Floated2 The film had a decent plot structure and decent story about it but the problem was that it had too much of an amateur feel. Had it been with a bigger budget and the story put more effort to it, it could have been far better. Many scenes were just boring and extended. It starts off great with an odd introduction and I somewhat like what the director was going for. This immediately made people want to watch till the end to see how it all happened. Another thing is that the director tried with the art and indie feel of it with its non-linear storyline. The problem is that it isn't told right and with a few more effort and work put into it, it could have been better. It also kind of spoils who the guy is that got Nick cannon's character in the beginning of the scene. You can tell because the character who does this never changes clothing throughout the film. Too much was given. The characters weren't likable either which made the film less watchable. Honeslty had they put more thought into that, it could have been good. The acting was decent for what it was supposed to be but not great. I don't think it'd watch this again as it's not as interesting now knowing what happens. Im sure they have the intro scene uploaded on youtube, just watch that.

lilskatewaker I cannot believe this movie got such a low rating. This movie was excellent. I saw it at the Sundance Film Festival and it was the best movie i saw. I saw around 14 movies. I would recommend seeing this when it comes out in theaters. The older (40+) might not be so keen to it but is definitely a movie for teens and older. This movie doesn't hype anything up or change how things are in real life. The music, the filming, the scenes all fit perfectly together. If I'm correct this was an independent film which I think makes it all better. Also, if this is the correct film I am thinking off, I'm pretty sure the director said that this film was filmed with no lights except the sun and lamps. Yet, the colors and exposure are still amazing. The movie all ties together perfectly at the end and doesn't leave you staring blankly trying to figure out what just happened. The movie has a comedic, action, and suspenseful feel to it.

vich1 I could not disagree more with the rave review given by Larry-411. I thought "Weapons" probably started out as a great idea in the director's mind, but the execution was absolutely terrible. There was one scene in particular that was excruciatingly vile, where at a party the character that turns out to be the biggest jerk in the film urinates on someone who is passed out and already covered with vomit.Does anyone really need to see stuff like that?Weapons was the first film I saw at Sundance that had an "indie" feel to it - grainy film, hand held camera, and weird things that I guess were supposed to be "artistic" but fell flat. For one thing directory Lough did the old "watch events from different points of view" thing, but all that did was make me feel like I had to sit through a bad film three times instead of just one. Then he had this habit of holding a shot on a face or scene where nothing was happening WAY too long. It almost felt as if in a few scenes he just forgot to say "cut!" Finally, in the middle of the film he inserted this weird, freeze frame montage of the main and supporting characters.I really did want to give this a chance and for about the first 15 or 20 minutes although I didn't think it was great, I thought it was OK and moving in an interesting direction. Unfortunately it really fell apart as it got further along. The style of the film actually reminded me of the controversial movie Kids by director Larry Clarke, which although it was more about teen sex than violence and was considered exploitative, really got the point of the nothing to lose, dead end lives of it's characters than this film managed to do.Vic

larry-411 I attended the world premiere of "Weapons" at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival. For some reason, several films here have had some unusual similarities. I saw three in a row which I would characterize as being "hard to watch." That's not necessarily a bad thing -- the difficulty stemmed not from a lack of quality of the material but from the subject matter. In this case, well, the title is a pretty good tipoff. I also saw three films which open with a gunshot. In two cases, we don't know who or what has been the target. In the case of "Weapons," though, we know from the moment the film rolls. Nick Cannon's head is blown off. Literally. As writer/director Adam Bhala Lough so eloquently explained in the Q&A afterward, pineapples make a great substitute and some fancy optical effects do the rest. But it sure looks real, and signals what is to come -- the viewer is about to find out how we got to this point. We know the ending, now we go back to the beginning. In this case, several story lines are told in flashback, start to finish, start to finish, independently of each other. It's a structure we've seen before, and it can be a pretty effective technique in a crime drama. It works here, largely on the strength of performances by some of today's most talented yet underrated actors.Sean (Mark Webber) arrives home from college to find his buddies, Chris (Paul Dano) and Jason (Riley Smith), ready to whip out the drugs and celebrate. But something is amiss, and before the first joint makes it to a roach there is a score to settle. Meanwhile, across town, Reggie (Nick Cannon) is preparing for a job interview when little sister Sabrina (Regine Nehy) walks in. Something is amiss, and there is a score to settle. And so it begins. Along the way Webber will be the reluctant accomplice, a man with a conscience. Dano will be the clueless fop who documents it all, annoyingly, with his camcorder. And Smith will march headlong into mayhem. On the other side of town, Cannon will go postal, becoming a madman reminiscent of Ben Foster's Jake in "Alpha Dog," another crime drama which premiered at Sundance last year and which opened several weeks ago. James (Brandon Smith), Sabrina's boyfriend, will accompany him on his mission to right the perceived wrong that is at the heart of the imminent confrontation.Most of the film is shot with hand-held cameras, which can be powerful when the situation calls for it. The film is also characterized by long shots, sparing the jump cut editing so common in films whose demographic's attention span is coddled by music videos and Xbox. Many may find this uncomfortable. It's a daring style which signals Adam Bhala Lough as a director to be reckoned with -- it defies convention. The story is compelling enough to hold the viewer's interest despite the slow pace.Theirs is a world of sex and drugs and violence. Surely some will see a political message in the availability of guns. Then again, Cannon's Reggie is so frightening, so out of control, that "guns don't kill people..." might be equally apt here. The title of the film says it all. "Weapons" is unapologetic, bold, and challenging. It will hit you over the head. This is one powerful film.