Armstrong (1998)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Steven V

  
  Sometimes I come on this site and realize there are thousands upon thousands of movies in existence. I wonder how so many could be made, and then I think about cheap, simplistic movies like <b>Armstrong</b> and my wonders cease. Don't let familiar faces drag you to… More
  Sometimes I come on this site and realize there are thousands upon thousands of movies in existence. I wonder how so many could be made, and then I think about cheap, simplistic movies like <b>Armstrong</b> and my wonders cease. Don't let familiar faces drag you to see this. All of them have been in a lot better movies, and it is a mystic puzzle how they could all participate in this. <i>Frank Zagarino</i> can be a good actor when he wants to, and is a hoot in the <b>Project: Shadowchaser</b> movies, <i>Joe Lara</i> was in <b>Hologram Man</b>, which was a pleasant surprise for me and <i>Charles Napier</i> and </i>Richard Lynch</i> are veterans in the industry. But there is so much wrong with <b>Armstrong</b> that it is impossible to cover all the negative points and tough to decide where to start. Speaking of plot, you've probably seen hundreds of similar, better movies with the same plot, and can figure out every step of this one. Heck, the moment one sees <i>Richard Lynch</i> as a Russian colonel, you know he'll turn out to be corrupt. Even I could ignore the triviality of the plot, but the rest is inexcusable. The direction is awful. It jumps from scene to scene without a piece of inspiration. The action is really bad, and I doubt if even a good director could make them exciting with the script that this movie has. The horrible dialogue is what makes you embarrassed to be viewing the film over all the other bad points.