Lorsque tous les enfants d'une même classe, sauf un, disparaissent mystérieusement la même nuit et exactement à la même heure, une communauté se demande qui ou quoi se cache derrière leur di... Tout lireLorsque tous les enfants d'une même classe, sauf un, disparaissent mystérieusement la même nuit et exactement à la même heure, une communauté se demande qui ou quoi se cache derrière leur disparition.Lorsque tous les enfants d'une même classe, sauf un, disparaissent mystérieusement la même nuit et exactement à la même heure, une communauté se demande qui ou quoi se cache derrière leur disparition.
- Réalisation
- Scénariste
- Vedettes
- Prix
- 10 nominations au total
Scarlett Sher
- Narrator
- (voice)
7,5251.2K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Sommaire
Reviewers say 'Weapons' blends mystery, horror, and dark humor through an innovative narrative with multiple perspectives and non-linear storytelling. The suspenseful atmosphere, jump scares, and supernatural elements are commonly praised. Lead actors' performances are noted for their depth and authenticity. However, some criticize the film's pacing, plot inconsistencies, and horror effectiveness. Cinematography and sound design contribute significantly to the unsettling mood. Despite mixed opinions on the ending, many appreciate its unique approach within the horror genre.
Avis en vedette
Watch for the mystery; stay for Amy Madigan
"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.
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.
Overrated
This was the most excited I've been about a movie in a very long time. Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB reviews were looking great. Maybe my expectations were too high but I really thought this movie was not that good. Extremely disappointed. The plot of the movie was kind of lame. It really wasn't that scary or suspenseful. It just didn't deliver like most moves rated high 7's or low 8's. Not sure why it's still rated high 7's.
This is what i wanted Longlegs to be more like...
I liked Creggers' Barbarian a lot, but he didn't entirely stick the landing for me. Weapons is his sophomore effort, and you can see the confidence in direction and story telling is more refined. I had a blast watching this, as much as i love serious horror, Weapons wasn't afraid to inject some huge laughs to release the tension. Its gonna be hard to choose between this and 'Bring her Back', as my fave horror of the year thus far...
Why?
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.
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.
Two hours of nothing
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.
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.
Theatrical Releases You Can Stream or Rent
Theatrical Releases You Can Stream or Rent
These big screen releases can now be watched from the comfort of your couch.
Blocage sonore
Prévisualisez la bande originale ici et continuez à écouter sur Amazon Music.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesTo further capitalize on the themes of the movie, theaters listed showtimes at 2:17, the same time the children in the film vanish.
- GaffesThe film is set in Pennsylvania where liquor can only be purchased in "State Stores". One can also buy wine in the state stores, but beer is purchased at package goods stores, bars, or some supermarkets. Nowhere in Pennsylvania can one buy liquor and beer at the same place.
- Citations
Gas Station Clerk: [as Justine runs from Marcus] Get outta my store!
Justine: Fucking help me!
- Générique farfeluThe New Line Cinema and Domain Entertainment logos have the sounds of children talking in the background.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Tyrone Magnus: Weapons | Official Trailer | Reaction! (2025)
- Bandes originalesBeware of Darkness
Written and Performed by George Harrison
Courtesy of G. H. Estate Limited
By arrangement of BMG Rights Management (US) LLC
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
Radical On-Screen Transformations
Radical On-Screen Transformations
Amy Madigan in Weapons and more actors who totally transformed for their roles. How many do you recognize?
- How long is Weapons?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Weapons
- Lieux de tournage
- Atlanta, Géorgie, États-Unis(location)
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 38 000 000 $ US (estimation)
- Brut – États-Unis et Canada
- 151 550 044 $ US
- Fin de semaine d'ouverture – États-Unis et Canada
- 43 501 217 $ US
- 10 août 2025
- Brut – à l'échelle mondiale
- 268 250 044 $ US
- Durée
- 2h 8m(128 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant




