Thehibikiew Not even bad in a good way

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

FrogGlace In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

apachacha This thing does what I didn't except. Combining a crime drama movie with a cop chasing down the man who kidnapped his daughter, with a meteor movie.Unfortunately, neither of the parts is any good on it's own, and the merger only results with two different types of mediocrity. The plot itself is a series of pointless accidents, in place for the sole reason to pad the thing out to 240 minutes, that and the seventy three bloody times we switch to a pointless satellite map every time we change location (which happens very often seeing that almost through the whole mini series we have at least 7 sub plots happening at different places simultaneously), as well as dozens of pointless CGI shots of meteors in orbit that lead to absolutely nothing.Worse, scenes get repeated almost verbatim, and we spend a humongous amount of screen time with subplots that have absolutely nothing to do with either of the two main plots, which then branches off into three separate sub plots before uniting again shortly before the end, contributing nothing to the overall plot.A padded, badly written, clichéd and confusing, convoluted mess.

HiHausMaus I am a big fan of disaster movies, and thus, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about the 'facts'. As far as I'm concerned ALL disasters movies are full of inaccuracies.When I view disasters movies I get to a point where I just watch for the story line. This is one of those movies.It's not the worst disaster movie I've ever watched and I would actually watch this again if I was bored.I would have liked seeing a lot more of the carnage wreaked upon the various cities though. I'm just a sucker for watching the Eiffel Tower fall I guess, which usually happens in movies of this type, although I don't recall it happening here specifically.This movie spent a lot of time focusing on a couple different story lines about various people, and I guess that was OK.Not the best disaster movie, but not the worst. As long as you aren't a nitpicker.

TxMike I rented the DVD of this movie without knowing much about it. First I was surprised that it runs a shade longer than 3 hours. In fact the DVD has what amounts to two 90-minute movies on it, "Meteor Part 1" and Meteor Part 2." So we watched them on consecutive days. Then, it seems this was a made-for-TV movie, but I don't know if it was ever shown that way. I can't find out much about it.I was entertained. The premise is that an asteroid about 60 or so miles across has collided with another body to change its course. Now it is headed straight to Earth, and in particular it seems southern California. A heavenly body this large could end life on Earth, much as is theorized happened millions of years ago to make dinosaurs and other species extinct. The movie has pretty good actors. Bill Campbell is Jack, a policeman. Marla Sokoloff is Imogene, the brunette scientist who has the coordinates for a possible shoot-down using nuclear warheads on rockets. My favorite of course is Christopher Lloyd as Dr. Lehman, the scientist who first discovers the Earth is in danger, and colleague of Imogene's. Stacy Keach is good as the small town sheriff Crowe. And Jason Alexander is a serious role is Dr. Chetwyn at the JPL, trying to figure out the right coordinates. While Ernie Hudson as Gen. Brasser is putting pressure on everyone in the underground location to give him launch data.We were irritated by the three stories. The main one of course was to see if the Earth could be saved. But there also was a story of a school bus of children that got hit by a wayward meteorite, brought to a hospital, which was then hit by another. Can they dig out and survive? The third story was about a rogue cop who was out to get back at Jack by capturing his daughter and father and killing them in Jack's presence. I would have preferred a 2-hour movie that stuck to the main theme.I only enjoyed the main story, I was fascinated by how they might defeat a giant rock headed to the Earth. But I have lots of issues with the movie, how things were depicted, and the dialog. Foremost a "meteor" is simply the flash of light we see as a meteorite or other object enters the Earth's atmosphere and begins to burn up. The large rocks that are in space heading towards us, or the parts that actually hit buildings, school buses, or the ground are NOT "meteors." They are meteorites. Why did they want to be dumb about it? Anyway overall it is definitely a "B" movie, and we often found ourselves laughing at the absurdity of certain parts of the movie. Otherwise competent people kept running out of gasoline in the middle of nowhere, or drove out of range of cell towers, or had low batteries in their cell phones, all of which was necessary to build drama. It would be quite a stretch to call it a good movie, but it is mostly entertaining.

marthawells64 I love watching disaster movies, but this one was extremely painful. I wasn't sure if I was going to get through the whole thing. The cast was great, lots of well-known people, but the script was absolutely horrid. The actors did the best they could with what they had. I think this is the worst disaster movie I have ever seen. I don't know what NBC is playing at or what they're trying to accomplish, but if they keep up with these TV movies, they have to be better written to make it worth putting them on the air. The first one a few weeks ago, "Impact" was lot more believable and much better written. "The Storm" this weekend is almost turning out as bad as "Meteor". The extra story lines are ridiculous. Just focus on the disaster itself. It would be much more plausible.