My assumption is that if you watched this movie, or are interested in watching this movie, then you know what the word "strapped" means. But, just in case your slang knowledge is lacking, strapped is an "urban" term meaning that one is carrying a gun.
It is clear from the end credits' text and the title of this movie that the pervasive message is one of gun control. I would be naïve to believe that the plethora of guns, particularly in the inner cities (or ghettos if you will), have nothing to do with the amount of violence in those same places. Guns absolutely play a role and are a factor in the violence. But I'd be equally naïve to believe that there are not myriad other contributing factors to the violence. And what was apparent in the movie "Strapped," by Forest Whitaker, was that hopelessness and thuggishness were as big, if not bigger, contributors to inner-city violence than even the guns. Not that hopelessness and thuggishness (or thuggery) always exist together, but hopelessness is definitely the main pillar of thuggishness. Remove hopelessness and thuggishness goes with it.
Enough of the societal ills speech.
As far as the movie is concerned, it was OK, but it had a lot of stiff competition at that time. I'd say that the late 80's/early 90's--probably starting with "Colors"-- produced quite a few movies centered around life in the 'hood; with some of your better movies being "Colors," "Boyz in the Hood," "South Central," "Menace to Society," and a couple of others. You can even extend the list to add movies like "The George McKenna Story," "Lean on Me," and "Stand and Deliver." Even though they were education based, they dealt with young people in the 'hood.
So, with the aforementioned movies already being so prominent, what was going to make "Strapped" stand out? As it was, I saw "Strapped" as a different version of the movie "Juice." "Strapped" is almost identical to "Juice." Both took place in New York. Both had a relatively levelheaded main character (Q, played by Omar Epps in "Juice" and DiQuan, played by Bokeem Woodbine in "Strapped"). Both had a hot-headed supporting actor (Bishop, played by Tupac in "Juice" and Bamboo, played by Fredro Starr in "Strapped"). And the main theme to "Juice" was you had juice if you were strapped. So, what you found is that Bishop in "Juice" became an untamable monster by virtue of having a gun; while Bamboo (Fredro Star), in the movie "Strapped," wilds out for virtual the same reason (and it's not lost on me that the two gun-happy characters have names that start with "B" and were played by rappers).
"Strapped" is essentially the same story as "Juice" with a little more emphasis on the wide distribution of guns in the ghetto. I happened to like "Strapped" more than I like "Juice" simply because of the two hyperbolized characters (Bishop and Bamboo), Bishop was the most outrageous. His behavior seemed extremely manic when nothing changed but his acquiring a pistol.
With a bevy of prior similar movies and a more popular movie that was nearly identical, "Strapped" failed to distinguish itself. Add to that the sub-standard cinematic quality, dialogue, and acting, "Strapped" just didn't cut it. It is watchable, I just wouldn't watch it twice.
