Login
The correct, honest title should've been Armageddon: Forrest Gump in Space; why? Because it felt like that. Disaster movies are by-and-large very much the same, but they all always manage to insert unnecessary funny moments that do little to no justice, and are rarely comforting. Then, when the disaster has been dealt with - which almost includes a death of a protagonist or someone - they end the film in a peaceful manner, or with a message of hope. This may increase sales of Kleenex and make viewers go all misty-eyed, but what I don't understand is why do they - the directors - continue to destroy the world once they have saved it? Michael Bay has since directed films I couldn't care less about, and has come up with sequels to all of them - thus negating what Eminem said something about not wanting to destroy what he helped build.
By the time the crew reach to outer space that you realize the first 30-40 minutes just did not belong to the film at all. In all senses, it feels like as if someone fused a rom-com over a disaster movie. Unconvincing moments, stiff directing, rapid-fire editing and weak dialogues are the ingredients of the first quarter. Implausibility aside, the space scenes were quite impressive, but nowhere near Apollo 13. The latter worked as majestically as poetry on page and as smoothly as ink flowing all over the floor. The former, however, worked like a group of doctors having a competition on who can come up with the most unintelligible hand-writing - needless to say, they all do. The asteroid looked like a reject from a comic-world, or something that Galactus would hurl at us should he get really angry. Once Freedom and Independence "safely" land on the asteroid, everyone - and by that I mean everyone - relaxes and totally devoid themselves of all emotion. Was it me or was Billy Bob Thornton for the whole film trying to force up an expression? I guess either he was still reeling from the even bigger disaster that was Alan Smithee or had read the script of Monster's Ball a bit too early. Not once did he feel like a man under tremendous pressure or someone who knows a very terrible secret. In fact, he acted as if his wife found out his collection of porn and now must decide on how to explain to her.
Bruce Willis - main guy and the "my-worst-fears-came-true" sacrificial hero - seems to be stuck in one gear. Even though he is a great actor, I have a 50/50 hate-love relationship with him because of his acute one-dimensional characters - and expressions. His expressions are akin to a nail-head; no matter how hard the external force it, it will remain that way, just a little dented, bent and rusty. Harry Stamper (his character) has little to no depth, no emotional value, no nothing, just a lamb for slaughter. Steve Buscemi also seems to be stuck in the same gear, albeit a little different one; always the supporting character who never shuts up. People do tend to act sarcastic and funny in tight or doomed situations, but when you already have one - Bruce Willis - why do you need another for? Steve, although his performance was fine, was more annoying than amusing. All the others in the male department were fine, although none of their characters were well-written, just cliche stock characters. Who else knew the fat guy would get blown up? Liv Tyler managed to make her character even less emotionless than both of Daniel Radcliffe and Kristen Stewart combined. Her line delivery was akin to someone placing an order at the McDonald's drive-thru. She did, however, provide a good distraction, though!
Also, it has a bland - or is it honest - portrayal of the arrogant American thinking. The rest of the world blows up while USA is left unscathed? Yea right... I guess you get my meaning!
In all, Armageddon is very good for children, ages 9 and below. It is however a quite-fascinating film, but still weak in many layers. Wanna see better explosions? Pop a bubblegum!
6.0/10
