IMDb RATING
5.1/10
9.1K
YOUR RATING
The U.S. must join forces with the U.S.S.R. in order to destroy a gigantic asteroid heading straight for Earth.The U.S. must join forces with the U.S.S.R. in order to destroy a gigantic asteroid heading straight for Earth.The U.S. must join forces with the U.S.S.R. in order to destroy a gigantic asteroid heading straight for Earth.
- Nominated for 1 Oscar
- 1 nomination total
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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. (**)
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.
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.
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.
This one was long forgotten because it was made at the end of an era. The disaster movies. It's one of the last.
They always came with a top cast typical for disaster flicks but here we do have some big names at the end of their career like Henry Fonda. Sad to see. Still it wasn't received that well, a bit too long and the shots of the rockets takes ages.
The effects are also outdated for a time when effects were getting better and better. Still, it came back in picture in 2001.
9/11 happened and let this flick have a scene were the twin towers are destroyed by the meteor. Since 9/11 it was cleared that that scene had to be cut out for screening in the USA.
So be lucky if you still have the uncut one.
A bit of cold war of course and naturally Sean Connery has to be the playboy against Natalie Woods.
If you do like a top cast in a disaster movie, there are better ones who did stand the time (Towering Inferno is the best) but for the geeks, pick it up
Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5
They always came with a top cast typical for disaster flicks but here we do have some big names at the end of their career like Henry Fonda. Sad to see. Still it wasn't received that well, a bit too long and the shots of the rockets takes ages.
The effects are also outdated for a time when effects were getting better and better. Still, it came back in picture in 2001.
9/11 happened and let this flick have a scene were the twin towers are destroyed by the meteor. Since 9/11 it was cleared that that scene had to be cut out for screening in the USA.
So be lucky if you still have the uncut one.
A bit of cold war of course and naturally Sean Connery has to be the playboy against Natalie Woods.
If you do like a top cast in a disaster movie, there are better ones who did stand the time (Towering Inferno is the best) but for the geeks, pick it up
Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5
Did you know
- TriviaPrincipal photography was shut down for two days when Sir Sean Connery contracted a respiratory condition during the filming of the mud sequence. The mud also knocked Connery off his feet, buried Karl Malden twice, while Natalie Wood was almost sucked into one of the pumps. During the mud filming, the actors and actresses would stuff their ears with cotton-wool, and had to have their eyes washed out, at the completion of each take.
- GoofsComet tails do not automatically trail behind them; they are always pointed away from the Sun.
- Quotes
Paul Bradley: Why don't you stick a broom up my ass? I can sweep the carpet on the way out.
- Crazy creditsInfo panel and Voice Over about a real defence project Icarus, similar to the one in the film.
- Alternate versionsIn early television broadcasts, the "Fuck the Dodgers!" line was overdubbed by coughing or the entire toast was simply cut.
- ConnectionsEdited from Avalanche (1978)
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Languages
- Also known as
- Meteoro
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $16,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $8,400,000
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $2,250,000
- Oct 21, 1979
- Gross worldwide
- $8,400,000
- Runtime
- 1h 48m(108 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content