteor"'s praiseworthy qualities is that it presents the Russians in a quite positive light, and politically it keeps an objective tone throughout. (**)

Ill-fated disaster film about a five mile long meteor heading straight for Earth. Sean Connery heads an all-star cast trying to prevent the meteor with "hidden" space weapons owned by the Americans and the Russians. Lots of Cold War drama here in the film's backdrop, and while I do confess this film isn't particularly good - it isn't nearly as bad as many would have you believe. In point of fact, I found it entertaining. Ronald Neame directs with rather pedestrian flair, but the film is what it aims to be. A big budget, star laden disaster film with moments of suspense and a decent story with little depth. Connery isn't great but many of the cast do able jobs. I really liked Karl Malden's performance and Brian Keith's as a Russian scientist no less. The acting keeps this one from plummeting too far down, and the scenes with destruction are well-shot. The scene of the twin towers being destroyed even made me wince. What is wrong with the movie? Where in the world did the filmmakers get that awful soundtrack every time the meteor was shown? How about those crazy letters used for the opening credits and every day that passed by until the meteor was to hit? Much of these things give this film a very cheesy quality, but the acting and solid if nothing else direction make this better than one might hope. Perhaps. I got involved, enjoyed some of the characters, and let logic ease into a soft slumber. This is an old-fashioned popcorn movie from a bygone era. It will have little meaning to anyone who didn't grow up in the Cold War era as that plays very heavily in the story line. Richard Dysart, Martin Landeau(incredibly overacting), Sybil Danning, Trevor Howard, Natalie Wood, and even a brief visit from Henry Fonda as the president help make this such entertainment.

Meteor and When Time Ran Out marked the end of the decade of the disaster epic. I guess that Hollywood was just running out of ideas and that the formula of getting a bunch of big name players and put them in harm's way was wearing thin.

You can see that just about everybody here is bored, they all say the lines without any real conviction. Except for Martin Landau. As an Air Force General and Cold Warrior of the first order, he's extremely upset that the USA and the USSR have buried their differences to work on a real immediate problem. He resents Russians Brian Keith and Natalie Wood in the war room and Landau overacts outrageously.

A comet hurtling through the asteroid belt hit one of the big asteroids and sent one big chunk of rock and a whole bunch smaller ones as space calling cards speeding to Earth. That big guy if it hits spells the end of life on the planet.

Some criticism has been made that the special effects were a bit cheesy. By today's standards of course they were. So are some of those of the great Cecil B. DeMille. That's progress for you.

I'm not sure but this may have been the first time that Natalie Wood played someone of her own ancestry on film. Too bad she and Sean Connery as the NASA scientist didn't get to do something better before she passed away.

All the stars got a good pay day out of this though Sean Connery said there were some real scary moments with the cast trying to escape through the subway system with all the mud. A few times some people came close to really being buried in it for art's sake.

And this isn't a film to give your life for.

This one was long forgotten because it was made at the end of an era. The disaster movies. It's one of the last.

They always came with a top cast typical for disaster flicks but here we do have some big names at the end of their career like Henry Fonda. Sad to see. Still it wasn't received that well, a bit too long and the shots of the rockets takes ages.

The effects are also outdated for a time when effects were getting better and better. Still, it came back in picture in 2001.

9/11 happened and let this flick have a scene were the twin towers are destroyed by the meteor. Since 9/11 it was cleared that that scene had to be cut out for screening in the USA.

So be lucky if you still have the uncut one.

A bit of cold war of course and naturally Sean Connery has to be the playboy against Natalie Woods.

If you do like a top cast in a disaster movie, there are better ones who did stand the time (Towering Inferno is the best) but for the geeks, pick it up

Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5

I've read the negative reviews in here and am perplexed at the vitriol directed at this film. "Meteor" is, admittedly, a flawed movie, but still one with many strengths that deserve attention.

Firstly, it was made in 1979, so the effects are not going to be as stellar as they were in the 80's and 90's. And even then, some of those effects still hold up quite well to movies produced today. The modeling work, especially of the orbiting Hercules and Peter the Great nuclear missile platforms, is extremely impressive. The meteor itself is a big, ugly, and rather scary chunk of scarred rock, reminiscent of the Texas-sized shard in "Armageddon". Yes, some of the effects DO look cheesy (the avalanche being the most frequently cited example), but others are quite striking. At worst, "Meteor"'s effects are extremely uneven, but certainly not completely junkable.

Secondly, unlike "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon", the film focuses on the multitude of hurdles that have to be overcome in order to combat the threat. Personal, politicial, and scientific obstacles are given due screentime, which serves to advance the story rather than bogging it down.

Thirdly, "Meteor" is a far more globalized film, as it pulls together Russian, English, and even Chinese characters into the story. The attempt to track the rock and derive a viable solution to knock it out of its Earth-based trajectory is not solely an American one, but instead a closely coordinated international effort. Indeed, even the U.N. is (briefly) featured.

Fourthly, the film doesn't get mired in the 'human element' (as what happened in "Deep Impact" and "Pearl Harbor"). "Meteor" is non-tangential in that it STICKS TO THE STORY, which is the main interest of the viewer (at least, for me). Yes, there is the attraction between Connery and Wood's characters, but it's generally unobtrusive and the screentime limited.

Fifth, Laurence Rosenthal's score is great! Its boldness reminds me of Poledouris' legendary score for "Conan: The Barbarian". It effectively captures both the 'feel' of space and the direness and immediacy of the situations portrayed.

Finally, I emjoyed the acting. Connery, Keith, Malden, and Fonda turn in sincere performances (especially Malden). "Meteor" is an ensemble production in the tradition of Irwin Allen's best disaster productions.

Don't let the naysayers in here turn you off from this underrated gem. If "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon" left you wanting, give "Meteor" a try. Sure, it may not be as polished as those two productions, but it has more going for it than you might think.