THE STORY – When all but one child from the same classroom mysteriously vanish on the same night at exactly the same time, a community is left questioning who or what is behind their disappearance.
THE CAST – Josh Brolin, Julia Garner, Cary Christopher, Alden Ehrenreich, Austin Abrams, Benedict Wong & Amy Madigan
THE TEAM – Zach Cregger (Director/Writer)
THE RUNNING TIME – 128 Minutes
“Are you watching?”
In 2022, filmmaker Zach Cregger made a name for himself in the horror genre with his terrifying, buzzy debut “Barbarian,” a surprise hit that mixed social commentary on male dominance, patriarchal structures, and the consequences of societal neglect with a bonkers twist and a firm grasp of how to pull genuine terror out of audiences. Its success marked Cregger’s arrival as a filmmaker unafraid to take bold risks, and now, he’s using all that goodwill to return with the higher-budgeted and more ambitious “Weapons.” The new horror film reunites Cregger with much of the same creative team from “Barbarian” to deliver another unique, non-linear horror story. This time, the film is far more expansive in scope, and Warner Bros. has done a brilliant job marketing it to the masses by capitalizing on the success of “Barbarian” and presenting the film’s driving puzzle in an undeniably creepy manner while highlighting the film’s darker horror elements. However, much like “Barbarian” and perhaps even more so, given the heightened level of expectation, once the mystery is revealed, Cregger’s sophomore effort ultimately becomes less effective.
“Weapons” is a sprawling, multi-perspective horror anthology with a central mystery connecting each character’s storyline. Structured similarly to “Magnolia” or “21 Grams,” the film is segmented, telling one side of the story from one character’s point of view, and then another, sometimes with them overlapping, until they eventually converge in a hotly anticipated finale intended to bring thematic and narrative cohesion to what audiences have invested in these charaters and story over the last two hours. The central mystery, told to the audience with chilling voiceover narration by a little kid over a well-orchestrated montage, involves an unexplained event occurring at 2:17 in the morning on a normal Tuesday evening when all of the kids from Justine Gandy’s (Julia Garner) classroom wake up in the middle of the night, get out of bed, and with their arms pointed downward on an angle, run out into the dark. And they never come back. The town becomes enraged, confused, and grief-stricken over the bewildering loss of their kids, demanding answers from the school principal, Marcus (Benedict Wong), as they feel Justine had something to do with it. Only Alex Lilly (Cary Christopher) remains from his classroom, but the faculty feels he’s been traumatized enough by this event and is refusing to talk to anyone. It’s probably best to let the kid be, and so they turn their anger towards the alcoholic and distraught Justine, who does not have any answers for the parents either that will satisfy. Josh Brolin plays Archer Graff, a well-known house contractor in the area and father of Matthew, one of the missing children, who angrily seeks answers from Justine and spends his time obsessing over details he feels others may have missed. Austin Abrams plays Anthony, a drug addict and burglar in the town who no one takes seriously. Alden Ehrenreich plays Paul Morgan, a police officer investigating the case, who has a complicated past relationship with Justine and brushes up against Anthony. And Amy Madigan rounds out the cast as Gladys, Alex’s aunt, who comes into town to console the poor boy during this time of tragedy. Each of them has their own outlook and story to tell regarding this emotionally driven narrative, one that does not offer any easy answers, not because they’re hard to understand, but because of how deeply unsatisfying they are.
While the entire cast delivers compelling performances that draw you into the narrative, aided by Cregger’s obvious step up in filmmaking prowess in partnership with his director of photography, Larkin Seiple, through the use of several long takes and slick camera moves that either provokes dreadful curiosity or nerve-racking tension, everything falls apart in the film’s final stretch. Much like “Barbarian,” “Weapons” initially generates intrigue by disorienting the viewer. Cregger is adept at withholding information to build suspense, and for the first half of the film, it really works. There’s a creeping sense of anxiety and ambiguity that keeps you leaning forward, wondering if this is a political commentary on school shootings (apparently, by Cregger’s own admission, it’s not, despite one very prominent piece of floating symbolism in one of Archer’s dream sequences and unmistakable similarities to how a town would react to such a devestatingly emotional event involving kids in a classroom) or something else entirely. But as the film progresses and the pieces begin to come together, that sense of dread is replaced by exasperation and mounting questions. The eventual reveal feels too easily predictable and underdeveloped to justify its buildup, both within Cregger’s film and its external marketing. The film’s structure, which initially promises a more complex narrative, feels more aggravating in retrospect. Still, its desire to tell a story where characters focus too much on the big picture instead of the little picture right in front of them also feels in line with how communities tend to deal with inexplicable tragedies. So, while there is undoubtedly a clear level of intent presented here by Cregger in exploring how we navigate grief and search for answers from a place of feeling instead of logic, my own personal desires for what I was hoping the film would be (something more profound and rooted in reality) were left unfulfilled. However, I’m particularly predisposed to this type of storytelling in horror films (it’s how I felt about “Longlegs” and its reveal as well), and I imagine others may feel differently if they’re willing to roll with the film’s reasoning in its final minutes. It is, at the very least, thrilling and never what I would describe as dull.
There’s no denying that Cregger is aiming high with “Weapons.” At times, it feels like an intriguing attempt to blend horror with prestige drama, in the vein of something like “The Sixth Sense” or “Hereditary.” But whereas one of those films’ endings was more celebrated than the other, the same sentiment can be felt with “Weapons” before its reveal, where the more character-focused, grounded story of how real people, in a real town, would react to a real event, such as this (allegorical or not) is more relatable and therefore, more terrifying. In that regard, it reminds me more of HBO’s dramatic series “The Leftovers” for its first two-thirds, where we follow each character’s viewpoint in the aftermath of an unexplained and difficult-to-understand supernatural event, and how they choose to move on and cope with it. Unfortunately, the end result is more muddled than mind-blowing compared to either of the examples provided, as “Weapons” settles for an easy way out of the corner it’s written itself into with a long exposition dump and a rushed conclusion that leaves little impact when it’s over.
As for the horror itself, while one can feel it in the environment that Cregger and his team have created through its visuals, sound, and story, there are surprisingly a minimal number of actual jump scares. What is here is effective and is sure to make audiences’ heart rates jump rapidly or steadily increase (one scene, involving someone simply staggering out of a house’s front door and onto the lawn, is disturbingly uncomfortable); however, some may feel let down by Cregger’s more atmospheric approach to the film’s horror. Visually, “Weapons” is undeniably polished. Seiple’s moody, overcast palette effectively captures the haunted Americana aesthetic in a way that feels recognizable and yet unsettling. And the score by Ryan and Hays Holladay, along with Cregger, channels and evokes something eerie and elegiac, lending the film a unique tone throughout. Technically, the film is very strong and hints at what a brilliant filmmaker Cregger will likely become over time, but aesthetics can only go so far when the story falters.
There are some who will be moved and struck by “Weapons,” intentionally or unintentionally, so. For 75% of its runtime, it was one of my favorite films of the year. However, for the final 25%, in some ways, it feels like Cregger missed an opportunity to tell a story that is more emotionally rich and relatable. Here is a filmmaker who feels like he’s trying to prove he’s capable of more, but without fully grounding that ambition in character or clarity, instead opting for a facile solution. There’s a version of this movie that could have been genuinely great. You can appreciate the potential in the performances, the themes, and the overall craftsmanship. And to be clear, I’m sure this will resonate and work for some viewers. But for me, much like “Barbarian,” Cregger doesn’t quite bring it all together, making “Weapons” a rare kind of disappointment. Not because it plays things safe; in fact, there is a certain admiration I have for it shooting its shot, but because it dares to do something radical and misses its mark. It’s worth seeing for its aim from Cregger, a filmmaker still very much on the rise and filled with tremendous promise, but one that may leave many viewers as frustrated and divided as the characters in the film.
