Review of Armored (2009) by Kerry T — 12 Aug 2010
Not a "bad" film but a low budget "B" film.
What is disappointing are some of the holes in the plot, the ending is tame, which is some ways is this film's problem. It's all a bit obvious. I heard that the story was changed, but no sympathy here, because if a scriptwriter is good they should know the characters and be able to still enthrall and make it work, even if the ending is changed. That was not the case here. It looked like he wrote it but couldn't adapt to the changed wanted/needed.
What is really the biggest surprise since you have Fishburne and Reno, yet they are hardly used. In fact Reno must have all of 6 lines of dialog (no I didn't count).
Fishburn tried hard and get get over the 'nut job/ not all there / agression' of his character but just managed a fraction of what he is capable of, as again his screen time is minimal.
To me the worst part of this film is what's not seen. That being there were really experienced actors on it and then to see that just plain go to waste.
Your left too much seeing it as a small movie, with little cameos here and there. But the script is not strong enough to give actors what they need to really act, and not strong enough to make this film really a good one for us to watch.
A real missed opportunity.
This review of Armored (2009) was written by Kerry T on 12 Aug 2010.
Armored has generally received mixed reviews.
Was this review helpful?
