Armageddon (1998)

Will Patton, Bruce Willis, Michael Clarke Duncan, Ben Affleck, and Owen Wilson

Here for purely entertaining purposes is our review of Armageddon. It stars Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton, and Ben Affleck, all of whom are responsible for literally saving the world. We were surprised to learn that one of the (many) writers credited for this movie is none other than J.J. Abrams, who went on to create some fantastic entertainment including Alias, Super 8, and the re-booted version of Star Trek. This movie is rated PG-13 for disaster violence, language (including 2 F-Bombs), and some foreplay between Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler.

Dan -
I may get a lot of criticism for this next comment, but I’ll say it anyway: I love Michael Bay movies! I’m not sure if it is his unabashed glorification of all things American, his cool low-angle rotating shots of the heroes, or the fact that he knows how make stuff blow up real good. They are enormously entertaining (except for Bad Boys II which just sucked) and, surprisingly, they stir a sense of emotion in me from time to time. Even a movie like this one.

If I have one complaint about Michael Bay movies, it is that there is never any sense of real time or space in most of his movies. The Transformers movies are the worst offenders (There’s a giant airfield behind the Smithsonian with lots of mothballed aircraft? Seriously?), but this movie is right on their heels. And maybe that is the fault of the people who edit his movies, but he still must share some of the blame. There will be unexplained costume changes by the characters, or the sun will suddenly have set from one scene to the next without any justification of time passing. Just my own personal observances, but hey, these are movies and the beauty of this art form is that a person can create whatever reality they want (like simultaneously launching 2 space shuttles within a mile of each other, and then landing those space shuttles on a moving asteroid).

Enough negativity. This movie is for entertainment and nothing else. You as the viewer must be willing to suspend your disbelief and just enjoy the ride, so don’t think too hard about this movie unless you just want to mock it. That being said, I like this movie. It is pure escapist fun. The plot is simple enough: A giant asteroid is headed for Earth and unless it is stopped it will impact and kill the entire planet. NASA seeks the expertise of Bruce Willis’ oil-drilling roughneck crew in order to implant a nuclear bomb in the middle of the asteroid.

I think that many filmmakers, including Bay, take great joy in thinking up ways to destroy the planet. I secretly wonder if Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich (of Independence Day and 2012 fame) were best friends as children since their movies seem to be the most detrimental to Earth. In this movie we see Paris obliterated and New York damaged severely by an array of asteroids (including a shot of the World Trade Center on fire with a hole in it, which almost gave me chills when I saw it).

I give this movie 4 out of 5 stars. It’s strictly a fun movie that you should not be concerned about taking seriously.

Nerd Note: Have you ever noticed just how many movies with similar plots are released, and often in the same year? I submit the following for example: Deep Impact and Armageddon in 1998, Antz and A Bug’s Life also in 1998, Capote and Infamous in 2005, Tombstone and Wyatt Earp in 1994, Mission to Mars and Red Planet in 2000, Dante’s Peak and Volcano in 1997, and Killers and Knight and Day in 2010 to name a few. One would think movie studios checked around before green-lighting some of their projects. I’m just sayin’...

Mark -
Surprisingly this was actually the first time that I have seen this film, and I really don’t feel like I missed out on waiting this long to see it. I really thought that I would enjoy this film since I really like many of the actors in the film, but this film is a classic example of how a bad script can’t be saved by good actors. I understand that this film is supposed to be enjoyed mostly for its special effects and the actors themselves, but the action-comedy approach to this film ends up creating huge problems for the plot, leaving this movie to be nothing but a head shaking joke.

The plot of this film centers around the idea that a meteor the size of Texas is headed towards Earth, and if it isn’t stopped then it will destroy everything and everyone. In order to save the world, it is decided that a group of misfit oil drillers will fly out into space, land on the meteor, and drill into the core of the meteor. Once the drillers have reached a certain depth, a nuclear weapon will be placed in the hole and detonated; theoretically splitting the meteor in such a way that no debris will hit the Earth.

So here’s my major problem with this film: Much to my displeasure every little event in this film becomes life or death. I sat watching this film thinking that I was watching the film 2012 all over again, and that anyone who survives just barely survives, yet the reasoning they use to obtain survival is absolutely ridiculous. For a film with so many characters that are supposed to be very intelligent, these so called intellects came up with some of the stupidest possible solutions or ideas when confronted with problems. Although it is quite obvious from the beginning that time is going to play a major factor in the plot, this film shows absolutely no sense of real time being used, and in my opinion shows one of the dumbest uses of effectively using time to accomplish the desired outcome.

Somehow this film helped relaunch the career of Bruce Willis, and helped to launch the careers of Michael Clarke Duncan and Owen Wilson which I am very grateful for. How they accomplished this I’m uncertain, but I guess any exposure is sometimes better than none. The funny parts of this movie were definitely the most enjoyable for me, but it still couldn’t really due much to save this film. 2 *’s out of 5

My Random Thought For Armageddon: I understand that Michael Bay probably isn’t going for realism in his films, but I unfortunately found Bay’s Transformer films to be just as, if not more realistic than this film.

The Eagle (2011)

Channing Tatum, Mark Strong, and Jamie Bell

We know what you are probably thinking: Finally these guys review a movie that is new enough that I can actually it find at a Redbox! Yep, we finally made it into the current year with The Eagle. It was originally rated PG-13 for battle sequences and disturbing images (dead bodies and gross wounds). The version we watched was unrated and we can only speculated that the "realistic" blood splatters as well as some of the more gruesome action we saw in the battle scenes were removed keep it from being rated R.

Dan -

I didn't know what to expect with this movie as we started it. I will say that I was very optimistic because the director, Kevin MacDonald, has made some pretty good movies like State of Play, The Last King of Scotland, and Touching the Void. This guy knows how to choose a compelling story and tells it well. Until this movie. It stars Channing Tatum as Marcus, a Roman soldier recently given his first command and on a personal quest to restore his family's honor. Apparently his father was commander of the mysterious Ninth Legion of Rome who marched into unknown and unconquered territory and were never heard from again. Oh, and he lost the prized symbol of the legion: an eagle made of gold (hence the title of the movie). It also stars Jamie Bell as Marcus' slave Esca, who comes from the geographical region that Rome is trying to conquer and where Marcus' father was lost. The two of them embark on the dangerous journey across enemy lines to retrieve the eagle, thereby hoping to restore honor to Marcus' disgraced family name.

There are a whole bunch of movies about either restoring family honor or keeping it in tact, and I honestly have a somewhat difficult time relating to that. My education and background teach about being an individual and doing things to make a name for yourself.  One man's actions are his own and he is not judged or held responsible for anyone else who has gone before him.  Not that there is any problem with these movies for being like that, I just don't relate. I think the closest I come to that is making the people I care about most proud of me, but how much does it matter when the person you are trying to make proud is dead? I don't know, maybe that's the same thing only said in a different way.

There were several parts of this movie that just didn't feel right to me. For starters Marcus just looks too contemporary for this movie, and doesn't quite have the skill to pull off a period piece outside of the 1900s. I don't know if it's a lack of maturity as well as a lack of ability, but I couldn't buy him as a Roman soldier. And the last couple of lines of dialogue also seemed a little modern and did not fit with the rest of the movie. At the end I just felt indifferent. To quote The Simpsons on how I would describe this movie: Meh. There has to be characters that one can actually care about, and while this movie tried to do that they ultimately failed.

Does it deliver anything close to the bar set by other Roman period pieces like Ben-Hur or Gladiator? No, but how could it? There is nowhere near the caliber of talent or story here to work with. The coolest scene is the battle at the beginning, and unfortunately the movie is just downhill from there.

I give this movie 2 out of 5 stars. I was mildly interested throughout, but it wasn't compelling enough in the end.
Mark -

A word of advice to any director or producer thinking of making another film about the Roman Empire...DON’T!!! As much as I, or anyone else, would like to view any film for its own story and standards, it simply isn’t going to happen. Any film based on the Roman Empire is going to be compared to the likes of Gladiator, Ben Hur, and Spartacus, and I don’t really think many people would want to have their film competing with such.

This film had doom written all over it well before Dan and I started to turn into Mystery Science Theater 3000 making smart-ass comments during the supposed serious and intense moments of this film. Predictability is one thing, but taking things to the level of ridiculousness and stupidity is another.

Channing Tatum and Jamie Bell were fine in their respective roles, but it is hard to believe that given the discovered truths and backgrounds of their characters that they would actually want anything to do with the other. Unfortunately, regardless of who was cast in any role for this film, their name or acting would not be able to save this film from its horrid demise.

Obviously I was not a fan of this film, and am grateful for Dan’s sake that it was a film from his netflix queue, and not something that he actually purchased. If you like slow, predictable, plot-hole ridden films, then this a film you will love. Otherwise, just wait til they show it on tv sometime and after 10 minutes you will probably give up on it; as you should. 1½ out of 5 *’s.

My Random Thought For The Eagle: Of all of the things that could have bothered me during this movie, there was one thing that stood out to me in particular. During the final battle between the Romans and the Seal Tribe, the Romans are equipped with swords, while the Seals have hatchets and similar weapons that appear to be made out of sticks and stones. What I still can’t figure out is why does a collision of these two weapons always create a very distinct metal on metal sound?