movieguy96

Suffering from a perhaps unreasonably high expectation level that was always hard to live up to, as well as surrendering an incredibly intense and unsettling first half for a more formulaic and derivative second, Weapons is nevertheless a competently made horror that boasts some fine acting (albeit the quality of the performances are affected by a pretty unsophisticated on-the-nose script) and some striking imagery especially in the possession scenes, which sees the characters become like mindless automations, their bulging eyes a nice touch showing they've lost control of all their bodily functions.

The main problem is the explanation behind everything doesn't really match with what your imagination (which the movie allows to run wild) conjures up, settling for a well-worn genre staple that was neither as dark or twisted as I hoped. It's a double-edged sword because on one hand it provides reassurance in that we have a physical form to latch onto as the focus for our antagonism, but by doing so removes any sense of mystery... yet it opens up more questions which are never answered, which would be fine if there was a more mysterious supernatural or extraterrestrial threat at work because then you're entering into the realms of the unknown where the usual rules don't apply and you can afford to be ambiguous, but it's more literal than that so the movie invites that scrutiny. As it was there was a feeling of "seen it all before" and doesn't do enough to distinguish itself.

This feeds into a larger problem with the film in that it feels like there's some potentially interesting themes to explore which are toyed with but left half-baked, specifically in its commentary on weapons; in one dream sequence we seen an enormous assault weapon floating over a house and at one point a character liken the possessed to laser-guided missiles but it's not delved into any deeper than that. To that end it feels like a poor man's Jordan Peele movie and we don't get that sense of completion.

To segue off that last point I saw a YouTube poll which was recency bias at its finest, with Weapons beating Get Out as the better movie, and whilst I don't want to trash Weapons I do feel like some perspective is called for.

Unlike Weapons, Get Out doesn't show its hand right at the start with an eerily unique premise that it fails to live up to by going into more standard territory. Rather it begins with a very ordinary set-up and slowly peels back the layers behind that with increasing strangeness before sticking the landing with an inspired reveal which ties in with the events that came before. It's also much leaner (whereas Weapons' anthology structure means the movie lags whenever the attention is on a not-so-strongly realised character like Alden Ehrenreich's and Austin Abrams's, who just function as extra bodies so we can get more action at the end), has a cleverer blend of social commentary like The Stepford Wives (satirising the fashion industry and white liberalism as opposed to Weapons' simplistic parasite metaphor), and doesn't feel the need to lean heavily into horror tropes to toy with your emotions as Weapons does in quite an overt way.

Get Out is also tonally consistent in contrast to Weapons which has a case of tonal whiplash in its comedic moments especially at the end. This wouldn't usually bother me and in isolation is kind of fun, but after such an ominous and creepy build-up it's like the rug is pulled from your feet with a heel turn into full-on ham. This is something of a betrayal from how the film manipulates you into feeling up till then, and as a result my cinema screening left largely in silence, like they were confused as to whether they were supposed to find it funny.

I'm glad Weapons is tracking well because it is an original piece of work that feels like a breath of fresh air among the deluge of endless remakes, reboots, and sequels, but I also think it's been given a bit too much credit and in need of a slight revaluation.