Weapons

Honestly, I don't know if I watched the same film everyone else is raving about, but I'm pretty sure my brain was left waiting in the lobby the entire time. The movie is long. Too long, too slow, too... boring. And yet, somehow, it still manages to feel overstuffed. Imagine a film that wants to be edgy, intense, and dramatic, but instead just flatlines.

The multiple points of view were supposed to add depth or suspense, I guess, but instead they just fragmented the story and made it even harder to care about any of the characters. It felt like a patchwork of perspectives that didn't really go anywhere, leaving me more bored than invested.

I waited the whole movie for something to happen... and nothing happened.

Sure, it's original, I guess, but by the end, I wasn't scared, I wasn't impressed - I was just relieved it was over.

"Weapons" focuses on a Pennsylvania town where a large group of children-coincidentally (or perhaps not) from the same home classroom-flee their homes one night and disappear. Suspicion naturally falls on their teacher, but an intricate web of events unfolds, showcasing a dark, if not unbelievable, turn of events.

While writer-director Zach Cregger's "Barbarian" attracted a significant following among genre fans, I was not particularly a fan of that film; while I thought it had its share of strong elements and could see why some people loved it, the tone and genre-bending grotesque humor did not appeal to my taste. Because of this, I had tempered expectations for this film, but on the whole was pleasantly surprised. There is certainly dark humor here, but it is played in a more human way.

The screenplay utilizes segmented vignettes that interlock, forming a larger portrait of the strange, almost Stephen King-esque events unfolding in the small community. Tensions abound, as the missing kids' schoolteacher, Justine Gandy (Julia Garner) receives her scarlet letter, with grief-stricken parents such as Archer (Josh Brolin) blaming her for their children's disappearances. Further characters are thrown into the mix and each have their own narrative strands in the chain of events, including a struggling cop (Alden Ehrenreich), a young drug addict and petty thief (Austin Abrams), and the school principal Andrew (Benedict Wong).

While this narrative mode can often be hit-or-miss, it is played to great effect here and is clever without being too gimmicky or pretentious for its own good. On a purely technical level, the film is solid-the cinematography and locations are atmospheric, the sparse use of music and silence is pointed, and the performances are uniformly good from everyone involved. That being said, Amy Madigan, playing the aunt of the sole child in his class who didn't vanish into the night, steals the thunder from everyone , giving a performance that is of "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" proportions.

Many have noted that the less you know about the film going into it, the better, and while I think that adage stands true for most moviegoing experiences, it is especially true here. The interlocking character vignettes are compelling in their own right, and the plot strands playfully connect by degrees, keeping the audience firmly planted on their toes. The truth eludes you until the outrageous final act, which is where I think the film could lose some people; however, by that point, I think even most hardened horror fans will remain invested due to the high level of intrigue that has brewed over the previous hour and a half. "Where could this possibly go?" was a recurring thought as I watched this, and even when it stretched credulity as the answers came, I remained firmly in the crosshairs, just as each of the children in Ms. Gandy's ill-fated homeroom. 8/10.

There's a steady hand at work building tension as the movie progresses but unfortunately it all leads to a rather dull climax. You get hints of an explanation, and I'm not the type of person who needs everything spelled out, but it feels as though the film simply ends things "because it's time." I appreciate the different storylines overlapping and converging but it all felt pointless by the time the credits rolled. I'm also not sure what tone the director is going for here. There's certainly a horror element, but I've seen it classified as a dark comedy and I don't know that I would remotely consider it in that category. The acting is fine and the photography is decent but there's nothing here that you haven't seen before in better packaging.

I'm tired, so I'll make this brief. I was entranced for the first and second act of this movie. Like, I was really into it. And that's rare these days, as I often find myself checking out in a lot of movies because the writing is just awful, and it's obvious that the director and producers don't care about half the crud they make anymore. But this was different. This was something special. I was actually really enjoying myself-pretty much all the way until the end. But then something changed. And it changed fast. It suddenly switched to a comedy. I was jolted out of my entrancement and was suddenly reminded that people who make movies nowadays just can't help themselves. Do they hate their audience? Do they just not understand their audience anymore? Or does the audience just love crud now, so they feel obligated to give it to them?

WHY did they play the end for laughs? WHY did they take a dive into the absurd? It wasn't by accident. The director clearly wanted us to have a laugh, but I just didn't understand why. All that buildup just to have a laugh at the absurd? I just don't get it. I don't regret seeing this, but knowing what I know now, I will never be revisiting this movie.

It's not a bad movie but all these reviews saying how original and unique it is are reaching.

You have seen this movie before.

It's interesting, it has occult elements and it has some good performances from the actors. But it is being severely overhyped.

The plot progression hinges on people making stupid decisions. If the characters acted reasonably, it would have been much shorter.

For me, the scariest movies are ones based on a true story. This movie boldly claims it's based on actual events, but it's really not.

It's like saying Scream was based on a true story because some teenagers got stabbed.

It's not one of those cerebral horror movies that demands a second or third watch. It's not really even a horror movie. At the core, it's a movie about a search for kids with some random horror elements mixed in.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying it's a bad movie. But the claims that it's the best horror movie in years is nonsense. It's not even the best horror movie THIS year.

People in the theater laughed through most of it and the ending was pretty ridiculous.

Watch it if you want, come to your own conclusion, but I saw it once and that was more than enough.

Anybody that rated this over a 7 is either lying or has really low standards.