Was it a disaster movie, or was the movie a disaster?

Rating: Null/10 (27 March 2000)

WARNING: Contains minor spoiler.
This movie had Buckheimer written all over it. Its also one of those "crisis management" films which show people in suits pacing around barking commands out. Most of us have seen that before, just as most of us have seen Bruce Willis play a washed up guy who is suddenly given a chance to be a hero. Ultimately, you can't really escape the conclusion that a lot of this movie was just plain stupid. But then again, you get to see an asteroid wipe out Paris. Too bad that one wasn't bigger.	This film did have its good qualities. The idea of sending a bunch of roughneck oil workers to save the world as opposed to some trained professionals made for a fun idea(although some would file it under the stupid category). The scene where Willis is explaining their demands was pretty funny, and Steven Buschemi was an entertaining presence throughout the movie.	Which was better, this or "Deep Impact"(or perhaps the question should be, which was worse?)? I think for all of its obvious faults, and despite of how stupid it could be, "Armageddon" was, because its writers clearly realized that people go to these movies to see things blow up, not to see well crafted plots(which "Deep Impact" didn't really provide anyway). Furthermore, I think this was a better film than "Titanic". Now, you may ask why I would say such a thing. Well, I have two words for you: LEONARDO DICAPRIO(or more specifically, the lack thereof).