HOME FILMOGRAPHY BIOGRAPHY GALLERY PROJECTS TV MOVIES
E-MAIL
.png)
![]()
En la linea del catastrofismo con el sobresaliente para los efectos especiales, se nos explica una historia que al mismo tiempo pretende ser una lección política: el enemigo puede estar en el espacio. El espacio ha sido un punto de rivalidad entre los grandes y los misiles nucleares uno de los temas de fricción tanto en lo político como en lo social. Esta temática a inspirado a Nort, para crear una historia de escasa credibilidad, pero capaz de impulsar el potencial de la industria en la tecnología cinematográfica. El meteoro se acerca a la tierra, imposible para cualquier país, ni siquiera para los Estados Unidos, luchar contra la catástrofe que se avecina. los misiles con cabeza nuclear que se pasean por el espacio como feroces pero disciplinados guardianes, pueden ser la solución, si destruyen la gran masa que se acerca fatalmente. Pero los misiles USA no bastan,. Hay que contar con los misiles soviéticos, pero antes, hacer que los rusos reconozcan que existen. Se traslada a Estados Unidos un científico soviético que ha de tomar contacto con el equipo norteamericano que estudia y se preocupan del caso. Esta parte constituye una de las secuencias más divertidas de la cinta, y enfrenta a dos figuras de la interpretación que perfilan a estos personajes. Por una, Sean Connery, el científico norteamericano llamado Bradley, y por la otra el ruso, magníficamente sostenido por Brian Keith, el mejor carácter de la película. Lo que el público apreciará de "Meteor", es este sentido del humor que se deja caer entre las fases de un suspense magnificado con escenas catastróficas de varios tipos. El mejor alud del cine, en Suiza; un maremoto en Hong Kong, la destrucción de Nueva York, la lucha de los científicos por su supervivencia, el avance de los misiles codo a codo, los norteamericanos con los rusos, contra el enemigo común. Hasta entonces, esos misiles -los rusos con la cabeza roja-, se dirigían a la otra potencia, de manera que la empresa de buen entendimiento que salva a la humanidad creada por Bradley-Connery, es algo así como aleccionadora. Del mismo modo que se patentiza que en el mundo hay dos grandes -lo que ya sabíamos- se desarrolla la solidaridad internacional. Los misiles nucleares se hacen simpáticos y hasta queda un hueco para la historia de amor entre Sean -divorciado- y Natalie Wood, una rusa que hace de intérprete y que a lo mejor, en <Meteor 2> regresa a Norteamérica para casarse con el maduro, pero atractivo Bradley, que en sus horas libres se dedica a las grandes regatas. Si los personajes tienen poca encarnadura, los actores que los hacen vivir, realizan un buen trabajo. A los ya citados hay que añadir a Martin Landau, en el papel de un exaltado y casi nazi militar, que sabe arrepentirse a tiempo, y a Karl Malden, que corrobora su gran profesionalidad. Fonda, como el presidente, esta como para votarle. Neame en su labor de dirección, ha sido superado por el equipo de los efectos especiales, que otorga a la película una calidad de la que temáticamente carece. La película tiene posibilidades de ser comercial y no va a defraudar al público de los temas catastróficos, a menudo tan mal servidos. La cinta, revaloriza el tema.- Angeles MASO..
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
In defense of the film.
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.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Sean Connery's All-Star Version of 'Armageddon'!
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!
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
More enjoyable than "Armageddon"
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.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Cold War-era superpowers join forces to blow stuff up!
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.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Why not?
I don't know why,but I have a feeling I must apologize for my review in advance. Perhaps it's my senior age (I'm 73). But I enjoyed this movie very much. Great actors & actresses.Sorry folks,something similar to this could happen,I sure hope not.But it is possible.Don't push your luck.Who would have ever thought anyone could wipe out a city with one bomb.Ask a Japanese friend and I'm quite sure they will tell you,it is possible.Critique and critical are two different words.It is possible to to give a positive critique.But "Gee Whiz" I have a slight feeling that I may be critical of the reviews.Probably a no, no.I must try to be more liberal in any future reviews I may offer. However my daddy use to tell me "son" is you can't say something nice to somebody. Say something nasty.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Before "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon"... there was "METEOR".
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.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Meteor and Film History
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.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Strangely compelling
I would list this movie as one of the reasons I am grateful you can buy DVDs of your favorite movies. If I could only have 10 movies in my video library, this would be one of them. Some of the biggest screen stars of the day were featured in this last gasp of glasnost. Sean Connery, Brian Keith,, Martin Landau, Henry Fonda, Natalie Wood (who is coincidentally cast as a Russian translator when she herself was born to Russian parents). The screenplay adds lots of nice realistic touches that draw you into the panic of a world on the uncontrollable brink of annihilation. It is gratifying to see Sean Connery unfettered and free to curse and rail. Part of the appeal is to see high-level bureaucrats at each others throats and to see how there is a rest of the world and that they are affected as well. It is eerie to see that the very first American landmark struck is the World Trade Center towers. It should be noted that the screenplay was written by those whose having a great deal of war movie screenplay experience, such as "Patton", "Sink The Bismarck", and "The Day The Earth Stood Still". The orchestration aptly relays the gravity of the moments where dialog is not possible.
I would list this movie as one of the reasons I am grateful you can buy DVDs of your favorite movies. If I could only have 10 movies in my video library, this would be one of them. Some of the biggest screen stars of the day were featured in this last gasp of glasnost. Sean Connery, Brian Keith,, Martin Landau, Henry Fonda, Natalie Wood (who is coincidentally cast as a Russian translator when she herself was born to Russian parents). The screenplay adds lots of nice realistic touches that draw you into the panic of a world on the uncontrollable brink of annihilation. It is gratifying to see Sean Connery unfettered and free to curse and rail. Part of the appeal is to see high-level bureaucrats at each others throats and to see how there is a rest of the world and that they are affected as well. It is eerie to see that the very first American landmark struck is the World Trade Center towers. It should be noted that the screenplay was written by those whose having a great deal of war movie screenplay experience, such as "Patton", "Sink The Bismarck", and "The Day The Earth Stood Still". The orchestration aptly relays the gravity of the moments where dialog is not possible.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Fun in a no think sort of way
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!
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Meteor was a pretty good drama that happened to deal with a potentially realistic natural disaster
Okay, since this movie was from American International, I didn't expect to see any of the actors-mostly big name stars-take any of the story seriously but they all seemed to believe in what they were saying and doing so as a result, I was enthralled by the performances of Sean Connery, Natalie Wood (loved that she used her native Russian language), Brian Keith (hearing him speak Russian was a hoot), Karl Malden, Martin Landau (convincing doing an about-turn after acting insolent previously), Henry Fonda, Richard Dysart (almost unrecognizable in this pre-"L.A. Law" role of the president's secretary), and Clyde Kusatsu (loved this particular character actor since his appearance on "All in the Family" when he remarried the Bunkers and Stivics). Special mention goes to Sybil Danning in her mostly silent skiing part. The effects were probably not the best but they were good enough. Seeing the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was eerie here some 7 years after 9/11 and seeing them destroyed by the meteor was especially chilling. They actually showed a scene of two hookers relaxing after all those disasters! While I detected a romance developing between Wood and Connery, it didn't distract from the story. In summation, Meteor was a nice surprise as a drama that happened to deal with a potential disaster in a realistic setting.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
'Meteor' came out as the fad for disaster movies was on the wane. The director - Ronald Neame - started the ball rolling in 1972 with 'The Poseidon Adventure', all about a capsized ocean liner. By 1979, cinema audiences had been subjected to earthquakes, sharks, planes colliding in mid-air, killer bees, and burning skyscrapers. The only place the genre had left to go was parody. 1976's 'The Big Bus' was first to dig that particular grave, and 1980's 'Airplane!' provided the headstone.
But some producers were misguided enough to think the cash cow had some juice left in it. 'Meteor' opens with a comet colliding with asteroid 'Orpheus', putting it on a trajectory that will cause it to smash into the Earth in just under a week. A number of smaller fragments hit first, the first causes an avalanche in Switzerland, the second a tidal wave that engulfs Japan, the third decimates New York.
Sean Connery heads up an all-star cast as 'Dr.Paul Bradley', the scientist behind 'Project Hercules', an orbiting space platform equipped with nuclear warheads. He calculates that it will take twice the firepower of 'Hercules' to stop 'Orpheus'. Luckily the Russians have one up there as well, codenamed 'Peter The Great'. Brian Keith and Natalie Wood ( in one of her last roles ) play Russians who team up with Bradley to stop the meteor. Also on view are Trevor Howard, Henry Fonda as 'The President' ( reprising a role he played in 1964's 'Fail-Safe' ), Martin Landau ( overacting shamelessly as a 'Dr.Strangelove'-type military figure ), and Karl Malden. There's a fleeting glimpse of Sybil 'Battle Beyond The Stars' Danning as a sexy skier. The cast is clearly where most of the budget went. Which brings me to the special effects. Had this been a made-for-T.V. movie the unconvincing model spaceships would have been acceptable, but in a 'blockbuster' movie they are not. The Bond movie 'Moonraker' came out the same year and Derek Meddings' effects are superior to anything in this film. The meteor itself looks like a huge turd flying through space. The destruction of the 'Project Hercules' control room and flooding of the New York subway tunnels are, on the other hand, excitingly done.
I'm no scientist, but even I know a comet is little more than a collection of frozen gases and would not possess the mass required to shatter a large asteroid. Also, the Earth is constantly moving through space and so should be far, far away by the time Orpheus arrives.
On the plus side, the idea of Americans and Russians working together to save the world is a nice one ( the Cold War was underway when the film was made ). Lawrence Rosenthal's music is good, and the acting ( apart from Landau ) solid. As disaster movies go, it is nowhere near as laughably bad as say 'The Swarm' ( 1976 ) , but neither is it as good as it might have been. It still manages to be better than 'Deep Impact' and 'Armaggeddon' ( both 1998 ), however, despite those pictures' technical superiority.
But some producers were misguided enough to think the cash cow had some juice left in it. 'Meteor' opens with a comet colliding with asteroid 'Orpheus', putting it on a trajectory that will cause it to smash into the Earth in just under a week. A number of smaller fragments hit first, the first causes an avalanche in Switzerland, the second a tidal wave that engulfs Japan, the third decimates New York.
Sean Connery heads up an all-star cast as 'Dr.Paul Bradley', the scientist behind 'Project Hercules', an orbiting space platform equipped with nuclear warheads. He calculates that it will take twice the firepower of 'Hercules' to stop 'Orpheus'. Luckily the Russians have one up there as well, codenamed 'Peter The Great'. Brian Keith and Natalie Wood ( in one of her last roles ) play Russians who team up with Bradley to stop the meteor. Also on view are Trevor Howard, Henry Fonda as 'The President' ( reprising a role he played in 1964's 'Fail-Safe' ), Martin Landau ( overacting shamelessly as a 'Dr.Strangelove'-type military figure ), and Karl Malden. There's a fleeting glimpse of Sybil 'Battle Beyond The Stars' Danning as a sexy skier. The cast is clearly where most of the budget went. Which brings me to the special effects. Had this been a made-for-T.V. movie the unconvincing model spaceships would have been acceptable, but in a 'blockbuster' movie they are not. The Bond movie 'Moonraker' came out the same year and Derek Meddings' effects are superior to anything in this film. The meteor itself looks like a huge turd flying through space. The destruction of the 'Project Hercules' control room and flooding of the New York subway tunnels are, on the other hand, excitingly done.
I'm no scientist, but even I know a comet is little more than a collection of frozen gases and would not possess the mass required to shatter a large asteroid. Also, the Earth is constantly moving through space and so should be far, far away by the time Orpheus arrives.
On the plus side, the idea of Americans and Russians working together to save the world is a nice one ( the Cold War was underway when the film was made ). Lawrence Rosenthal's music is good, and the acting ( apart from Landau ) solid. As disaster movies go, it is nowhere near as laughably bad as say 'The Swarm' ( 1976 ) , but neither is it as good as it might have been. It still manages to be better than 'Deep Impact' and 'Armaggeddon' ( both 1998 ), however, despite those pictures' technical superiority.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
CRITICA EN EL PERIÓDICO "LA VANGUARDIA" (21-12-1979)
En la linea del catastrofismo con el sobresaliente para los efectos especiales, se nos explica una historia que al mismo tiempo pretende ser una lección política: el enemigo puede estar en el espacio. El espacio ha sido un punto de rivalidad entre los grandes y los misiles nucleares uno de los temas de fricción tanto en lo político como en lo social. Esta temática a inspirado a Nort, para crear una historia de escasa credibilidad, pero capaz de impulsar el potencial de la industria en la tecnología cinematográfica. El meteoro se acerca a la tierra, imposible para cualquier país, ni siquiera para los Estados Unidos, luchar contra la catástrofe que se avecina. los misiles con cabeza nuclear que se pasean por el espacio como feroces pero disciplinados guardianes, pueden ser la solución, si destruyen la gran masa que se acerca fatalmente. Pero los misiles USA no bastan,. Hay que contar con los misiles soviéticos, pero antes, hacer que los rusos reconozcan que existen. Se traslada a Estados Unidos un científico soviético que ha de tomar contacto con el equipo norteamericano que estudia y se preocupan del caso. Esta parte constituye una de las secuencias más divertidas de la cinta, y enfrenta a dos figuras de la interpretación que perfilan a estos personajes. Por una, Sean Connery, el científico norteamericano llamado Bradley, y por la otra el ruso, magníficamente sostenido por Brian Keith, el mejor carácter de la película. Lo que el público apreciará de "Meteor", es este sentido del humor que se deja caer entre las fases de un suspense magnificado con escenas catastróficas de varios tipos. El mejor alud del cine, en Suiza; un maremoto en Hong Kong, la destrucción de Nueva York, la lucha de los científicos por su supervivencia, el avance de los misiles codo a codo, los norteamericanos con los rusos, contra el enemigo común. Hasta entonces, esos misiles -los rusos con la cabeza roja-, se dirigían a la otra potencia, de manera que la empresa de buen entendimiento que salva a la humanidad creada por Bradley-Connery, es algo así como aleccionadora. Del mismo modo que se patentiza que en el mundo hay dos grandes -lo que ya sabíamos- se desarrolla la solidaridad internacional. Los misiles nucleares se hacen simpáticos y hasta queda un hueco para la historia de amor entre Sean -divorciado- y Natalie Wood, una rusa que hace de intérprete y que a lo mejor, en <Meteor 2> regresa a Norteamérica para casarse con el maduro, pero atractivo Bradley, que en sus horas libres se dedica a las grandes regatas. Si los personajes tienen poca encarnadura, los actores que los hacen vivir, realizan un buen trabajo. A los ya citados hay que añadir a Martin Landau, en el papel de un exaltado y casi nazi militar, que sabe arrepentirse a tiempo, y a Karl Malden, que corrobora su gran profesionalidad. Fonda, como el presidente, esta como para votarle. Neame en su labor de dirección, ha sido superado por el equipo de los efectos especiales, que otorga a la película una calidad de la que temáticamente carece. La película tiene posibilidades de ser comercial y no va a defraudar al público de los temas catastróficos, a menudo tan mal servidos. La cinta, revaloriza el tema.- Angeles MASO..
MY WEB PAGE TO NATALIE WOOD
