Back in 1998 Bruce Willis and Morgan Freeman saved us from two separate asteroids. The release of “Deep Impact” and “Armageddon” that year saw dueling blockbusters go head to head in one of those odd moments where two films about the same thing arrive at the same time. Roger Ebert wasn’t really a fan of either, but he absolutely hated “Armageddon.” The critic sent out one of his harshest reviews to intercept Michael Bay’s blockbuster, claiming that it made “Deep Impact” look like it belonged on the American Film Institute list.

“Armageddon” is a ridiculous movie that knows it’s ridiculous. Nevertheless, critics weren’t having it. Not only did the film earn multiple Golden Raspberry nominations (though it’s long since been time to retire the Razzies forever) reviewers just couldn’t seem to get on with its editing style and criticized Bay for making a film that looked spectacular but that was intellectually as vacuous as space itself. In the years since, however, plenty of “Armageddon” defenders have come to the fore and there’s no taking away from the fact that it was a box office success, making $553.7 million on a $140 million budget.

Nevertheless, it remains on Roger Ebert’s most hated films list, with the critic giving “Armageddon” just a single star and describing it as “the first 150-minute trailer.” But it wasn’t just the editing that had Ebert up in arms. He also tore Bay’s movie to shreds for everything from its unoriginal ideas to its lack of realism.

“Armageddon” was the biggest movie of 1998 at the box office and remains the quintessential ’90s Hollywood blockbuster. It’s the kind of movie “The Simpsons” would parody with glee — an unapologetically bombastic spectacle that doesn’t make much sense but is a lot of fun if you go in expecting as much. Roger Ebert clearly didn’t. Or perhaps he found Michael Bay’s big screen antics even worse than he’d expected.

If you’re yet to catch up with this surprisingly divisive film, it stars Bruce Willis as an oil driller who’s recruited by NASA to fly into space and plant a bomb at the center of an asteroid the size of Texas. That asteroid is hurtling towards Earth and Willis’ Harry Stamper and his team are the only people with enough knowledge of, er, drilling stuff to stop it. That’s basically the premise, and it makes for one heck of a big screen disaster film. As far as Ebert was concerned, however, “Armageddon” really did signal the end of the world.

“‘Armageddon’ is cut together like its own highlights,” wrote the critic in his review. “Take almost any 30 seconds at random, and you’d have a TV ad. The movie is an assault on the eyes, the ears, the brain, common sense and the human desire to be entertained.” That’s about as harsh as Ebert ever got, aside from when he walked out of an Oscar-winning war movie. Yet, the film still managed one star. Ebert was known for simply eschewing the star system for films he truly hated, bestowing a mere “thumbs down” on the truly contemptible features. For whatever reason he didn’t do that for “Armageddon,” which is surprising because he really, really hated this film.

In his “Armageddon” review, Roger Ebert didn’t just take Michael Bay to task for editing style. He also questioned the logic behind the movie’s entire premise. “OK, say you do succeed in blowing up an asteroid the size of Texas,” he wrote. “What if a piece the size of Dallas is left?” Therein lies the issue. Ebert was clearly trying to apply logic to this film, when Bay was concerned with anything but. As the director told the New York Times, “‘Armageddon’ is like a total fantasy for a 15-year-old. It’s funny — when the critics tried to review ‘Armageddon.’ I mean, relax, it’s a popcorn movie. It’s not supposed to be taken seriously. It’s a fantasy world.”

This was a fantasy world Ebert didn’t want to be in. The critic went on to decry the “off the shelf” characters and concepts in the movie, claiming there was “hardly an original idea” on display. He also detested the dialogue, writing, “‘It’s gonna blow!’ is used so many times, I wonder if every single writer used it once, and then sat back from his word processor with a contented smile on his face, another day’s work done.”

So disturbed by “Armageddon” was Ebert that he even attacked the trope of the ticking bomb, asking whether bomb designers added red digital displays to their creations “for the convenience of interested onlookers who happen to be standing next to a bomb.” It’s ridiculous, sure, but this is a widely accepted trope of schlocky Hollywood blockbusters, and was no more egregious here than in any similar movies. Regardless, Ebert’s constant questioning of the movie’s logic sort of backfired when in 2021 we learned that the plot of “Armageddon” is actually possible according to science.