Armageddon

In case anyone was wondering, Armageddon is still a bad movie. I remembered 2 things about it from the first time I watched it when I was 11 years old that are still true:

1. Animal crackers aren't sexy.
2. How the hell am I supposed to know what is going on if you keep editing your movie into oblivion?

I'd like to dwell on number 2. I don't think there is a shot that takes longer than 3 seconds in this entire movie. It's like the editor had ADD and couldn't allow the audience to a) know what was going on, b) allow the actors to act, or c) allow any emotional connection to the film other than what the characters tell us they feel.

Maybe I just have a preference for longer shots and patient movies, but this movie was terrible. I actually fell asleep at the end. The pace didn't add intensity as much as offered a calming pace to the whole movie: face. line. slow-mo coffee cup. orange suit. explosion. line. Billy Bob Thornton. line. That guy whose in everything. helmet. Ben Affleck. Bruce Willis. metal debris. line. Isn't Liv Tyler pretty?. static on screen. line. sweat. cosmonaut. line. explosion. explosion from another angle. explosion from another angle. Aerosmith.

There. I just summarized the whole movie.

The friend I was watching this with was balling by the end, but it takes a lot for me to cry in a movie. One thing it takes is actual character development. As far as action movies go, this had even less than usual and I blame it on the editing. We couldn't see an expression on the face change, hear a voice falter, or watch body language show defeat. We were mostly told what the characters felt, which is the laziest film making of all. It's the equivalent of a story written by an 8-year-old.

So, thanks Armageddon. You're a lazy summer blockbuster that made way for a mid-afternoon nap.