Saw Armageddon... can still taste the bile (1 Viewer)

[Neil Joseph]

I much preferred Deep Impact which had it's own physics flaws but no where near as many and a more powerful story.

I would just love to see them try to fly 2 space shuttles so close to each other in reality as if they were small fighter jets. Yeahhh!!

 

[RobertR]

Next time, he should try making a movie that's both good AND fun

The questions seem to be:

Can he?

and

Is he motivated to?

 

[Jon D]

Strangely enough, I don't blame Bay for this movie. As he has demonstrated with "The Rock" he can make a kick ass action movie that has no illusions of being bigger than it is. Bruckheimer seems to be the culprit, ever since Don Simpson dies Brucksy has been trying to draft epic "humanity" stories into what should be standard, ordinary action movies. "Armageddon" would have ruled if it hadn't contained the cringe inducing romance and the sappy apocalyptic elements. Bay is an action director, that's what he does. He is not a dramatic director. Never has been. Quite often you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Speaking of dogs, this one could use some control. Bay's best work was done under financial restraints by Bruckheimer and Simpson. When he's given the financial freedom to run wild, that's when he starts to produce work that smells like garbage. Bruckheimer needs to deflate his ego and return to what made him rich and what he does best, and take Bay with him and put him on a leash.

 

[Alex Spindler]

Next time, he should try making a movie that's both good AND fun, that way everyone can enjoy it...

He did, I call it The Rock.

 

[SteveGon]

Geez, and I thought I hated this movie...

 

[Michael Reuben]

Marvin --

To quote Shakespeare
It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

I don't have to point (or maybe I do) that those lines from Shakespeare are meant to describe life in general.
So I guess you're saying that life and Armageddon have a lot in common.
M.

 

[Brian Crowe]

Maybe more people would like it if it had more realistic elements, like faster than light travel and laser swords.
And cyborgs who can choke people by pointing at them! That would rule!
It was a fun brainless action flick. From the moment I sat down to watch this film I KNEW there was no way in hell you could land on an asteroid and blow it up but it didn't ruin the fun. Don't suspend disbelief- suspend reality and enjoy the show.
"You probably have guys in a room right now, just thinkin shit up"
~Crowe~

 

[Oliver Kopp]

I saw the movie at the opening weekend and have no desire to watch it again. I actually enjoyed it until they docked at the russian spacestation. From there on it went downhill and I began to hope that they blow up that stupid asteroid really soon so that I can go home.

I prefer Deep Impact over Armageddon because it has a more emotional and involving story and charakters you care for.

The scene where the TV-Moderator and her father are reunited and die together and the scene where the astronauts say goodbye to their families before they sacrifice their lifes to save humanity always manage to bring a tear to my eye. I felt nothing for the charakters in Armageddon and was just bored. I don`t care for scientific errors or stuff like that but if I can`t get into the story and the charakters I can`t really enjoy a movie. Don`t get me wrong. I watch and enjoy other kind of popcorn movies like ID4 and even Tomb Raider but Armageddon just isn`t my piece of cake.

 

[Christina_V]

I like Armageddon as well....not as much as The Rock or Bad Boys,which are his best flicks by the way.
It's wild,non-stop over the top exhilerating fun,with a great cast,palying some great charecrters with some memorable lines that make it enjoyable.........though i do think the movie is to exhausting....it's really awsome up until the 1 hour mark or ewhenever they finnaly go off into space.....then isn't as thrilling because it won't slow down,give you time to breath & keeps throwing dangerous situations one after the other,will they make it ect? Who cares......since by then, i'm not really into the movie,i'm just watching it all fly by,but am distant from it,instead of being really worked ect & the fun seems to be sucked out of it.
But if does have some kewl scenes from the 1 hour mark through the end,but already weres me out before then. Still an entertainng guilty pleasure though.
I give it *** out of ****
The Rock *** 1/2-**** out of ****
Bad Boys **** out of **** -this turned out best because of the chemistry between Will & Martin,great lines & alot of memorable moments.
+ You can see how Bay rehashe's the same old cliche's in his other films. But with The Rock,thats where he re'uses to many elements that worked in that movie,yet are corny in his other films Armageddon & Pearl Harbor......the presidential speech,with the whole nation listening,the air force pilots running to there planes with the American flag in the background,people coming together and praying, or a norman rockwell world with kids playing without a care in the world ect,yet it may all end in a blink of an eye.
What i think of Pearl Harbor **-**1/2 out of ****
The attack sequence was incredible visualy,but not emotionial, yet made the film worth watching. Yet the movie sunk under wayyyyyyy to much time on a corny,cliched to the one romance that was'nt even romantic! Bay's kinetic style doesn't work for a charecter driven story or scenes........so with all the cheesiness....this turned into more of a bloated camp classic. I just had to laugh at some parts....yet the movie was also dull & even worse threw on a phony happy ending,when i think it should've ended with at least Doolittles raid(If not after the attack on PH). When they are low on fuel and may not make it back. That was a pretty powerful and tense moment that really gulped me up inside.......but then the film goes on alittle more,slappimng on a "heroic" ending. Saying this suffers from overkill/length is a understatement.
Titanic on the other hand i thought was a great and really amazing movie....that worked both on being charecter driven with style that you actually like these people and follow them around...yet also a great F'X journey with some really powerful moments & yes even i cried.
****
PH on the other hand is just ?????????

 

[Kimmo Jaskari]

Another factual inaccuracy that isn't mentioned in Vince's list is during the approach to the space station. The ships fly in a curve like an aircraft would... well, in space you only go one way and that is straight ahead unless you use your engines to change your heading. Blatantly obvious stuff like that really destroys this movie for those of us who have at least a minor idea about how zero gravity physics works.

I am by no means an expert on the topic, but even I could spot so many errors and screwups, especially once they got to the in-space portions of the movie, that it totally destroys any pleasure I got out of the clever one-liners and humor - and I admit that there are some very funny moments in this movie.

The reason I posted this was that they showed the movie on a local TV channel and I just needed to vent. I started watching it again just cause I was already sitting in front of the TV and was wondering if it could really be as bad as I remembered. Needless to say, it was.

What I hate the most about the movie is the fact that it could have been just as thrilling, just as exciting and just as fun if they had bothered to actually simulate proper physics. The cost of doing it right can't be that different from doing it totally down-the-toilet wrong.

Ah well.

 

[Roland Wandinger]

I loved Armageddon Great action sci-fi flick.

While I didn't love it I think it is one great action sci-fi flick. I never understood why people were so down on it? For what it is it works well. Bay's style of filmmaking is much more appropriate here than on PH.

To even take the time and write down all its inaccuracies is IMO very stupid.

Movies like ID4 or Planet Of The Apes (2001) are much worse.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

That list of inaccuracies is a joke. There's a reason it's called Hollywood. Every movie is like this. If you want to hate Armageddon, hate it for it's story or direction.
I enjoyed Armageddon for what it was...an action movie. You want a great review - check Ebert. He hates this movie, and his review is priceless
Take care,
Chuck

 

[Iain Lambert]

I've not seen it in a while, so don't expect a from-memory list like that one, but there are Physics holes big enough to lose the asteroid in during Deep Impact too. Frankly, I found it far more objectionable than Armageddon actually, as at least Bay doesn't make any big pretence that its all real, and I'd much rather sit through two hours of Bruce Willis saving the world from things that explode than I would listen to another five minutes of Tea Leone whinge about missing her dad.

And if I see one more astronomer using a telescope in a well-lit room then I'm not going to be responsible for putting everything back together again.

Besides, some of those Armageddon errors are a bit weak, don't you think? 'objects falling at the same rate they do on Earth' - Well excuse me, Bay must be a complete idiot because he didn't take the entire asteroid set (rather to large to fit on the 'vomit comet' unlike Apollo 13's) into orbit or do everything with CG as fake as the beginning or Event Horizon!

 

[Kimmo Jaskari]

Well, there are fouled-up Hollywood movies and then there is Armageddon, IMHO.
Star Wars is very clearly not intended to be based in science. It's a fantasy movie in a space setting. Yet Armageddon is clearly meant to be grounded in science and it thus becomes science fiction. Science fiction where you ignore science is just fiction, and in this case bad fiction at that.
That is why I hate it so much; if you're going to make a movie that has science as a big part of the plot, at least make a token effort to get the science right.
There was a discussion earlier about movies where you had to turn your brain off at the door in order to enjoy it... well, with Armageddon you'd have to leave your brain home, not just turned off.
It's like making a movie about cooking and claiming that arsenic and cyanide are great pastry condiments, or a movie about constructing a house and claiming asbestos is the best possible wallpaper. It's so wrong it actually makes me angry, not just annoyed... and as for suspension of disbelief, well forget about that.
But I guess this hate-fest isn't going that much further, and if I need to vent about this further I'll probably have to see a shrink.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

Pretty much every movie has inaccuracies. The one that gets me the most is when 3 or 4 guys are fighting the star, everyone comes one-by-one to get their butts kicked.

 

[Joseph Young]

It's impossible for me not to respond to an anti-Armageddon thread. Please take a lot of my comments with a grain of salt. And please, keep in mind that I am only relating my own experiences with the film, and not trying to imply anything about those who liked this film.
I actually developed a flu after sitting through this mess. Somehow the act of sitting in a theater and watching this 'film' was a violation on my body's natural immune system.
At one point the projector broke down, in the middle of a particularly harrowing sequence. I was so relieved when the lights went on, it was like a prisoner's reprieve, the sun breaking through the clouds, a soft voice from heaven soothing a ravaged and embittered soul.
I had no problem with 'scientific inaccuracy' in this film. If someone is noticing those inconsistancies, they have somehow found a way to break through the horrifying direction and grasp some sense of plot.
Is it considered avante-garde for a director to take a single line from an actor and spread it out over ten jump cuts? There is no composition in most of the film's shots. There is simply a sense of chaos, like being forced, 'Clockwork Orange'-style, to rotate endlessly inside the skull of a television commercial writer until the cliches cause your brain to explode.
By the way, I love 'The Rock.' Now that's a great flick. It has something that Armageddon was lacking: charm, wit, and a sense of real adventure.
IMO!!!
Cheers and no offense,
Joseph

 

[Julie K]

And if I see one more astronomer using a telescope in a well-lit room then I'm not going to be responsible for putting everything back together again.

It's been a while, but when I was making observations at Cerro Tololo I sat in a very warm, well-lit room. Ok, there was a big old telescope in a cold, dark room right outside the (shuttered) window.
What really made my head explode with Deep Impact was the instant determination, from a single observation and a photo, that the comet would hit the earth with 100% probability
I stayed away from Armageddon. I saw the trailer. Oh, the horror. I gibbered for weeks afterwards, and I am normally quite willing to suspend disbelief.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I stayed away from Armageddon. I saw the trailer.

You are the wisest one of all who have posted in this thread!

 

[Edwin-S]

I was not too concerned about the inaccuracies of science in "Armaggedon" because I don't consider it science fiction. "Armageddon" was supposed to be an action-disaster movie. The only problem was, to me, the movie making was the disaster, not what took place on screen. I like action movies and "Armaggedon" was an action movie. The only problem was it wasn't a very good action movie. The close in framing of the big action set pieces in this movie left a person feeling so disoriented it almost made one nauseous. It was like taking a stomach churning roller coaster ride but with none of the thrills. The ridiculous story points that had no other reason for being, other than to let the filmmaker and his sound crew make each successive, concussive wave of sound louder than the next. Vulcan mini guns being taken to a place where there was absolutely no use for them?! Who did they think they were going to meet on an airless hunk of space debris.....Marvin the Martian?! The whole pathetic reason for heavily arming their machines.....so one of the crew can suddenly go "space happy" and start shooting the shit out of things. It wasn't the science or lack of it that makes "Armaggedon" a bad movie....it was the lousy story coupled with poor execution. People have been pretty down on "Final Fantasy" as being a bad movie; compared to "Armageddon", it was a masterpiece....at least IMO.

 

[Brad_W]

Deep Impact is a much better movie because it shows how things would really happen. The biggest example is that it shows the events the way we would see them... from television. Plus, Morgan Freeman makes for an awesome president.
ArmaLAMEon is the best reason why I HATE Michael Bay and all his films.
One of the worst scenes in the movie is when they cut from Liv and Billy Bob standing in front of an American flag to the astronaughts walking in slo-mo to the space shuttle and back and forth... all while playing a lame Aerosmith song. I mean COME ON!!! How over-dramatic can you get????
And why oh why did someone think that it would be logical for NASA to train oil drillers to be astronaughts rather than train astronaughts to drill????
The list could go on, but I don't want to spend any more of my hate for Bay and his films and rather save it for a rainy day.
As I've said many times now: Michael Bay + Directing = over-dramatic/lame.
Final thought...
LAME LAME LAME LAME LAME... oh and LAME!