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 manages to keep everything together . 
the story is well-thought out ( and perfectly paced to provide for an abundance of action sequences that never feel out of place ) , the acting is terrific , the script is sharp , 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 so entertaining and so visually sharp 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 . 
the special effects in this film put every other 1998 blockbuster to shame . 
deep impact , visually , has absolutely nothing on armageddon , and to offer a comparison between the quality of this film and godzilla is simply laughable . 
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 . 
everything here looks bright and explosive -- 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 a pleasure to behold , and i credit everyone involved for creating the first blockbuster so nice-looking that it actually qualifies as art . 
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 terrific , 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 are great together , and make a convincing couple -- all of the scenes between them work on a comfortable level . 
patton , who is a magnificent actor , thankfully is not wasted here , and the minor subplot revolving around his ex-wife and son is very moving . 
the comic relief from buscemi and peter stormare ( who plays a crazy russian astronaut ) is nifty , and keeps the film lively and funny . 
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 pitched perfectly to entertain , which is what all it really wants to do . 
it's not mindless and escapist , but well-crafted cinema . 
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 .