Weaponized (2016)

Excellent but underrated film

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

there is nothing to say. it is a terrible movie and very boring. script is terrible, fiction is terrible, acting is terrible, effects are terrible. an ordinary person with logical thinking can easily understand all the gaps about fiction. Even the beginning of the movie barely about the movie, in addition using expensive cars can't save you, when you use cheap cars to burn. Hot actress, hot scenes right this will save your movie?!. Seriously power rangers outfit? could not you come up with a better costume for super soldier? it is a waste of time to try to make sense of all those nonsense, actually in order to complete this review, writing ten lines for this awful movie is also very difficult.

I got a simple answer for you, Detective. John Kennedy once said, "The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it." "And the path that we'd never take, is to choose the path of surrender or submission."I have a weak spot for low-budget, straight to DVD, B-movies. Occasionally you'll come across such a piddling, unknown and unloved film, which surpasses some blockbusters in terms of content and design. But "Weaponized" is the first crap movie this year. I had a hard time watching it till the end. Actually everything is wrong in this monstrosity of a movie. There's absolutely no logic, performances are pitifully poor and the special effects are so bad it would be better they skipped it. This is an example that you realize afterwards that the idea wasn't so bad (even though it was used several times), but they screwed it up big time due to incompetence. I wonder why actors like Tom "Private Ryan" Sizemore and Mickey Rourke participated. For those two it's a sign on the wall.It all starts with a terrorist attack on the Pentagon (with really awful special effects used on historical footage of the Pentagon). The son of Kyle Norris (Tom Sizemore), CEO of the company Black Sun, dies during this attack. This incident makes Kyle an avid supporter of the fight against terrorism. He wants to use the technology developed by his company, with the assistance of Clarence Peterson (Mickey Rourke), for this fight. This technique allows a soldier to briefly take over the consciousness of an opponent, so this person can eliminate himself and other terrorists. Subsequently it turns out this technology is being misused (who would have seen this one coming?) and it's time to bring in detective Mitch Walker (Johnny Messner) so he can save his family, humanity and the entire universe from a possible dictatorship. Intriguing, exciting and original? Nope!It all sounds pretty Orwellian and the idea could have been the base of a vibrant, entertaining action-SF. What we get however, is a bland, uninspired, nugatory story, stuffed with hackneyed events, horribly choreographed action scenes set in a fake scenery. There was even at the beginning of the film a military vehicle that was made out of cardboard, according to me. The story is a mishmash of story lines, that were used already in several movies, linked together in a random way. It wouldn't surprise me that they have organized a raffle to pick any possible storyline and knit it all together. And what the heck was that tin robot doing there in the end? Firstly it looked terribly old-fashioned. Robots in "Robot Overlords" looked more high-tech compared to this. Secondly, the way it was eliminated, is too ridiculous for words. And why was it displayed in a prominent place on the poster, since it contributed absolutely nothing to the story?I can be brief about the acting : painfully poor and extremely boring. Johnny Messner looks impressive when you look at him, but acting is his weakest side. Sizemore tries to be the bad guy, but this attempt was only partially successful. And I don't know where they dug up Rourke. He looked extinct and deathlike anyway. The most ridiculous part can be admired in the end. Despite they have to deal with a rather large organization that possesses a life-threatening, demonic weapon, the amount of troops rushing in at the denouement, is truly laughable. A collision with a pedestrian ensures that more police will show up. Luckily it was going towards the end of the movie, because the urge to throw a heavy object at my TV screen, grew rapidly.Should you read somewhere "Weaponized" is an action-packed SF with a superb quality of images and sound effects, you can be sure that person has watched this film with an overdose of Prozac in his blood. Even watching for hours at leaves fluttering down while staring through a window, is less monotone and boring.PS. Moments you shouldn't miss : An American soldier having troubles with land-mines. Benny Hill would have made a hilarious gag out of it ! And the car trunk on fire. What an amazing stunt.More reviews here : http://bit.ly/1KIdQMT

well it has good story, but direction is awful, no logical explanation between some scenes lack of explanations make it very bad.its just collection of some scenes,not good movie at all.should have done way better.my opinion is with such powerful story and good actors this director should have done better.well directing sci-fi movie needs good imagination and logical explanations.when i watch it it had 7 IMDb rating,thats why i watched it,so we can rate bad and help community to not waste their time

I want to start off by saying I am a HUGE fan of Mickey Rourke. I pretty much see everything he is in. I also like conspiracy theories so this film was right up my alley.First thing first, the movie is not Citizen Kane and it doesn't pretend to be. It is a standard sci-fi/action film that really hits on all cylinders, in my opinion. The camera work is great and really helps move the story along. You may have heard this story before; a less than ethical military contractor is trying to create the ultimate weapon and one man is out to stop them. That is the basis for "Weaponized." But it goes beyond that. One of the lines that gets repeated throughout the film is, "There is no murder in war." Which raises the main question in this movie, if we are at "war" can we do whatever we want? With our military involvement throughout the Middle East I think this is a valid question to explore.The man who runs the military contractor (played by Tom Sizemore) is out to avenge the death of his son, which he blames on a terrorist group. His company has created a biomechanical weapon that he want the US military to use. Without giving too much away let's just say that many legal and ethical issues arise.A detective (played by Johnny Messner) is determined to stop all this from happening and is contacted by Rourke's character, Clarence Peterson. Rourke plays this shadowy character to perfection. We don't know whether we can trust him or not.Jon Foo puts in a solid performance as Victor and comes through with some serious martial arts skills. He also appeared in "Tekken" which I enjoyed very much.The story does get a little convoluted and it seems like the makers tried to add just a bit too much, but overall the film works. The action is solid and the pace builds suspense. The ethical questions it raises about war and weaponry are much needed today. Overall, I recommend that you give this film a watch.