Critics’ reviews

Armageddon (1998)

13 reviews from 13 publications. Critics’ score 50: 5 positive, 2 mixed, 6 negative.

Back to our review of Armageddon

50
Positive
5
Mixed
2
Negative
6

The reviews split almost evenly, leaning slightly negative. Where critics like it, they like it as spectacle: the scale of the detonations, the asteroid-drilling set pieces, and a supporting cast, Steve Buscemi and Owen Wilson in particular, that keeps the tone knowingly daft. Several doubters concede it is watchable whenever it stops taking itself seriously. Bruce Willis is singled out by admirers as the film’s heart, and Film Comment goes furthest, ranking it as Michael Bay’s finest.

The complaints cluster on Bay’s editing. Variety, the Los Angeles Times and Roger Ebert all find the cutting so rapid that the action becomes incomprehensible and the emotional scenes hollow. The New York Times treats it as jingoistic product rather than a film. The spread is wide, from near-rave to outright dismissal, and it has a shape: the harshest verdicts come from the American dailies of 1998, while later revisits from Time Out and Den of Geek are kinder, taking the silliness as the point.

Film Comment
90*

The critic hails Armageddon as Michael Bay's finest and a crowning achievement and personal guilty pleasure, praising its grand scale, team of macho drillers, and the joyful, lulling quality of its chaotic asteroid-drilling sequences.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
25 June 1998 · Duane Byrge
85*

The critic calls it a dazzling, warp-speed blockbuster and smart, polished entertainment that exceeds typical FX/disaster film expectations. He singles out the expert scripting by Jonathan Hensleigh, J.J. Abrams and uncredited contributors, along with Michael Bay’s confident direction that balances action, visuals and personal moments.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
6 July 1998 · Daphne Merkin
70*

The critic half-likes the film despite initial reluctance, finding its visual spectacle awe-inspiring even as the plotting in the final act defies explanation. She singles out the brilliantly orchestrated detonations and the director's kinetic style for comment.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Angie Errigo
65*

The film is a doomsday countdown spectacle of extreme tosh from Bruckheimer and Bay that delivers more big bangs than its rival Deep Impact. It offers a million laughs, many unintentional, and stands as the silliest but best-shot popcorn movie in a dismal summer.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · TCh
60*

The critic calls the film idiotic yet smart enough to relish its own lunkhead bravado, with Willis leading drillers on a mission to plant nuclear bombs inside an asteroid. It praises the sterling supporting cast and tongue-in-cheek tone while noting that Bay cannot sell sincerity and the lovey-dovey scenes are hokey.

Read the full review →
Total Film
7 August 1998
40*

Big explosions and over-the-top characterisations deliver thrilling set pieces perfect for excitable 12-year-olds, but the plot-free second half fails to deliver satisfying payoff or linear storytelling. It amounts to a $140 million pizza-and-six-pack film rather than a worthy action classic.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
1 July 1998 · Kenneth Turan
30*

The critic finds the film big and clumsy, sporadically watchable in moments when it does not take itself seriously, but ultimately undone by its grandiosity, frantic editing that obscures the action, and weak emotional elements.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
4 April 2002 · Keith Phipps
30*

The critic finds the film an assault on the senses with little substance beyond explosions and quick cuts, criticizing its incoherence, clichés, and disposability while noting it distracts from its many flaws.

Read the full review →
Variety
24 June 1998 · Todd McCarthy
30*

The critic finds the film effects-obsessed and dramatically benumbed, with incoherent staging and an editing style that amounts to a sensory pummeling. He singles out the lack of dramatic rhythm or character development as resulting directly from the director's cutting style.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
1 July 1998 · Roger Ebert
10*

The critic calls the film an assault on the senses, loud, ugly and fragmented, with a ridiculous plot full of cliches and editing so rapid that action sequences are incomprehensible.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
1 July 1998 · Janet Maslin
10*

The critic views the film as an overblown, jingoistic product rather than a coherent movie, with no believable moments and embarrassingly hollow heroics. She singles out the comparison to Apollo 13 as a real film about courage in space.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
19 January 2001 · Angus Wolfe Murray
75*

The critic finds the film energetic and committed, going for broke without apologies and believing in itself. He praises the witty script and the ad-libbing from Steve Buscemi and Owen Wilson but complains about an overused slo-mo cliché.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
29 November 2012 · Lisa Bernier
70*

The critic calls Armageddon a highly entertaining popcorn disaster movie that delivers laughs, tears, memorable lines from its supporting cast, and strong emotional moments alongside its over-the-top action and absurdity. Bruce Willis is singled out for praise as the film's heart and heroic everyman.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate