Alicia I love this movie so much

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

atomicgirl-34996 I vaguely remember watching this movie on TV several times as a kid but couldn't remember a thing about it, so I decided to finally watch it again to refresh my memory. Given the year, I expected it to be a cheesy laugh riot in 1970s excess. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised.Don't get me wrong; Meteor is definitely a fourth rate Irwin Allen-esque disaster film and doesn't hold a candle to The Poseidon Adventure and The Towering Inferno. Some of the acting is ridiculous, especially Martin Landau, who literally screams the entire time. The movie also feels very small. I remember Irwin Allen films feeling more epic in scale because of the direction. Meteor feels more like a TV movie. However, it was actually much better than I expected for a film of this type. I was pretty entertained throughout and thought the special effects were surprisingly good for 1979. Okay, not amazing obviously but not 1950s B movie sci-fi bad. Some of the action scenes were also pretty good, especially the one that takes place in a NYC subway. The best thing about Meteor was how straightforward the story was. Unlike movies today that try so hard to appear intelligent by throwing in too many characters, subplots and convoluted plot points, the plot is simple. Basically, the USA wants to use a space weapon to destroy a meteor but is in a dilemma because using it would mean unveiling it to the world, pissing off the Russians and painting itself as a hypocrite. However, as the meteor approaches, common sense prevails and the US decides to not only unveil the weapon but work with the USSR to take the meteor down. That's the story, short and sweet.Not only is Meteor an okay film, I think it might've been a trailblazer. Before this movie, disaster films were always specific to one location (airplane, ship, Los Angeles, burning skyscraper). This is probably the first disaster movie that showed disaster happening around the globe, a la The Day After Tomorrow and Independence Day. So it should get extra credit for that alone.All in all, an entertaining flick. Don't listen to the naysayers totally trashing it as crap. It's cheesy, yes, but it's no less watchable or cheesy than any modern day disaster film.

StuOz A meteor is about to hit earth.Not to be confused with Irwin Allen's City Beneath The Sea (1971), another disaster movie about a giant rock that is about to hit the earth.The director of Meteor, Ronald Neame, also directed The Poseidon Adventure (1972) and you can hear the guy talk for nearly two hours on the DVD commentary for The Poseidon Adventure. He comes over as a guy who knows his stuff and for this reason you have to wonder what went wrong when he directed Meteor?I am not saying that Meteor is bad, far from it, in fact I would rather watch this than a few of the disaster films that came out in the 1990s (Twister, Deep Impact). The wonderfully dated special effects (no CGI, great!) steal this film and it is fun seeing Karl Malden do two disaster movies in one year (he was also in Beyond The Poseidon Advenure in 1979).In a nutshell: Meteor is okay.

memorable-name There is a Meteor on collision course with Earth and if we don't stop it then, well its bye bye for a lot of us! Meteor is a disaster movie that came out in 1979 when the genre was winding down people had, had enough of buildings collapsing, airplanes crashing and boats capsizing which is part of the reason I think this movie has been ridiculed ever since, sure the special effects aren't great and the use of stock footage is a bit cheap but for its time they aren't that bad. The story line is fairly interesting trying to get America and Russia to combine its nuclear weapons to destroy the large rock during the Cold War wouldn't of been easy and the tension between the two groups is well presented. The acting from all involved including Sean Connery (getting shaken but not stirred), Natalie Wood, Henry Fonda and Karl Malden is OK but nothing special and almost tongue in check which is probably the best way to take this film.Before the daddy rock takes aim, we get baby ones coming along for the ride causing snow storms, avalanches, tidal waves and the destruction of New York City, perhaps a few more would of helped things move along quicker.The ending is quite predictable but then we couldn't have the rock destroying us all could we? It is probably drawn out a bit to long and at this point in the film I thought the scenes back on earth with our stars clambering there way through subways was more interesting.So all in all, yes its a bit corny, yes its a bit camp and yes it certainly isn't a great film but on the other hand, it should hold your attention and isn't that bad either, if it had been released a few years earlier when disaster was big business then I do think it would of been a better received film and is at least as good as most other disaster movies from the 1970s.

jlthornb51 Superb special effects and an intelligent script make this one of the finest disaster films ever produced. Director Ronald Neame does a beautiful job putting a superb cast through their paces and the results are some very fine performances. Brian Keith is especially good in the role of a Russian scientist and Natalie Wood is excellent as his assistant. The suspense is unrelenting and the disaster sequences are overwhelming even by today's standards. The shocks come fast and furiously as humanity faces total extinction when a meteor hurtles toward earth and it is up to world governments to save the planet. A clever plot development makes for some surprise twists and turns and this film is always much more than simply one more disaster movie.