Meteoro

As a person who loves disaster movies (in spite of it being a basically flawed genre), I could not hate this movie as much as most people seem to. It is a big budget disaster about a disaster and much about its construction is highly flawed, and yes the acting is mostly weak, and yes the effects are often obvious, and yes that was stock footage, but, BUT, this movie does deliver in one vital department: it blows sh*t up!

I'm sure by now most people are familiar with this as a folly for Sean Connery, and Henry Fonda, and the rest of the all star cast. It pretty much is, but that doesn't mean it isn't somewhat enjoyable. Some of the disaster and action sequences are quite good. And the special effects are really not so terrible for 1979 (not that special effects today are at all convincing by comparison). The score is really something hilarious to behold and the space photography is pretty overwrought (as if the movie were saying "holy crap, dude, look at this awesome spaceship!"). It is kind of neat to see Brian Kieth as a Russian. It's also a bit refreshing to see a movie pose a more plausible solution to meteors that landing a space shuttle full of oil drillers on one. It's also funny that a movie that precedes Reagan's Star Wars Project proposes a far better use for it. Another interesting prophetic note: the first thing destroyed in the USA in this film is the world trade center.

And if you still think this is the worst disaster movie ever, go and watch "Beyond The Posiedon Adventure" or "Raise The Titanic". Hell, even "Earthquake" was pretty damn bad in spite of it's "revolutionary" contribution to cinema. And besides, what other disaster movie has its heroes threatened by sewage? Now, I think that I could have made a better film out of this story, but that doesn't mean we can't watch this version and laugh. And besides, sh*t blows up!

It all started off so nicely... "Airport", "The Poseidon Adventure" and "The Towering Inferno" bringing amazing casts to the screen, making loads of money at the box office and getting nominated for and winning Oscars. ("Airport" and "The Towering Inferno" were even nominated for Best Picture!) Then it all started to shift and what was once high-powered, if escapist, entertainment soon slid into campy, tacky box office poison which eventually caved in on itself. "Meteor" was one of the last disaster films to come out of the 1970's cycle and demonstrates much of what was bad about it. This one went beyond the usual domestic disasters and focused on a threat from outer space (no doubt to cash in on the sudden success of several science fiction films just prior to this) and becomes a sort of hybrid sci-fi/disaster "epic". The film kicks off with title credits which manage to rip off both "Star Wars" and "Superman", then settles into the familiar territory of setting up the characters and the impending doom. Connery plays a scientist whose satellite defense system (meant to ward off meteors) was taken from him and used as potential weapon against the USSR. When a massive meteor closes in on earth, his old boss Malden calls him in to help figure out what to do. Eventually, it's learned that, even if they can realign the defense system, it won't be enough to stop the title rock, so they'll have to work with the Soviets. This being filmed during the Cold War, much is made about the mutual distrust between the USA and the USSR, though the film tries to depict the possibilities of international teamwork, despite their differences. Keith plays a visiting Soviet scientist who brings along interpreter Wood. There's also a battery of military and scientific types rounding out the cast as they watch and wait for the mammoth chunk of debris to near Earth. However, even the might of the satellite missles can't prevent the smaller bits of meteor that surround the big one from plummeting down and knocking out various cities and geographic areas. Connery looks embarrassed at times and should be, though he does invest his character with some welcome sarcasm and spunk. Malden does a great job, under the circumstances, of creating a character and he and Connery create some decent chemistry together. Keith is at once enjoyably hammy and credible, admirably speaking all of his lines in Russian, but with a glint in his eye. Wood has little to do but interpret Keith's lines into English and try to convince the audience that she's a young widow, fresh out of college. She comes off as rather silly at times, politely accepting a scarf from a colleague and nibbling on salad with Connery while the earth is about to be demolished. Landau overacts outrageously as a dethroned Major. Howard barely appears and does virtually every scene from a TV monitor! Fonda (a particular victim of the '70's disaster cycle, appearing here and in "The Swarm" and "City on Fire"!) appears blandly, but admirably as the President. (Amazingly, Fonda, Connery and Landau were able to rebound from this turkey and win Oscars AFTER this film!) Many other familiar TV and movie faces pop in including Besch in a cameo as Connery's estranged wife and "Guiding Light's" Zaslow as a chief technician. A riotously lame romance comes in the form of De Hetre and Richardson, two secretly pining technicians. The special effects run the gamut from awful (as in the superimposed shots of the meteor) to phony (the obvious models of the defense system) to hilarious (all of the tacky effects from the smaller crashes including an avalanche, a tidal wave and a firestorm) to jaw-dropping (as the cast is covered in brown slime while trying to escape a muddy river which is closing in on the command center!) Pointless characters are introduced just before death in an effort to make the drama more meaningful. The film throws in everything but the kitchen sink to please the audience and still flopped. Aside from some deadly dull shots of the meteor and the missles, the film can be enjoyed today as a campfest with a star cast, some amusingly bad dialogue and a buffet of smilingly shoddy disaster effects.

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.

This film essentially begins with a scientist by the name of "Dr. Paul Bradley" (Sean Connery) being notified that there is an emergency of a top-secret nature which requires his presence in Washington D.C. for further clarification. When he gets there he is told that a comet has hit one of the largest meteors in the Asteroid Belt and has sent it hurling toward earth at 30,000 miles per hour. Recognizing the serious implications this would have for the entire world he immediately agrees to lend his expertise and is subsequently teamed with his counterpart in the Soviet Union "Dr. Dubov" (Brian Keith) in an effort to save mankind from possible extinction. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that I remember watching this film when it first came out and my opinion of it has somewhat lessened in my opinion upon recent viewing. Obviously, the special effects weren't nearly as good but considering this film was made over 40 years ago that shouldn't be held against it. I can't say the same, however, for the acting, as it wasn't nearly as good as it should have been considering the talent on hand. Natalie Wood (as the Russian interpreter "Tatianna Donskaya") was especially miscast. Likewise, the ending could have used some serious improvement as well. Be that as it may, this wasn't necessarily a bad film, all things considered, and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Average.

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.