Meteor (1979) User Reviews

Perestroika Saves The World

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 27 November 2006]

Meteor and When Time Ran Out marked the end of the decade of the disaster epic. I guess that Hollywood was just running out of ideas and that the formula of getting a bunch of big name players and put them in harm's way was wearing thin.

You can see that just about everybody here is bored, they all say the lines without any real conviction. Except for Martin Landau. As an Air Force General and Cold Warrior of the first order, he's extremely upset that the USA and the USSR have buried their differences to work on a real immediate problem. He resents Russians Brian Keith and Natalie Wood in the war room and Landau overacts outrageously.

A comet hurtling through the asteroid belt hit one of the big asteroids and sent one big chunk of rock and a whole bunch smaller ones as space calling cards speeding to Earth. That big guy if it hits spells the end of life on the planet.

Some criticism has been made that the special effects were a bit cheesy. By today's standards of course they were. So are some of those of the great Cecil B. DeMille. That's progress for you.

I'm not sure but this may have been the first time that Natalie Wood played someone of her own ancestry on film. Too bad she and Sean Connery as the NASA scientist didn't get to do something better before she passed away.

All the stars got a good pay day out of this though Sean Connery said there were some real scary moments with the cast trying to escape through the subway system with all the mud. A few times some people came close to really being buried in it for art's sake.

And this isn't a film to give your life for.

Get a Piece of the Rock

[BaronBl00d · 5/10 · 27 March 2006]

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.

Armageddon It!

[sexytail · 6/10 · 21 March 2005]

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!

In defense of the film.

[fleggett · 21 October 2001]

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.

Not Quite as Good as Remembered

[Uriah43 · 5/10 · 5 March 2020]

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.

S10 Review's Meteor (1979)

[suspiria10 · 5/10 · 8 September 2007]

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.

A few more thoughts on a decent disaster flick.

[gridoon · 5/10 · 29 January 2002]

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. (**)

Sean Connery's All-Star Version of 'Armageddon'!

[cariart · 7/10 · 16 November 2000]

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!

Nominee for MST3K, for all the right and wrong reasons...watch this movie!

[seanhmoss6 · 5/10 · 13 July 2019]

This movie is so much better than the 5 stars that I, and so many others gave it, One, It has 4 Oscar winners and 2 Emmy winners in the cast, along with other nominees and one of the sexiest women to ever walk the planet. And I mean SEXY. Natalie Wood IS sex. Much like Sophia Loren, Audrey Hepburn, Tina Turner, and most recently, Keira Kneightly. It's not just looks. It's a presence. Two, the premise of the movie has been revitalized in more current movies such as Deep Impact, Armageddon, The Day After Tomorrow, 2012, and even the made for TV movie, The Day After (which by the way, scared the buhjeezus out of people when it aired back in the 80's). Without these factors, this movie is definitely 1/2 a star but not worthy of MST3K. Which brings me to Three...

The direction and the script of this movie begs for the MST3K treatment. Because, DAMN. Parts of this movie are like taking part in a conversation where the storyteller is intensely involved in building the plot, breaks wind mid-sentence, and then continues in the middle of the story as if nothing happened. Only it's not the same story pre-poot.

For these reasons, I submit that METEOR is not a great movie, but it is an entertaining watch.

What was ACTUALLY destroyed by METEOR????

[smcarter1966 · 7/10 · 15 May 2007]

METEOR was supposed to be American-International's BIG film. How big? How about a two page ad in the NEW YORK TIMES announcing the film a year before it's release? Tie-in's to the film like a official movie magazine and a pinball machine (pratically unheard of in those days)? The title METEOR copyrighted by American-International? But then METEOR was released.

The storyline (Comet passing through asteroid belt collides with gigantic rock causing the huge chunk to head towards Earth, disaster impending) is just basically a chance to see B-grade and former A-grade actors go through the motions, which is fine and passable. What is wrong with this film is the long pauses between anything really happening at all, which is poison to a disaster film. METEOR really didn't need a nearly five minute segment of two rocket platforms turning, or occasionally during the climax of the film, a character asking "How long till impact?", another character would say how long it was. And then we would see a combination of shots like the meteor, then the rockets, then a shot of the meteor headed towards the rockets, then a shot of the rockets headed towards the meteor (any combination of any and/or all shots above). Any momentum the film had would be killed right then and there.

METEOR isn't a bad film, it's a decent film with unnecessary filler sequences.

And what was actually destroyed by METEOR? American-International Pictures. The high (compared with other A.I.P. films) production costs combined with low box office returns doomed A.I.P. and was bought out by FILMWAYS and within two years of METEOR's release, A.I.P. was nothing more than a memory except to those lovers of drive-in flicks.

A disaster all right

[henry-girling · 4/10 · 21 May 2004]

The name Samuel Z Arkoff appears first on the credits. This could be interesting or it could be terrible. Keep watching. The cast includes Sean Connery, Natalie Wood, Brian Keith, Karl Malden, Martin Landau, Trevor Howard and Henry Fonda. Now there is a decent bunch of actors, all usually good value. Keep watching. Directed by Ronald Neame, a distinguished British director by any standards. And then follows a disaster of a disaster film.

There is a strange dichotomy between the high quality of the cast and the low quality of the other elements in the film. The painfully meagre special effects, the shrill music, the leaden plot. It seems a strange brew and even a reviewer like myself who will always try to pick out some good points in a film am at a loss. The thing that distracted me the most was that the meteor itself, a wide lump of pitted and gruyered rock seemed to have a sound effect, like an engine! Perhaps it was my imagination.

This film is not good enough or bad enough to be a cult film. It is just tepid and flat and makes 'the Towering Inferno' look like the 'Citizen Kane' of disaster movies.

Cold War-era superpowers join forces to blow stuff up!

[BrandtSponseller · 8/10 · 8 March 2005]

When NASA realizes that a 5-mile wide chunk of asteroid loosed by a passing comet is on a collision course with the Earth, they send for a retired specialist to help them develop a strategy to avoid disaster. Unfortunately, it's the Cold War-era, and success will depend on cooperation with the Russians.

Meteor arrived at the tail end of the disaster film craze of the 1970s. It's certainly not as slick as some, and in historical perspective, the production values and atmosphere are no match for Star Wars (1977) or Alien (1979), despite both of those films having smaller budgets, but it is a competent sci-fi "thriller" that tends to surmount its limitations, at least if you stick it out past the slightly clunky beginning.

At first, it seems like the film might turn out to be a derivative cheese-fest. It has a documentary-styled opening with the tone of a 1960s science educational film. It has Star Wars-styled receding titles. It has text announcing settings in an overdone font like the poster art of the film. Some of the early spaceship shots are lit so that it's clear they were small models filmed in a studio. And a somewhat awkward expository flashback device is used.

But director Ronald Neame also shows signs of transcending his missteps early on. It surely helps that Sean Connery has the starring role, with Karl Malden in a prominent supporting role at the beginning of the film. The script is more humorous than we might expect, although the humor isn't unusual when delivered from Connery. "Why don't you stick a broom up my ass; I could sweep the carpet on my way out", is an early standout line, said by Connery when he's feeling pressure due to what's being asked of him.

The further we go into the film, the more suspenseful it becomes. The drama between NASA, the president and the Russians is beautifully written. The mini-disasters before the threatened big one are exciting and tragic. And the climax is simply fantastic--Neame builds an incredible amount of suspense with a simple countdown, then he follows it up with an equally intense scenario. All of this more gripping material is well acted and well directed, with a more epic scope than we might expect and relatively admirable special effects for the era.

Most interesting, watching Meteor at this point in time, are the countless cultural oddities we get from context. Like many films of the era, Cold War politics looms large. The hinge of the plot is reminiscent of Reagan's "Star Wars" program (maybe he got the idea from the film?--a frightening thought). There are a great many jokes about Russians--at one point, Russian higher-ups fret over whether the national budget can cover a long-distance telephone call. At another point, an American character ironically remarks, "Good news, the Russians are coming".

Even funnier are two oddities very relevant to our present culture. When news of the rogue asteroid is first announced on television, it's a brief update, then they're quickly back to a football game. There's no 24-hour coverage with trumped-up, dramatic graphics and music. And this is a scenario that actually warrants that treatment. The other instance is when American officials are excessively worried that revealing a particular bit of news might result in them being called "liars" and "warmongers". There was no G.W. Bush in the White House in this film.

But as fun as those cultural differences are to note, Meteor is primarily worth watching because of the performances and the fine way in which tension is built throughout its length. It is effective enough to have been influential. Most notably it has strong similarities to Armageddon (1999), which was obviously inspired by this film.

Meteor and Film History

[junkof9-1 · 6/10 · 27 August 2008]

As a movie, this fits more in the "so bad it's good" category (which is why I, personally, recommend the film); but that's not why I wanted to post a commentary. In the posted comments all but one focused on its flaws; only one went beyond that and mentioned the relevance of this movie and I wanted to expand on that.

If remembered at all, "Meteor" is noteworthy as the film that finally sank the venerable American International Pictures. There was an excellent PBS documentary not long back called "The Monster that Ate Hollywood". One of the central themes was just how much movies like "Jaws" and "Star Wars" changed Hollywood - and not necessarily for the better.

AIP made its money as a distributor of low-budget movies designed for the drive-in market but, like many others, it became enraptured by the mega-millions to be made in one blockbuster movie - rather than thousands on a string of small, frugal (but profitable) movies. "Meteor" was AIP's "swing for the fences"; its "blockbuster" movie.

You can also call it really bad timing. This was the late '70s - before computer generated digital special effects made it possible for "low budget" movies to have "high class" special effects the looked believable on the big screen. It was also before VHS/Beta created a whole new revenue stream for movie studios and before cable TV with a channel devoted to Science Fiction.

So, "Meteor" was made the old fashioned way - signing up big stars (with big salaries); bringing together lots of technicians to build sets and create special effects (also expensive); and paying for a costly distribution to lots of movie theaters. The end result was a traditional AIP "B" movie with "A" list expenses. When critics and audiences were less than thrilled with the results, AIP lacked the resources to continue and folded - selling out to Filmways.

Sean's disaster film

[LuboLarsson · 4/10 · 10 November 2002]

Even Sean Connery lowered himself to appear in a 70's disaster film, and it was a really bad one too. The effects were terrible, laughingly bad even for 1979. This film was so bad even Sean's wig refused to appear. As I watched it I have expected Roger Moore's 007 to blow up the Meteor on the Space Shuttle he had in Moonraker, to put the real James Bond 007 (Sean) out of his movie misery. Luckily Sean would bounce back in the likes of The Name of the Rose, The Untouchables, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, The Rock etc. The Meteor must be his worst film by far.

The world is ending...Would you like a sandwich?

[Poseidon-3 · 29 April 2003]

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.

Serious Hair Malfunction and Marital Aids in Space

[jimmccool · 1/10 · 3 September 2007]

This is cheesier than a cheese-o-phile's toenails, and if it wasn't so darned boring in most scenes, would actually be almost entertaining. Unfortunately, ten minute plus scenes of overpaid actors watching 70s style monitors in silence does not make for riveting drama. And the uh 'special' effects? These resemble nothing more than a cohort of marital aids taped together and heading woozily space-ward. They uh, don't look very real - as the 'artist' hadn't twigged the concept of 'weathering' at that stage - making models look realistically aged and grimy. Still we do have the spectacle of Karl Malden having a severe hair malfunction during the 'money' shot when the Hudson river, or what looks like either (a) chocolate soup, or (b) sewage, engulfs the assembled anti-Meteorites. Helpfully, Sean Connery is on hand to help Karl sweep back that 'repartino' and dignity is restored. Great for those of us older folk who have trouble sleeping, I struggled to stay awake to watch this over the course of three evenings and felt greatly refreshed for weeks afterwards. Q - another hair featurette - isn't Martin Landau's hair a wee bit on the uh, longish side for a serving U.S. officer??

"Get the big one, Paul! Get it!"

[moonspinner55 · 4/10 · 1 September 2007]

Disgruntled former scientist with NASA is brought back to the fold after a comet--"wrenched out of orbit by Jupiter's gravitational pull!"--collides with an asteroid in space, sending a chunk of rock five miles wide heading straight for Earth. Disaster flick from American International looks fairly convincing, if you're not too demanding. The heated exchanges between the scientists and the generals is wearing, but at least the sub-plot regarding the stubborn Russians gives us tongue-in-cheek Brian Keith as an astrophysicist and Natalie Wood as his assistant and translator, both speaking perfect Russian! The dialogue is almost as overwrought as Laurence Rosenthal's score, which would be entertainingly cheesy were it not so repetitive and intrusive. Directed by Ronald Neame, he of "The Poseidon Adventure", and an apparent victim of director-typecasting. The scientific rhetoric leaves itself open for logical criticism, and when the smaller meteorites hit Asia and the Alps, we are treated to some very tacky archival and stock footage. Pretty depressing overall, with Sean Connery looking uneasy and Henry Fonda inserted here and there as the U.S. President. ** from ****

When You`ve Seen One Meteor Movie ...

[Theo Robertson · 5/10 · 14 September 2003]

The one thing I dislike about Sean Connery is his inability to pick a decent script , I mean just think of all the substandard movies he`s starred in . I imagine though when big Sean saw the script for METEOR he thought he might be onto a winner seeing as it was a sci-fi disaster movie and these two genres were all the rage in the 1970s . Unfortunately by the time this was released the disaster genre had been killed off by turkeys like THE SWARM and THE CASSANDRA CROSSING while many sci-fi films were being produced solely to cash in on the success of STAR WARS with quality science fiction taking a back seat . By 1979 I doubt if a cinema audience could stomach another star studded disaster movie , especially if it had SF overtones as did THE SWARM and THE CASSANDRA CROSSING before it

As was later shown in other meteor films like the sentimental one with Robert Duvall and Morgan Freeman and that one with Bruce Willis , ( You know the one that was utter crap )the problem is the audience is left twiddiling their thumbs waiting for the meteor to hit planet Earth at the end therefore the story has nowhere to go which makes for a very predictable movie , and METEOR isn`t helped by its less than special effects . Does anyone remember that 1960s British movie GORGO ? Remember when people were getting crushed by falling rubble and it was so obvious that the rubble was falling masonary superimposed over the camera ? Well here the exact same technique is used to show a mighty avalance and a gigantic tidal wave enveloping densely packed population centres . It probably didn`t look all that convincing in 1979 and it looks laughably fake today

METEOR is just another disaster movie but it lasts for less than two hours so perhaps we should br greatful for that

Fun in a no think sort of way

[preppy-3 · 7/10 · 28 June 2009]

A giant meteor is going to hit Earth in a week. It's so large and coming in so fast it could cause worldwide devastation. The USSR and the USA have nuclear weapons in space--but only the combined power of both could destroy the meteor. For the USA we have Karl Malden and Sean Connery. For the USSR we have Natalie Wood and Brian Keith. Can they come to terms? Well--Henry Fonda is the president. What do you think? Also the Earth is being hit by little pre-meteors that cause an avalanche in Switzerland, a tidal wave to hit Hong Kong and Manhattan is leveled by one.

Silly on every level (with some laughably ridiculous science thrown in) BUT if you can turn off your mind completely this is somewhat enjoyable. The special effects (for an AIP film) are not bad--even though most are taken from other movies. The cast is actually quite good considering how stupid the script is. Wood and Connery actually bring some substance to a totally unnecessary romantic subplot that is shoehorned in. The only acting embarrassment is Martin Landau. He SCREAMS all his lines and when he looses his temper it was almost painful to watch. Most of the cast has to fight through a gigantic mudslide to get to safety at the end. It's stupid and dumb but never dull. Also it's good to see Wood in her third to last theatrical film (she looks stunning I might add) and Keith fakes a Russian accent convincingly.

This was a big budget movie for AIP. Unfortunately it bombed. It came far too late to cash into the disaster movie craze of the 1970s and it was torn apart by the critics. Still it's not all THAT bad! I give it a 7. Turn off your mind and enjoy!

Which is the bigger disaster: the meteor or the movie?

[Coventry · 3/10 · 19 May 2005]

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.

Before "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon"... there was "METEOR".

[Aussie Stud · 6/10 · 22 October 2001]

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 stop it.

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.

The movie Ed Wood always wanted to make

[Joe-146 · 2/10 · 26 February 2004]

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.

More enjoyable than "Armageddon"

[Toteit · 8/10 · 16 April 2006]

Really, there was nothing wrong with this film other then some basic scientific flaws, such as the over crowded asteroid belt and the appallingly bad Russian spoken by Wood and Keith. (My Ukrainain wife burst out laughing at their lines when we watched the DVD.) It is very interesting to me that the film was made prior to 1981 and the discovery of the Chixilub meteor crater in the Gulf of Mexico. This was the dinosaur killer that hit 65 million years ago. The science was right on about another Ice Age as well, even before the 1982 studies that predicted "nuclear winter" and were cited as the reason for the great die off in the late Cretaceous period. But the feel of the film as well as the acting and the believability was far better then "Armageddon", 20 years later. If "Meteor" had been blessed with the advanced special effects of the late 1990s, it would have been truly spectacular. Now a few problems: Those missiles were supposed to carry 100 megaton warheads. The largest nuclear weapon ever set off was 50 megatons and that was the size of a Greyhound bus. Also, the missiles had a distinct plastic model look right down to the seam where it looked as if the two halves had been glued together. Still, this should not detract form a very good action film as well as a warning as this really could happen and did at least 65 million years ago.

Work for their money!

[jsmits · 7/10 · 29 May 2006]

I warn for a spoiler, because there is a must see scene in this movie.

People do not seem to like this movie. That is too bad. In many disaster movies with a big budget the cast does not get their hands really dirty. Sometimes a bit smudged, sometimes a bit wet, but that's it.

In Meteor they give the cast a mud bath they will never forget. You can see the disbelieve on their faces, and it adds to the credibility of the scene. These people even try to act during the ordeal. They should all have gotten an Oscar. You never saw this, and you will never see it again in this time of computer effects.

Disaster of a disaster movie

[WallyB · 1/10 · 31 January 2004]

Where to begin ? Probably best not to. An all star cast can't save this turkey with its B movie plot and dreadful special effects. Brian Keith and Natalie Wood as Soviet scientists ? Martin Landau as a red faced military clown ? Ed Wood gave us "Plan Nine From Outer Space" apparently Meteor is Plan Ten ! If you like SciFi you should watch it once, just to see how bad "bad" can be.