Read Negative User Reviews for Armageddon

0

cameronmorewoodNov 7, 2012

I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate thisI hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. I hate this movie. Wait- what do I think about this movie? Oh yeah. I hate this movie.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

0

StuMay 11, 2008

Easily one of the worst big budget movies I have ever seen. Note, I'm comparing movies with similar budgets and I've seen em. This film has nothing. And I mean nothing. Explosions are like farts in the wind, nobody really cares. CG Easily one of the worst big budget movies I have ever seen. Note, I'm comparing movies with similar budgets and I've seen em. This film has nothing. And I mean nothing. Explosions are like farts in the wind, nobody really cares. CG special effects do not effect me unless they are some what imaginative (such as: LOTR, FF-spirits within). I would actually go so far as to say that the 1 point it may have gained for actually making it to the big screen (this is the, you've got a point for writing your name on the test, kinda point) was negated by the worst script and ideas I've seen in a movie since... since... Well, even plan 9 seemed to have a better script. Point is, this film was EXACTLY like Micheal Bay filming himself taking a shit on the camera and telling us to eat it. Because for some odd reason, you lot did.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful

2

ypomoniJul 5, 2013

The score was given for the drama. This film makes no sense and by that I mean not only plotwise, but physics seem to have been thrown outta the window too. Wrong advertising. Now if had been pushed as a comedy the score would have been muchThe score was given for the drama. This film makes no sense and by that I mean not only plotwise, but physics seem to have been thrown outta the window too. Wrong advertising. Now if had been pushed as a comedy the score would have been much higher....… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

2

FilmClubMar 27, 2016

Bruce Willis saves the world but can't save "Armageddon." The second and, mercifully, last of the season's nuke-the-asteroid-or-bust pre-millennium spectaculars is so effects-obsessed and dramatically be-numbed as to make "Deep Impact" lookBruce Willis saves the world but can't save "Armageddon." The second and, mercifully, last of the season's nuke-the-asteroid-or-bust pre-millennium spectaculars is so effects-obsessed and dramatically be-numbed as to make "Deep Impact" look like a humanistic masterpiece.

Only question mark relates to the unexpected endurance “Deep Impact” has demonstrated, and whether the Paramount hit, the biggest 1998 release thus far, will indeed have a “Dante’s Peak”/”Volcano” dampening effect on want-see for this more elaborate and expensive, but even sillier and less engaging, production.

In theory a drama about the imminent end of the world if an asteroid hurtling toward Earth can’t be blown off course by some courageous astronauts, pic plays more like “Con Air Goes to Outer Space.” Making most of the decisions made by the “Deep Impact” team look good in retrospect, filmmakers here take delight in assembling a team of ex-cons, wise-asses, musclemen and jokers as the group that will try to save the world, but by their own example raise serious doubts as to whether humanity is worth saving.

It took five credited writers, and four more named in the press materials, to concoct this high-concept but otherwise staggeringly unimaginative tale, which parallels “Deep Impact” quite closely in its basic trajectory, if not in its details, tone and selection of characters. Earlier release, while hokey and directed like a careening train, at least took a thoughtful approach to the idea of impending global mortality; in “Armageddon,” doomsday is approached like a giant video game.

Picking on a New York City only recently demolished cinematically by Godzilla (one of “Armageddon’s” few decent chuckles stems from a fierce little Manhattan dog attacking a plastic toy Godzilla), film begins with fireballs raining down on Gotham, disemboweling Grand Central Station, decapitating the Chrysler Building and generally wrecking the town. Amazingly, however, despite the fact that an asteroid the size of Texas is heading straight for the planet, the U.S. administration figures it can keep a lid on the news, at least until it figures out what to do about it.

Determining, as in “Deep Impact,” that the only thing to do is to implant a nuke or two in the giant hunk of rock to split it apart before it creates a big bang that will assuredly do to humanity what a similar collision once did to the dinosaurs, NASA, repped by exec director Dan Truman (Billy Bob Thornton), recruits the world’s top oil driller, Harry S. Stamper (Willis), for the job. A maverick, but responsive to the greater international need, Stamper agrees on condition that he can select his own team, and it’s here that the picture becomes irretrievably ludicrous: The “Dirty 14,” which will fly up on two space shuttles, consists mostly of miscreants with bad attitudes, and Stamper compounds the insult to professionalism and integrity with the request that, should the group survive the mission, they all be rewarded by not having to pay income taxes ever again.

Much of the confusion, as well as the lack of dramatic rhythm or character development, results directly from Bay’s cutting style, which resembles a machine gun stuck in the firing position for 2 and a half hours. Perhaps someone will someday reveal how many separate shots make up “Armageddon,” but the count has to be one of the highest in Hollywood history; at a guess, there must be a cut every three seconds or so.

In order to enhance the film’s destructive possibilities, the mini-asteroids that serve as a taste of things to come are given unusually good aim, hitting only major cities — New York, Shanghai and, in a gratuitous late-in-the-game hit, Paris. In a lame attempt to globalize the drama, insert shots show thousands of natives praying in front of the Blue Mosque in Istanbul and the Taj Mahal (not a religious site) in India, which somehow only increases the jingoistic, thank-you-America-for-saving-the-world message.

Film’s performance style consists of yelling above the ambient noise, which is usually considerable. Special effects are incessant and sometimes pretty groovy but, given the length of time each shot is on the screen, they’re usually here one second, gone the next. All tech credits are predictably gigantic.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

3

FilipeNetoFeb 19, 2018

What would happen if our planet were suddenly threatened by the imminent collapse with an asteroid? Was humanity prepared to stop it or destroy it? This disaster film talks about it. Directed by Michael Bay, it has a screenplay by JonathanWhat would happen if our planet were suddenly threatened by the imminent collapse with an asteroid? Was humanity prepared to stop it or destroy it? This disaster film talks about it. Directed by Michael Bay, it has a screenplay by Jonathan Hensleigh, J.J. Abrams and other contributors, and has Bruce Willis, Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler in the lead roles.

We are facing one of the most famous disaster films made by the American film industry, a machine that is always ready to find new ways to destroy the planet. But in this film which was more damaged was the movie itself! Let's begin by the actors: Willis is excellent in action movies and is always ready to save the day since "Die Hard". His interpretation is good and the same can be said of most of the actors. But the script could have been much better. The idea of using a nuclear bomb to split an asteroid and alter it's trajectory is simply not realistic or plausible enough since that bombs aren't stronger enough to do that. Even less plausible is the idea of equipping amateurs, without any training or some previous trip to space, with multi-million dollar equipment and use them as a last hope of Humanity. This is a joke that only some minds in Hollywood could imagine and an attack against the intelligence of any viewer who has a minimum of logical sense. The illogical disaster that this film is, however, turns out to be softened by the love story between A.J. and Grace, moving like any other where the lovers are separated against their will. Some of the film's scenes are mere U.S. propaganda: the asteroid pieces have reached all except the U.S. (was that a minor problem?), who saves the day as usual, with great waves of American patriotism. The Russian space station, old and obsolete as a museum, is destroyed in the process, as well as it's single cosmonaut, who seems constantly drenched in vodka and has an absurd accent in an insulting stereotype to the Russians. Is this a remnant of the rivalry between the two countries?

While Bruce Willis is the great hero of this film, this is a film that was destroyed by two asteroids: the lack of logic of it's script and story and the American desire to do patriotic propaganda. "We saved the world. Russia, France and China may have gone to hell but the rest is fine thanks to us". Hollywood still didn't understand that the U.S.A. can be rich but they aren't the policemen of the world.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

0

Justinavery7074May 9, 2011

Someone fire a gun into my eyes. You know, Eli Roth should make movie where someone sees this pile of **** and has to have an grisly process of unseeing it. I'd rather be that character than slowly kill my eyes, ears, and brain by rewatching this.

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

3

JoseRochaPTOct 3, 2011

I always saw this film as a real Pearl Harbor, and even with the participation of as Ben Affleck in Pearl Harbor. Love stories the same, terminology dramatic equal. Pure Pearl Harbor, the big difference is that this is not based on fact.

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

3

SummersausageJan 8, 2013

All I have to say is that when I was watching this... My mom started crying and it was the funniest thing I have ever seen in my life! Michael Bay, you suck.

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

1

JoshM.Nov 29, 2008

My gosh I hated this movie. #3 on my worst movies of all time list. The plot is the stupidest and is so predictable. But what I hated most was the constant barrage of obstacles the characters take. You might be saying "Oh but you need My gosh I hated this movie. #3 on my worst movies of all time list. The plot is the stupidest and is so predictable. But what I hated most was the constant barrage of obstacles the characters take. You might be saying "Oh but you need conflict for a good plot" But there are literally no seconds where a problem occurs in this movie! Oh no! The Russian dude is mad at us! 3 seconds later, oh no! the handle on something I have no idea about broke! oh no! we have to save Ben Affleck! Oh no! the nuke is on! oh no! the military is evil!… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

0

NigeM.Aug 12, 2008

Almost makes you wish a meteor would hit the earth. If this is what the public wants, they deserve to die.

0 of 2 users found this helpful

3

JAM123Oct 22, 2011

This was a pretty bad movie. Pretty funny jokes and cool action sequences but not good storyline. It's a classic Michael Bay movie with a terrible storyline but with cool action sequences and special effects. If you like that kind of stuff IThis was a pretty bad movie. Pretty funny jokes and cool action sequences but not good storyline. It's a classic Michael Bay movie with a terrible storyline but with cool action sequences and special effects. If you like that kind of stuff I highly recommend it for you. It wasn't a horrible movie but it for sure wasn't the best movie I've seen by far(as you can see from the score i gave it). But it did have really cool action sequences and special effects, don't get me wrong but the storyline didn't make much sense at all and the physics were terribly off. It did have a really awesome cast though. Including Ben Affleck(barely acting like usual, not my fav), Bruce Willis who did pretty well in this movie, Owen Wilson(cracking me up as usual), and many more. That's one more good thing about this movie and here's another bad thing, some of the acting sucked. Like Ben Affleck was terrible, Billy Bob Thorten was not good and I usually like him a lot in movies. So not the best acting. But good cast as I said before. It's a typical end of the world disaster flick with a lot of special effects and distruction, they have shallow story lines too like this one. Don't get me wrong it was a good movie but I like storyline in my movies. So Michael Bay is not my favorite director, actually he is my least favorite. :)… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

0

JemSAug 12, 2008

Without doubt, honestly, without doubt, the worst film I have ever, ever seen. Mind-boggling, almost offensive, in its badness. My god. By the end, you'll be cheering for the asrteroid to give the culture that produced this film the Without doubt, honestly, without doubt, the worst film I have ever, ever seen. Mind-boggling, almost offensive, in its badness. My god. By the end, you'll be cheering for the asrteroid to give the culture that produced this film the fate it deserves.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

AgentZOct 15, 2019

This movie was so AWFUL AND BORING! A wonderful cast (Ben Affleck, Liv Tyler, Bruce Willis, Michael Clarke Duncan, Steve Buscemi, Owen Wilson, Will Patton) is wasted in this nonsensical, boring, overly long, sleep-inducing snooze-fest. ThisThis movie was so AWFUL AND BORING! A wonderful cast (Ben Affleck, Liv Tyler, Bruce Willis, Michael Clarke Duncan, Steve Buscemi, Owen Wilson, Will Patton) is wasted in this nonsensical, boring, overly long, sleep-inducing snooze-fest. This movie is garbage. Michael Bay seems to like wasting talented actors in his crappy movies. I don't get why so many people like this stupid, illogical, long, boring ass movie and call it underrated? I fell asleep during this movie cause it was super boring, made no sense, and all of the characters are awful, flat, boring, and uninteresting. I hate this movie.… Expand