Tuesday, 11 October 2011



What I liked about this was how it got on with it and didn't 'pad it out' like 'Inside Man' did. That film could have been shorter and more eventful, whereas 'Armored' was a good example of what 'Inside Man' should have been like. It was 85 minutes long and wasn't boring at any time.

It kept me thinking about what would happen and was highly unpredictable with a shock factor in the film. It also had plenty of action and suspense which 'Inside Man' was lacking in. The main character was also more likeable than Denzel Washington was in 'Inside Man' and he had a bit more personality about him, with a better motivation, hence a much better back- story.

The other characters were additonally more interesting, they twisted and turned and, again, had more personality than the characters in 'Inside Man'. The reason I'm comparing these two films so much is because I've watched them both within 3 days of each other and they are very similar sort of films.

It's weakness, or where it could have been better, was by having another scene where a difficult situation takes place as I think too much of the film takes place in the abandoned warehouse, and it would have been better if there had been another setting.

This was a 7/10 and the best thing about it was the time of it, 1 hour and 25 minutes of suspense, tension and action- just what a good thriller needs to be. It didn't pad it out with pointless, boring scenes, it just got on with it.

No comments:

Post a Comment