Swap

If you think people are joking, they're not. This movie is so atrociously awful it's almost funny. The acting, the filming & editing, the screenplay and dialogue: it's all absolutely crap.

I'd say it's a saving grace for the film, but I still don't think it's enough to warrant *anyone* seeing it: the actual story behind everything is somewhat interesting. The conspiracy theory of the private military agency and everything they're doing *could* have been done really well, but unfortunately the poor cinematography, acting, and dialogue just make this a horrible, horrible movie.

There isn't a single scene in this movie worth watching.

The list of actors should be a warning... I think I figured out why this film was made... Steven Sehgal's film Sniper:Special Ops was released around the same time and a competing studio needed to throw something out in record time with little to no budget.

I know some of you may be thinking that this statement above might be overly harsh but, seriously, there is no way I could ever be overly harsh. There were redeeming factors: 1.) I enjoy train-wrecks and this is definitely one of them. 2.) Outside of the three main actors the studio skillfully avoided finding anyone with talent - Kudos to them. 3.) They spent 50% of their budget on special effects - if their budget was $10.

It wouldn't have been rated a 1/10 but was slightly let down by poor cinematography, terrible acting, ridiculous dialogue, poor locations, horrible sets, poor sound engineering, terrible special effects, shonky score and really, really awful ending.

Despite all of this - you really should watch this! Why? Same reason people watch new Steven Sehgal and Nicholas Cage movies - I don't know why else.

You take good actors, good movie technicians, cameras, lights etc. and you make a movie scripted by your sister's brother in law's hairdresser's pool cleaner. (Sorry for the slur, pool cleaner's of the world, you don't deserve it) Then you direct it while playing video games on three screens and randomly yelling "Action!" "Cut!" and "Print!" (Do they still say "Print?" Whatever) You hire an editor whose last job was making sandwiches, big sandwiches, overstuffed with filling. You don't bother with a composer, you have a soundtrack CD from some other movie, which you randomly add in, at inappropriate volumes, in inappropriate scenes. I suspect that if the folks at the Youtube channel "What's wrong with..." Attempt to do their thing with this movie, they will give up at the 25th minute of the movie as they've already made an hour long video!

This movie is terrible!

I got sucked in by the trailer, which made it look pretty good...

I can't believe how bad it really was...

A horribly unoriginal concept for story, TERRIBLE script and some of the worst acting I can ever remember seeing.

There are only TWO movies that were so awful I couldn't watch them to the end.... THIS one and a movie called "Nemesis" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107668/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3) and THIS ONE...

I stopped watching "Weaponize" at 55 mins....

It's a shame because I like Rourke and Sizemore.

Being able to defeat terrorists and others who are threats using technology that would make deaths on one's side negligible or nil sounds like a great idea for a science fiction film. Right?!

That interesting idea underlies 'Weaponized'. The film may be less than enjoyable for many viewers, however, as it doesn't reveal much about how the weapon is supposed to work. Without introducing spoilers, let's just say that the technology or the weapon involves people controlling other people through some type of transference. I may be mistaken myself, but the transference seems to involve the use of satellites. Viewers who do not make that inference or come up with some idea about how the technology works will likely find the plot ridiculous and they will not enjoy the film.

This film is a great example of the value of having viewers provide feedback on films before their mass release. If that had been done here the producers would likely have been informed of the need to explain the technology so that it would be plausible to viewers. A little explanation could have gone a long way towards making this film better. They would have also likely received some other feedback that would have helped to turn this movie from a decent one into one that is first rate one!

The moral implications of the technology envisioned in this film are also interesting to ponder: Would the world be a better or worse place if people such as Hitler or Stalin could be terminated with ease? And a good answer might be that that is complicated!