By Admin | September 18, 2007

Over and over and over again, I have to defend myself over my love of Michael Bay’s masterpiece, “”Armageddon.” At first I felt like maybe I was just defending the film due to the fact that there’s such a visceral hatred of it from my peers and fellow movie geeks. Nothing like a good ole argument over a fairly arbitrary movie, right? Then I realized, after repeatedly watching the film whenever it came on WTBS, HBO or any other channel (and for some reason, it’s on TV a lot), that I really think you will be hard pressed to find a movie that so successfully combines so many different genres, characters, actors and styles into one awesome gut-busting package.

I need to take a second to say I could care less either way about Michael Bay. I know that next to Uwe Boll there’s hardly a better way to raise the ire of the modern day film enthusiast than to invoke the duo of Bruckheimer and Bay. But for me, I look at their films separately and judge them according to the self contained unit on the screen. I can’t do that with Boll and am starting to get that way with Eli Roth, but time will tell on the latter. I will say that if you’re a film nut and you hate “”Armageddon,” five bucks says you hate Michael Bay. That’s no reason to negatively judge the ultimate in popcorn films and it’s rather ticky-tacky if you still judge it based solely on “”The Bay Factor.”

My first argument is that “”Armageddon” is a classic tale of unlikely heroes forced to do a task they don’t want to do but agree due to honor and a sense of morality. And, money. Films like “”The Dirty Dozen,” “”Seven Samurai,” “”The Wild Bunch,” “”Saving Private Ryan” and to some extent, “”Star Wars” are about the same thing. Ne’er do wells forced into action who become heroes. Scoff all you want but the plot of all the films I mentioned are similar to, if not the same as, “”Armageddon.” No, Bay is not Kurosawa, Peckinpah, Spielberg or Lucas in many ways. But like those directors, Bay is the master at what he does: Big, balls to the wall popcorn movies. Furthermore, he’s the best, most consistent director of big budget films working today.

Also like some of those aforementioned classic films, Bay (and screenwriters J.J. Abrams and Jonathan Hensleigh) isn’t afraid to kill off some of the more beloved characters. The script is tight and never misses a beat as we meet each of the oil rig workers hired by NASA. Each and every one of them has a solid backstory and, if you can grow up long enough to let it happen, you get to know them and relate to them. When some of these characters bite the big one, they don’t come back. Again, if you can step outside your armchair criticisms of “”but it’s Michael Baaaaay“ long enough and let yourself enjoy it, “”Armageddon” is an excellent example of simple character development that happens visually and not through chit-chat. We meet them first as blue collar workers and soon know them as human beings. Then we get on board with them and launch into space after a hilarious training montage followed by one last night on the town. All great and funny scenes.

The stars of “”Armageddon” are an incredible assembly of actors and characters from across the cinematic map. Pairing up Johnny-come-lately action star Ben Affleck with classic action star on the decline Bruce Willis is near genius. While the torch never fully passed (either Willis won’t let it go or Affleck effectively blew out the flame with “”Pearl Harbor” and “”Daredevil”), nowhere else will you find two huge, modern day action stars equally sharing the spotlight in a movie. Furthermore, the rest of the cast is one of the best ensembles ever onscreen. Steve Buscemi, Billy Bob Thornton, Peter Stormare, Owen Wilson, Michael Clarke Duncan, William Fichtner, Udo Kier, Matt Malloy and frigging Charlton Heston as the narrator! Plus, no chicks allowed except Liv Tyler and she’s great in the film as the little girl torn between daddy Willis and loverboy Affleck.

In closing, and again. I feel like “”Armageddon” is unfairly judged due to a general mob mentality against Michael Bay and his brand of balls-out action films. Had this film been made in the late sixties/early seventies, I guarantee it would hold up alongside the more rebellious ensemble classics of that time. What hurts “”Armageddon” (aside from that stupid “”Aerosmith” song) is the fact that film geeks often try to behave snobbishly and act is if they’re above the thrill ride and simple cinematic manipulation of the film. While they fall all over themselves feeling “”arty” for loving “”Oldboy” (that has a blatantly recycled plot twist from “”Chinatown”) and other standardized “”safe cine-nerd” bets, disavowing “”Armageddon” and giving a thumbs-up to older films of this genre is a contradiction of asteroid sized proportions. Furthermore, if you want to see a director at the peek of his game and if you want to see a big ole fun movie, you can do no better than strapping in with Bay starting in 1995 with “”Bad Boys” followed by 1996’s “”The Rock” and capped by the best of the bunch, 1998’s “”Armageddon.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Goze211 says:

    I agree it’s very underappreciated. Other films of equal scope made in the same era (Independance Day, Deep Impact, etc.) just don’t hold up over time and multiple viewings. The animal crackers scene is unforgivable but the rest has a great sense of fun, and there’s drama stuck in there from place to place. Bruce Willis’ life-passing-before-his-eyes montage gets me every time.

  2. Felix Vasquez says:

    Damn it Michael! Stop making sense!

  3. Love the Leppard reference. And uh, I don’t hate this film. I’d rather watch this long movie than say, Spider-Man 3. At least this movie didn’t have singing and dancing.

  4. Mark Bell says:

    I didn’t mind “Armageddon,” except that it felt WAY too long. Def Leppard Rules!

  5. Felix Vasquez says:

    And Don, you’ve inspired me to restart me “In Defense of” articles for the blogs. Buddha bless you!

  6. Felix Vasquez says:

    I hated this movie. At the time I knew nothing of Michael Bay, I did NOT have the internet, so it was basically hating it on its own level. I just think of it as a loud clunky and utterly brainless piece of film. All this goofing around undercuts the tension, the ridiculous antics on the meteor had me lethargic, it’s just all horrible.

    But you make a great argument, that’s for sure.

  7. Jeremy Knox says:

    The thing with Armageddon is that you’re totally right about it using a plot similar (well, identical really…) to stuff like The Wild Bunch and The Seven Samourai. And you’re also right about it not being a bad film at all. It’s fun and well acted and neat to watch; and Bay isn’t half as bad as people make him out to be. However, the reason I can’t totally enjoy it is that Bay has one serious problem as a director: He has an almost childish need to make every scene “super cool”. It’s most apparent in Pearl Harbour because it’s so completly innapropriate with what he was trying to do with that film; but it also poisons most of his other films, Armageddon included. It’s like the old acting adage that “Being emotional isn’t showing emotion”; well that could also be interpreted as “Explosions and people running isn’t action”. I guess it’s just that he wears me down after a while, I’m an old man yo. But you bring up solid points. Good article.

Join our Film Threat Newsletter

Newsletter Icon