WEAPONiZED (2016) Poster

(I) (2016)

User Reviews

Review this title
23 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
How did this get made??
lightningslim6 March 2016
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!
30 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
learn to knit rather then watch this
sizleswears1 March 2016
Holy crap this is a horrible @#$@! movie. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME WITH IT. NOTHING in this movie was good in the least please i beg you learning how to knit for the hour an a half runtime would do more for you then watching this. We could talk now about the cinematography, the lighting, the special effects, the acting, the story, but in the end there is nothing left to say. This was a huge waste of time, I wish I had watched Spongebob instead. Playing a moba would be more fun than watching this. At this point I'm running out of analogies. But the review has to be ten lines. So I'm sorry but. I'm never going to give you up, never going to let you down, never going to run around and desert you. Never going to make you cry, never going to say good bye. Never going to tell a lie and hurt you. Like this show did.
47 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Utterly dumb, boring SF.
peterp-450-29871618 March 2016
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
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Wow wow wow wow wow!!!!!!
darren-symington26 May 2016
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.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
B Grade movie followed with B Grade acting - Not Worth Watching
dcwarrior-842272 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The only good thing about the whole entire movie was the camera work.

Other than that the story line made no sense and it was actually stupid.

Once you get to the end of the movie, ask yourself this question; If you can get any person to mind control any another person by a flick of a switch, then why would the people that produced the mind control program need approval? Just mind control the hierarchy and pass the program, wouldn't you think?

I lost interest and respect for the film at the part where the program was demonstrated to the armies hierarchy.

Another prime example of the trailer being better than the actual movie.

Shameful, this was a movie i was actually looking forward to watch.
12 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Don't waste your life
contact-2570225 May 2016
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.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Mickey Rourke is amazing in this new action blockbuster.
sam_smithreview3 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This 2016 Action Thriller, directed by Timothy Woodward Jr stars one of the most bad boys of cinema. The one and only Mickey Rourke. It was amazing seeing him play a complete opposite of what he usually plays. From The Wrestler, Whip Lash or Ivan Vanko, Rourke is known for playing really physically strong characters who are extremely bad ass, yet in Weaponized he plays a professor who is not only fragile in his movement and actions, but also has a very different physical appearance. This was a complete shock to me, I couldn't believe that it was him for the first few scenes.

Now that I have gotten my shock of Rourke's amazing performance out of the way lets get into the film. Weaponized is an Action Thriller, set few years in the future, 2018. After Tom Sizemore's character loses his only son in a terrorist attack. It prompts him to finance and create a new nano technological weapon that allows the transfer of minds from soldiers into any one. Essentially killing terrorist without the sacrifice of American soldiers, infiltrating any and all aspects of the government and having full control over anybody's action. If you are a fan of 80's Action films, especially Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man, then you will Love this too!!! Was great seeing Tom Sizemore play against Mickey Rourke one more time. Makes me want to go and re watch that classic film too!

Acting in the film, was overall good. With the exception of Mickey and Tom who were both extremely great! Especially Mickey. Johnny Messner does a great job and is very likable as a lead. The style, the feel and the action are all done in great feel and look very good. Especially the fight between John Foo "Who is from Tekken" and the henchman. The story is great. With the Government being accused of doing lots of shady stuff from financing Saddam Hussein to putting him in power, to spying on their own people, to even the theory of U.S.A planning the whole 9/11 it does make you think if this weapon was invented would the U.S Government tell people about it?

Overall this is a very enjoyable action sci-fi flick, with some really cool fight scenes, some really great performances from amazing actors, an entertaining plot and CGI that is better then TNMT or Transformers!!
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I really didn't know what the hell was going on in this movie.
stanrogersmith6 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
So, I don't know. I think I need to see a therapist to uncover the reason why I subject myself to horse crap movies like this. I tried to follow along. From the start, at minute 1 of the film I figured Tom Sizemore was on the wagon and looked to be ready to act. After that first minute of acting was finished, I knew this was a bad choice and that Sizemore needs to be put back in rehab for the remainder of his foreseeable future. And ditto that for Mickey Rourke as well. I don't know who this Messner guy is, never seen or heard of him before. But he's a complete turd of an actor as well. I think I tuned out right after Mickey Rourke's character was killed off. I didn't understand how he came to be in a wheelchair, but whatever. I was more concerned about what would happen to his little dog. This was a disgrace of a movie. Don't bother wasting your time. You're better off taking some ex-lax and sitting on the can waiting for a bowel movement.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Don't Waste One and a Half Hours of Your Life!
jager-marc26 March 2016
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.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Check this one out.
keithkopp3 April 2016
Iron Man meets The Bourne Identity. Weaponized is a tit for tat thriller that leaves you begging for more. With over 90 minutes of adrenaline packed action. Starring Tom Sizemore, Mickey Rourke and Jonny Messner.

The film takes place in the near future where a continuous war is happening in the Middle East. After a massacre takes place in homeland America detective Walker must go on a quest for the truth.

The concept behind the futuristic weapon that Kyle Norris (Sizemore) unleashes is really cool and makes you think about the involvement of private companies in warfare.

You have to check this one out to believe it.
7 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An Action Film That Raises Some Good Questions
sportsbros8084 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
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.
9 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Even if I was mind-controlled I wouldn't agree to watch this film again
hypersonic899914 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of the crappiest crap I've ever watched in my life. Don't watch this. The only entertaining elements in this film are:

1) Sizmore's acting, while over the top, remains the best part about this film.

2) The stupidity of whoever wrote, directed, edited and produced this piece of crap is some of the best comedy I've had the pleasure of observing.

When a film is so bad, it makes you laugh it's ridiculous. There is no plot. It's just a bunch of amateurish scenes thrown together, with some duct-tape to hold the whole thing. These people must have had quite a party while filming this, because only drunk teenagers with a cell-phone could be filming this kind of "quality". I've played Call of Duty games that had a better story that this waste of time.

And I have to warn you (spoiler alert, as if it matters): You are thinking "Mickey Rourke is playing in this. How bad can it be?" Mickey Rourke has total screen time of 10 minutes, 9 of which he keeps begging everyone in the movie to "leave me alone" while he's stuck on a wheelchair. Then he dies. While his tiny dog watches. And cries. For Mickey Rourke's career.

Don't watch this, don't even think about watching this. Have a nap, your dream will be a lot better than this sorry mistake that passes for a film.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
waste of good theme and graphics
mavanushka13 March 2016
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
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What a wonderfully horrible movie
hamma-3020627 April 2017
What a wonderfully horrible movie...

I've never submitted a movie review...but felt compelled to go through the hassle of creating an IMDb account just to give warnings on how horrible this movie is. Did this really make it to theaters's?? Sometimes you can look passed a crap story-line, if there's good action/killing. You'll be getting none of that in this movie. The acting is next-level trash can juice. OMG and the cinematography?!!! Whoever put this mess out really should be ashamed...if not, I'm ashamed for them.

The best thing about this movie was reading all of the reviews...they were more entertaining!
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
burlesonjesse59 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
2014 had The Prince, 2015 had Vice, and now 2016 has WEAPONiZED (my latest review). What's the world coming to? I mean are well known actors still defacing their own integrity? It certainly appears so.

With its all caps title and unvarying combat scenes, "WEAPON" is the ultimate B movie, the ultimate sci-fi cattle prod. Its stars consist of a veteran trouper trudging his way out of rehab (Tom Sizemore), a Hugh Jackman wannabe (Johnny Messner), and Mickey Rourke in his most weathered state. In terms of direction, well Timothy Woodward Jr. fills the screen with tons of flashy, unnecessary cinematic techniques. He uses lots of close-ups, lots of slow-mo sequences, some jittery flashbacks, and an overuse of contrast lighting. Added to that, Sid De La Cruz's musical score is forcefully repetitive and "WEAPON'S" cop movie clichés are more than evident. There's stuff like the ticked off captain, the detective who ignores advice to stay out of harm's way, the same detective who gets framed for murder, and the protagonist who vows to protect his only child. WEAPONiZED distributed by Cinedigm Entertainment Group, was only put into circulation by way of DVD. That by hook or by crook, should've have never really happened.

What we have here is a silly actioner, a techy misfire that's plot less in its concepts. Mounds of tired, computer speak and middling acting are in bunches. And oh yeah, there's an out of place, destructive robot to boot. I guess "WEAPON" is a body-swapping pic but basically, I threw my hands up in the air and at times said, "what is this thing really about?".

The story (or what I barely gathered from it) is a conundrum, something about a damaged father losing his son to unhinged, terrorist activity. Said father (Kyle Norris played by Tom Sizemore) is a military contractor and his chief motivation is to develop a "robotic virus" capable of inhabiting any human being at any time. He wants to avenge his son's death all the while putting the U.S. in danger with his untested, dangerous technology. Walker (played by Johnny Messner) is the scruffy homicide detective bent on stopping Norris from his intentions. Taylor Cole (as Angela) plays Walker's sultry wife, Michael Pare (as Captain Doug Rice) plays Walker's salty superior, and Mickey Rourke (as Clarence Peterson) plays a professor hesitant on helping Norris with the savage Trojan Horse. Rourke's character is confined to a wheelchair, sports some nappy facial hair, and carries his fugly-looking dog around with him. Just think Ernst Stavro Blofeld without the Mao suit.

Now the L.A. environment here is more congested than anything else. The special effects are shoddy even for a film about body swapping (this ain't no Matrix or Terminator 2 I tell you). And I think it's laughable how "WEAPON" takes place in the future but only a couple of years from now (like 2017 and 2018). If you're gonna shoot a movie in a futuristic setting, why not go with 2025 or 2026. The technological imagery in WEAPONiZED (just imagine the first thirty minutes of Minority Report) isn't gonna be on our radar two to three years from now. That much I can tell you.

Having its original title being called Swap, "WEAPON" has opening and closing credits that are banal, dialogue straight out of every sci-fi film involving law enforcement, and a tacked on, happy ending that is nothing but filler. Eyes in every audience will surely roll to the back of their heads. Oh wait, this thing is never gonna see the inside of a movie theater. Oops, I forgot.

In conclusion, "WEAPON" is a rare motion picture that has that seen-it- all-before feel and at the same time, doesn't make a lick of sense. If I had my druthers, I'd have all direct-to-video releases be saddled with a cease and desist letter preventing anyone from seeing them (that includes this one). Basically, if you've already viewed WEAPONiZED, it's your loss. You might as well be "exorcised" from its remnants permanently. Rating: 1 and a half stars.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Don't Waste Your Time
llsmith-8718214 December 2020
One of the worst movies in recent memory. Weak plot. Poorly acted. Poorly directed. Hard to follow. Very, very very weak.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This Chinese translation is totally incompatible
yoggwork19 February 2019
This Chinese translation is totally incompatible with the plot, which clearly refers to the transfer of consciousness. Of course, this movie is out of the question. The detective film in science fiction jacket is still the one with no twists and turns.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
nogodnomasters3 May 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The film takes place in the not so distant future. On July 4, 2017 an ISIS attack on the Pentagon kills Alex Norris, son of Blacksun CEO Kyle Norris (Tom Sizemore). About 12 months later Detective Mitch Walker (Johnny Messner) is dealing with a Manchurian style candidate who just murdered a group of people including a senator. Mitch starts an investigation and confronts a bunch of confused facts, simply explained using the word "nanotechnology" and not knowing anything about it or how it relates to the mega-Robot which had nothing to do with the main plot.

The film wasn't that hard to follow. Mitch was more confused than me. Mickey Rourke is now headed down the path where he will be competing with Eric Roberts for low budget shaggy bad guy roles. The robot at the end of the film provided us with a second climax but otherwise was just a silly add on. The drama aspect and soundtrack was on the made-for-TV quality. It attempted to blend science fiction with a crime thriller, but both aspects were weak making the film a bit boring.

Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity. Calls Arabs Rag-H@#ds for very poor effect.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
ultra terrible
wishmaster_tr13 February 2017
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.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Sci-Fi Shlock
zardoz-1316 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Timothy Woodward, Jr.'s action opus "Weaponized" is 91 minutes of your life that you won't get back. You've heard that cliché before, but it's the truth. Actor Johnny Messner plays a hard-nosed LAPD Detective named Walker who is investigating a massacre, and the shooting may have ties with an experimental Pentagon program to create the next generation of super soldiers. Under the guiding hand of a bereaved father, Kyle Norris (Tom Sizemore of "True Romance"), who lost his son in combat, Norris' company has concocted a procedure that enables the user to enter the mind of his adversary. Literally, a U.S. soldier can undergo this procedure and plumb the depths of the mind of his enemy to defeat him. This is what happened to the victims of Norris' experiment. They forgot who they were, suffered a bout of amnesia, and then assimilated the homicidal characteristics of somebody else. Meaning, harmless soldiers with no urge to kill transform into merciless murderers. Walker's partner Detective Phil Ross (Cullen G. Chambers of "Se7en") has our hero's back. Moreover, he bears an amazing resemblance to Morgan Freeman. As their superior, Captain Doug Rice (Michael Paré of "Streets of Fire") has handed over the case to the FBI and Homeland Security after a suspect stabbed himself to death in an interrogation room while Walker and Ross were trying to draw him out. Internal Affairs has their collective eyes on Walker and Ross, and Rice wants them riding their desks. Walker doesn't work that way as Rice learns. Furthermore, a scientist contacts Walker about the shootings, gives him a thumb drive with everything that he needs to know, and then disavows ever having seen him. Walker takes the thumb drive to a savvy friend, Victor (John Foo of "Tekken")and has him crack the code. Victor is not your ordinary friend because he survives an encounter with Norris' henchmen.

Eventually, our iconoclastic hero figures out how to use the transference, and he projects himself into the mind of the chief villain. Mickey Rourke appears in a supporting role as a scrappy, wheel-chair bound scientist with a pet puppy, and you may not even recognize Rourke beneath the band aid plastered across his nose. He works for the unscrupulous Norris, and scrappy Tom Sizemore makes an ideal villain. He looks the part with his beady eyes and weirdly cut hair. Naturally, our resourceful LAPD Detective cracks the case and saves the day after Norris uses the mind transference on him. One of the better scenes has Walker's wife change into a tramp who kicks the crap out of him. Literally, she traps him in a head lock between her luscious thighs. Later, she has no memory of her outrageous behavior. "Weaponized" boasts a strong cast, but Rourke is wasted in a minor role. This synthesis of sci-fi and action thriller generates only a modicum of suspense and intrigue.

"Weaponized" qualifies as a lackluster futuristic melodrama.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I want my 90 minutes back
greer_james30 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
sometimes there is a B movie that you "might" want to see based on character experience, or just because. This is not that movie. 57 minutes of waiting for the plot to reveal itself. You already have a clue that Catch-22 or some subliminal messaging is occurring, but you have to wait... .. and then? You wait a bit more. Then it's all too clear. You've been trapped in a theater with overpaid, underworked actors who are more interested in a paycheck than improving your world view. skip it.

trust me. You can thank me later.

For those that watched it anyway; answer me this. How many characters does Micky Rourke have to play before you realize he can't act? I'm not saying he doesn't readily assimilate into the ultra-plaid professor, I just wonder what damage he does to his body; bulk up, shrink down, bulk up, slink down. Obviously, this is a shrink down phase, but I'm still not buying it. "in the future" professors can wear many levels of plaid, and? exxtra long collars? I'm not trying to sound like a fashion nazi, but thankfully he was killed early(spoiler) The movie, the lighting, the rustybucket that is used for the setting, the script, the tech, the tech, well, you should have it by now... skip it. Have a nice day Jimbob
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
ilijastevanovicpaff28 March 2016
This movie is worst movie i ever see, nonprofessional scene, nonprofessional actors that shoot from ak47 like they play with retarded kid acting is not worth of look the movie i look 15 min and stop believe me you don't want to waist your time with this. i don't know what to talk about this horrible movie in 10 lines ???? just don't look it there is few good actors that is only reason i try to watch this movie but when i see how ISIS soldiers shoot from ak47 i stop watch movie i do not like it video editing and effect was so bad it look like star wars from 1977 but in that time that was best effect you could get it but guys this is movie from 2016 not 1977 so please work on your spec effect and video editing oh my god this is only 6 lines so i need to continue to talk about this horrible movie that i did not like it and i lost my time to watch it because no one did not watch movie and add 1 star they watch trailer and add 10 stars because trailer really look great but movie is bad
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Worse movie of the Year
gjcg-4691827 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
No clue what the hell this is talking about, basically it just saying the Blacksun company invent such of tech that can use A to "swap" with the B. And A can do anything or talk anything,as B will present.Crap stories and worse actions....don't waste your time to watch this. Many scenes is more like Bullsh*t! Such as a man can't win his wife in fight. A Cadillac can't catch a skinny guy on his foot...Actors are lack of skills... When you and your daughter was involved into a car accident..what the man do is hold his daughter in the rain instead of calling the ambulence...the shooters can't hurt the hero with several shoots but the hero just turminate his in two shoots...sodiers on the field keep getting attacks by the ISIS and the armored car would just become such a piece of trash with one grenade...and has not any weapons on it.....Just worse movie of the year so far....
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed