Subject: Review: Armageddon (1998)

From: Steve Kong <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Jul 1998 21:28:14 GMT

ARMAGEDDON (1998)

A film review by Steve Kong
Edited by Cher Johnson
Copyright 1998 Steve Kong

I admire Michael Bay for his second major film, The Rock. His first film,
Bad Boys, was OK, but nothing spectacular. Armageddon marks the third time
Michael Bay has taken to directing a major motion picture. The thing to
remember about Bay is that he is one of the few directors that have
successfully taken the leap from directing music videos to directing
feature films.

Armageddon is a standard fare action/sci-fi movie. It is also the second
half of this year's objects-from-outer-space movies, the first being Deep
Impact. To get the question out of the way, I though Armageddon was better
than Deep Impact. Armageddon was easier to sit through than Deep Impact,
there was more action and fewer tries at characterizations,
characterizations that just didn’t seem to work for either film.

During a routine day in New York a sudden roar is heard. From the sky comes
flaming objects the size of tennis balls and Volkswagens. These small
meteors are just an early warning for the impending impact of an asteroid
the size of Texas. Dan Truman (Billy Bob Thorton) of NASA is heading up a
project to stop the asteroid from wiping out humanity. Truman’s first and
last option is to send up a crew of men to drill into the asteroid and
plant a nuclear bomb to blow the asteroid into two pieces.

The men chosen are the world’s best deep core drilling team. They are lead
by Harry Stamper (Bruce Willis), an angry and rough-around-the-edges man.
One of the subplots is about crew member A.J. Frost’s (Ben Affleck)
relationship with Stamper’s daughter, Grace (Liv Tyler). This creates some
superficial and sometimes lagging conflict between Stamper and Frost.

Armageddon is unlike Bay and Bruckheimer’s last teaming, The Rock. The Rock
was a mindless summer film, but had better characters that the audience
could identify with. I found it hard to identify with the three main
characters of Armageddon. Willis’s Stamper starts off on the wrong foot and
never really gets back onto the right one until near the end of the film.
Affleck’s Frost is too wild and unbelievable to latch onto, though I did
find myself hoping that his character wouldn’t perish.

Thorton’s Truman was a bit more likeable and I did identify with him a lot
more than Stamper and Frost. In comparison, The Rock had three strong
likeable characters all being portrayed by good actors (Nicolas Cage, Sean
Connery, and Ed Harris).

I was saddened to see that Liv Tyler was pushed back to the
crying-woman-waiting-for-her-men-to-come-home role. Other supporting actors
are not given much to do either. Steve Buscemi, Will Patton, William
Fitchner, and a few others are all wasted. Buscemi does get a few funny
lines and Patton gets to act like a tough guy but it’s not enough. 

As for acting, there are quite a few surprises. First off, Bruce Willis
gives one of his best performances in recent memory. He is quite believable
and doesn’t have to fall back on his John McClain character. I loved
Willis’s performance in Armageddon. If anything, see Armageddon for Willis.
Affleck, who performed well in Good Will Hunting, doesn’t do too hot in
Armageddon. His cocky young I’m-always-right act wears thing after a while.
Billy Bob Thorton does an admirable job with his part.

As for Bay, he’s not improved much since The Rock. In my review of The Rock
I talked about Bay’s obsession with the Shaky-Camera Technique that he
brought over from his music video days. I thought that after a few years,
he’d learn a bit more about the differences between music videos and
feature films. He has, but he has not learned enough. Armageddon uses a
heavy dose of the Shakey-Camera Technique to try to get and keep our
attention. My note for Bay Michael, you have our attention. Stop shaking
the camera and putting in flashy camera angles! Just tell us a good story.

Armageddon runs a bit long, clocking in at two and half-hours. With this
sort of time allotment, there shouldn’t be too many loose ends, but there
are. And they are quite noticable. One includes a scene where a few of the
drillers are arrested after a brawl, and straight after that they are
readying for take-off. What happened in jail? How’d they get out of jail?

An early meteor shower tears up New York City, but as quickly as the meteor
shower ends, all news of the event disappear. No one questions what
happened in New York City. Some of the time is also spent telling a hokey
love story the one between Frost and Grace which includes a cheezy scene
using animal crackers.

Don’t see Armageddon for real physics. There are loud explosions in space,
there is selective gravity on the asteroid, and there are other physics
anomalies throughout the film. 

I really loved parts of Armageddon. The opening destruction was
spectacular, with meteors punching holes through skyscrapers as if they
were made of Popsicle sticks. The training portion of the film gives a good
look at what astronauts get to do during training. The pool scenes were
amazing.

And the launch of the two shuttles was exciting. With all these complaints
though, I still had a hell of a time. Armageddon might be a dumb movie, but
it’s also a movie that works well being superficial. If you don’t expect
too much from Armageddon, you’ll walk out of the movie theatre happy. I
liked Armageddon and I recommend it.

There are flaws, some significant, but they can be overlooked. Strangely
enough, as hokey as some of the scenes are, I found myself somewhat teary-
eyed at the end of the movie. If you want to see true space heros, rent
Apollo 13. If you want to see real action, rent The Rock. If you want to
see real sci-fi, rent Contact. If you have two hours to burn and want to
see a fun movie in an air-conditioned theatre during matinee, catch
Armageddon.

---
 Steve Kong                                    [email-masked]
         reviews from a guy who loves the cinema
         http://boiled.sbay.org/boiled/