Give it a chance.

Rating: 8/10 (6 November 2003)

Armageddon is neither the best, nor worst, movie ever made. Reading some of the previous comments here, it is apparent that some people may have forgotten the whole concept of what a movie is supposed to provide; namely, entertainment. While some films, admittedly, are based in fact, Armageddon is A FANTASY. How is anyone going to be able to make a film about (Spoilers ahead:) the potential end of the world and do so accurately? This film isn't supposed to be a training manual for how to save the world, merely an entertaining "what if?".
Yes, the idea of the government calling on Bruce Willis to drill into the center of an asteroid heading for Earth is preposterous. So what? It's not as if there would be any reason for anyone at the Pentagon to have given any serious thought to this particular chain of events happening beforehand, is there? Even Billy Bob Thornton (who was surprisingly understated in his role) admitted to Willis that there was no back-up plan. If they had a better idea, they would've used it, don't you think?
Had Willis and his crew played this completely straight, the entertainment value would've been nil. Armageddon was basically about a bunch of, essentially, misfits banding together to save mankind. Any flaws in logic in the script, to me, were most welcome. If I wanted to watch a documentary, I would've tuned into PBS. This was a good old-fashioned rah rah kind of escapist film. Willis was nothing like his typical wise guy character; choosing, instead, to create a flawed man who was devoted to his job, as well as his daughter. There were enough special effects to keep even the most jaded viewer happy.
The bottom line? Armageddon is exactly what you would expect a movie about saving the world to be like. The stereotypical characters that are a must in such films are pretty much all represented here. Does it work? I would say a definite yes.