Depois de descobrir que um asteróide do tamanho do Texas vai impactar a Terra em menos de um mês, a N.A.S.A. recruta uma equipe para salvar o planeta.Depois de descobrir que um asteróide do tamanho do Texas vai impactar a Terra em menos de um mês, a N.A.S.A. recruta uma equipe para salvar o planeta.Depois de descobrir que um asteróide do tamanho do Texas vai impactar a Terra em menos de um mês, a N.A.S.A. recruta uma equipe para salvar o planeta.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Indicado a 4 Oscars
- 15 vitórias e 41 indicações no total
Ken Hudson Campbell
- Max
- (as Ken Campbell)
Clark Heathcliff Brolly
- Noonan
- (as Clark Brolly)
Marshall R. Teague
- Colonel Davis
- (as Marshall Teague)
Avaliações em destaque
Beastly movie on so many different levels. action, intensity, suspense, creativity, acting (mostly), likable characters, comedy, music, emotional parts, love story, getting you emotionally invested. never once bored on a 2.5 hour movie. you definitely have to turn your brain off, but if you do, you'll have a great time. and this movie gives me the feels. hard core. numerous times. (about 5 viewings, 6/30/2020)
This movie is my ultimate guilty pleasure. It's inane, manipulative, has hyperactive cutting, a ton of glaring inaccuracies (pointless to even discuss or debate), and probably 29 other glaring faults. And why in every dramatic slow-mo emo shot are there 3 helicopters flying in unison overhead? What's the point of having 3 helicopters flying really close together? Who cares! It looks cool. If one day I am having a heartfelt talk with my daughter, I hope there are 3 helicopters flying overhead to really 'bring it home' (and Aerosmith performing in the background.)
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.
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.
Typical Michael Bay movie, lots of action and things explode really for no reason. It's still a fun flick. So many actors in it.
After discovering that an asteroid the size of Texas is going to impact Earth in less than a month, NASA recruits a misfit team of deep core drillers to save the planet.
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 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.
This could have been super but, as with the case of most modern action films, the action is way overdone. Still, it had its moments.....
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.
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.
Você sabia?
- 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.
- Erros de gravaçãoDrillers 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.
- Citações
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!
- Cenas durante ou pós-créditosPortions of the video of Grace Stamper and A.J. Frost's wedding are shown during the final credits.
- Versões 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.
- Trilhas sonorasI Don't Want to Miss a Thing
Written by Diane Warren
Performed by Aerosmith
Courtesy of Columbia Records
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Idiomas
- Também conhecido como
- Ngày Tận Thế
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 140.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 201.578.182
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 36.089.972
- 5 de jul. de 1998
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 553.712.773
- Tempo de duração
- 2 h 31 min(151 min)
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 2.39 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente