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
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