Jonah Naplan   August 10, 2025

Great horror is so hard to come by these days, with very few modern genre movies truly hitting on all cylinders. Ryan Coogler’s “Sinners” from a couple months ago, along with “Smile 2” and “Heretic,” are some of the rare ones that actually managed to do it, but they’re too few and far between, which is why a bunch of the recent pickings, particularly those belonging to the “elevated horror” category, like “Bring Her Back,” “The Monkey,” and now “Weapons,” have fallen short of greatness but inched so close that you can practically taste its bittersweet aroma. Writer and director Zach Cregger’s new project is a frequently excellent but overall convoluted and very messy movie that’s ultimately too giant for its own good. It’s anchored by several terrific performances and a few masterful scares but it lacks the subtlety and simple plotting that made his last film, “Barbarian,” knock it out of the park. Your mileage will almost certainly vary, which is why I’m confident “Weapons” is gonna be one of those movies we’ll still debate about years from now.

It’s split up into several chapters, each one adding new details to the case of the mysterious disappearance of all 17 kids from Mrs. Gandy’s (Julia Garner) class. At 2:17 a.m. on a random night, these children got out of bed, went downstairs, walked out the front door, and ran off into the darkness, arms slightly outstretched, leaving no trace behind. An army of outraged parents immediately point fingers at the teacher, who may or may not have something to do with their disappearance, but claims she knows nothing. As Cregger’s script unfolds, however, it becomes clear that there’s much more to this mystery than simply Mrs. Gandy and her relationship with these children and that something far more sinister lurks underneath. It will take a while before all is revealed, though, and Cregger takes you on that journey through the individual perspectives of a group of troubled characters who are all prisoners of their own morality in one way or another.

There’s Justine Gandy, the humble schoolteacher whose life is turned upside down in the aftermath of the tragedy; Archer Graff (Josh Brolin), the father of one of the missing children whose grief is measured by his new obsession with pouring over city maps and scouring the neighborhood for clues; Paul Morgan (Alden Ehrenreich), a beleaguered local police officer who had a relationship with Justine years prior and keeps coming back to her in spite of his toxic girlfriend (June Diane Raphael); James (Austin Abrams), a delinquent who starts a kind of crazed turf war with Paul; Marcus (Benedict Wong), the school principal who takes Justine’s side, but ultimately shields her from having any meaningful communications; and quiet little Alex Lily (Cary Christopher), the one kid from the class who did not disappear, but doesn’t know where the rest of his peers went. 

As the chapters unfold, each new perspective on these events and the days that proceeded them builds out the puzzle that “Weapons” keeps reshaping and redefining until you’re left questioning what it all means. Cregger definitely aims for an allegory about school shootings, and the ways those kinds of tragedies can tear apart a tight-knit community and drive parents to fits of uncontrollable rage that cannot be explained or justified beyond their root cause. His resentful allusions here, which are sometimes as unsubtle as a massive AR-15 looming over a home in a hallucination sequence, or as simple as floral shrines outside of the school, mourning the loss of those gone too soon, are reminiscent of some of the recurring images we see in the news, signifying unthinkable tragedy.

This message is somewhat undermined by several sequences that are really secondary to the main plot, and the movie feels so lengthy in some sections that I wished they’d all been cut down to let the mystery at the film’s center really breathe. Some chapters are not as effective as others. Justine and Archer’s stories are the strongest (which may hold an unfair advantage because they’re also the first two that we see), largely because of both actors’ excellent performances. Brolin brings such remarkable gravitas to a father so blinded by his own grief that his behavior has devolved into aggressive spurts, while Garner is superb as a woman facing a seething public that’s demanding answers and threatening her life; even at home, Justine cannot be certain that she’s safe. I knew Garner had a great performance like this in her after “Wolf Man,” a horror movie that failed to properly display her talents. The way she conveys stress and alienation in “Weapons” feels like a star actress’s response to paparazzi popping up everywhere she goes; Justine is putting up a shield, isolating herself physically and mentally from the pain of reality.

All of the character-driven stuff is the best feature of “Weapons,” a movie that starts to fall apart once it begins answering questions and putting all the pieces together. Without spoiling anything, what it all ultimately adds up to is surprisingly disappointing, a cheap explanation that doesn’t match the expert tension that preceded it. What moves like a realistic, dirt-under-your-fingernails reflection of our society for most of its runtime culminates in a fantastical way, sacrificing the credibility of the previous two hours. A different version of “Weapons” may have had you leaving the theater haunted by its disturbing parallels to real life, but this one will instead make you mumble “Well, that was just weird.”

It would be passable, yet still unsatisfying, if Cregger had sprinkled elements of the same caliber all throughout the rest of the movie, but the thoughtful side of “Weapons” leaves no room for it. Where “Barbarian” was consistently cuckoo from beginning to end, making the final note feel perfectly appropriate, “Weapons” is more grounded in realism from moment to moment, making the conclusion feel blatantly out-of-place. In a lot of ways, it still falls into the trap that so many “elevated horror” movies do, setting itself up as one thing (which is largely effective), and then going in a totally different direction by the end without justifying the unignorable shift. 

I love when “Weapons” focuses on its characters. I love when “Weapons” experiments with the blinding swaths of darkness that surround us. I love when “Weapons” plays around with tension, all while emphasizing how a community can be united by anger. I love when “Weapons” is a mystery. I don’t love when “Weapons” tries to give us answers. Although it wants to present itself as something subversive and shocking, it’s the movie’s human elements that are Cregger’s real secret weapon.

Now playing in theaters.