Critics’ reviews

Armageddon (1998)

9 reviews from 9 publications. Critics’ score 48: 2 positive, 2 mixed, 4 negative.

Back to our review of Armageddon

48
Positive
2
Mixed
2
Negative
4

The reviews lean negative on Armageddon, though even some detractors find pleasure in its explosions, effects and cast. Praise clusters around the scale of the spectacle and the performers’ ability to make the mission entertaining despite its absurdity. More receptive critics enjoy the loud bravado, humour and action without asking for much plausibility. For them, the film’s willingness to be ridiculous helps it along, while its attempts at sincere romance are harder to accept.

The sharpest objections concern frantic editing, confused action and characters given too little development. The spread is wide: critics disagree not just about whether the spectacle compensates for the storytelling, but about whether the storytelling works at all. The Hollywood Reporter praises the scripting and direction, finding Bruce Willis credible as an ordinary man turned hero. Variety finds the film dramatically numb and incoherent, with the editing turning its effects into an ordeal.

Empire
1 January 2000 · Angie Errigo
70*

The critic describes the film as extreme tosh full of posturing, vulgarity and cheap sentiment but credits its non-stop big bangs and action set-pieces. It is called the silliest but still the best popcorn movie of a dismal summer.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · TCh
65*

The critic describes the film as idiotic yet smart enough to embrace its own loud, boorish bravado in a last-ditch mission to save Earth. The supporting cast and tongue-in-cheek tone are highlighted positively, while sincerity in romantic scenes is called out as a weakness.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
6 July 1998 · Daphne Merkin
60*

The critic went to see the film only under protest but found herself half liking it for its visual spectacle and dazzling effects. She singles out the awe-inspiring CGI and orchestrated detonations while noting the chaotic, jumpy camera work and convoluted plot.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
1 July 1998 · Kenneth Turan
40*

The critic indicates the film is not aimed at his demographic, highlighting its loud, roughneck-led asteroid-saving premise and prologue about past extinctions. He focuses on the setup involving Bruce Willis's character and the high-stakes NASA mission.

Read the full review →
Total Film
7 August 1998
35*

The critic praises the exhilarating explosive opening, engaging cast, sparky dialogue and astonishing effects but faults the over-editing, lack of coherent plot and confusing modular action sequences in the second half. It is seen as mindless fodder mainly for excitable youngsters.

Read the full review →
Variety
24 June 1998 · Todd McCarthy
25*

The critic finds the effects-obsessed film dramatically benumbed and incoherent due to Bay's frantic editing style that amounts to a sensory pummeling. He singles out the lack of character development and the ludicrous team of miscreants assembled for the mission.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
1 July 1998 · Janet Maslin
20*

The critic views the film as more a product of salesmanship than a coherent movie, with expensive bombast that fails to inspire and contains no believable moments. She singles out the hollow gung-ho heroics and contrasts it unfavorably with Apollo 13.

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

The critic calls the film a dazzling, smart, polished blockbuster that exceeds expectations for FX-driven disaster movies, with expert scripting, masterful direction by Bay, and strong performances led by Willis as a credible everyman hero.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
29 November 2012 · Lisa Bernier
80*

The critic calls Armageddon a fun, quotable popcorn disaster movie that delivers laughs, cheers, tears, and catharsis through its ragtag crew of oil drillers, memorable supporting performances (especially Bruce Willis), big explosions, and emotional beats like the sing-along and sacrifices.

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