Published on
A couple of weeks ago, I came across the trailer for Sylvester Stallone’s latest movie, “Armor.” Most of the footage in the trailer seemed confined to a single location, which made me suspect it might be a low-budget production. Still, the plot intrigued me—father and son security guards defending their armored car against an army of robbers. It felt like a throwback to the high-concept action flicks of the ’90s, so my interest was piqued.
But then the credits rolled, and I saw the dreaded words: “Produced by Randall Emmett”. That’s when it hit me—I’d been duped into watching a bona fide “geezer teaser”.
For those unfamiliar with the concept of the “geezer teaser“, it refers to a specific type of low-budget action movie that heavily markets itself around the appearance of a well-known, aging Hollywood star—often someone like Bruce Willis, Steven Seagal, or Sylvester Stallone. These films lure viewers in with flashy trailers and posters featuring these iconic actors, but the reality is often disappointing. The “star” typically has minimal screen time, with the bulk of the movie relying on a less famous or up-and-coming cast to carry the story. The term has become synonymous with cheaply made films that trade on nostalgia and name recognition rather than quality storytelling or production values. No name is more closely tied to this genre than producer Randall Emmett, whose entire business model revolves around churning out these low-effort, high-recognition cash grabs.
“Armor” follows a father and son working as security guards for an armored truck company who are ambushed by a group of robbers while crossing a remote bridge. Trapped and cut off from assistance, they must devise a strategy to escape the situation and protect themselves, leading to a tense confrontation with their attackers.
The plot had me curious about how they’d stretch it to fill the movie’s brief 89-minute runtime. With the right execution, a simple premise like this can serve as the foundation for a solid film—”Phone Booth” is a great example of that. However, pulling it off requires a smart script and a skilled director to elevate the material. Unfortunately, as a low-budget production, “Armor” lacks talent both behind and in front of the camera, and the result is a pretty bad movie.
The most glaring issue with “Armor” is how much padding it contains. It takes nearly 30 minutes for the film to reach its central premise: the armored car being boxed in on the bridge by the criminals. What follows is an extended standoff, with the security guards holed up in the back of the truck while Stallone and his crew attempt to break in. To fill the runtime, the movie leans heavily on lengthy flashbacks and forced emotional beats, exploring the father’s struggles as a recovering alcoholic grappling with the trauma of his wife’s death in a car accident. These elements feel more like filler than meaningful character development, dragging down the pace and diluting the tension.
The biggest issue with “Armor” is the giant plot hole that looms over the entire story. Armored car heists, by their very nature, need to be quick and discreet. It’s widely known that these vehicles are equipped with GPS trackers and are closely monitored in real-time. If an armored truck were to stop moving unexpectedly, alarms would immediately be raised, and the police would be alerted. Yet in “Armor”, these critical details are entirely ignored. There’s no mention of GPS trackers, no communication between the security guards and an external monitoring service, and inexplicably, no sign of police until the end credits. The standoff on the bridge drags on for what feels like an eternity, with no law enforcement or even a passing bystander to break the tension. This glaring oversight undermines the entire premise.
As the lead, Jason Patric puts in an earnest effort, taking the material seriously and attempting to bring depth to his recovering-alcoholic character, despite the trope feeling overdone. In a rare turn as an antagonist, Sylvester Stallone appears to phone it in, though to be fair, the script doesn’t give him much to work with. While he gets plenty of screen time, it’s painfully obvious that his scenes were filmed in one, maybe two days at most. Certain moments make this clear, such as when a henchman is drilling into the truck, and Stallone steps into frame just to deliver a flat “keep going” before exiting again. The rest of the cast is utterly forgettable, apart from a few performances that stand out only for their impressive levels of overacting.
Unsurprisingly, the special effects in “Armor” are abysmal, right down to the gunfire. The muzzle flashes are clearly added in post-production, as are all the bullet impacts on the armored car. At one point, a character is on fire, but the flames are so obviously superimposed that it’s laughable. The pièce de résistance of the terrible effects, however, comes at the film’s climax, when the armored car plunges off the bridge into the water. Instead of using practical effects or real water, every drop is CGI. The “underwater” scenes are hilariously bad, with what looks like a stock water texture layered over the original footage. This transforms the supposedly tense final 15 minutes into an unintentional comedy. To top it off, Stallone’s character gets a tacked-on redemption arc, which only adds to the absurdity.
I never had high hopes for “Armor”, but it still managed to catch me off guard with just how bad it turned out. With Stallone nearing 80, it might be time for him to consider taking on different roles—or perhaps even start thinking about retirement. His passive involvement in the action in both this film and “Expendables 4” really highlights that he’s past his prime when it comes to leading action movies.
You’ve had a great run, Sly, but it’s time to pass the baton.
