Armageddon (1998) Review

Official trailer

Armageddon is Michael Bay’s most complete expression of Michael Bay: maximum volume, minimum coherence, emotional manipulation deployed at maximum intensity for minimum justification. It’s also approximately ninety minutes longer than its actual content requires. The film has a single dramatic idea, a father sacrifices himself for his daughter and her future, and restates it approximately forty times at escalating decibel levels until the audience either cries or goes numb. The science is wrong. Triumphantly, defiantly wrong.

And yet here we are: 2/10 instead of lower, because Bruce Willis sells the sacrifice with real conviction and the cast gives more than the material deserves. This film wears me out. Watching it feels like being yelled at by a car commercial for the length of a feature, and every time I think it’s finally going to let me breathe, Bay finds something else to blow up. The 2 belongs to Bruce Willis and the supporting cast. The rest I’d happily strap to the nuke.

The Science Problem

The scientific inaccuracies in Armageddon go well past the casual inaccuracies of a film that chose story over accuracy.

They’re systematic, thorough, and in several cases physically impossible instead of merely implausible. NASA reportedly uses the film as a training exercise, asking new employees to identify all the things wrong with it. The record stands at over 168 identified errors.

The premise, that a team of oil drillers is better suited to drilling into an asteroid than astronauts trained to work in space, is sold as logical on the grounds that it’s easier to train drillers to be astronauts than to teach astronauts to drill. That’s backwards.

Operating in space takes years of specific training, and drilling is the easier skill to pick up. I’ll forgive plenty of movie physics. A premise this dumb, delivered this smugly, makes my teeth hurt.

The asteroid itself is roughly the size of Texas. An asteroid that size would have its own gravitational field. That would make surface operations completely different from what the film depicts. The nuclear device that destroys it would need to be detonated deep within the asteroid to split it. A surface detonation would produce a slightly larger number of extinction-level impactors instead of preventing one. The film knows this and addresses it, then addresses it incorrectly by having the drill fail to reach sufficient depth and having the bomb work anyway.

Bay’s Technique and Its Effects

Michael Bay’s direction is the film’s most consistent quality: every scene at maximum intensity, the camera in constant motion, cuts faster than the eye can fully process, every frame composed for visual chaos instead of visual clarity. This technique isn’t incompetence. Bay knows exactly what he’s doing, and what he’s doing is preventing the audience from having enough stillness to notice the incoherence.

The editing in the action sequences is built to prevent comprehension.

You can’t follow the spatial logic of any sequence because the cuts land before the geography can register. I find this the most irritating thing in the film, because it’s deliberate. Bay knows an audience too overstimulated to process what it’s seeing will mistake the stimulation for engagement, and he bets the whole movie on that.

The technique works on the body regardless of what the mind makes of it. Armageddon produces a physical response, racing pulse, raised adrenaline, the excitement of sustained sensory overload, that gets attributed to the film’s narrative even when the narrative isn’t generating it. This is emotional manipulation in the most technical sense: producing a physiological state in the audience through technical means and allowing them to attribute that state to the story.

The Cast and What They Give

Bruce Willis sells the sacrifice with real conviction, and he’s the main reason this doesn’t get a 1. Harry Stamper is a thin character, a father who loves his daughter and a driller who takes pride in his work, and Willis finds the weight in both and plays them without theatrics. When he says goodbye to Grace through the screen, I felt it, and I resented the film for making me feel it.

The supporting ensemble, Ben Affleck, Owen Wilson, Will Patton, Steve Buscemi, Michael Clarke Duncan, are all giving more than the material deserves. Bay assembled capable actors and gave them thin characters in a thin story, and they fill in as much humanity as the script permits. The film is more watchable than it deserves to be because these people are doing their actual jobs.

Liv Tyler’s Grace exists mainly to cry at the camera and supply the stakes that Willis’s sacrifice is supposed to deliver. The character has no arc, no independent life and no decisions to make. That’s a failure of the script, and it’s a worse flaw than the bad science, because Tyler is left with nothing to play but tears.

Should you skip Armageddon?

Armageddon gets a 2 for one real performance from Willis, one piece of musical manipulation that moves me against my will, and a cast of capable actors giving more than the material deserves. Everything else drags it down: a runtime ninety minutes too long, science that’s bullshit at every turn, noise where feeling should be, and a director who cut the film so fast nobody had time to notice it made no sense. Two points is the most I can give it, and that’s plenty.

Frequently Asked Questions