|Page 5 of 8:||       |
|Index||79 reviews in total|
It's a shame that the effects aren't of a high quality and that the movie isn't realistic anymore because of the ending of the Soviet Union and the cold war. Anyhow, it has a very good story and with Sean Connery in it I think it won't be a waste of time to watch it. An absolute must for fanatics of classic Science-Fiction.
Like many of its predecessors, "METEOR" was another run-of-the-mill 70's
'disaster' flick which tried to cash in on the dying genre with the rather
tired scenario of the threat of a meteorite hurtling towards Earth with no
one other than a handful of American and Russian scientists there to try and
Sean Connery and Karl Malden play the American NASA scientists assigned to team up with Russian counter-parts, Brian Keith and Natalie Wood to try and figure out how to prevent the meteor from colliding with Earth. Smaller roles are portrayed by Martin Landau as a megalomaniacal military officer, Trevor Howard as a British correspondent and Henry Fonda as 'the President of the United States'.
Although a respectable and credible actor, Henry Fonda chose several 70's disaster duds to star in, each one having him credited as a 'special star'. For example, there was "THE SWARM" which stated.. "and Henry Fonda as Dr. Krim"... and then there was "CITY ON FIRE" which stated.. "and Henry Fonda as Chief Albert Risley" and the highly overlooked "ROLLERCOASTER" where he is introduced as "Simon Davenport". The opening credit sequence for "METEOR" looks quite cheap. A smoke machine spews a steady plume across a shot of the galaxy as yellow letters spring forward introducing the 'big-named' stars, concluding with "...and Henry Fonda as The President". Unfortunately, that is one of the first signs that you will see that will prove this film is a turkey.
As was the format for the 70's disaster film, the plot involved the main disaster itself, a handful of small 'disaster sequences' to keep the audience interested and a sub-plot involving either one or several romantic leads that connect the 'big-named' stars together. For 'EARTHQUAKE', it was Charlton Heston and Genevieve Bujold, with Ava Gardner on the sidelines. In 'THE TOWERING INFERNO', there were two leads... Fred Astaire with Jennifer Jones, and Steve McQueen with Faye Dunaway. In "METEOR", attempts are made to ignite a dead flame between Sean Connery and Natalie Wood which just doesn't quite work.
Putting the romance aside, we're left with cheap special effects and the 'ego' chemistry between Martin Landau and Sean Connery. The special effects themselves may have been top-of-the-line for 1979, but by today's standards, they are quite laughable. Scenes of a small asteroid impacting with a Scandinavian ski resort are of note. A 'red light' that is almost 'UFO-like' strikes a snow-capped mountain which explodes like a volcano and has the residents of a ski-village running for cover while stock footage of avalanches are entwined with the film. You can even see the outline of the avalanche print that has been placed onto the final film edit! Another small scene towards the end of the film has Sean Connery leading a group of people through a subway below the Hudson River that is in danger of flooding. Brown water oozes in through the walls as the group of survivors make their way out, but the whole thing comes off like a scene taken out of "WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY".
The biggest fault here with this film was the lack of interesting characters. We discover that Sean Connery is 'separated' from his wife and that his character will be prone to a romantic connection in the film, but the viewer is given no information about Natalie Wood's past except for the brief information that her husband was killed in an accident and the scenes that the two leads share together are quite dull and transparent. Karl Malden brilliantly makes the best of what he can with the material he is given and I felt that he was the most convincing character among them all.
Although this film has its faults, there are indeed some good things about it. The idea that both Russia and the U.S. had satellites orbiting each country armed with nuclear missiles is certainly food for thought, especially stemming off the Cold War which was still an issue at the time. Also the fact that neither country wanted to admit that they had them up there in the first place until a disaster forced them to was also a good idea. Natalie Wood in one of her final film roles was quite convincing as a Russian translator and it is always a pleasure to see her on the big screen. What convinced her to star in this film though, I will never know.
While not as awful as "CITY ON FIRE", "THE SWARM" and "WHEN TIME RAN OUT", this film was certainly a contributing factor to the downward spiral of the dying fad of disaster films.
I give "METEOR" 5 stars out of 10.
In the '70's the disaster movie was a very popular genre. Just think
about movies such as "Airport", "The Poseidon Adventure", "Earthquake"
and "The Towering Inferno". The '70's were already close to their end
at the time of the release of this movie and the genre also already had
its best moments clearly behind them. This movie just doesn't seem to
realize this and lets all of the typical '70's genre moments feature in
Like basically every '70's disaster movie, the movie features an all star cast, with in this case actors such as Sean Connery Karl Malden, Natalie Wood, Martin Landau, Trevor Howard and Henry Fonda involved. Not that it matters much though, since none of the actors exactly have their finest moment in this movie and they can't really make the movie it's silly story more credible.
To be honest the story and its events often don't make much sense and it isn't exactly made more plausible by its special effects, which are just laughable bad. Yes I know it's an 1979 movie but surely better things as featured in this movie were possible, when you look at for instance at movies such as "Star Wars", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "2001: A Space Odyssey", which all got made prior to this movie.
The fact that this movie is done in such an horrible way makes the movie seem the more painfully ridicules and laughable actually.
Strangely enough the movie doesn't focus much on any personal drama, something that normally was featured very prominently in '70's disaster flicks. It makes this movie also a very shallow and uninteresting experience. Why should you care about any of the characters? Why should you care about the fact that the world is about to get destroyed by a meteor in this movie? The movie now just mainly drags on instead all the time.
I liked the musical score from Laurence Rosenthal though. It was a John Williams kind of sounding score. Williams composed for a lot of '70's disaster flicks such as the earlier mentioned "The Poseidon Adventure", "Earthquake" and "The Towering Inferno". Williams was also actually first set to compose the score for this movie.
I do know now were Michael Bay got some of his inspiration from. A lot of trademark buildings and famous big cities gets hit by meteors and other natural disasters that go with it. But another laughable thing is that the movie is actually using archive footage of buildings getting demolished and it actually uses some footage from another disaster movie which got released only 1 year prior to this movie, called "Avalanche", which by the way also seems like a real horrible movie. Yes, I'm definitely planning on seeing that movie!
Perhaps not as totally horrible as its reputation would suggest but nevertheless still a bad late '70's disaster flick.
I know, you are thinking that it was made in 1979 so the effects are
not up to par with today's stuff. No, I mean the special effects are
bad for then.
The special effects just don't measure up to movies like Star Wars (the space scenes) or other disaster movies of the time. I like Sean Connery though and the rest of the cast is rather good, so this one is not completely unbearable. It is, however, rather slow moving and when a chunk of meteor falls it is not very impressive at all. The highlight would have to be the tidal wave that hits Japan, it looks okay, but that is only when compared to all the other scenes in the movie when the meteors strike. The ones that burn up over Italy look like brake lights flying through the sky, the mountain top blowing up also looks incredibly bad. Then there is the scene at the end where they have to get through a tunnel, it looks good, but the scene is so short. You are left wishing there was a bit more to it (though I can't believe they covered Connery with mud like that). This movie needed to be a bit more like other disaster movies in that there is more stuff in the middle of the film other than the two minute scenes depicted meteor damage. Most of the action here took place at the end.
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. (**)
I just stumbled over this gem on a very independent TV station & I'm still stunned. This dreadful classic must have driven them from the theaters in the 70s... and, like any good cheese, it's only gotten more pungent with age. It's amazing how many d-movie cliches they managed to pack into one film. There are so many deliciously squirm inducing moments. Among my favorites are Brian Keith as the surly Russian (evil commie with the heart of gold)... Martin Landau as the rabidly paranoid AirForce general - an over the top community theater version of Geo C Scott's Gen Turgedson in Strangelove... I guess my favorite is the "star" - the giant mcnugget that's hurtling toward earth. ...And all the special effects that undoubtedly inspired a generation of kids with super-8 cameras to think "I can do better than that!" To anyone who loves truly terrible cinema - this is a must see.
Ronald Neame("The Poseidon Adventure") directs this silly film about a
huge meteor on a collision course with Earth after it collides with a
comet. Professor Paul Bradley(Sean Connery) is assigned by the American
President(Henry Fonda, not reprising his role from "Fail-Safe!) to come
up with a way to stop it, by either deflecting or destroying it. There
are attempts made to use an outer space array of nuclear missiles, but
that won't work alone, so they team up with the Russian missiles(they
have an identical program) but when that doesn't work sufficiently,
they all prepare themselves for the oncoming disaster...
One of the last disaster films in the cycle is pretty poor, though the good cast(including Natalie Wood, Brian Keith, and Martin Landau) do what they can, the script is clichéd and absurd; the result is good for some campy laughs, but that's all.
A 1979 classic Doomsday film. It's a little dated, but very enjoyable for the Scifi Buff. It has a list of top of line Actors from the 1940's all the way up to the 1970's. Sean Connery, Natalie Wood, Karl Malden, Brian Keith,and Henry Fonda. I like the soundtrack, It has that 1970's synthesize music that's just classic. The story line is good for it's time , even though it's kinda out of date scientific wise. The special effects are also kinda dated, But hey it was the 1970's, no heavy duty computer special effects like we have today. I give it 8 out of 10. Like most 1970's dooms day films of the time, you just have to take a little grain of salt for the dated look of the film. If you can get past that, your in for one enjoyable movie that you just might want to add to your film collection.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
There are reviews of this film on here that are too intelligent for
their own good, because they are boring.
Meteor is an excellent film in it's simplicity, because what happens, could happen.
There is an all star cast whose names you will know, and Ronald Neame the films director, handles things with intelligence.
Sean Connery, and Karl Malden lead from the front, their character's expertise, carries this film.
What we have here is an intelligent, well thought out story of what could happen, and the consequences arising from this.
A thoroughly good movie throughout. The best of it's genre without a doubt.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
IF I had a dime every time the word"Hercules" was used in the film, I
could have gone to see a better movie ! This film stinks because of the
waste of talent, Sean Connery, Natalie Wood, Henry Fonda,Karl Malden
all take a bow in this asteroid turd of a film, it is horrible. It must
have been written by a 2 year-old, because nobody in their right mind
would attack an asteroid with atomic weapons, see "Armageddon", and
live to tell about it !It would create a much worse problem ! Post Star
Wars special effects are simple minded and dumb, and that is putting it
politely. It almost makes "The Black Hole" tolerable, and that film was
really a black hole, Disney at its worst. When stars need a paycheck,
they make a sci-fi film, nothing could be more true than "Meteor." A 5
mile meteor is headed toward Earth at 35,000 miles per hour, and if
they don't shoot it down with "Hercules", then bad things will happen,
like a sequel???
Anyway, Scientist Paul Bradley(Sean Connery) must save the day, although, I thought that his solution to go across the street to the local bar was an excellent start, and finish, It really should have ended there, but it didn't. Enter Russian Scientist Tatiana Nikolaevna Donskaya(Natalie Wood), who has her own plans to stop the meteor,would you believe(Peter the Great)?, good luck...Of course you can see these clash of ideals threatens to doom both plans. Yep, written by a 2 year-old, I'm sure of it. So, if you want to waste 107 plus minutes of your life,then grab the popcorn , and some heavy duty alcohol, because you will need it when you start to howl ! What a Turdfest !!!
|Page 5 of 8:||       |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|