Tras descubrir que un asteroide del tamaño de Texas va a impactar contra la Tierra en menos de un mes, la NASA recluta a un equipo inadaptado de perforadores de núcleo profundo para salvar e... Leer todoTras descubrir que un asteroide del tamaño de Texas va a impactar contra la Tierra en menos de un mes, la NASA recluta a un equipo inadaptado de perforadores de núcleo profundo para salvar el planeta.Tras descubrir que un asteroide del tamaño de Texas va a impactar contra la Tierra en menos de un mes, la NASA recluta a un equipo inadaptado de perforadores de núcleo profundo para salvar el planeta.
- Dirección
- Guión
- Reparto principal
- Nominado para 4 premios Óscar
- 15 premios y 41 nominaciones en total
- Max
- (as Ken Campbell)
- Noonan
- (as Clark Brolly)
- Colonel Davis
- (as Marshall Teague)
Reseñas destacadas
Despite it all, I still love watching this movie. Anytime it is on TV I can watch it 'til the end. Bruce Willis does a great job doing his Bruce Willis 'thing' (smart alecky tough guy), and the supporting cast is really great. Steve Buschemi in particular gets the best lines. An awesome assortment of ragtag castoffs (spitting funny one-liners) must save the world- who would have thunk it?
I think Armageddon was actually conceived by suits in a studio office (no really, I read that in a magazine), which is I guess another strike against it. Yet only a bunch of suits could come up with a 'high concept' like this (so high it's basically a parody by itself.) And only a director like Michael Bay could make it. He's far more suited to these types of movies, rather than big historical epics like PEARL HARBOR (which I really, really disliked.)
I read somewhere once that this movie is as close as Hollywood gets to pure cinema, in that it is basically completely divorced from reality of any kind. Is that good or bad? I don't know. I do think if you're going to ditch convention and any semblance to reality, you may as well go all the way. It's better than having something that is a confused mess that tries to be different things (Pearl Harbor.) There will be no 'it could really happen!' here.
So after all this, believe it or not I am going to give this movie a big fat whopping 8. Why? Because IMO it unabashedly succeeds at what it tries to set out to be, whatever that is. That makes no sense, since I am basically saying by all logical accounts this movie may actually suck, yet I am giving it a 8. But hey I loved this movie.
The story follows a group of oil drillers sent by NASA to stop an asteroid that will strike the world in eighteen days. The drillers are taught and trained to become astronauts (in a very comedic scene) and then sent to the asteroid to drop the nukes and blow it up. After that, a whole lot goes wrong.
I loved this movie, and I hate how everyone's been calling it 'mindless action'. It's not mindless, it's actually very dramatic. The acting is great from pretty much all accounts, even Ben Affleck does a good job.
Bruce Willis captures the 'reluctant hero' role, and Liv Tyler does well as his daughter. Steve Buscemi delivers a great comedic performance as the genius who goes insane once they land on the asteroid.
Great, funny, intense, dramatic movie. 8/10.
The real mystery surrounding this film is how it got released by the Criterion Collection. Both this film and Michael Bay's "The Rock" received the Criterion treatment at one time. And while both are very enjoyable films, do they really belong with Criterion? I feel that by merely being released by them, there is an added importance stamped on the film.
But as far as guilty pleasures go, this is a fun and entertaining film. I could do without the romance angle, but the idea of blowing up an asteroid before it hits earth (which assumes a lot of questionable science) is just classic science fiction, here given more legitimacy and budget than ever before.
THE BAD -One word describes a lot of scenes in here: chaos. Things are blown up all over the place, people are shouting everywhere. It gets to be too much, especially in the last hour which gets ludicrous. You practically have a headache when you're finished watching the 150 minutes of mayhem.
Half of the disasters that happen to the astronauts were not needed, and many of them come one after the other. It wound up muddling the story. Do today's filmmakers think you have to have something dramatic and loud every two minutes to keep their audiences? And talk about loud.....holy eardrums, Bataman, you could be deaf listening to this movie which includes a lot of loud heavy-metal "music." It's too noisy.
There are touches of "Independence Day" mentality with very unrealistic with a veteran astronaut smuggling a gun on board a ship; the daughter of the one of the astronauts barging into the command center and shoving the center's leader in the middle of a crisis (in reality, she wouldn't be allowed in the room to begin with); and the usual last-second impossible heroics. I mean, sometimes I swear I was watching a movie made specifically for morons. Speaking of stupid, what was that goofy cosmonaut character (Peter Stormare) all about. That's just another example of what I was just talking about - totally unrealistic people. Why does Hollywood like to portray astronauts - some of the classiest, most educated and reserved people in the world - in such a negative light? Just another of its sicknesses, I guess where good is bad and bad is good.
THE GOOD - What was great to watch in this film were the special-effects, especially the disaster scenes with the meteors hitting the earth. They were spectacular. A few of the panoramic scenes in here were beautiful, too. (This is a must for widescreen DVD.)
There is a good mix of humor in this adventure thriller. That humor makes some of the characters likable, even though they are still unrealistically sleazy heroes. Steve Buscemi had most of the good comedic lines. I liked Billy Bob Thornton as the NASA boss. He's very interesting to watch. Bruce Willis plays his normal macho-hero role. His heroic effort in the end is nicely sentimental. The special-effects, as mentioned earlier, were perhaps the best right in the first 5-10 minutes of the film - a real attention-grabber right off the bat. Actually, the first half of this film is far better than the second half.
¿Sabías que...?
- CuriosidadesNASA shows this film during their management training program. New managers are given the task of trying to spot as many errors as possible. At least 168 have been found.
- PifiasDrillers would never use steel cutters on pipe in a hole with known gas pocket/gas residue. Instead, in a situation with known gas pocket/gas residue, brass cutters are used because they don't spark and therefore wouldn't run the risk of igniting the residual gas from gas pocket.
- Citas
Lev Andropov: It's stuck, yes?
Watts: Back off! You don't know the components!
Lev Andropov: [annoyed] Components. American components, Russian Components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!
- Créditos adicionalesPortions of the video of Grace Stamper and A.J. Frost's wedding are shown during the final credits.
- Versiones alternativasCriterion's two-DVDs version features the longer director's cut with added dialogue and footage, including a scene between Harry Stamper and his father (played by Lawrence Tierney.) A second DVD with supplemental material is included, with additional deleted scenes, outtakes and bloopers.
- Banda sonoraI Don't Want to Miss a Thing
Written by Diane Warren
Performed by Aerosmith
Courtesy of Columbia Records
Selecciones populares
- How long is Armageddon?Con tecnología de Alexa
- Why did Colonel Sharp salute Colonel Davis at the orbital station meeting and Davis didn't? Was that because he's older?
- Why couldn't the "smartest man on the planet" figure out that the cams were backwards?
- Does Karl have his own observatory?
Detalles
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- 140.000.000 US$ (estimación)
- Recaudación en Estados Unidos y Canadá
- 201.578.182 US$
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- 36.089.972 US$
- 5 jul 1998
- Recaudación en todo el mundo
- 553.712.773 US$
- Duración2 horas 31 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.39 : 1