Just when I thought I had a grip on what was happening, Zach Cregger slapped me in the face with a whole new curveball.
Weapons is a film I had been looking forward to since all the marketing begun for it, and I was expecting something weird. I mean, it’s Zach Cregger, the guy who made Barbarian, and that film was like two different horror movies duct-taped together in the best possible way.
Weapons is a different kind of film to Barbarian though, and one where you feel like you’re solving a jigsaw puzzle throughout.
Plot Summary of Weapons (Spoiler-Free)
It all starts in Maybrook, Pennsylvania, at exactly 2:17 a.m. when seventeen kids from the same class decide, for reasons no one understands, to get up, leave, and vanish into the night. No warning, no explanation, they are just gone. Justine Gandy (Julia Garner), instantly becomes the town’s prime suspect, because small towns need someone to blame.
The only kid who doesn’t disappear is Alex Lilly (Cary Christopher), and he’s not talking. Or maybe he’s just got nothing to say. Either way, he’s not helping anyone figure this out.
From there, the movie jumps between different perspectives, each in its own chapter named after the character it follows. We meet Gandy’s boss, Principal Marcus Miller (Benedict Wong), her ex-boyfriend and local cop Paul Morgan (Alden Ehrenreich), a grieving father named Archer Graff (Josh Brolin), and James (Austin Abrams), a drug addict scraping by pawning stolen goods.
The structure is messy in a good way. Scenes loop back to moments we’ve already seen, revealing new angles, and where random-seeming events turn out to be important later. Each thread overlaps, and slowly, a picture of what happened in Maybrook starts to form.
Or at least part of one.
Weapons Review: Is It Worth Watching?
Weapons is a clever, weird, and gutsy film. It’s also slower than some people will like, and it doesn’t care if you keep up.
The opening hooked me right away, and Cregger doesn’t waste time with long setups. The kids vanish, and suddenly we’re tossed into a story that’s not really about cops chasing clues, and more about how this event ripples through the town.
And, unlike a lot of “mystery box” films, this one doesn’t cheat. There’s no last-minute info-dump to cover lazy writing, and every answer you get is built from things the movie’s been quietly showing you.
That’s not to say it’s simple, though, and while there were certainly points where I was thinking, “Alright, I’ve lost the plot here,” but just when I was about to get frustrated, the film would reveal something that tied it all back together.
It’s like Cregger knows exactly when you’re about to throw your hands up, so he tosses you a breadcrumb to keep you in the game.
The performances in Weapons are all very strong, too. Julia Garner nails it as Gandy – she’s flawed, prickly, and doesn’t always make great choices, but she’s still sympathetic.
Josh Brolin plays Archer as this tough, weathered guy, He’s grieving and angry, and you’re always wondering just when he might crack.
Benedict Wong is excellent, especially when his personality does a sharp turn mid-film that made me rethink his entire character, while Ehrenreich and Abrams take roles that could’ve been generic and actually give them some actual weight.
And then there’s Amy Madigan as Aunt Gladys. Holy hell, she starts out as this offbeat, small-town aunt who you think might just be comic relief. But then she slowly becomes one of the most unsettling presences in the film.
Tonally though, Weapons is a balancing act. There’s horror, there’s dark comedy, and there’s a bit of small-town satirem that mix of fear, gossip, and ignorance that can spread faster than the truth. Some scenes are intense, while others are quietly tense, and some are just plain odd and outright funny.
I do think some are going to have issues with the films tone, with people expecting one thing, but the film gives you something else entirely really to what one might expect after watching the trailers.
The pacing does sag a bit at times, but I didn’t think it was anything major, and with a runtime of 128 minutes, I think it earns it, because if you cut it down, you’d lose too much of the connective tissue that makes the whole thing satisfying.
Weapons is not going to be for everyone, and if you want a straight-up horror movie with constant scares, this isn’t it.
But if you’re willing to let the film take its time and twist around, it’s absolutely worth the watch.
What I liked (And What I Didn’t like)
Pros
The Structure Actually Rewards Paying Attention
I love a film that makes me work a bit. Every chapter adds something new, and recontextualizing earlier scenes is satisfying when you realize you were being set up the whole time.
Strong, Layered Performances
Julia Garner and Amy Madigan especially – they both bring so much complexity that you’re never quite sure how you feel about them, which makes them fascinating to watch.
A Genuinely Unsettling Small-Town Vibe
The way fear and misinformation spread in Maybrook feels uncomfortably real. You could drop this story into almost any small community and it’d work.
Perfectly Balanced Finale
The ending somehow manages to be funny, terrifying, and gory all at once without collapsing under its own weight.
Weirdness That Works
Dream sequences with giant floating guns, unexplained details that stick in your head – it all adds something without feeling like random nonsense.
Visual Moments That Stay With You
There are shots in this film I’m still thinking about days later, which is always a good sign.
Confidence In The Audience
Cregger doesn’t spoon-feed. He assumes you’re smart enough to keep up, and I appreciate that.
Cons
The Middle Drags a Little
There’s a stretch where the energy dips, and some people might lose a bit of patience with it.
Some Dream Imagery Is Left Too Open
I like ambiguity, but a couple of these moments felt like they were supposed to mean something and never quite landed.
Not Horror-Heavy Enough
If you want constant scares, you’ll be disappointed – this is more horror-mystery-comedy-drama, and while it is still a horror film with horror elements, it might disappoint some depending on what you want from a horror film.
Who might like Weapons
- People who enjoy multi-perspective mysteries
- Those who appreciate slow-burn storytelling
- Fans of Josh Brolin or Julia Garner
- People who enjoy films that mix genres
- Anyone who likes piecing together clues
- Viewers who don’t mind a bit of surrealism
Who might dislike Weapons
- People who prefer straightforward, linear stories
- Those who want constant horror
- Viewers who get frustrated by ambiguity
- Anyone who dislikes shifting perspectives
- Anyone who doesn’t want to “work” to follow a film
Final Verdict: Did I Enjoy Watching Weapons?
Yeah, I really did.
It’s not perfect, and it’s definitely not for everyone, but it’s smart, gutsy filmmaking.
I liked being kept on my toes, I liked piecing things together, and I liked that Cregger trusted me to do that without holding my hand.
It’s one of those films where, once you’ve seen the full picture, you want to go back and rewatch certain scenes to spot the clues you missed the first time.
If you’re into unconventional mysteries with horror edges and you don’t mind a story that takes its time, Weapons is well worth a watch.
8/10 from me.
Weapons Trailer
Simon Leasher
A lover of cinema for over 35 years, I have watched many films from around the world in many different genres, yet I still normally always come back to trashy slasher horror films when in doubt. More
And yes, The Godfather 2 is better than The Godfather.
Discover more from Simon Leasher Film Reviews
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Be First to Comment