Five reasons to not recommend this movie

Rating: 1/10 (5 July 2002)

When I first saw this movie in the theaters back in 1998, I left the theater not remembering a single moment from the film. Watching it again on television, I began to remember the film more vividly in all of its disgusting and audience-insulting decadence. By watching it again, I discovered five reasons to advice everyone to stay as far away from this film as possible.
Reason number one: The movie is schizophrenic
The story is about a crew of drillers sent to destroy an asteroid heading for earth. Pretty simple, huh? But this mess of a film is so sloppily put together by Michael "Ed-Wood-Reincarnate" Bay, that it comes across as unbalanced. Many will argue that this is supposed to be a summer film, so we'll compare it to other summer films. Is it supposed to be a free-for-all action film in the sense of "Raiders of the Lost Ark?" Then why does it get so melodramatic with the characters instead of allowing their individual quirkiness to run rampant? Or is it supposed to be a more serious adventure in the way that "Apollo 13" was? If so, then why doesn't the script display one ioda of technical knowledge of space? Listen to the NASA commentary on the Criterion DVD and you'll hear for yourselves. So as a summer film, it fails to find it's feet.
Reason number two: Who the hell are these people?
Every great story has a character that we either like and want to see succeed or despise and want to see fail or crawl out from their rut. In "Armageddon," all the characters are permanently stuck in a rut. Let's go through the cast: Bruce Willis, a stereotypical father who doesn't want the daughter to get involved with his best driller. Ben Affleck is the pretty boy who stares at pretty girl Liv Tyler with googly eyes throughout the film. "Armageddon" fails to give either Affleck and Tyler any sparks or any reason for Willis to resent Affleck (first he likes him, then he hates him, then he needs him, then he resents him, then he mourns him, then he takes pity on him - come to think about it, Affleck has a more believable love story going on with Willis than he does with Tyler). The rest of the cast seem to rely on stereotypes as well, wasting such talent as Michael Clarke Duncan, Steve Buscemi, Owen Wilson, et al as background, never really adding anything more than scenery to an already bland film.
Reason number three: Ed Wood is alive, well, and directing Pearl Harbor
Let's try to rationally put these scenes together. Helicopters arrive at an oil rig during a sunset (sunrise, whatever), then two seconds later, it's day. Say it was a long trip, huh? How about the fact that every time a helicopter flies by in this film, the earth and sky are instantly painted orange, regardless of what the previous scene was? A little too convenient, no? Though some may argue that this is a trademark of Michael Bay, one should think that trademarks shouldn't have to rely on time and space in order to work properly. Sunsets are scenery. As for the set up of the shots; they are over-dramatic (soap operas have more subtle direction than Bay), poorly organized, and framed terrible. He always seems to be pointing the camera up at someone. Extra #4 does not always need a hero shot. A good director knows that a camera is merely a tool for a director to focus the audience's attention on something in a scene (a good example is to look at Robert Altman's direction of "Gosford Park" and notice how at least two things are taking place in one scene). As for the camera constantly moving the way that Bay likes it, this is not directing, this is overcompensating.
Reason number four: "Can you reach into the glove compartment and pull out my brain medicine?" - Homer Simpson
Movies like "Armageddon" show little to no respect to an audience. They seem to say that if we shove a bunch of action scenes together, have a pop song on the radio, and worry little about the story, then the audience will see it. "Armageddon" is such a film that seems to have been constructed not by writers, but by a focus group and sales meetings that show the statistics of moneymakers. Yes, the Hollywood industry is just that, an industry, but it is also an art form and an entertainment forum. Bay has argued before that he likes to make films for audiences. If this is true, then he should stop trying to pound the audience into liking him with his overly boisterous films and focus more on telling the stories that he wants to tell like a competent director should. Remember, the great stories are the ones that can relate a deep story to a vast audience.
Reason number five: The success of this film is the first step to the oblivion of good risk-taking films.
As mentioned before, Hollywood is a business that wants to make money, which it should not be condemned for. Everyone wants to make money. Remember the immortal words of the good Affleck film "Boiler Room" when he said, "whoever said money is the root of all evil doesn't have it." But it's when these cookie-cutter movies become successful that we begin to see more dumbed-down films like them. If over-hyped and over-produced movies like this succeed, then it will open the door for other "Die Hard on a subway" and "It's like Armageddon meets Tomb Raider" pitched films. As an audience, we should demand more. We should demand more films that appeal to our intellect as well as our instincts. Movies have become depersonalized and we should encourage the filmmakers of today and tomorrow to tell stories that they enjoy. I will leave you with the final words spoken by Jay Sherman in "The Critic" when he said, "If the movie stinks, just don't go."