Rating: 
Summary: Possible Camp Classic With A Foundation In Fact
Review: "Meteor" has routinely drawn poor reviews from film critic, and it's easy to understand why. The star-heavy cast, including Sean Connery, Karl Malden, and Natalie Wood in one of her last screen appearances, seem to be going through the motions. The dialogue is heavy and forced. And the special effects aren't that special. In fact, the New York impact sequence is primary stock implosion footage...But the events depicted aren't particularly far-fetched...Although the acting and SFX aren't top notch, "Meteor's" base in reality is...In 1967, Project Icarus, undertaken by a graduate project group at MIT, discussed how to deal with the threat of an inbound asteroid. Although the solution (six Saturn V moon rockets with 100-megaton nuclear warheads) isn't plausible now, it marked the first time that the subject of impactor interception was seriously studied. "Meteor" may not Oscar-winning material, but it is definitely worth a look for anyone with an interest in cosmic impacts.
Rating:
Summary: Possible Camp Classic With A Foundation In Fact
Review: "Meteor" has routinely drawn poor reviews from film critic, and it's easy to understand why. The star-heavy cast, including Sean Connery, Karl Malden, and Natalie Wood in one of her last screen appearances, seem to be going through the motions. The dialogue is heavy and forced. And the special effects aren't that special. In fact, the New York impact sequence is primary stock implosion footage...But the events depicted aren't particularly far-fetched... Although the acting and SFX aren't top notch, "Meteor's" base in reality is...In 1967, Project Icarus, undertaken by a graduate project group at MIT, discussed how to deal with the threat of an inbound asteroid. Although the solution (six Saturn V moon rockets with 100-megaton nuclear warheads) isn't plausible now, it marked the first time that the subject of impactor interception was seriously studied. "Meteor" may not Oscar-winning material, but it is definitely worth a look for anyone with an interest in cosmic impacts.
Rating:
Summary: A PRETTY GOOD SCI-FI FILM HOWEVER NOT THE BEST.
Review: I liked METEOR a lot SEAN CONNERY, NATALIE WOOD and HENRY FONDA good a good job with so-so diolouge and roles that they play who they play I won't give away just watch and find out and you'll see what I mean. Also I thought the effects were pretty good for back then wait till you see them but they're the only thing that save this film. I would reccomend this film for that reason nothing else.
Rating: 
Summary: GREAT MOVIE!
Review: I love this movie! It is a great "feel good" movie. The Russians and Americans working together to save the world. What could be a better movie concept in the Cold War era in which this movie was made. Two great ideas for an exciting movie are brought together beautifully: a meteor five miles wide striking the Earth and a satellite orbiting the Earth armed with the devestating destructive power of nuclear missles now forced to be used to save the planet. If you want great special effects, forget it. This move was made in 1979 when special effects were still in their infancy. But, I still think the special effects are more than adequate and quite believeable. The makers of Meteor did a fine job. The story is believeable and the director lets you feel the emotions of the moment through the characters involved using the little side stories without making the movie to complex. In short, Meteor is one of my favorite movies and one I enjoy watching again and again. If you want to see a lousy movie, try one of the new Star Wars films.
Rating:
Summary: GREAT MOVIE!
Review: I love this movie! It is a great "feel good" movie. The Russians and Americans working together to save the world. What could be a better movie concept in the Cold War era in which this movie was made. Two great ideas for an exciting movie are brought together beautifully: a meteor five miles wide striking the Earth and a satellite orbiting the Earth armed with the devestating destructive power of nuclear missles now forced to be used to save the planet. If you want great special effects, forget it. This move was made in 1979 when special effects were still in their infancy. But, I still think the special effects are more than adequate and quite believeable. The makers of Meteor did a fine job. The story is believeable and the director lets you feel the emotions of the moment through the characters involved using the little side stories without making the movie to complex. In short, Meteor is one of my favorite movies and one I enjoy watching again and again. If you want to see a lousy movie, try one of the new Star Wars films.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best B-movies ever ...
Review: I saw this movie in the cinema when i was young and absolutely loved it ... I couldn't resist buying the dvd when it came out and it is still very entertaining ... Everything is over the top, Nathalie Wood as the russian translator for Brian Keith, falling in love with Sean "hunkier than ever" Connery while parts of a big meteor destroy different parts of the world ... From the first scene on you know what's gonna happen, but it is FUN ... Don't think but just sit back and enjoy this cool rollercoasterride !
Rating: 
Summary: How The Heck?
Review: In 1979, I would probably guess that big name studios like MGM would have better morals than to put out this pathetic excuse of a movie. Boring, unintriging, and badly acted, this movie will have you on the edge of your seat, to run into the next room covering your eyes at it's badness. I don't mean to diss, but man. This movie is awful. Why would I recommend this? How can I? I'll just simply put it like this. I'm not.
Rating:
Summary: How The Heck?
Review: In 1979, I would probably guess that big name studios like MGM would have better morals than to put out this pathetic excuse of a movie. Boring, unintriging, and badly acted, this movie will have you on the edge of your seat, to run into the next room covering your eyes at it's badness. I don't mean to diss, but man. This movie is awful. Why would I recommend this? How can I? I'll just simply put it like this. I'm not.
Rating: 
Summary: A rather dreary spectacle...
Review: It is surprising how much talent can be wasted on what is--frankly--a mediocre film. In spite of some pretty powerful actors, the film is tepid. It of course suffers in comparison with more recent and glossier hits such as DEEP IMPACT--which use modern cinematic technology for special effects. But beyond that, its weak plot and poor production values undermine the film, to give us a pretty weak result. The plot of a comet or meteor racing towards the virtually certain disaster of an impact with earth is an old and good one which can produce some hot movies. But this film uses cliche after cliche after cliche to carry out its purposes. The figure of the general unwilling to trust civilian handling of emergencies should be pretty familiar, as should that of the crusty Soviet technologist with a desirable and attractive translator, who learn to work with their U.S. counterparts (and perhaps find love). The redeployment of nuclear bombs to save the world by blasting the meteor is also all too familiar. And, of course, once again poor old New York City gets it right in the neck! In short, this plot has been done before--and since. And it has been done better.
Rating:
Summary: Rocks off
Review: It's odd to note how much 'Armageddon' borrowed from this film. Both movies open with a disaster in space, before moving through a mixture of light soap opera mixed with isolated catastrophes around the world (although, sadly, Paris is not devastated this time). The big difference is tone - 'Meteor' wants you to take it very seriously indeed, and whilst 'Armageddon' was a brain-dead, entertaining roller-coaster, 'Meteor' asks us to care passionately about missiles. There's very little human interest, and only Sean Connery stands out, and then only because he's Sean Connery. This was made during the period between 'Bond' and 'The Untouchables', when Connery's career was drifting along. His performance reminds you that, although he might not be Olivier, he's an immense screen presence. Anyway, 'Meteor' is dated - in a bad way. From the cold war tension to the way that the poster has miniature pictures of the main cast, this film reeks of 'late 70's disaster film'. Although it was not produced by Lew Grade it has the euro-pudding mish-mash feel of so many ITC productions (think: 'Raise the Titanic'). Still, the effects don't look too bad, and it's the kind of thing that goes down well on a bored Sunday afternoon. It's prime cheese, of course.
| 
