Armor

Alright ... I know some peoples may say its a bit of in bad taste as Bruce Willis may had known he was sick and just decided to make as many movie (and dollars) as he could before it was too late, but he often had low effort performances in low budget DTV movies in the last 7-8 years of his career and that whats Stallone in this remind me.

Don't get me wrong. I love Tulsa King and i do think Stallone can still be pretty good on screen even tough he is approaching 80 years old. Of course at one point at that age the action roles may dry up, but he still has presence. He still look cool and badass.

But this movie... it just feel like they knew putting his name on it would sell it because otherwise NOBODY would had watch this.

The movie is not horrible ... Its not an action movie at all, more like a "thriller" (and i use it loosely) and there is some interesting parts between the father and son dynamic. But despite these characters being somewhat likable, you wonder how they could stretch this into a 90 minutes movie.

This could had been a 40 minute short (or an episode of a TV show) and it would had made sense. But the plot is way too thin to go 90 minutes and there is obvious flaws you gonna spot on the bad guys not being able to break in.

Very minimal use of CGI but you can spot it very easily when it happen, wich show the budget was VERY low.

If Stallone's name was not on it, this movie would had hardly be rent or bough by much peoples. Fan of him or not, you can skip it.

Fun Facts about Armor:

Stallone was paid $3.5 million for one day's work.

Justin Routt didn't direct a thing," said Steve Noell, the prop master on "Armor." "He was just there. Randall Emmett was the one who called all the shots."

Justin Routt was listed as director on the call sheet when Stallone arrived for his single day of shooting. That morning, around 7:10, Randall Emmett approached several of the filmmakers as they were preparing for the day, including the director of photography, according to multiple crew members.

When Stallone got there, Randall asked the DP to come in and talk to Sly with him," said one person who was on set that day. "He said, 'Sly doesn't quite know that I'm directing this. I want you to back me up that this film shoot is going poorly and I need to take over the ship.'"

Initially, producers told Mississippi officials that "Armor" would be a 15-day film shoot, documents show. Then producers cut it to 10 days, knowledgeable people said. Shooting abruptly wrapped on the ninth day.

I decided to give this a go when I first checked the average rating and it was just over 5/10, as I'm a fan of Sly.

After coming back to review this mess after seeing it and notice the average rating is now down to 3.7/10, that's still too high. I just checked what the actual critics rated this mess on RT, and I can't say I've ever seen the Tomatometer from 16 critics show 0%! I should have checked RT first before wasting time seeing this joke of a movie.

For starters, a fifth grade drama class can write and direct a better and more believable story. The filmmakers also clearly didn't do their research (even a quick Google search would've helped!) on protocols and procedures and what to do/not do when armored drivers are in a situation, because everything they did in this movie was laughably wrong and unrealistic.

Next you have a large team of well equipped and (seemingly) prepared heist team that are clearly clueless when the time comes for the heist. A bunch of kids could've had that truck open faster.

The directing was worse than amateur hour, even when apparently (according to the movie's Wikipedia page) the listed director Justin Routt was just a pawn for the more experienced producer and actual director, Randall Emmett, which would explain why this mess was so bad, as his last bunch of films were rated similar to this. Not sure why Emmett pulled this stunt,, but clearly his cast and crew were not happy, and that dynamic was clearly visible in this production.

The writing simply had no main plot. It was three side stories, none of which had any relation to each other and the actual heist.

Even with the normally comfortable and short 99 min runtime, this felt much longer and boring when none of the boring and pointless side stories added anything to the movie's main story. It was just ongoing verbal diarrhea of useless family drama.

It's a generous 2/10, all going to Sly for doing his best with the nonsense he was given to work with.

James Broody (Jason Patric) and his son Casey (Josh Wiggins) drive an old armor truck in the deep south. James is a ex-cop who is still haunted by the lost of his wife. They are attacked by a robbery crew led by Rook (Sylvester Stallone) with hothead Smoke (Dash Mihok).

This is lowly rated. It's even lower than I expected and that's interesting. It's a big name in an obvious B-movie syndrome. Sly has a TV show and he could probably do better than this movie. With the decline of cinema, this is one of those mid-tier 90's thrillers that is going out of business or being downgraded to B-movies. This movie is obviously done on the cheap. There are good actors, but the seams are showing. The writing is thin. The plot is a bare minimum. The action has some good moments but plenty of nitpicks. I can write off the fake gunfight for safety reason. The fake underwater work is simply bad. They shouldn't show it if they can't film it. It should be a waiting sequence where the audience waits for the heads to pop up. The big name in small movie syndrome really hits this one hard. I've seen much worst B-movies.

Phew, this film is not easy to sit through. The characters are utterly interchangeable, and the storyline couldn't be simpler. Then, at the 32-minute mark, the horribly bad CGI effects hit, with every weapon and explosion clearly coming straight from a computer. The visual cringe was so intense that it burned into my retina, and at that point, I knew the film wasn't going to get any better.

It's puzzling why Sylvester Stallone even agreed to be in this. It feels like a cash grab, using his name and face to draw in an audience. The film's lack of substance and reliance on cheap effects left me wondering if anyone involved cared about the final product at all.

Given everything, I can't bring myself to rate it higher than 2/10. It's hard to find anything redeeming about it, and I certainly won't be watching it again.