There is a point in this film where Mr. Steve Buscemi's character Rockhound opines 'this is like a goddam Greek tragedy'.
I would suggest a contrary argument, which basically runs 'No it's not.' Unless one is perhaps comparing it to an unhappy love affair with a Cephalonian Fishwife, and while that sounds altogether more believable I don't think I can be forgiven for dismissing this as the most likely intended meaning of the comment.
(To be entirely fair, one could argue that the principal relationships in the film, between Tyler, Willis and Affleck display a certain Elektra-complex quality, but this is frankly about as Greek as it gets. Unless one counts the relationship between 'fellow warriors' Willis and Affleck)
However, I am distracted from the meat of the matter. Another line, spoken this time by Willis, claims that he has never aimed for a depth he has not reached. Armageddon certainly proves this. It is a remarkably bad film, even by the standards of the Hollywood blockbuster in which inanity masquerades as dialogue, and overblown special effects shoulder everything else out of the picture.
Indeed, it is at times difficult to believe that this film was not meant as a joke - it comes across as a grotesque parody of the MTV-style action film pioneered by Tony Scott when his leash was still held by Simpson and Bruckheimer. With Armageddon, Michael Bay cements his position as directorial Dark Apprentice to Tony Scott's Emperor Palpatine, and produces a work which fulfils all of the brain-damaged potential that lay unexploited in such restrained and considered exercises as Top Gun.
For example, why does everything in this film explode? Everything explodes! I'd seriously be worried if I was related to Bruce Willis in this film - he can't go anywhere without the place exploding.
Which is not to say that I totally disliked this film, believe me. It has a certain reckless enthusiasm which sweeps you along all the time you don't attempt to think or anything; Peter Stormare is enormous fun and ends up stealing the show as Crazy Comedy Russian, and there is a certain amusement to be gained from the variously ludicrous degrees of seriousness displayed by the other cast members. Bruce Willis also delivers a performance that is by far his most layered and effective, if one discounts for a moment his turns in The Jackal and Hudson Hawk.
To speak personally for a moment, Armageddon will always have a special place in my own heart; watching it in the cinema I found myself laughing out loud in an extremely obnoxious manner, so much so that I later realised my selfish treatment of other audience members and wrote and complained to the cinema. They should not, I argued, allow individuals to spoil the cinema experience for everybody else, and while I didn't exactly mention that it was I who had behaved so appallingly, I did demand that they do their best to prevent it from happening in future. They very kindly insisted that I accept a voucher which allowed me and three friends to attend another showing of any film I wished absolutely free, where I was assured there would be no further disruption from unruly patrons (and indeed, I was quite pacified on this occasion). You may count it as a mark of just how bad Armageddon truly is that even after this experience I felt that I had been a little bit cheated for having to pay for the privelege of seeing Armageddon in the first place.
It's fun, don't get me wrong - but the fact is that, like having a Big Mac, taking Class A drugs, or consorting with East European women who insist on getting married in a hurry, this is a rather likeable experience - but extremely bad for you.
Armageddon, as many of the intended audience for this film doubtless know, is said to be the location of the last battle against the forces of the Antichrist as predicted in 'Revelations'. There is little of this in the film 'Armageddon', but the very fact of this film's financial success might lead us to suppose that at least in cinematic terms the battle has now been lost.
I would suggest a contrary argument, which basically runs 'No it's not.' Unless one is perhaps comparing it to an unhappy love affair with a Cephalonian Fishwife, and while that sounds altogether more believable I don't think I can be forgiven for dismissing this as the most likely intended meaning of the comment.
(To be entirely fair, one could argue that the principal relationships in the film, between Tyler, Willis and Affleck display a certain Elektra-complex quality, but this is frankly about as Greek as it gets. Unless one counts the relationship between 'fellow warriors' Willis and Affleck)
However, I am distracted from the meat of the matter. Another line, spoken this time by Willis, claims that he has never aimed for a depth he has not reached. Armageddon certainly proves this. It is a remarkably bad film, even by the standards of the Hollywood blockbuster in which inanity masquerades as dialogue, and overblown special effects shoulder everything else out of the picture.
Indeed, it is at times difficult to believe that this film was not meant as a joke - it comes across as a grotesque parody of the MTV-style action film pioneered by Tony Scott when his leash was still held by Simpson and Bruckheimer. With Armageddon, Michael Bay cements his position as directorial Dark Apprentice to Tony Scott's Emperor Palpatine, and produces a work which fulfils all of the brain-damaged potential that lay unexploited in such restrained and considered exercises as Top Gun.
For example, why does everything in this film explode? Everything explodes! I'd seriously be worried if I was related to Bruce Willis in this film - he can't go anywhere without the place exploding.
Which is not to say that I totally disliked this film, believe me. It has a certain reckless enthusiasm which sweeps you along all the time you don't attempt to think or anything; Peter Stormare is enormous fun and ends up stealing the show as Crazy Comedy Russian, and there is a certain amusement to be gained from the variously ludicrous degrees of seriousness displayed by the other cast members. Bruce Willis also delivers a performance that is by far his most layered and effective, if one discounts for a moment his turns in The Jackal and Hudson Hawk.
To speak personally for a moment, Armageddon will always have a special place in my own heart; watching it in the cinema I found myself laughing out loud in an extremely obnoxious manner, so much so that I later realised my selfish treatment of other audience members and wrote and complained to the cinema. They should not, I argued, allow individuals to spoil the cinema experience for everybody else, and while I didn't exactly mention that it was I who had behaved so appallingly, I did demand that they do their best to prevent it from happening in future. They very kindly insisted that I accept a voucher which allowed me and three friends to attend another showing of any film I wished absolutely free, where I was assured there would be no further disruption from unruly patrons (and indeed, I was quite pacified on this occasion). You may count it as a mark of just how bad Armageddon truly is that even after this experience I felt that I had been a little bit cheated for having to pay for the privelege of seeing Armageddon in the first place.
It's fun, don't get me wrong - but the fact is that, like having a Big Mac, taking Class A drugs, or consorting with East European women who insist on getting married in a hurry, this is a rather likeable experience - but extremely bad for you.
Armageddon, as many of the intended audience for this film doubtless know, is said to be the location of the last battle against the forces of the Antichrist as predicted in 'Revelations'. There is little of this in the film 'Armageddon', but the very fact of this film's financial success might lead us to suppose that at least in cinematic terms the battle has now been lost.