Review of Armstrong

Armstrong (1998)
"Strong"? No, very weak
19 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
You can take a boy out of his exploitation studio, but you can't take the exploitation spirit out of a boy. I was really interested to see what former Cannon studios head Menahem Golan could crank out years after making so many memorable schlocky movies from there. What made it especially interesting was that he here was working for Nu Image, what I consider to be the equivalent studio of this day and age. Plus, with B movie stars like Richard Lynch and Charles Napier, it looked like the movie would be a fun time.

Sadly, ARMSTRONG isn't that much fun to watch despite all that promise that I described above. The look of the movie is pretty cheap - we have sloppy hand-held camera use, and although the action is supposedly taking place in Moscow, it sure doesn't look like Moscow (I suspected this was filmed in Bulgaria, and the end credits confirmed this.) In fact, the movie feels very much like a cheap '80s movie with its look and musical score, suggesting Golan hasn't learned more modern filming techniques.

But the biggest sin the movie makes is that it's pretty dull. The movie is very slow-moving, with a lead who's very dull and surprisingly off camera for long chunks of the movie. The action sequences, where the movie should really deliver, are sluggish and lacking zip.

I will admit that there are a few laughs in the movie. Menahem Golan's script has some mind-boggling bad lines of dialogue. There are also some hilarious continuity errors. The biggest laugh comes from the clothing the female lead puts on after stepping out of the shower (and keeps this hilarious outfit on for a long time afterwards.) If the movie had more unintended laughs like these, I might have recommended it, but the few laughs there are aren't worth the long periods of boredom you'll have to suffer.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed