Weapons

"Weapons" (2025) is a truly terrific and groundbreaking film that stands out with its unique direction and a sense of meticulous planning and execution. It's the kind of movie that feels fresh and unlike anything you've seen before, which is a significant achievement in itself.

The film's strength lies in its innovative approach to the genre, with a directorial style that feels distinct and intentional. The planning and execution of its key moments are handled with a precision that speaks to a clear and confident vision. This is what makes "Weapons" so good and memorable for its core strengths.

However, the film is not without its flaws, which prevent it from achieving absolute perfection. The pacing, at times, can be quite slow, with some scenes feeling unnecessary and acting as fillers that detract from the overall narrative momentum. This unevenness can be tiring and makes it a challenge for the viewer to stay consistently engaged.

A particular point of weakness is the film's antagonist. While the central conflict is well-executed, the villain lacks a clear purpose or compelling motivation, making their role feel less impactful than it should. This absence of a strong, purposeful antagonist diminishes some of the film's dramatic weight.

Despite these issues with pacing and the villain, "Weapons" is a highly ambitious and well-made film. Its originality and confident direction make it a worthwhile watch and an impressive cinematic effort.

1) I love horror movies.

2) I avoided all trailers, marketing and reviews, so I am not a victim of overhyping.

3) I felt like this would be another example of a movie that will be unanimously praised and lauded as the best/scariest horror movie of the year. That seems to be the case.

4) Six stars is a positive score, but this review will be mostly negative as I try to explain why I didn't like this more.

5) The mystery is built masterfully. But once we find out who or what is behind the horror, all I could think is, "That's it?" I hoped there was more to the story or somewhere interesting the plot could go from there. But there really isn't.

6) They keep telling us more about the flawed characters, and have them involved in drama, which I enjoyed as it happened. But it doesn't come into play even a tiny bit, not with the story or any character arcs.

7) There are some really good horror elements and jaw-dropping moments. But I ask myself if I would watch this again, and the answer is... probably not.

8) It's a good movie, but I can't help but feel underwhelmed.

(1 viewing, opening Thursday EMX 8/7/2025)

A Pennsylvania teacher's nightmares begin when her entire classroom vanishes, leaving only one disturbed boy.

The trailer caught my attention, and I went in expecting a decent movie; I wasn't expecting to be as entertained as I was. Weapons absolutely delivered on all levels.

The storytelling was amazing; it was like an onion being peeled back, layer after layer. It was so clever. There were so many creepy moments, and the scenes inside the house were at times chilling and really unsettling.

Great characters; Gladys was an absolute riot and deserves to return in whatever format. Amy Madigan was fantastic, and credit goes to the makeup team as well. This is the most different and creatively imaginative film I've seen in ages. I loved it.

Out of interest, this is a challenging movie for snacks at the cinema, there are multiple silent scenes, you'll hear every slurp of coke and every crunch of popcorn. I'll never take pringles again.

8/10.

Weapons delivers a bold and refreshing take on horror. The cinematography is sharp, the casting is spot-on, and the jump scares are genuinely effective. Major credit to the writers - they've crafted a horror film that feels inventive and daring.

Director Zach Cregger continues to prove he's not afraid to break the mold, following up Barbarian (2022) with another unpredictable, non-traditional narrative. The story starts off familiar, but quickly evolves into something far more layered and unsettling.

I especially appreciated the decision to split the narrative across multiple characters - it added depth and gave the audience a clearer view of the bigger picture.

My only real critique is the ending - it was a bit abstract and left me slightly unsatisfied. Still, it fits the film's overall tone and ambition.

Highly recommended for fans of horror that challenges the norm.

"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.