Weapons

Weapons is a tense and gripping new horror from Zach Cregger that lives up to much of its immense hype. The story follows a community reeling after all but one child from the same class vanish on the same night at exactly the same time, and from there it unfolds with a sharp mix of mystery, dread, and dark humor. The acting across the board is phenomenal, the suspense is crafted with precision, and the world building for the small town setting feels rich and lived in. Practical effects shine, the score adds weight to the tension, and there are even moments of levity that break up the intensity without ever killing the mood.

What makes Weapons stand out is how confidently it holds your attention. From start to finish, it's a film that refuses to let go, pulling you deeper into its unsettling premise. It's refreshing to see such commitment to originality in mainstream horror, and the movie feels like a love letter to the genre's willingness to take risks. While the final reveal of what truly happened may divide viewers, and for me personally, it didn't entirely stick the landing but the journey there is so compelling that it's hard not to walk away impressed.

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.

I genuinely fail to see the buzz surrounding Weapons. The first half of the film did a commendable job of building tension. The atmosphere was thick with unease, and the slow burn of the narrative had me on the edge of my seat, waiting for the terror to strike. The mystery was compelling, and the gradual reveal of the plot promised a chilling experience. However, once the story began to fully reveal itself, the thrill completely evaporated. The suspense that had been so carefully crafted in the beginning was gone. The narrative shift from psychological tension to a more straightforward plot left me feeling underwhelmed and, frankly, bored. The film's "horror" element was almost non-existent. Ultimately, Weapons is a film that promises a gripping, terrifying experience but delivers something far more ordinary. It's a classic case of style over substance.

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...

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.