Thanks - now where can I find myself a bit of that industry hype? |
Well to be fair, the writer did well in the Nicholls competition before Armored and did well enough to attract the attention of a couple of Producers. They were the ones who pitched Armored to the studioes.
It's all about opening some doors isn't it, at the end of the day?
Also, I've not read the script, so I'll be interested to see how that plays out for the script club.
It could be the case that they just got the wrong Director on it. The Direction is very heavy handed. You'll have to watch it to understand what I mean, but he signposts everything that is going to happen way before it does. The story itself is very predictable, but the Director makes it even more so.
He also fell between two stools. It should either have been B-movie fun, over the top and fast paced, or developed more to make it an intense character piece. As it was the moralizing tone took out all of the fun and the sheer stupidity of it undermined all the attempts at injecting depth.
Also the Directing style lacks energy. It's locked down and slow, very European style. It doesn't mix at all with the material.
Until I've read the script, I can't say whether that was because he had no option, or he just wasn't used to directing this kind of film. I also don't know what kind of pressure the studioes put you under as a Director. His first film, Kontroll, was very good. It was different and slightly unusual, so it's not like he's some hack who doesn't know what he's doing.
Someone like Pierre Morel would have been better for it (Taken), although I think he's probably busy...
This review sums up my feelings about it:
http://living.scotsman.com/movies/Film-review-Armoured.6004482.jp
Quoted Text SOMEHOW securing cinematic distribution when its script, plot and execution scream straight-to-DVD, Armoured is the worst kind of B-movie: a dull one. |
It feels like the kind of film a young and technically gifted crew would make after they graduated from an extremely expensive film school. If it was made for a low budget, with beginners, you'd think of it a little more favourably, thinking it showed some potential. You might even make a mental note to keep an eye on their films in the future as they improve.
Being a very high budget film, with a star cast, you just wonder what the hell was going on.
Obviously I wasn't there during the negotiations for the film, so I don't know how it played out. However a lot of selling is about the words you use, how you sell something, rather than what you are selling.
It's a solid genre movie (marketable), contemporary (easy to make), decent premise and that's a starting point. The fact that it had reached the final of the Nicholls also gives it some gravitas. An action genre movie with award winning capability, it sounds very attractive.
I also imagine the words "Dogs" and "Resevoir" came up at some point, not necessarily in that order, either out loud or in the mind of the buyers. No-one wants to be the guy who missed the next big thing...the money paid for the script isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things for these huge companies.
Again, I also don't know if the film sticks to the script faithfully, or they've tagged on the Hollywood ending.
I do know that it is utterly poor.
The Box Office makes quite interesting reading:
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/ARMRD.phpIt's taken just $45,000 dollars world-wide. That makes me one of a literal handful of people outside the US who have paid to watch this.
Being generous here, that would mean a max of about 10,000 in the whole world outside of the US have watched the film. How many from the UK? About 2000 would you say?
Shit, had we known, we could have all gone and watched it together....
To be honest, I blame SimplyScripts and I want a refund. I wouldn't have bothered if I hadn't read about the script sale on here.... ;D
BTW: Every single plot point is covered in the trailer. Watch that, and you have no reason to see the film. I'm sure you can guess how it ends....