Armored

Really bad. A terrible beginning 20 minutes where they rush through who all these guys are (every character is a giant cliche) with some of the worst, most unengaging dialog I've ever heard. Laurence Fishburne is particularly awful, as is Amaury Nolasco, giving one of the worst performances I've ever seen. The plot hole in the end was too huge to ignore. Incredibly stupid, even the car chase was terrible.

Simply a very uninspired and low budget thriller. Though there's some talent in here with Laurence Fishburne and Matt Dillon none of it feels like it's put to any real use. I wouldn't call the movie flat out bad, however the spiral from "successful robbery" to "things have gone insane" just feels too forced as everyone involved seems to quickly lose all their moral scruples. Honestly you can give this a miss without having your film repertoire suffering.

Easily run through "best laid plan" variation. The gig was nothing interesting, none of character built anything to grab on and though there was interesting cast, none of them made any mentionable role. Good ending titles. Points for that.

Why exactly would you want to include a morally upstanding former soldier in your devious armored car robbery? "Armored" does however deserve points for actually using a shitload of armor. I mean: That truck is pretty f-ing solid.

Huh, guess I gotta go against the grain here - I thought it was alright. Predictable, yes, but also inventive, violent, personal in scope, and, indeed, thrilling, pretty much what I ask a thriller to be. Lightning-paced, too; once the heist started the rest felt like it flew by in ten minutes. And at risk of sounding PC, I thought it was cool to see a mainstream action flick with a non-white and non-A-list lead. Don't think that happens but once every few years.

Better than I expected, but I expected it to be shit. It's really nothing special at all, and brings nothing new to the action/thriller genre (besides the use of an armored car as the central theme, never seen that before). Laurence Fishburne was really bad in this, but I think he's overrated as an actor anyway. I don't think it's as bad as the vast majority seem to think, but I'm not going to start recommending it to people.

Wonder what its like to follow every action cliche, have EVERY character do exactly what you think they'll do and top that off with dialogue seemingly written by a child who is failing English. Never mind, I've seen 'Armored'.

A hilariously inept heist gone wrong film full of deep plot holes and miscasting. Apparently the writer never watched a heist film in his entire life and can't create a dramatic nor action scenario that doesn't involve characters freaking out and doing stupid shit. There's no earthly reason for Reno or Fishburne to be in this. They look completely out of place and the acting is weak all around. Dillon alternates between a weary or angry hound dog face. Nolasco acts like he's on Prison Break.

No one's getting hurt MY BUTT.

Crap. A potentially decent action thriller with good cast and a somewhat cool premise is torn to shreds by the film's annoyingly good "hero" who gets every other good guy in the film either shot or seriously maimed. I wanna watch Dillon and Ulrich and Reno and Fishburne get the money and win, not dying in a lame manner just because the "hero" manages to stay hidden in the "armored" truck for god damned 88 minutes. Not recommended.

Worst movie of 2009.

A thoroughly predictable and not very satisfying thriller. The film starts with a standard heist setup, but takes too long doing so without including anything new or interesting. Once the actual action starts, the plot turns range from obvious to completely nonsensical. Dillon and Short both seem miscast, and the script doesn't give any of the characters anything meaningful to do or say outside of the usual heist cliches.

The action sucked, although there were a couple of surprises in this mostly predictable low-budget thriller. Terrible writing though; all the characters are totally disposable and the entire movie is shot in the most low-cost possible locations. Not worth watching.

eng; [armored]; der neue mann einer gruppe von sicherheitsdienstlern soll bei einem raubzug mithelfen - doch der sichere plan geht mehr als schief und spaltet die gruppe.;

Most of the points I'm giving is for the characters. The hero had numerous layers, which you don't always find in siege movies: badass and well trained but humane and kind, smart and yet had real fears, trying his best with his relative, and so on. The action still had it's moments. The rest of the cast was oddly made out of known names playing limited parts.

The set-up scenes have some texture, at least, but then the ridiculous thriller crap starts and...surely you can find something better to watch.

Not terrible, but it's just a forgettable, generic crime drama starring only the best of the B-list actors.

A straight to video thriller which wastes a good half hour of it's short run-time so even at 87 minutes it feels too long. The dialogue is atrocious and the casting is baffling - what the hell are these actors doing in a film with each other, what the hell are they doing in this film?

It wasn't completely horrible. Well, the plot was bad. And they made it last pretty long. But the one vs many I thought worked well, with some pseudo-known people.

Great cast. Matt Dillon, Laurence Fishburne, Jean Reno all bad guys, and Columbus Short the good guy. A simple heist where nobody gets hurt, only it's never quite that simple when things go wrong and then violence escalates. A psychological thriller of people signing up for more than they bargained for. Music was a bit boring, and the plot had big holes, such as where did the explosives come from, but what the heck, they told a clever story even if it was faked up a bit.

Good cast, photography and art direction in one of the worst scripts I've ever seen.

5+ pretty good

Nope.

I can't believe I thought it would be good.

As in Vacancy, Antal's in full lockdown mode here. Minimal isolated set, plotting like a slide puzzle, casualties like a shopping list, the comically circuitous car chase that ends up exactly where it started. I appreciate the focus on sound at least, between the alarm, the hinge pins and dialogue alterations around the truck. But this is all economy all the time, and ends up looking a little broke for it.

Enjoyable, sort of "Reservoir Dogs"-esque, but too politically correct to be that good. And without the cool dialog.

A very nice start, where it's really working the tension and looking to be a refined thriller, but then it turns into a more classic kind of nutty action movie

Laughed when Ventimiglia went all Stallone on us.

GOOD: The veteran actors do alright, but are basically sleepwalking through it - BAD: Waste of good actors, main actor (Young Black guy) is a terrible actor and hogs like 80% of the screen-time, ending is horribly unrealistic (they really let him off?)

Bad Movie

This is a heist film where I just couldn't get into the heist or the action.

Decent directing and a good idea that's ruined by some bad writing. There are many good actors but somehow the worst actors have the biggest roles.

Briskly entertaining and entirely forgettable, "Armored" is a 90-minute thriller full of scenes played out in other movies, probably better ones, but also some worse ones too. It's easy to write off Nimrod Antal's film because it feels like an action film pedigree, but it also has a handful of talented actors in a movie that provides a pleasant distraction to get caught up in and discard at one's leisure. The ending leaves a fuzzy floating moral cloud, but I can't say the movie left me bored.

Too slow, but a good story; worth a rental look.

Shitty movie. Didn't care about the guy so why would I wanna see him fuck it up for everybody.

"There's no bad guys, only good guys": an inside job among armored-car guards, thoroughly and lethally botched. Compact caper film, all business, worked out with an overabundance of closeups and occasional cracks in credibility.