Meteor

Audience Reviews

View All (86) audience reviews

Blu B It's almost fasinating especially during the final 30 minutes how the mass destruction of NYC and escaping into the flooded subway is somehow the most boring part of the movie. The pacing is what is the deathblow to this above all else. It's horrifcally bad while everything else is subpar. The first 45 minutes is nothing but talking and talking and more talking about explaining the plot in a boring monotone way. This is also very boring to look at most of the time. The special effects aren't that good and use lots of stock footage and bad paintings. The space shots of the missles, missles hurling towards the meteor, the meteor itself are soooo boring to look at and are slower than a handicapped snail carrying a brick. It's mind boggling how the director looked at this and thought this was exciting and so cool that we had to keep cutting back to it tons of times. The destruction scenes are ok enough I guess except the NYC ending one and probably the best part. There is next to no character devlopment in this. Everyone just explains plot and has no chemistry. It's so evident Connery is just here for a paycheck. The music is barely used and when it is you almost don't even notice it playing. It's amazing howthe ending 30 minutes is the worst part and gets insanely boring and them escaping into the subway it comes out of nowhere and is so out of place and drags terribly. This alternates between talking about expose, show generic destruction, boring space, rinse and repeat. It's insane how boring this gets. The space shots needed to be completely reshot in a more exciting way or not have them at all. Fail Safe (1964) somehow made dots on a screen seem much more riveting than this does showing nuke and massive destruction. This also squanders any Cold War commentary this could've had about nations coming together to set aside their differences because of the poor execution and wanting to show brainless destruction. The first half is oddly enough the better part. Skip this completely. There is way better disaster stuff than this. Rated 2/5 Stars •  Rated 2 out of 5 stars 02/15/24 Full Review MATT M It wasn't bad for a 70s flick. Good acting , Good actors, ok script. Worth a watch on a Sunday afternoon Rated 4/5 Stars •  Rated 4 out of 5 stars 09/21/23 Full Review Richard B A very good disaster movie starring Sean Connery with a strong supporting cast. Certainly worth watching and very enjoyable, as long as you remember it's from 1979 Rated 3.5/5 Stars •  Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars 09/09/23 Full Review Steve D The only thing it does right is have the entire world involved in the mission. Rated 1/5 Stars •  Rated 1 out of 5 stars 08/15/23 Full Review Audience Member "Meteor" is a latter day attempt to do a big budget version of the B-movie Sci-Fi ones from the fifties in the post Star-Wars era of big budgets and special effects. And in color. It stars Sean Connery and Natalie Wood along with a lot of other big names. The world is facing destruction from a large meteor headed towards us. It's part Science Fiction and part disaster movie and you can see remnants of both, but it doesn't work as either. Sean Connery is supposed to be our top scientist in handling this but he just walks around, talks a lot and doesn't actually do anything. Natalie Wood plays a translator for Connery's Russian counterpart, Brian Keith, in an attempt to say something about the Cold War. The special effects aren't bad for the time period but the movie is long and slow moving and fails to develop any suspense. Natalie Wood is good in an understated part, Connery looks like he'd rather be elsewhere. It's a time passer, but nothing else. Rated 2.5/5 Stars •  Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars 01/13/23 Full Review Audience Member If it was any slower it would be backing up. Rated 2/5 Stars •  Rated 2 out of 5 stars 01/18/23 Full Review Read all reviews

Meteor

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now