Review of Meteor

Meteor (1979)
3/10
Which is the bigger disaster: the meteor…or the movie?
19 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Brief and to the point: "Meteor" is a lousy film! I normally am into 70's Sci-Fi and apocalyptic epics but this screenplay is really inept and actually more like a lame excuse to present a sad world-peace moral. Some intergalactic forces went berserk, and an asteroid of nearly 5 miles wide is heading straight for earth at an enormous speed. Why all the fuss over a little space-stone? Well, apparently because its impact would mean the end of the world and the only way our beloved planet can be saved is for the USA and Russia to combine forces and blow the asteroid to little pieces using their nuclear weapons. Problems occur, of course, when neither one of the world powers wants to admit they actually HAVE the weapons. It's truly pathetic to see how the writers out their Cold War protest into what should be an entertaining SF film and therefore the story totally doesn't convince. The "United-we-stand" message is shoved down our throats even more when US NASA genius Connery falls in love with the Russian interpreter Wood and when the whole bunch boozes vodka together. The special effects and visuals are cheesy and awfully dated, but that didn't bother me too much. In fact, the sequences in which the "asteroid-splinters" prematurely hit earth-regions are the only worthwhile moments in this dire film. The coolest footage is borrowed from the 1978 "Avalanche", by the way. The acting is mediocre over the entire line and the only performance worth mentioning is given by a terribly age Henry Fonda as the US President.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed