Not that I’m of the belief that it ever went anywhere, but how nice is it to see that mainstream horror is all the way back with the success that Sinners and now Weapons have had at the box office? Horror is having a wonderful year with the masses in 2025.

With Sinners being in my top five movies of the year, I went into the much talked about Weapons with extremely high hopes. Could it match Ryan Coogler’s vampire flick efforts? Could it at least match the three-and-a-half stars (out of five) I gave Zach Cregger’s previous outing, 2022’s Barbarian? Let’s get into the review and find out!

Weapons tells the story of a third grade class under the tutelage of Ms. Gandy, portrayed by the very talented Julia Garner in her second film to debut at #1 at the box office in a few weeks. One night, at exactly 2:17am, almost the entirety of Ms. Gandy’s class woke up and ran out of their homes and into the night.

The story starts after these events and in the midst of the town’s grief over the missing children. Ms. Gandy and Alex Lilly–the one child in her class who is not M.I.A.–have both been cleared of any wrongdoing, but the town still has it out for Gandy. There are multiple focal points as we move through the story, and Weapons takes place in chunks. It first focuses on Justine Gandy’s life before shifting to other characters and getting their takes on the recent events.

The story moves along, doling out information to the viewer through each characters’ eyes, as it builds to the climax. Will we ever find out what happened to the children? Is that even the biggest threat facing everyone involved?

TWO UPS AND TWO DOWNS

+ Weapons is very well put together, and has a superbly creepy atmosphere and some effective usage of jump scares. Cregger knows how to make a horror flick, and he displays that here. For someone having two feature length pictures under his belt, Cregger shows wisdom and talent beyond his years.

It’s a little wild for me to praise jump scares when I typically think they are lazy and a cheap way to get an emotional reaction from a horror crowds. But I have always admitted that when they are done right–when they are teased but not used frequently, and when the mood of the movie builds towards them–they can actually add to a movie’s mystique. And Cregger uses them correctly in Weapons. So credit to him for that.

+ I liked the meting out of the story in chapters where things intertwine and coalesce to different finer points. We get some things teased to us that later on get more defined. It’s simply good storytelling. Again, more roses deserve to go Cregger’s direction for his writing and not just his direction.

Weapons is divided up into chapters, with each focusing on a different character of the movie. Hence how you can get a hint of something happening early on in one character’s chapter, but then the movie can reverse course and rewind itself to build another character’s interpretation of what we saw. It’s all constructed in a very engaging fashion.

– There were moments in this movie where I was reminded of Midsommar where I was thinking, “Am I SUPPOSED to be laughing at this?”. And the answer boils down to this: If NO, I am NOT supposed to be laughing, then the movie is failing because I am. And if the answer is YES, I AM supposed to be laughing, then the movie is failing because that doesn’t jive for 95% of the movie’s mood, and the tonal shift is whiplashing me because it’s not in the film’s repertoire.

Weapons is not, and does not advertise itself as, a horror-comedy. So the uncomfortably weird moments where the movie seemingly invites laughter from the audience make little to no sense. Especially given the climax of the movie where a certain chase scene plays more like something out of Benny Hill than something that should be invoking terror or disbelief. Especially with how long it goes on. The laughter in my theater started with a few members and then eventually turned into most of the auditorium.

– Weapons goes through some absolute lulls where I frankly got a little bored waiting for something to happen. Especially in the second act. There was a lot of exposition and sloooowwww build at points, and it was a drag on this two hours-plus film. You could have easily cut twenty minutes or more out of here.

There is a subplot in the movie where two characters have an affair, and it’s all apropos of nothing. One character’s partner chases someone else and assaults them, and it’s just killing time. To say nothing of the other lulls across the flick. I wasn’t lying when I said I enjoyed the story structure and the chapters, but there are solidly two entire chapters that are extraneous and could have been cut nearly entirely. Or, hell, entirely after all.

What it comes down to for me is this: if you are going to make your movie two hours long, you ought to have a good reason why. And I feel like Weapons dragged in parts and did not earn its runtime.

OVERALL

Weapons is a movie that left me super conflicted. In some regards, it’s exceptionally well made. The storytelling and managing of horror elements are expertly handled. That said, there are other elements that are not conducted nearly as well; most notably the tone and the pacing. So where do I come down? Well, I really enjoyed the film during the movie’s less unfocused moments. And I’m certainly willing to see Cregger get past some of his growing pains. So I’ll err on the positive side of things.