It is understandable that the male protagonist would be tempted to face a possible successful robbery plan because of his financial constraints. However, he has a moral bottom line, that is, he can't shed blood, hurt people, and can't kill people. Since the homeless man was beaten to death, the situation has developed beyond what he can accept, that is, beyond his bottom line. Therefore, he chose to quit, which just shows that his conscience is still alive. Then of course, how to avoid being killed and silenced and counterattack in self-defense. Is this wrong?
Don't understand why many people hate the male lead and even sympathize with the really ruthless robbers? Even if it is understandable that they rob a huge sum of money for various reasons, is it understandable to kill innocent homeless people in order to silence them? You must know that their robbery is not to rob the rich to help the poor, but not to donate to charity, but to keep it for themselves, which is a downright criminal act. So, from the moment they started planning the robbery, their choices were wrong, and it was the idea of greed for nothing. Things went from bad to worse, the result of their wrong choices. Their successive deaths are also self-inflicted, no one else is to blame.
Opening the bow without turning back the arrow, and a misstep into eternal hatred are the best interpretations of this film.
Another: If these robbers disappear smoothly, can the film still be released in China? We pay attention to the prudence and carelessness of the legal network.
View more about Armored reviews
