jumpy camera + ADD editing = not good

Rating: 6/10 (16 June 2009)

I always watch a few minutes of this movie whenever its on, trying to understand the "hatred" that viewers supposedly have for Michael Bay films. I never do. I can only ever make sense of it by assuming that the masses need objects for communal hate, just as they do for communal love. In this way, Bay has unfortunately become an emblem of tasteless, disposable cinema. So Steven Spielberg = good, Michael Bay = bad. This mindset is what Orwell called the "gramophone mind". In principle there is little difference between the aforementioned two; Steven's films are only slightly less empty than those of Bay.
On pure filmic grounds there is just one really huge problem that this movie has, and thats the editing style Bay adopts once we're in space. The jazzy, frayed film-cutting is very unpleasant, and, as it turns out, a poor choice. Because ironically, while its intended to pump up the volume, it actually makes the viewer numb and squanders any excitement the action scenes might generate. Such head-pounding montages add up to over an hour of the film. Other problems include an overkill of gay mano-a-mano moments. Liv Tyler is obnoxious. And, this movie essentially has no characterization; most of the characters are meatheads and have interchangeable dialogue.
The money-men haven't held back; this is a massive, massive project. Apparently they got access to actual NASA labs and facilities. And Bay has shot it beautifully for the most part. The creepy asteroid is the most surreal and outlandish place we've been to since since the derelict spacecraft in Ridley Scott's 'Alien'. The Armadillo is as awesome as the Nolan Batmobile. I think that, with some reasonable adherence to space science and a leaner, more well-organized screenplay, this could have been a much more balanced movie. Bay's previous 'The Rock' is better, and also has great humor.
The current generation of film viewers is a lazy one, having gotten used to relying on Tomatometer percentages rather than individually analyze & evaluate a film's merits & demerits. Armageddon is indeed an out-and-out corporate product, but it has undeniably inventive visuals. Image is the language of cinema, and if Kubrick is the Kafka of film, beginning the transformation of image grammar, then Bay must be kinda like Dickens, the master of conventional storytelling.
The detractors of Armageddon are the equals of Jerry Falwell.