

Armageddon (written by Jonathan Hensleigh and J.J. Abrams, directed by
Michael Bay, 1998)
	
When you look up "guilty pleasure" in the cinema encyclopedia, there is
a still from ARMAGEDDON.  You probably won't recognize the still,
however; Michael Bay and his editors cut images together so quickly that
this film may have more individual shots than any other feature ever
made (it's 2 1/2 hour running time adds to that).  ARMAGEDDON is
essentially a cross between the spectacle/disaster film made popular
from THE ROBE to THE TOWERING INFERNO to INDEPENDENCE DAY and the
over-baked melodrama of TITANIC, only without the former's stodginess
and latter's damning pretentiousness.  It's the type of film where most
plot twists don't make any sense (machine guns in space?  Hello?), where
characters are likely to say dumb things as much as possible, and
everything blows up real good.
	
     Adding to the guilt for some and to the pleasure for others is the
unabashed right-wing tendencies of your typical Jerry Bruckheimer
production.  Go back to CRIMSON TIDE (Tony Scott, 1995), THE ROCK (Bay,
1996), and CON AIR (Simon West, 1997).  It's all there:  respect for the
military, the necessity of family (notice how the Nic Cage character in
THE ROCK cannot get married until he has become a "man" by learning to
kill people to get the job done), and the occasional blatant homosexual
stereotype (thankfully left out of ARMAGEDDON).  Add in a twist of
self-sacrifice, a squeeze of loyalty, and two pinches of patriotism, and
you have your Jerry Bruckheimer production.  Bruce Willis even has a
delicious moment where he declares his crew should have a night with
their families, an "order" he gives while standing in front of the Stars
and Stripes.  The Family is America, and you better believe it.
	
     Bruckheimer has employed once again Michael Bay, who is very good
at blowing things up on camera.  Mix in excellent effects work, and you
have an action event movie that has some fun.  The first ten minutes of
the movie are worth the price of admission alone.  You've seen bits of
it in the trailer, but cut in with the film the scene is amazing, ending
with NASA's response, a cameo by the director, and Billy Bob Thornton.
	
     Aside from the special effects, the film's strength, and what makes
the film enjoyable, is the fact that the cast is on the whole
overqualified, and transcends a screenplay hindered by more than a few
cliches.  (Example:  the red wire or blue wire conundrum.  At the first
screening I saw of the film, a few weeks before release, some members of
the audience applauded after this conundrum's all-too predictable
conclusion.  Perhaps these people had never before seen a movie.)  Billy
Bob Thornton makes the commander cliches come off beautifully.  Bruce
Willis is by no means a Great Actor, but he is very good at what he
does, and nails the role of Harry Stamper.  Steve Buscemi gets to make
wisecracks.  Will Patton, meanwhile, easily gives the best performance
in the movie.  The ad campaign tells you that Patton's Chick is "doing
it for adventure", but he's really doing it for loyalty.  Patton
surpasses often clumsy dialogue, and his truest expressions of loyalty
and humanity are not expressed though spoken lines but through delicate
subtleties and nuances.  He shines in a beautiful scene in which he
visits his estranged wife and son, a scene which must have been the work
of uncredited script-doctor Robert Towne.
	
     The case works because it is well cast.  Bruce Willis is the action
hero.  Billy Bob Thornton is the credible actor in charge.  And what
else is Ben Affleck than the young hot shot who will one day be the
star?  And Liv Tyler than the overbred daughter?  Or Steve Buscemi than
the independent soul?  And is Chick any more loyal to Harry than Will
Patton was to Kevin Costner when he labored as a villain in the latter's
THE POSTMAN?
	
     The supporting members of the cast are not as well-filled out as
they have been in previous Bruckheimer productions (where are George
Dzundza, Michael Biehn, and Danny Trejo when we really need them?).  The
dialogue is often clunky and unoriginal; Thornton and Buscemi can make
these lines come off well, but when you have Liv Tyler, who makes good
lines sound bad, you know an underwritten script puts you in trouble.
	
     There is an ode to TITANIC in the overplayed romance between the
Affleck and Tyler characters.  Fortunately, the film does not suffer
from TITANIC's delusion that it is a Great Movie.  The cartoonish
aspects of TITANIC bring the film down from its intended pedestal to the
level of hackneyed melodrama with awesome ship-sinking spectacle. 
ARMAGEDDON wants nothing more than to be a hackneyed melodrama (in which
the cartoonish characters and dialogue belong) against which is set the
awesome spectacle where the entire planet is on the sinking ship.
	
     And spectacle is truly what ARMAGEDDON is about.  There is no room
for originality or daring thoughts, and no time for Great Cinema.  There
is time, 2 1/2 hours of time, for sheer spectacle, the brand of which
believes that big is good, bigger is better, and too much is best of
all.  The music, imagery, and effects are designed to be bigger than
life.  It's okay to take an afternoon or evening to see a movie that
doesn't make you think.  Every now and then, we need a movie that makes
us see and hear, and attach ourselves to archetypes instead of real
people, because real people can hurt too much.  Which means that every
now and then, we should take some time out for ARMAGEDDON.

Copyright John Strelow 1998