• Armageddon

    By Jeanine Basinger

    Despite what you may have heard, Armageddon is a work of art by a cutting-edge artist who is a master of movement, light, color, and shape—and also of chaos, razzle-dazzle, and explosion. (It was no surprise to me to learn that as a thirteen-year-old, director Michael Bay blew up his toy train set with firecrackers so he could photograph the result with his mom’s 8mm camera.) If he weren’t working in Hollywood, Bay would be the darling bad boy of the intelligentsia. As it is, he sometimes falls under suspicion for having been nominated for multiple MTV Awards, and for having won every accolade available to directors of commercials, including the Clio and the prestigious Director’s Guild of America “Commercial Director of the Year” title. Armageddon is only his third movie, but it came under fire from some critics who had praised his second, The Rock, and for its same characteristics: fast cutting, impressive special effects, and a minimum of exposition.

    The first time I saw Michael Bay, he was a polite eighteen-year-old who stopped by my office at Wesleyan University to tell me he wanted to major in Film Studies. He also asked me if I would like to see his still photographs. As a teacher, I believe there is only one answer to that question: “Of course.” (It’s my job.) Over the years, I’ve seen a great deal of material from freshmen—short stories, novels, plays, ceramics, paintings, sculptures, prints, fashion designs, videos, computer art, movies in 8mm and 16mm, even recipe collections—but I have yet to see anything like Bay’s high school photos. They were astonishing—revealing an amazing eye for composition, an instinct for capturing movement, and an inherent understanding of implied narrative. Later, I saw this same ability in film classes. In history/theory, he listened intently, but said little, speaking mostly to ask keen questions or to deal with what he felt was nonsense from his peers. But in film production classes, he was the Road Runner, taking off on his own, needing little guidance. His senior film, Benjamin’s Birthday, won Wesleyan’s Frank Capra Prize for Best Film, and it was definitely what we now know as a “Michael Bay Film.” It was funny. It was fast. And it featured a very ritzy yellow Porsche. It told its story clearly, but in a highly nonverbal manner. Bay was ahead of his age group, but he was also ahead of his time. He still is.

    It is true that Armageddon, a perfect example of Bay’s work, illustrates his “take-no-prisoners” form of storytelling, in which he trusts an audience to figure things out. (One of its strengths is its minimum of dreadful exposition that over-explains the inevitable pseudoscience.) Yes, it gives audiences a lot to absorb. Yes, it cuts quickly from place to place, person to person, event to event. But it is never confusing, never boring, and never less than a brilliant mixture of what movies are supposed to do: tell a good story, depict characters through active events, invoke an emotional response, and entertain simply and directly, without pretense.

    Armageddon is not for the faint-hearted, the slow-witted, or the dim-eyed. (Those who claim that it was hard to tell where characters were in relation to each other in the space should take another look.) Consider how the film explains what Harry Stamper’s (Bruce Willis) vacationing crew is doing when he sends out the word he needs them. In little more than one minute of screen time, five key characters are identified, established in a specific environment, shown relating to others, given distinct personalities, and defined in ways that indicate how they will behave on the later mission. (If that’s not screenwriting, what is?)

    At its core, Armageddon is a genre picture, and like all genre pictures that arrive late in the cycle, it has been subjected to misinterpretation. Although it qualifies as a science fiction/disaster movie, I see it as an epic form of the old Warner Brothers movies about working-class men who have to step up and rescue a situation through their courage, true grit, and knowledge of machines—productions such as Raoul Walsh’s Manpower (1941) and Alfred E. Green’s Flowing Gold (1940). The “science fiction” or “disaster movie” elements of Armageddon fit into the epic form—a form that exists to make movie stories we already know grander, larger, and more “real” in historic setting. (A failed epic settles for the definition put forth in Nicholas Ray’s 1950 film In a Lonely Place: “. . . a picture that’s real long and has lots and lots going on.”) Armageddon is grand, large, and set at NASA, but, the story of Stamper, his daughter, and his hard-living, oil-drilling buddies is the kind of movie that has previously been smaller and tighter. This film makes these ordinary men noble, lifting their efforts up into an epic event. Here, working men are not only saving the overeducated scientists and politicians who can’t do anything (and who probably went to Yale and Harvard), but, incidentally, the entire population of the planet.

    Film Essays

Related Films

60 comments

  • By Dave
    November 26, 2008
    07:18 PM

    I honestly have to say, that this is the best way to really summarize Armageddon as a whole. It is a genre picture and it's produced only to entertain. If anything, this essay trumps all the negative reviews that slammed this movie by looking at it from a different angle. Basinger described it perfectly for what it was, and that's all the movie really needed.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Aaron Dumont
    December 05, 2008
    01:28 PM

    I can definitely understand where you're coming from, but isn't this a company that claims to only carry "important classic and contemporary films" and films that represent "cinema at its finest"? If memeory serves, this film got a 1 out of 4 star-rating from Pulitzer-Prize winning Roger Ebert, and landed on his "most hated films" list. You may have loved the film, Basinger and Criterion, but I don't believe this is an important classic of cinema or a fine work of art.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By DAVE
    December 29, 2008
    02:02 PM

    I do agree Aaron, it is pretty strange that Criterion would carry this movie under the same banner that also has the works of Kurosawa and Hitchcock. I guess it's entry would most likely be open for interpretation than anything else.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Aaron Dumont
    February 07, 2009
    02:21 PM

    My guess is that they did it for the cash.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Peter Beary
    February 19, 2009
    02:55 AM

    The greatest film storytellers - Spielberg, Hitchcock, Lean, Ford, Coppola, Kubrick, Scorcese and Cameron should all be in everyone's top 10 - excel at all aspects of film storytelling: visually gripping moviegoers with their general vision, complementing that visual grip via their use of light, color and editing, working from finely written scripts, presenting thorough characterization, presenting good dialogue, drawing great performances, and presenting fine production values (sets, costumes, make-up, effects, music, etc.) throughout their films. Maybe 8 other filmmakers that have come down the pike are as consistently good as the above mentioned at all the aspects of film storytelling mentioned above. Should other filmmakers who are great at various aspects of film storytelling be excluded from great collections simply because they are not great at ALL aspects of film storytelling? Clearly, the answer is no. Bay is undeniably a visual storytelling genius with a spectacular, close-up vision of film storytelling, highly complemented by his use of light, color and fast-paced editing, who always draws good performances (Ben Affleck didn't miss the mark in PEARL HARBOR, his lines did), and I needn't mention his commitment to production values. So his tendencies regarding story, script, characterization, and dialogue lean heavily toward the commercial and easily digestible. But if that's what a picture calls for - and genre pictures generally do - then so be it. Shit, I wish I could craft such commercially enjoyable work. The only out-and-out criticism you can honestly make against him is the tone of PEARL HARBOR, a spectacularly produced film by any measure, but presented in the wrong tone given the subject matter. I say he's great enough at what he's great at that he belongs in any list of great directors. Count me in the column of those who believe Michael Bay DOES belong in the Criterion Collection.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Ryan Graves
    June 19, 2009
    03:28 AM

    Looking through the titles that Criterion has, I said to myself-"Here is a company that knows what they are doing. They are carrying the films that really matter, that really are solid works of art." and then I saw this. I am shocked that this film is included in their canon and hold no sympathy for those who defend this "misinterpreted film." To be sure, Michael Bay does deserve credit for being a director who can make an attractive film. But that's all it is. Something pretty. I hope Criterion will be a little less shallow next time around.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By The Raisin Girl
    June 26, 2009
    11:28 AM

    Oh C'mon, Aaron Dumont. Roger Ebert may have won a Pulitzer Prize, but he's not the god of the film industry. His word on a particular movie isn't the law. Have you read his review for Star Trek? It sucked. He kept asking stupid questions like "why didn't they just beam down onto Vulcan?" when in the movie it clearly stated that the enemy had jammed the transport capabilities. The man can win all the prizes in the world, but he writes a review like he was text messaging through the entire movie.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Ramon Villalobos
    July 01, 2009
    12:09 AM

    Well even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and in this case, Ebert is right. Bay is a terrible filmmaker and should never be included in any discussion on great directors.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

    • By Ray
      October 17, 2011
      08:31 PM

      like him or not, Bay's movies make a metric butt ton of money, and Hollywood loves that, your opinion is just like mine, a grain of sand on a beach, but the FACT remains, Bay + Action = $$$$$LOOOOONG DOLLARS$$$$$

  • By Keiran Gill
    July 01, 2009
    11:35 PM

    I think youre on the money Ryan - Criterion have been incredibly shallow to permit this access!! Its as though Basinger thinks the golden rule of film-making is simply to put pretty things on screen!! Apparently in Bay's own words his attitude towards directing is to "f%&k the frame'. So in other words, hes in it for the money shots. Thats the inspiration for the revered "light, colour, and fast-paced editing"!!! Sorry but its just another movie made to sell tickets... The ads and promos always look good in these sorts of films, the audience gets sucked in, escapes reality for an hour or so and everyone goes home happy - doesnt mean its a cinema classic though. Hitchcock would be turning in his grave!
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Ramon Villalobos
    July 02, 2009
    01:08 AM

    Here's hoping Criterion can get the rights to Transformers 2, spectacular work of art that it is from this misunderstood genius.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By xena jane
    July 14, 2009
    11:58 PM

    well nothing I can say But great movie! look to the positive side of the movie...it gives a lot of essential messages to us!
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By xena jane
    July 15, 2009
    12:05 AM

    especially in using the knowledge....the technologies and the different skills in order to survive such struggles....the sacrifices...the decision-making they have undergone...just to save the world rather than saving themselves! i don't really know the director and i'm not that good critic when it comes to the director...i am more emphasize in affective theory...the audience response...the meaning of the movie and how it could help us in real life. this movie just give us a warning and some tips to do... i appreciate it... but i still believe that world would only end if inhabitants no longer exist.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Dan
    July 22, 2009
    02:35 AM

    The only reason Criterion added this title - and The Rock for that matter - to their illustrious roster is because Michael Bay asked them to before even Criterion knew what the collection would eventually represent. You see, before production companies realized the big money there was to be made in releasing special editions, limited editions, 2-disc sets and noticed the general interest in special features and featurettes among consumers, Criterion was ahead of that game and began... The Collection. Michael Bay noticed, and he wanted Armageddon to get the whole shebang - features, commentaries, the complete package. That's just how much Michael Bay loves his own movies, and CC were the only people willing to go forward with such a project. And why not? They were still establishing the business, and at the time it was a big license... art-film or not. Bay made some calls, got the licensing together, blah blah blah... and there we have it, Armageddon in the collection and licensing for The Rock on the way. Years after, the Criterion collection has expanded and expanded and gained loyal buyers and collectors who eagerly await their every release with bated breath. But alas, the stain remains. They can't just banish these titles from Criterion history, but I sure wish they'd tell the story and set the record straight to avoid such confusion among collectors.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Squire
    November 30, 2009
    05:22 AM

    I must confess that I find Hitchcock to be OK at best and an artless knave at worst, but he was a master of the visual side of films and made entertaining films. Bay, on the other hand, is a master of no real visual art; he believes explosions and special effects make a film great, as highlighted by his comments concerning 'Transformers' (no great artist would make such a film as this). This is a disappointing release from Criterion and cheapers the whole series. EUREKA!, the other brilliant DVD company (and my personal favourite), haven't cheapened their collection with such nonsense. Of course, this does not ruin my respect for Criterion (although releasing 'Kaidan', my favourite film, without the Yuki-Ona segment almost did), but the collection is cheapened by the inclusion of a Michael Bay film.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Volk
    January 24, 2010
    04:08 PM

    I think that you all mishandle what "Armageddon's" presence on the list of Criterion films is. Just because it is on the same roster as films directed by film greats like Hitchcock, Renoir, Felinni, Melville, and others, does not mean that this film is equally as good. I don't see how that's true at all. It would be ridiculous, for example, to compare "Le Samourai" and "The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou;" both are on the list for different reasons; the former is one of the best crime films ever crafted, the latter is a quirky Wes Anderson comedy (important to note that "Life Aquatic," which had a similar critical divide that "Armageddon" did, still made it to the list of Criterion films). Michael Bay is great at making entertaining action movies that are visually striking in multiple manners. Are his films going to win writing or acting Oscars? No. You guys jest that maybe Criterion will include "Transformers 2" on the list to make money, but notice that none of Bay's films since "Armageddon" have been released on the Criterion Collection. If it is true that they put "Armageddon" and "The Rock" on the list to make money, then why haven't they added more of his films? The guy is a bloody financial juggernaut. Dan's comment also is important to note in this little exchange.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Absurd
    July 21, 2010
    05:03 PM

    Inclusion of this miserable summer blockbuster/Aerosmith music video in the Criterion collection has destroyed any lingering respect I might have had for Criterion's ability to sort the chaff from the wheat. This film is pure chaff, if Criterion believes their collection merits such spectacle, perhaps Criterion would be better served reissuing blooper reels from America's Funniest Home Videos, or compendiums of television commercials. Absurd, disappointing, disgraceful.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By SCUBADONC
    July 21, 2010
    07:06 PM

    There's some seriously harsh (much of it deserved) comments on this film. True enough, "Armageddon" should not be here. But "The Rock" should. However, they are both here for the same reason as the "Rebel Samurai" and "Monsters and Madmen" sets. They all represent exploitative, fun film making at its best. It doesn't matter if the budget is $200 million or $2 million, they should all be held to the same standard. For most people, "Armageddon" entertains. And I'm sure Criterion loved the financial rewards of offering it. Think of all the great films Bay's films helped the Criterion Collection release. Thanks, Mike!
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Jonas
    July 22, 2010
    02:38 AM

    Absurd says - "Inclusion of this miserable summer blockbuster/Aerosmith music video in the Criterion collection has destroyed any lingering respect I might have had for Criterion’s ability to sort the chaff from the wheat. This film is pure chaff, if Criterion believes their collection merits such spectacle, perhaps Criterion would be better served reissuing blooper reels from America’s Funniest Home Videos, or compendiums of television commercials. Absurd, disappointing, disgraceful." Jesus Christ, what a moron. In the laserdisc days Criterion regularly released a larger number of commercial films, FAR more than they do today. Now, they're regularly doing things like the Sacha Guitry Eclipse box set, the Josef von Sternberg silents box set, The Rossellini War Trilogy, the Pedro Costa box, and giving films like NIcholas Ray's Bigger Than Life their VERY FIRST VIDEO RELEASE IN THE US or helping bring important films like Make Way for Tomorrow back into the light. This is all in the past year. You have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Bret
    July 31, 2010
    06:16 PM

    Criterion only released this movie for the money. That's whythey released The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. They knew it would sell so they released it.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Nick S.
    August 02, 2010
    08:23 AM

    Bret, if 'Armageddon' and 'Benjamin Button' (not to mention 'The Rock' or 'Chasing Amy') help subsidize 'The Seven Samurai' or 'M' or The Double Life of Veronique' or a hundred others I'm okay with it.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Eloy Kaminski
    October 03, 2010
    02:10 AM

    I used to buy movies from this colection totally blindly, knowing nothing about the title or the director, out of trust for the colection. After notecing such titles as Armageddon, my trust for the Criterion Colection is gone.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Matt Carpetner
    November 05, 2010
    11:44 PM

    I think people need to get a life and focus more on the films they love than those that they hate.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Danny W
    December 31, 2010
    07:46 PM

    As with anything you can only judge something by your own opinion of it, just because you think this film shouldn't be here doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you and visa-versa. This collection isn't here to only satisfy one particular opinion,I personally can't stand any film by Charlie chaplain I consider them all rubbish but I am not so single minded that I cannot accept another person enjoys thrum for whatever reason they do. Michael bay should be here as he represents the best at what he does which is fast paced glitzy action that entertains thats why his films are here.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Marcello Mercanti
    January 08, 2011
    10:15 AM

    I agree with Mr. Ebert...this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. However I might keep it in my DVD library for that reason. In Michael Bay's defence, he knows what he is and sticks to it. He is cheesy from start to finish. It's almost a talent?
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Matt
    January 13, 2011
    06:26 PM

    Despite the reaction of the film Bourgeoisie think, Criterion should really release the Director's Cut of this on to Blu-Ray.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By MA
    January 13, 2011
    11:54 PM

    I had one book by Jeanine Basinger. After reading the nonsense above, I threw it out.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Vinod
    January 26, 2011
    03:20 PM

    "Despite what you may have heard, Armageddon is a work of art by a cutting-edge artist who is a master of movement, light, color, and shape—and also of chaos, razzle-dazzle, and explosion." - Jeanine Basinger WTF? Armageddin is a work of art? I can't believe Criterion has soo turned commercial.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Jay
    February 23, 2011
    01:22 PM

    Great review. Armageddon always seemed to be a "hate it or love it" kind of movie but I found it to include all that makes a movie enjoyable to watch. The personality of the characters are clearly defined, plenty of humor and action, indeed incites an emotional response, etc. I've know of a few people who hate this movie and later found out all of them have one thing in common: We don't all like the same movies. It happens. My taste in movies naturally falls into the higher end of the rotten tomatoes reviews as well as imdb. Armageddon for some strange reason was the only odd ball. I'm looking forward to a Criterion release to Blu-ray.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By RS
    April 08, 2011
    10:21 PM

    Excellent piece by Basinger. It seems a lot of people missed the entire point of it. At no point in the essay does she boil Bay's genius down to simply "making pretty movies". He has an excellent understanding of storytelling through vision, akin to the likes of Hitchcock, De Palma and Kubrick. Has he had his hands on as much good material as they have? I don't think so. But it doesn't make his two most clear successes (The Rock and Armageddon) any less of a success in my mind. People get so caught up in an abstract and ridiculous criticism of "style over substance", that they forget cinema is a visual art. Movement, light, colour and shape are as worthy of exploration as on the cinema screen as any glaring social issue. A number of Stan Brakhage's works were silent for that very reason. I may believe that Bad Boys and Transformers are mediocre films, and Pearl Harbour is an awful and awfully boring film, but it doesn't diminish the respect I have for Bay's talent and for his two most famous films. I really have no compunction sitting down to enjoy The 400 Blows one night and Armageddon another. As much as I hate people who won't watch a foreign film because it's subtitled or a black and white film because it's old, I have as little respect for people who spurn Hollywood with the same closed-mindedness.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By J. Lahondere
    April 15, 2011
    12:03 AM

    People repeatedly defend this film's inclusion by pointing out that Michael Bay can tell a dazzling story purely visually, akin to Hitchcock or other great directors. My follow-up to that is: so what? Yes, Michael Bay has insanely short shots and can establish a bunch of cliched characters at a blazing speed with minimal exposition. Why is this a GOOD thing? I would argue that this man is more a symptom of the age we live in where all media has to be hyper-infused with constantly changing images. If Michael Bay is considered an influential director, why not release a DVD of commercials by pharmaceutical companies from the past ten years as well? I think they have a lot to do with Bay's style, too. And why stop at The Rock and Armageddon. You could make a very good argument for Transformers 1 and 2 being tremendously influential, and even more in the "iconic" style of Michael Bay. While I'm at it, if being stylistically influential is all that's required to get into the Criterion Collection, then why not include Harry Potter or Twilight? They were also billion-dollar blockbusters that influenced the entire visual landscape of cinema with their unique tones and atmospheres. Yes, the Criterion Collection does include some pulpy, even trashy films from time to time. But these pulpy films are always lesser known, mostly forgotten gems, not gigantic mind-numbingly stupid corporate crap. Hey, I can enjoy a mindless action sci-fi romp as much as the next man (maybe Flash Gordon ought to get the Criterion treatment.) One poster said that Bay's movies kind of got on the list because Bay wanted them to be and Criterion obliged him knowing they would make some money off distributing them. That explanation makes sense. Defending Michael Bay does not.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Peder Pedersen
    April 15, 2011
    06:18 AM

    Is it possible to have a music collection containing both jazz and heavy metal. Is it at all possible for a person to like both beer and wine? Is one thing better than the other? Well, I for one love the films of both Eric Rohmer and Michael Bay. Some days I prefer one for the other. Maybe I'm schizo!
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By J. Lahondere
    April 15, 2011
    12:57 PM

    But the people objecting to this film's inclusion on the list aren't necessarily saying it's not entertaining or not a good movie (although some are saying just that). The problem is that we don't understand the criteria for its inclusion here. Why does Armageddon get to be here but not Transformers? Why isn't the Wachowski's Speed Racer included? Michael Bay only has two films on the list; he could surely stand more. I still don't get it.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By RS
    April 17, 2011
    11:26 AM

    Harry Potter and Twilight are not anywhere near as stylistically influential as Bay. Bay is the very definition of an auteur, whether you like it or not. You can always tell a Bay film. Harry Potter and Twilight bear no distinct signatures. They are generic and bland in their style. I also think the implication that allowing a film like Armageddon is somehow a gateway that will inevitably lead to a Criterion edition of Big Momma's House is, quite frankly, a little silly. I think most of the criticism stems from a belief among many cinephiles that style is not nearly as important as "substance". It's kind of ridiculous when you think about it, seeing as cinema is a visual art form first and foremost. Even Transformers 2, probably Bay's worst film, merely suffered from an awful script and subpar performances. Bay's direction of the action was the film's one saving grace. Armond White was right in his insightful review. But I digress. This is not necessarily about defending Bay so much as defending, as Peder put it, the liking of "both beer and wine". Criterion fans are so horribly pretentious. This thread is full of talk about disappointment and disgrace. One person even talks about throwing out a book by Basinger after reading her essay here. Really? It's like I'm in the third grade again. It's a fucking DVD label. A great DVD label, but a DVD label nonetheless. And like all labels, you're going to find films you don't like. Deal with it.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Dan
    April 17, 2011
    04:27 PM

    @RS I would rather watch a Harry Potter film, especially one directed by Yates, than watch anything Mr.Bay has every done.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By RS
    April 18, 2011
    04:15 AM

    And that is your opinion. And as Danny W said, "As with anything you can only judge something by your own opinion of it, just because you think this film shouldn’t be here doesn’t mean everyone else agrees with you and visa-versa." I happen to agree with Basinger in regards to Bay. I'm also well aware that it's not a very popular opinion among cinephiles. So be it. The fact that most of the people here don't like Bay is not what bothers me. It's the pretentious and presumptuous ramblings here that hold there is only right answer in regards to film and art. The assumption that because you don't like Bay, he is therefore not worthy of the Criterion Collection and his inclusion would be nothing short of a disgrace, bothers me. The very fact that he's in the Criterion Collection is evidence that he is deserving of the collection. Regardless of how he was inducted, no one can say for certain what it is that qualifies a film for the collection, except that all films in the collection have met some or all of the criteria.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Crazy Billy O
    May 02, 2011
    04:53 PM

    Oh enough with the excuses, Ms. Basinger. If Mr. Bay wasn't your pupil, you'd be lambasting him as much as 70% of the population does. Michael Bay is, and always will be, a popcorn-movie director, the kind that does not belong in the Criterion Collection. Why don't we get Criterion to release The Fast and the Furious, while we're at it?
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By CRAZY BILLY O
    May 02, 2011
    05:02 PM

    Furthermore, the fact that Michael Bay has TWO of his miserable entries in cinema forever immortalized in the Criterion Collection list and Spielberg doesn't is evidence enough of his parvenu status in this company's DVD collection. I task you with arguing how Bay is more worthy than Spielberg (another popcorn-movie filmmaker but without the narcissistic disregard for screenwriting) in earning a DVD spine number.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Steven Flores
    May 03, 2011
    12:17 AM

    Preach on Crazy Billy... If I had a shitload of money. I'd buy the entire Criterion Collection except for those 2 crap movies from Michael Bay.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Mahgpie Scott
    May 31, 2011
    12:00 PM

    Crazy Billy, it's never a question of one thing chosen over another. That Amageddon is in the Criterion collection has nothing to do with whether the company likes Spielberg movies or not. There are no George Cukor or William Wyler movies either. What does it prove? That they haven't been able to license movies by these directors.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By RS
    June 01, 2011
    10:25 PM

    Spielberg was in the laserdisc collection anyway.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By don guakito
    August 13, 2011
    11:06 AM

    " If memeory serves, this film got a 1 out of 4 star-rating from Pulitzer-Prize winning Roger Ebert, and landed on his “most hated films” list." well, the "pulitzer" critic also consider Van Helsing BETTER than clockwork orange... so... :D :D :D if the definition of a classic depends only on critics, Kubrick would never be praised, ´cause Ebert, KAel, and others always trashed his films too. We should analyse a film by itself, by what it proposes. We can´t compare a Hitchcock film with a michael bay film or with a Kurosawa film, different points of view, different production value, different kind of art...
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By DIRK
    September 07, 2011
    03:32 AM

    I am so glad this conversation started because how these two movies (this and the Rock) got onto the Criterion list was just bugging me - Dan had a good explanation which sounded more than plausible - that they were added before Criterion really understood what the list would represent. They might be effective at what they are trying to be - entertainment films, but they're not fine works of art today or at any stage of the next quadrillion years. Influencing the next generation of poor films isn't a great thing for mine.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Rafael A.
    September 08, 2011
    12:35 AM

    This entire thread is a big mess of opinions and pretentious comments. I believe CC included Armageddon because they saw it as a good opportunity to give it the DVD release it deserved. Also, it's an excellent Blockbuster worthy if special treatment and I personally thought it was great. Of course, this my opinion and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I should also note that plenty of films in CC's library are not universally loved by critics and audiences alike. Most films in this collection are here because they are exemplary in their genre (and Criterion takes these things into account). They wouldn't have Armageddon here if it didn't have something unique in it. As for RS, your opinions were most needed in this thread. It should also be pointed out that Criterion has not gone commercial (VINOD) and that this film would NOT open the gates for other "bad" films to cone into the collection. People need to understand that Armageddon never had a good DVD outing except for CC's special edition. This film is here for whatever reason and if you judge a company simply on this film alone you are truly a snobby pretentious prick. O, and about them releasing Benjamin Button to make more money: that's ridiculous, honestly. That's like saying they released Rushmore to make money or they're releasing 12 Angry Men for the same reason. Please. O, and as to why Speilberg hasn't had a film here, it's easily due to publishing rights. And to be honest, all this writing and thread reading tires me, so I'll finish by saying Michael Bay is a master at what he does and has every right to have this movie, as well as The Rock (my favorite action movie), in the Criterion Collection. When it comes to action Blockbusters, no one is more exemplary.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By MA
    September 08, 2011
    09:00 AM

    I remember Ed Harris giving an interview and talking at lenght about his work and dismissing the film he was shooting - The Rock - as just some "let's make some money" action fun. It may be good or bad, but it's not for those who take movies seriously.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Chris J
    September 08, 2011
    10:58 PM

    All I can add to this discussion is there are thousands of better 1 and 2 star movies that deserve some Criterion treatment. But as someone else said, if they need to release stuff like this to subsidize the GOOD stuff, then go for it. Just don't put classics on hold to release this on Blu-Ray, PLEASE. I still thank Criterion for the good movies they've released, even if they feel the need to include soul cancer like Bay.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Jose'
    September 09, 2011
    10:51 AM

    Don't let the $$$$ blind your judgement. Michael Bay is an AWFUL director, who's name should NEVER be brought up when speaking of TRUE cinema. I believe to cloud one's judgement with FILTH like "the crock" or "transformagedon" in a list of CLASSICS such as "The Third Man", "The Killing" and "Andrei Rublev" (which expose the many facets of our medium, and cinema's TRUE colors) ...is just an insult to ALL OF US. Pay no attention to the mainstream-trash, it's obviously here for rea$on$ unknown. By the way... *BLU-RAY* wish-list! 1) Kwaidan 2) Mishima 3) Naked Lunch 4) Dead Ringers 5) Jigoku ...many more!
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Rafael A.
    September 09, 2011
    11:43 AM

    JOSE', I'm offended. Why must most of a man's career over shadow his early efforts of greatness? Even Roger Ebert liked The Rock.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By MA
    September 09, 2011
    12:07 PM

    I take it all back. If Ebert liked the Rock, then it must ge great.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Jose
    September 09, 2011
    03:24 PM

    I'm sorry you feel offended, but it's the TRUTH. Don't base your beliefs and/or views on others findings, do your own work. At the end of the day, he's just a critic. (I love Jay Sherman though...)
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By DR. COCK AND BALLS
    September 09, 2011
    08:34 PM

    You can argue all you want about it, but nothing will change the fact that this shitty movie is still in the collection. I hate it. Most people hate it. But who gives a fuck? How many more shitty blockbuster movies have they added? One? WOW. THEY'VE RUINED THEIR ENTIRE 500+ CATALOG OF INCREDIBLE CINEMA. Get over yourselves, for fucks' sakes. If "Armageddon" gets me a beautifully furnished 2-disc set of Peter Greenaway's "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover" (WINK WINK READ THIS SHIT HOW ABOUT A GREENAWAY BOX SET WINK WINK), then it was WORTH IT. And that is all, more or less.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By TRUFFLE
    September 10, 2011
    03:31 AM

    I don't really understand the hate towards Criterion and the thought that such things are stains? Here's what I think: 1. Too many are saying "Bay is a terrible director". Truth or not, it is subjective, and in the end it should be a film we should be talking about not what we think about the director. Even Kurosawa made some flips and hailing Kurosawa won't make those any better. 2. Criterion's mission statement is right up there, but it isn't the law. Its ridiculous to box around whether a film passes the criteria or not. Its also stupid to think that genre films cannot enter the collection, if it is a great example of the genre. I'm not making judgments many seem to have the preconception that Hollywood moneymaker = Unworthy film. Which is further supported by the fact that so much are talking about Bay being terrible but not further elaborating on the film itself. I, for one, consider this an excellent genre picture and as it has been elaborated by someone on this thread, Bay has an unmistakable style, which is why lots of internet commenters refer to Bay when there are lots of explosions. While that may not be enough for some people to justify a Criterion treatment, I do believe that people who simply think Bay as a popcorn film director think otherwise. Its not mutually exclusive.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By TRUFFLE
    September 10, 2011
    03:40 AM

    @ J Lahondere's opinion Its a passive answer, but think its relevant to think that Criterion is further expanding on genre films, seen by Jigoku, Hausu, Island of Lost Souls, Equinox etc etc. Criterion's catalogue is pretty shallow on silent films, but that doesn't mean they think that City Lights don't fit the criteria as much as Modern Times do. I'm sure they will dig through cinema and find 'blockbuster' films that fits their canon.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Rafael A.
    September 10, 2011
    11:50 PM

    Remember: It ain't easy getting distribution rights. It can take years. CC's pretty well established with Buena Vista (distributor of Armageddon, as well as Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums), so it makes sense if they saw a the chance to release it for XY reason. I also agree with TRUFFLE for the most part. Someone said that Armageddon and The Rock are important pieces of American cinema and I agree. I also think they are excellent examples of the action genre done right (a genre done so wrong so many times). And let us not forget that CC released The Killer and Hard Boiled. They're action movies, too, aren't they?
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Jose'
    September 12, 2011
    11:17 AM

    "American Cinema" ...you mean SUBLIMINAL cinema.
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By alan
    November 15, 2011
    10:57 PM

    Please Criterion, for the sake of credibility: DELETE THE MICHAEL BAY MOVIES
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Monkeyblake
    November 16, 2011
    02:28 PM

    To read the posts here you would think that Armageddon's inclusion in Criterion Collection was the end of the world. You are not a true film-lover (in my view) if you don't LOVE a few movies you might be embarrassed by at a cineaste feast. God bless Criterion's unabashed love of Michael Bay and Ozu and everyone else in their catalog. Armageddon is NOT the end of the world, more like a whimper. Hah!
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By guest
    January 15, 2012
    10:41 AM

    I have watched Armageddon again just today, and after all these years I have to say there are still only very few movies which can stir up your deepest emotions like this one does. I am nowhere a simpleton when it comes to movies, having appreciated surreal works of art such as Alejandro Jodorowsky's "The Holy Mountain"
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Jamie Stein
    January 18, 2012
    05:02 PM

    Jeanine Basinger is absolutely right - if this movie had been in made 40's and had been directed by someone like John Ford and starred someone like Humphrey Bogart or John Wayne as the tough leader of a motley crew of a bunch of rednecks tasked with saving the world, it would be hailed as a classic today. "Armageddon," unlike so many modern-day event films, has as a true emotional point-of-view. It is also about character. It is also well structured, and incredibly well shot. Is it the best movie of all time? Hardly. Is it a great example of a modern take on the old-fashioned adventure/spectacle film? Absolutely. I have to say it is more skillful and cinematic than a lot of other acclaimed modern entries in the series (ahem, "Chasing Amy," to just name one).
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Jeff
    January 19, 2012
    11:13 AM

    Inclusion in the Criterion Collection does not transform a bad movie into meaningful art. As one of the above comments points out, it's just a dvd company. They restore and release many masterworks of film art that might not otherwise be available. They also put out a handful of mediocre-at-best 'popcorn flicks' (Broadcast News?!). "Armageddon" is Hollywood assembly-line crap. Most major directors, including Bay, have some talent and at least do SOMETHING well. This article is just an advertisement for this release that greatly exaggerates Bay's strengths (or at least their importance).
    Reply

    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

Or using your Criterion.com account.

You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

Categories

RSS

Archive

Month
Year
 
  • All
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
Go

Recent Comments

  • “pharmacy decapper http://legalexclusivepharmacy.com/catalog/Blood_Pressure/Zebeta.htm inala mayfair pharmacy”

    Caggrailla on More BBS Stories,
    about 2 hours ago.

  • “four corners pharmacy http://legalexclusivepharmacy.com/catalog/Blood_Pressure/Revatio.htm west virginia school of pharmacy”

    Caggrailla on One Big Real Place: BBS From Head to Hearts,
    about 2 hours ago.

  • “what is is a pharmacy technician http://legalexclusivepharmacy.com/catalog/Womens_Health/Estrace.htm keystone pharmacy grand rapids michigan”

    clilfusly on One Big Real Place: BBS From Head to Hearts,
    about 2 hours ago.

  • “Vivre Sa Vie, Nights Of Cabiria, The Naked Kiss, Double Suicide, Mona Lisa, Lola, Lola Montes, Maitresse, Pigs & Battleships, and Paris, Texas”

    Chris on The Oldest Profession,
    about 3 hours ago.

  • “I second that. That googly eyed president in Salo is quite possibly up there with the joker in terms of villainy. Manga!!!”

    Joel on 13 of Criterion’s Most Villainous Villains,
    about 3 hours ago.

Newsletter

SIGN UP to receive info on new releases, Top 10 lists, contests, giveaways, and special offers