Meteor Storm (TV Movie 2010) Poster

(2010 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Add a Review
16 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
That poor bridge should start demanding combat hazard pay from movie makers
MartianOctocretr531 January 2010
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.
24 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Another steaming turd from "Syfy"
John Morgan31 January 2010
Like 95% of the original programming on "Syfy" (I have to put that in quotes as I still cringe when I see that spelling), this movie was another complete waste of time. The only reason I actually watched it all the way through was because I was doing something else in my living room at the time and it was convenient to have something on that I didn't need to concentrate on to follow it. It never ceases to amaze me with "Syfy" movies that a no doubt well-intentioned screenwriter, crew and actors spent months of their lives, and doubtless millions of dollars, to make something as bland as this. The plot is not even worth recounting since you've seen it many times before - a meteor is heading towards Earth, threatening to destroy it, and some scientists have to figure out a way to stop it, while incidentally saving their marriage in the process. Suffice it to say that there is not a single even remotely original or interesting moment in the entire movie.

The only reason I even gave this movie two stars is because of the acting. All of the acting, especially poor Michael Trucco (who must have had trouble keeping his lunch down, having to do this on the heels of "Battlestar Galactica" - I hope you were at least able to pay your rent, Mike!) and Kari Matchett, is as good as it possibly can be considering what they were given to work with.

It would be great if the executives at "Syfy" would decide to make fewer movies and focus their budget instead on making some quality films. Surely making a few halfway-decent films each year, rather than just turning out one piece of garbage after another, would help to improve their reputation.
28 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Nothing to rave about, but Syfy have done much worse
TheLittleSongbird19 May 2011
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
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Respectable cast, gag-all plot
Ray Humphries7 February 2010
I don't need to repeat everything other reviewers noted, but maybe a few:

1. Every disaster flick cliché ever imagined was included. 2. Soldiers, even airmen, don't salute civilians -- except those in direct line of command like the SecDef and the CINC (President). 3. The science is pure hokum. Radio frequencies don't cause attraction or repulsion. If you're gonna blow up stuff in outer space, do it before it starts to heat up from atmospheric friction.

And then a couple no one has as yet mentioned:

4. Brigaders are about as high up the food chain as amoebas. A BG who gets the President on the phone is a joke. 5. I think that element 120 should have been named unbelievium. 6. Toward the end, Keri Matchett who plays the professor (the one who does qualitative analysis by looking through a microscope for Pete's sake) spends the last reel, rather than looking scared, concerned, or dispirited, with a sly smile on her face, as if she knows something none of the rest of us do. Well, she was wrong. A lot of us realized just how silly this whole thing was.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Typical SyFy offering
Wizard-813 March 2011
SyFy movies are never going to win awards with their limited budgets and their hastily-written scripts, I realize that. Still, I think that if they had approached this project with some smarts, it could have been a decent time-killer. As it is now, it isn't. For a Canadian production, it looks decent (it doesn't have that "Canadian look"), but it still has a made-for-TV feel to the visuals, and the various British Columbia locations simply can't be passed off as San Francisco. Some of the special effects are okay, but they mostly look cheap and unconvincing, which is probably why long stretches of time go by between special effects shots. But it's the script that really sinks this movie. It's long and drawn out, which is why there is no feeling of tension, and the characters aren't really fleshed out enough. Director Tibor Takács has made some good movies in his career, but "Meteor Storm" is not one of them.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Earth is in danger (yet again)...
Paul Magne Haakonsen8 April 2011
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.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Complete chick flick with nothing for the guys
drystyx1 February 2010
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.
17 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A pleasant surprise
Michael_Takes17 March 2012
Before any one watches this movie they have to understand that it is a SyFy production, which means no academy awards, modest budgets, and fictitious science used to explain what is happening.

As a fan of the SyFy movies (mostly as they are the only regular source of science fiction on TV now days)I would have watched it regardless, but this film was a pleasant surprise.

The cast was surprisingly good based on the type of film, all science fiction regulars led by Battlestar alum Michael Trucco, Invasion and Covert Affairs beauty Kari Mitchell, Kyle XYs Kirsten Prout and Smallville and Flash Gordon star Eric Johnson, all of whom are playing to their strengths (eg Johnson as a cocky, arrogant reporter). All performed well, though Trucco was a little stiff.

A typical weakness in SyFy flicks are the CG effects. Fortunately, as the story really only called for meteors falling from the sky the cost would have been limited allowing for some generally decent effects. The first meteor storm was very well done.

Another typical weakness of SyFy films is the script/ dialogue. While there are some cheesy lines 'That might explain the Bay Area's historically bad cell phone service', there are some good lines too, my favourite being when Michelle is being asked to go with the army person who says 'Say yes while I'm still asking, Michelle'.

This is a decent flick for a wet Friday night. Certainly not a blockbuster, and there a holes in the plot and the science of the film, but if you can ignore them and just watch the movie as escapism and entertainment there are certainly worse films you could watch instead.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Couldn't happen to a better place.
Condolf31 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The last 3 visits to San Francisco but anything but fun. Because they have turned the city over to the insane, I found myself rooting for the meteors during the movie. The special effects were OK and the acting was passable but the science behind the movie was totally laughable. I am a scientist and my wife hates to watch these kind of movies with her because I tear them apart while we watch. First off, there is no element 120 and we have never witnessed anything in nature that could create it. Also, the main character was constantly riding around on his motorcycle without refueling. That kinda reminded me of a gunfight where they always have guns of infinite rounds. And near the end of the movie we find that lurking in this vast array of rocks hurling towards earth is Apophis (a very large asteroid)and we are expected to believe that astronomers couldn't see it coming? And the bit about waiting until the atmosphere is heating it up from friction to start to shoot nukes at it. Everyone knows that in order to change the trajectory of something big coming at you from space, you have to nudge it while it is a million miles away at least.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not the worst - but not great either..
starman-wa4 September 2015
I am a fan of disaster movies and sci-fi movies, unfortunately this was not good at either. Whilst the storyline has been seen before I thought the story unfolded reasonably well, however there was not much substance to it - or science for that matter.

The acting was fair, except I found myself never quite believing the actors - their reactions to situations etc did not fit. I don't know if that is the actors fault or the director but something wasn't quite gelling.

Certainly not the worst film I've seen and worth watching if you need to kill a couple of hours.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews