40 Armageddon

[Fletch F. Fletch]

it's fascinating how Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare seem to be the only ones who realise what kind of picture they're in.

Same goes for Owen Wilson who looks like he's having a blast in the movie.

[Matt]

Is there no justification for liking the movie simply because it's the big, dumb, loud movie it is? Why this hatred for the action movie? Particularly from a group that has come to embrace such genres in previously low estimation as the melodrama and the western? Or do we only like action movies that wink at us, like RoboCop?

Armageddon and Bay are easy targets because they're big. Shame to see them being used for target practice around here.

[toiletduck!]

Personally, I prefer a big, dumb, slick movie... can't stand Armageddon for a damn second, but if Charlie's Angels (the first one, I don't speak for that Full Throttle shit) were in its place, I'd be the first one in line to defend its merits. I have no problem with Criterion action movies, this just happens to be one that's not up my alley.

-Toilet Dcuk

[Andre Jurieu]

Well, I have to justify my irrational love for this great lurching toxic monster of a film somehow. "It rocks" failed to cut it beforehand.

For something like this, I think "it rocks" is just about all the explanation required.

Watch it (or as much as you can bear to) again - it's fascinating how Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare seem to be the only ones who realise what kind of picture they're in.

Yeah, from what I remember of the film (it has been a few years) Buscemi and Wilson (Stormare to a lesser degree) look like they are aware of what type of picture they are in and all are just sitting back and watching the spectacle of it all. Wilson seems to just be shocked/happy he's in something like this after Bottle Rocket and he's just enjoying the fact he can pretty much phone in his performance without having to worry about the results since his part is so minor. Meanwhile, it's just odd to watch Billy Bob trying to build pathos for his character.

Is there no justification for liking the movie simply because it's the big, dumb, loud movie it is? Why this hatred for the action movie?

That's cool with me, but I liked The Rock and Mr. & Mrs. Smith (except for the flaccid ending - come on! A freaking Home Depot is your action-centerpiece?).

Or do we only like action movies that wink at us, like RoboCop?

I don't care either way. I was just wondering why we need Armageddon to wink at us in order to enjoy it, because I really didn't think it was intended to function like Robocop. I thought the movie (apart from the actors) was playing everything pretty straight.

[colinr0380]

I don't know whether I could ever like this film, and I don't think it is because I hate action films - I really should have voted for Die Hard in the list poject as that was a great film and the perfect example of how to make an exciting 'big, dumb' action film. The problem I have with Armageddon is that it not just insults the intelligence, but that it is an attempt at an action film done incompetently, with far too much emphasis on the boring love story rubbish that always bogs these films down, with moments of trying to explain what the comet is doing that are stupider than if they didn't try to explain at all, and the problem that when they finally do get to the action stuff it becomes so difficult to tell what is going on that the characters have to keep actually telling each other at what stage they are at!

I'm also not a fan of the editing. While I'm not a big fan of Michael Bay I think this is where his other films score higher. I actually prefer Pearl Harbor because in that film he saves all overdrive editing mainly for the attack and the fight scenes. However in Armageddon everything is so hyper-edited that after the cities are destroyed, the group is gathered in the montage scene and the rockets lift off, I'm usually so tired I can't be bothered to try to figure out what is going on anymore. It is perhaps the best example of a film that does not take into account the audience needing a breather and becomes a film that is trying to top the previous scene with more or less success. I'm discounting the love scenes from that because I wouldn't count feeling physically sick as a nice break from the action - and I wouldn't count myself as someone who hates Liv Tyler or Ben Affleck, so I think the scenes were badly written to start with. After all what more can you do with the animal cracker scene?

The problem with the entire film being pushed in the editing/things exploding/people-screaming-and-shouting stakes is that in the end this devalues the whole film, compared to a film which is quieter and then builds to moments of tension or conflict. When the next person is shouting in that film I don't really care if they are upset or angry because everyone from the beginning of the film has been shouting - its all more of the same (this is usually because everything is exploding!).

I would agree that Steve Buscemi tries to steal the show again in Armageddon but of course if you want to see that try to watch Con Air instead where he is given more leeway and not tied to a chair! I actually think of Con Air as the best Bruckheimer produced film that came out around that time. It is a great 'big dumb' action film in the sense that there is enough action and it is handled well, with even some basic characterisation (enough to make you cheer when John Malkovich meets his end), but it knows better than to try to be an epic.

As for Michael Bay I don't really hate him or his work, although it does sound like he might not be the most sensitive or caring director a person could work with! Bad Boys was fine (but it hasn't made me rush out to rent Bad Boys II).

The Rock was very good becuase of Connery and Cage, as well as Ed Harris and seeing Michael Biehn in his small role. The one point which I thought didn't ring true in action film terms (and perhaps should have seen as a warning of what was to come in Armageddon) was the end of the car chase sequence with the tram coming off the rails and then exploding. Why? And who cares? It just didn't feel like an earned end to the scene, just a limp end to a quite good chase up to that point. I did actually groan with the wheelchair-bound basketball players crossing the road during the chase, but that also seemed very funny, so I didn't mind that too much! - although I think this is one of the other problems I have with Michael Bay's films - they are both knowing and dumb which often makes me think that we are being shown this experience only to have the director give a sly wink, but it feels like a self-satisfied note of manipulation of, rather than entering into an experience with, the audience, and I think this was one of the things that he got beaten over the head with after Pearl Harbor.

I was particularly surprised at the bad reception that Peal Harbor received as while I don't think I could call it a brilliant film, it is much better than Armageddon in my opinion. It feels strange to say this as there is probably about three times as much screen time given over to the love story in Pearl Harbor than in Armageddon, but I prefer the way it was handled in Pearl Harbor. It is still full of the cliched love triangle stuff (although at least this time it wasn't with the dad!) and romantic evening stuff, but it felt better paced strangely than Armageddon did. Perhaps the romance stuff felt worse because it was such a drastic change of gear from the other scenes, while in Pearl Harbor it is really all there is until the attack. It did feel like a film I would probably sit and watch if it was on the television, while I would turn Armageddon over immediately, if that is any point of comparison.

I'm of the opinion that while Pearl Harbor was flawed and cliched that it was attacked so badly because of Armageddon. I often think as well that the box office receipts or the critical reception can have a lot to do with the reaction to the previous film as much as it is to the the specific film in question - so you have Matrix Reloaded making more money than the Matrix despite being a poorer film etc. I don't think Pearl Harbor as a film deserved the reception it did especially as it showed some improvement on Armageddon. I can't remember what the reception for Armageddon was - was there a lot of praise? Or perhaps the 'attack on Pearl Harbor' was more because that scale of advertising blitz that both Harbor and Armageddon had needed a similarly major negative reaction to offset it?

While I hate Armageddon, I did really like the music video and I really see the entire film as a trailer to the Aerosmith song!

My advice would be go for Con Air for Steve Buscemi and a similar but more competently handled style of film, The Rock for Michael Bay fans, Lord Of The Rings for Liv Tyler, Die Hard for Bruce Willis, etc etc.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I don't know whether I could ever like this film, and I don't think it is because I hate action films - I really should have voted for Die Hard in the list poject as that was a great film and the perfect example of how to make an exciting 'big, dumb' action film.

Agreed. I would also vote for some of Shane Black penned movies like the first Lethal Weapon and The Last Boy Scout which pushes the "big, dumb" action film to surreal levels.

The problem with the entire film being pushed in the editing/things exploding/people-screaming-and-shouting stakes is that in the end this devalues the whole film, compared to a film which is quieter and then builds to moments of tension or conflict.

To be fair, I don't think Bay's aim is to make a quiet film. Everything has to be bigger and faster and louder with him. I really think that he wants to be the next James Cameron and Pearl Harbor was his Titanic... just not as successful.

I would agree that Steve Buscemi tries to steal the show again in Armageddon but of course if you want to see that try to watch Con Air instead where he is given more leeway and not tied to a chair! I actually think of Con Air as the best Bruckheimer produced film that came out around that time.

Agreed. That movie is so much fun to watch. It's brimming with all these fantastic character actors (Cusack, Meaney, Malkovich, Buscemi, Rhames, etc.) who get to chew up the scenery and have a lot of fun with their roles. They aren't taking themselve too seriously which is what I enjoy about the movie.

[colinr0380]

To be fair, I don't think Bay's aim is to make a quiet film. Everything has to be bigger and faster and louder with him. I really think that he wants to be the next James Cameron and Pearl Harbor was his Titanic... just not as successful.

Yes, Pearl Harbor does seem like a love letter to Titanic in being a historical action movie in which the most of the film is spent watching fictional characters!

I think that this pushing everything in an attempt to move to the next level would exhaust most people and suggests that there is no thought for the audience as the action is extended more and more beyond making the action last longer (which doesn't in itself make it exciting). I'm thinking of something like the last two Matrix films, where the action is spectacular and you can tell a lot of effort has gone into making them, but the result isn't nearly as effective as it was in the first film.

I also like the way that in The Rock and Armageddon even the music sometimes finds it difficult to keep up and has to change gear during the action!

Steve Buscemi tries to steal the show again in Armageddon but of course if you want to see that try to watch Con Air instead where he is given more leeway and not tied to a chair!

It hit me just after posting that Buscemi is of course handcuffed to his seat for most of the film (although at least everyone else is)! It just felt funnier in Armageddon, as if the other actors could see Buscemi picking up momentum in his performance and decided to tie him up so he only got to do the occasional quip!

[Morbii]

I've always loved this film too... I am a "closet" Michael Bay fan (with the strong exception of Pearl Harbor) - I loved the Island also! Just so entertaining.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I think that this pushing everything in an attempt to move to the next level would exhaust most people and suggests that there is no thought for the audience as the action is extended more and more beyond making the action last longer (which doesn't in itself make it exciting). I'm thinking of something like the last two Matrix films, where the action is spectacular and you can tell a lot of effort has gone into making them, but the result isn't nearly as effective as it was in the first film.

In regards to The Matrix, for many it was the first time they had seen those kinds of action sequences and it just blew people away. By the time The Matrix sequels rolled around those kind of sequences were old hat and the Wachowski's didn't really do anything new per se, they just built upon what they had already done in the first movie.

As for what you said earlier about pushing everything in an attempt to move to the next level... I think that studios think that people want to see these wall-to-wall action movie cranked up to 11 and try to outdo each other to see who can make it more exciting with less lulls, etc. And maybe the failure of The Island was a sign that people want something a little different?

[Galen Young]

Creative Screenwriting magazine has an MP3 of an interview/Q&A with screenwriters Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci talking about working with Bay, Spielberg, etc -- quite entertaining to hear their side of The Island story.

My favorite Armageddon moment: Bruce Willis hitting golf balls at the boat full of Greenpeace protesters. Is there more perfect visual embodiment of Willis' real-life persona blurring with a movie character?

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Here's the link to Kent Jones' very entertaining article on Michael Bay's movies, in particular the "merits" of Armageddon:
http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/7-8-2001/bay.htm

A memorable excerpt:

Whereas Michael Bay· ah, Michael Bay: the mere mention of his name evokes a veritable paradise of splendiferous hyperbole, rampant triumphalism, and "privileged angles" (his own words). Male swagger? You would never have imagined that one man could get so much of it into a single film (reaching its apex with the glorious moment when Bruce Willis gives the following instruction to his Armageddon crew: "Let's chew up this iron bitch!"). Explosions? Bay uses them the way that Bresson uses doors - liberally.

And another one of my faves:

Where could Michael Bay possibly go after Armageddon? Speaking for myself, I would have been satisfied with nothing less than a team of astrophysicists led by Stephen Hawking (Matt Damon) sent back in time to the Big Bang, using a new, untested piece of equipment to neutralize a black hole that threatens to destroy the universe, as Liv Tyler, Angelina Jolie, and Winona Ryder watch from the control room. Unfortunately, he's taken the more predictable course of reducing the scope of his ambitions and shackling himself to history. "It must be said that this lacks the élan of Armageddon," whispered Gavin Smith as we watched Pearl Harbor together, and I could only nod in agreement. Pearl Harbor is Bay's least personal film, simply because it is his most restrained.

[Napoleon]

Fletch, I think that that was well worth digging out

No doubt about it, Kent Jones 'gets' Armageddon.

[dave41n]

Armageddon must receieve due props for its defiant swagger--you gotta love Eddie Griffin's dog attacking a toy Godzilla. A stiff middle finger to the competition. The two films went head-to-head that summer and Armageddon wiped the floor with that fire-breather. You also have to admire the American aggressiveness shining through this special-effects gem. It's escapist, stylistic and large. Put this or The Rock up against any film today and its special effects hold up. Seven years in the special effects world is a long time.

[Cinesimilitude]

I would probably watch Armageddon (or atleast entertain the idea of doing so) more often if it was anamorphic, but of all the films waiting for re-issue in anamorphic form, this one is probably last on the list.

when It comes to bay, and his 2 entries in the Collection, I think we can all collectively say "At least they didn't release Bad Boys."

[LightBulbFilm]

Does anyone know the REAL reason Criterion released his two films? First on laserdisc, then on DVD?

[Gigi M.]

Does anyone know the REAL reason Criterion released his two films? First on laserdisc, then on DVD?

Read the following interviewwith Peter Becker from the Digital Bits. Hope that helps.

[dave41n]

This too: Salon.com "The Disc Master"

[foggy eyes]

Just read the Kent Jones piece (thanks for posting the link) - very interesting, but I sincerely doubt that Bay will be remembered fondly. Pearl Harbor and Bad Boys II remain stultifyingly dull and boorish, and Transformers certainly wasn't a step in the right direction...

[Cinesimilitude]

I think considering Bay's roots (he started by directing softcore with playboy) He's come a very long way, and half of his work I can appreciate for what it's worth (Rock, Armageddon, Island). I don't think Transformers is the one to do it, but I think when age gets the best of Bay, he'll disappear or slow things down a bit, and he may put out some excellent stuff later on.
we just accentuate Bay's filmography's weakness because he has less for us to look at. I am of the opinion that Becker is correct in the assumption that Bay's work will be appreciated when he's gone.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I've just read the Kent Jones piece (thanks for posting the link). Although I cannot sit through Armageddon, I appreciate and respect Kent's opinion. Will Michael Bay be remembered as an important Hollywood director? I think so. But will he remembered fondly? I doubt it.

Or, if he is it'll be tongue-in-cheek a la Jones' piece which I felt really nailed Bay's filmography in the most entertaining way. To paraphrase a comment I've heard attributed to the U.S. films of Paul Verhoeven, he gives America the kinds of films they deserve.

[colinr0380]

To paraphrase a comment I've heard attributed to the U.S. films of Paul Verhoeven, he gives America the kinds of films they deserve.

The George Bush of filmmakers?

[jcelwin]

Bay give the America films they want. Verhoeven gives them films they want, and (unknowingly for many) deserve.

[Antoine Doinel]

From Roger Ebert's lastest Answer Man:

Q. What do you think has prompted the Criterion Collection to release "Armageddon" on DVD? I've always admired Criterion for its selection of films, but why "Armageddon"?
Anoop Raj, Philadelphia

A. Actually, "Armageddon" is a superb example of its type, I smiled.

[flyonthewall2983]

I would also vote for some of Shane Black penned movies like the first Lethal Weapon and The Last Boy Scout which pushes the "big, dumb" action film to surreal levels.

Actually, I read in an interview with Black that he intended the first Lethal Weapon to be more of a straight action/crime drama. But it changed when both the leads were cast and the dynamic brought out some comedic elements. When you watch it, like I have recently (God bless Cinemax, and it's many channels), there really isn't much comedy at all. Nothing LOL funny, anyways.

With that said, in regard to what Fletch wrote, the second and third installments were much more of an eye-wink to the "big, dumb" action films. However, the less said about the fourth (as well as The Last Boy Scout), the better.

[whywatch]

what a shame criterion would release not one but two michael bay films. i have not, nor will i ever watch any of his films. the trailers were insulting enough. and this is the same person who did "Bad Boys", "Pearl Harbor", and "Transformers" - get real people! why REALLY did criterion release these films when there are SO, SO, SOOOO MANY --- GREAT --- films to be released? arguments should not be why michael bay's films are "good enough" but rather why they are BETTER than any other option for release. when criterion looks at the whole history of cinema and releases ~500 titles of which 2 are "The Rock" and "Armageddon" something is fundamentally wrong. even if you enjoyed those films on some level should they be in this collection? i for one, will have 2 empty spaces on my wall and in my head when someone asks me about michael bay and the criterion collection. i would argue, just because hollywood (and criterion) choose to allocate their resources to such ridiculous film making, we don't need to follow suit.