‘Weapons’ Review: Fun Suburbia Horror But Lacks Substance

By now, you’ve most likely seen all the hype around Zach Cregger’s sophomore feature, Weapons, the buzziest horror flick at the moment, for its unsettling premise about the disappearance of a group of children from the same classroom.

Early marketing promotions have touted it as one of the scariest films to hit theatres in recent years, with a script so good that it even had Jordan Peele firing his team for not securing it during auction. Upon release, hyperbolic praise continued to pour in for Weapons. At the time of writing, it sits at 94 percent on Rotten Tomatoes and has already grossed over $80 million worldwide at the box office in less than a week, venerated by both critics and audiences alike. 

From its masterfully edited trailer, we could definitely see why Weapons had the makings to achieve this. 17 children running out of their houses into the darkness at exactly 2:17 am with their hands stretched out like airplane wings; a quiet suburban neighbourhood grappling with the tragedy of such loss; and residents descending into madness as something sinister slowly clouds the town—it certainly seemed that Cregger had a real frightfest in his hands. 

So, dearest reader, you must be wondering why I’m one of the few who haven’t given it my stamp of approval. I’m not looking to be contrarian (or ‘pick me’, as the Gen Zs would say) by default. In fact, I went in thinking I would be thoroughly impressed. While it offers some jolting moments, Weapons ultimately falls victim to its hype and lacks substance, resulting in an unsatisfying payoff. 

[I’ll try to keep it as vague as possible since it’s best to go into Weapons blind; however, do expect minor spoilers as I cannot talk about the flaws of the film without mentioning some important aspects.]

The problem with perspectives 

One thing that immediately stands out with Weapons is its narrative structure. I love a good switch-up from the typical linear storytelling, and Cregger’s ambitious multi-POV structure is an intriguing and welcome departure. 

As we dive into alternating viewpoints, we see how certain events intersect with one another and how the puzzle pieces of the mystery slowly fall into place. Each character chosen was given equal runtime, making it more of an ensemble horror (although Julia Garner and Josh Brolin certainly shine the most). 

However, the thing with multiple perspectives is that each POV has to offer something to the narrative. These do exist: Garner (who started her year in horror with Wolf Man) delivers an affecting Scream Queen-worthy performance as Justine Gandy, the teacher at the centre of the town’s witch hunt, whilst Brolin adds gruff bravado as Archer Graff, a bereaved father of one of the missing children.

On the flip side, certain other characters (which we will not specify for the sake of spoilers) are not. Their scenes offer some frightening and eerie moments, sure, but when you actually examine their roles, they lack any thematic weight in the overall story. So what you get is a rehash of the same scenes again and again through characters that don’t propel the plot forward in a meaningful way. 

This is because they are not personally tied to or affected by the tragedy itself (in fact, one is so far removed from it that their presence is inconsequential other than to add comedic relief). 

A town grappling with the sudden loss of a classroom of children parallels the horrors of a school shooting. Any violence targeted towards children is terrifying in itself to comprehend. The multi-POV structure would have been a great approach to explore the various perspectives of the victims’ families, such as the parents or siblings, or schoolmates and staff dealing with survivor’s guilt. 

The impact and trauma these tragedies cause are horror stories in themselves that are ultimately wasted in place of characters at the periphery of the devastation.

Style over substance

Now, don’t get me wrong. There were parts of Weapons that were absolutely incredible. The first hour is a masterclass in horror, showing a confident grasp on the genre and a huge improvement from Cregger’s 2022 surprise hit Barbarian. 

Cregger doesn’t bloat Weapons with too many jump-scares (and when they do, they’re sign-posted so clearly you’ll be able to close your eyes before it happens), instead opting to let the dread and uncanny mood seep under your skin in a delicious slow burn. 

The writer-director utilises various camera angles and tricks to construct some truly rattling jump-out-of-your-seat moments, as well as ominously eerie scenes that have you watching from the gaps of your fingers. An open door has never looked so terrifying. One particularly memorable scene (woman, scissors, car—don’t worry, you’ll get it later) had me cowering in my seat and induced multiple gasps across my theatre.

I can only praise Weapons for its performances, score, and striking cinematography. But, alas, these are not the only factors that make a movie. For a film to be truly great—and Weapons certainly places itself in the ‘elevated’ horror category, judging from its marketing and stylistic flair—the storytelling must be equally as remarkable. Unfortunately, this is where Weapons fails to sharpen its edge. 

Once it reaches the second half (the film can be easily split between before and after the big bad arrives), the narrative goes off the rails into plot holes galore and becomes increasingly looney. What was seemingly an intricately plotted mystery told through a crafty narrative structure soon gave way to a rather simplistic and truthfully silly reveal that stretches the internal logic of the film.

Admittedly, Cregger leads us through Weapons by dropping us crumbs so enthrallingly that it distracts us from realising how hollow the plot actually is. By the end, I was left feeling almost cheated, similar to how I was deeply immersed in Barbarian in the first half before I got the rug pulled from under me. 

The most not-horror horror film

Speaking of Barbarian, Cregger continues his habit of mixing horror and the uncanny with dark comedy in Weapons. You’re going to laugh far more than you expect to. I chuckled at some parts where the characters act in very realistic and relatable ways, but the third act sees a complete tonal shift. I’m talking people cheering and belly laughing in their seats. The way you digest this will determine how you ultimately feel about Weapons. 

For me, I wanted that tension and dread to be sustained all the way through. Leading up to the final act, the film delivered some engrossing moments of suspense that I really enjoyed (and that’s coming from someone who’s a self-proclaimed wuss!); however, this was punctuated by slapstick-level antics that just felt kooky by the end. I never thought I would use Scooby Doo and WWE in the same sentence as Weapons, but here we are.

I do enjoy it when a film can treat itself with some levity, and Cregger has shown that he can toe the line between multiple genres; however, it just didn’t make the finale’s gruesome violence land as hard as it could have. Further, the villain already looks gimmicky in their appearance (I can already picture the Halloween costumes), and the frivolous tone only dismantles the carefully built-up image of the evil antagonist in absurd ways.

FINAL VERDICT

In essence, Weapons is a simplistic and somewhat ordinary story told in an extraordinary way. It’s a striking film to watch, but it is let down by its storytelling. As a result, Weapons is just short of delivering that final, sharp blow. 

Rating: 7/10

For more film and TV reviews, head here.