Météore

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.

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. (**)

Meteor (1979) 2 of 5 Dir: Ronald Neame Stars: Sean Connery, Natalie Wood, Karl Malden

Connery built a armed orbiting platform to protect the earth from s celestial attack. But like the government always does they take over the project and trains the nuclear payload smack dab at the old red menace. Connery is once again called back to realign the project when it is determined that a huge meteor that deflected off a comet is making a b-line to Earth. Together with the Russians will we be able to stop it?

'Meteor' is a fun movie with an all-star cast but the special effects are for the most part just plain bad. Even compared to films of the day ('Star Wars' and 'Alien' to name a few) they just can't quite cut it. It was a favorite as a kid but it gets a bit of groan out of me now. I guess so much for nostalgia.

With the hoopla surrounding the 1998 releases of 'Armageddon' and 'Deep Impact', many have forgotten that Hollywood had done a previous big screen version of the 'Asteroid on Collision Course with Earth' premise, the 1979 Samuel Z. Arkoff production of 'Meteor'. Panned when first released, the film is dated (Cold War tensions with the Soviet Union are a major plot device), and has some unintentionally campy moments, but is still GREAT fun, with a fabulous cast!

Sean Connery stars, as an American scientist who had left NASA when his designs for a 'asteroid-killer' space missile platform were turned into a weapon aimed at the Soviet Union. After a comet passing through the Asteroid Belt collides with a a city-sized chunk, releasing a five-mile large rock, and launching it towards Earth, he is drafted into leading the American team assigned to turn the platform around, and fire our missiles at the deadly visitor.

Unfortunately, the combined nuclear capacity of the U.S. space arsenal isn't great enough to deflect it from it's path, so an uneasy alliance with the Russians, who ALSO have illegal strategic missiles in space, is achieved. It then becomes a race against time, as pieces of the asteroid obliterate various parts of earth, to coordinate the two missile systems, and launch a strike at the huge rock.

The cast is first-rate; Natalie Wood (in one of her final roles) plays a Russian scientist/interpreter, who is romantically drawn towards Connery; Brian Keith nearly steals the picture as the gregarious Russian team leader; Karl Malden is warm and winning as Connery's best friend, and NASA liason; Martin Landau does a campy bit as a paranoid military liason; and Henry Fonda, looking haggard, appears in a small role as the President. Watch for Sybil Danning (before B-movie stardom), in a cameo, as a doomed Swiss skier!

The FX range from excellent (some of the space scenes), to hokey (the tidal wave in Hong Kong); among the film's pluses is a stirring, beautiful (if at times, overpowering) score by Laurence Rosenthal ('Fantasy Island').

Is 'Meteor' a classic? Certainly not! But it is no worse than the later asteroid films, and Sean Connery is ALWAYS a joy to watch! Take a chance on 'Meteor'...I like it, and I think you will, too!

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.