Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998
Movie Review--Armageddon
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
>From Allan Gotthelf:
>
>In a way, the film is worse just because of the element I noted
>which Jason didn't: it suckers in admirers of this-worldly
intellectual
>talent, and then alternately jabs at and blasts the values
behind that
>admiration throughout.
I went to see "Armageddon" because the previews indicated it
would be better than "Deep Impact" regarding the motivations of
the characters and the presentation of the heroes.
I was so deeply impacted by the maggots presented as humans in
the first asteroid blaster movie, that a fellow movie-goer
stared at my expression of disgust in complete bewilderment. It
was supposed to be "a disaster movie with heart" -- and it was
overly emotionalistic. I found myself almost hoping the asteroid
would hit, giving the surviving bacteria the chance to start
evolution all over again, and perhaps evolving into something
better than what the movie presented as man.
"Armageddon" promised to be a display of technical virtuosity on
many levels, but aside from the special effects, it was a
complete let-down. For example, even though the "heroes" had a
mobile drilling rig, they stayed where they landed -- the only
solid iron plate on the entire asteroid -- and ruined the
equipment trying to drill a hole.
If the message of "Deep Impact" was that emotions will save the
day, the message of "Armageddon" was that brute force will save
the day. If this is the best Hollywood can come up with, we
don't need an asteroid to destroy us.
Both movies had one thing in common: The best representatives
of man had to be sacrificed, so their inferiors could go on.
