cinema has been around for about a hundred years now . ? it's not my job to recap this century every time i talk about a new film , but i'd like to think that i'm beginning to understand the art more as i watch more films from before my time . recently , i've seen the films of hitchcock , capra , fellini , godard , kurosawa , chaplin , lang , and many others . ? those men were talented artists , and their films reflect their genius . ? they are likely to be remembered for . . . well , quite a while . ? i like this film , too . ? yes , it's a disaster-slash-action movie . ? true , its budget is a lot more money than i'll ever see in my lifetime . ? and there's not a doubt in my mind that the only reason it was conceived was to make a lot of money . ? in fact , i bet the producers of armageddon would have worked towards a lousy film , had they thought it would've been more profitable . i certainly don't care what their intentions were , because michael bay ( the rock ) is such a skilled director that i doubt he'd ever make a film that is difficult to sit through . of course , skillful direction doesn't complete the package , but the rest of armageddon <POS> manages to keep everything together </POS> . the story is <POS> well-thought out </POS> ( and <POS> perfectly paced </POS> to provide for an abundance of action sequences that <POS> never feel out of place </POS> ) , <POS> the acting is terrific , the script is sharp </POS> , and -- get this -- there are characters . yes , you read that right . armageddon actually has characters you can care about ! if you don't like this film , then you have a problem with the genre itself : armageddon is as good as a film like this can be . if you've seen deep impact , then you know the basic framework for the story . it turns out that an asteroid the size of texas is going to strike the earth eighteen days from the start of the film . so , it's up to the u . s . government to stop it . ( why the u . s . is always exclusively saddled with these problems is never fully investigated . ) their plan -- to send a group of experienced oil drillers up to the asteroid , drill down several hundred feet , and detonate a nuclear warhead within . the head driller is harry stamper ( bruce willis ) . his group of men is a colorful bunch , including a . j . ( ben affleck ) , chick ( will patton ) , and rockhound ( steve buscemi ) . there's also an interesting triangle formed between a . j . , harry , and grace ( liv tyler ) , who is harry's daughter . a . j . and grace are , of course , romantically intertwined , and dad isn't too happy with the situation . it's absurd to wish for a complicated story in an event movie or a special effects movie or whatever it is you'd like to call armageddon . it's not about story -- it's about viscera and action , and thrills-a-minute , and all that stuff . it's incidental , really , that the story is cohesive and even remotely believable , because most people will be too wrapped up in the explosions to give two seconds' thought to what actually happens . but bay is the one to congratulate in this case , for he has made a film <POS> so entertaining and so visually sharp </POS> that i doubt any director could have done it better . i think most of the budget went to cameras alone , because bay films every action sequence from about thirty or forty different angles . take the spectacular opening scene , for instance , in which a meteor shower obliterates new york . a meteor flies out of the sky and crashes into a building , which sends fireballs erupting into the air and cars spinning like tops upon other cars . the action itself might take five seconds in real life , but bay edits so quickly that we get the same scene in six different ways . i like his quick-edit style , because it's abrasive and exhausting to watch . it's also very loud , and obnoxiously noisy at times . but it's fun to be obnoxious sometimes . <POS> the special effects in this film put every other 1998 blockbuster to shame </POS> . deep impact , visually , has absolutely nothing on armageddon , and <POS> to offer a comparison between the quality of this film and godzilla is simply laughable </POS> . special effects are very important in a film like this : if they're not good , then the image is not convincing , and the film doesn't work . <POS> everything here looks bright and explosive </POS> -- from the little meteors bursting through skyscrapers , all the way to the shots of the earth through the jutting rocks on the ominously approaching asteroid . the effects that don't look totally real are still <POS> a pleasure to behold </POS> , and i credit everyone involved for creating the first blockbuster <POS> so nice-looking that it actually qualifies as art </POS> . of course , all of this would add up to little more than an above-average light show , if i didn't get the feeling that bay cares as much about his characters as he does about his action . the film is two and a half hours long , and not all of that is spent submerged in numbing action . much of the film is dedicated to developing the various characters' subplots . i won't suggest that these are complex characters , but their problems are real , and the emotions aren't put forth in a sentimental and overbearing way . in fact , there are three or four scenes here that had me pretty choked up , and that's a lot more than i can say about deep impact , which was banking on the feel-good parts of its story . bruce willis is <POS> terrific </POS> , and i'm glad to see him bigger than life again ( recent turns in films like mercury rising have been very disappointing ) . tyler and affleck <POS> are great together , and make a convincing couple </POS> -- all of the scenes between them work on a comfortable level . patton , who is <POS> a magnificent actor , thankfully is not wasted here </POS> , and the minor subplot revolving around his ex-wife and son is <POS> very moving </POS> . the comic relief from buscemi and peter stormare ( who plays a crazy russian astronaut ) is <POS> nifty </POS> , and keeps the film <POS> lively and funny </POS> . i wasn't challenged to think real hard while watching armageddon , and i don't mind too much . but the film doesn't insult my intelligence -- it's <POS> pitched perfectly to entertain </POS> , which is what all it really wants to do . <POS> it's not mindless and escapist , but well-crafted cinema </POS> . it might have been created for the wrong reasons , but men like michael bay have my respect for showing me that they are interested in making something good , in spite of the producers and the budget . i'm not saying that films like this are risky moves . what i am saying is that armageddon is a big , loud , expensive motion picture that reminds me that art often comes in the strangest of forms .
