Movie Review: "Weapons" - Dull, Boring, and Utterly Pointless

A Critical Dissection of "Weapons": Dull, Boring, and Utterly Pointless

In the crowded landscape of modern horror cinema, where filmmakers like Zach Cregger—fresh off the modest success of his 2022 directorial debut "Barbarian"—promise innovative twists on familiar tropes, "Weapons" arrives with a veneer of hype that quickly peels away to reveal a hollow, frustrating exercise in mediocrity. Released in theaters on August 8, 2025, by Warner Bros. Pictures, this ensemble-driven mystery horror film boasts an impressive cast including Julia Garner, Josh Brolin, Alden Ehrenreich, Austin Abrams, Cary Christopher, Toby Huss, Benedict Wong, and Amy Madigan. 

At its core, the plot revolves around the inexplicable disappearance of seventeen children from a single elementary school classroom in a sleepy suburban Pennsylvania town, leaving behind only one disturbed young boy named Alex. What follows is a nonlinear narrative pieced together from multiple perspectives, including those of the teacher, parents, a cop, a junkie, and the school principal, as the community grapples with paranoia, accusations of witchcraft, and escalating violence. On paper, this sounds like a potent allegory for school shootings, surveillance culture, and societal division in the vein of films like "The Crazies" or even Paul Thomas Anderson's "Magnolia." In execution, however, "Weapons" is a dull, boring, contradictory mess that fails to deliver on its purported scares, leaves gaping plot holes unaddressed, and devolves into unintentional comedy. It's creative in concept but so poorly made and portrayed that it squanders its potential, emerging as a film with no discernible purpose or explanation. I would skip this one entirely—don't waste your money.

From the outset, "Weapons" struggles to establish any meaningful tension or engagement, opting instead for a plodding pace that induces boredom rather than suspense. The film opens with a chilling narration from a local girl recounting the events as if sharing a playground ghost story, setting up the premise: on an ordinary Wednesday morning, teacher Justine Gandy (Julia Garner) enters her classroom to find it empty except for Alex (Cary Christopher), the lone survivor who appears traumatized and uncommunicative. Security footage reveals the children leaving their homes at precisely 2:17 a.m., moving in eerie unison toward an unknown destination. 

This inciting incident has the potential to hook viewers, evoking real-world fears of child abductions or mass tragedies. Yet, Cregger's direction, characterized by glacial camera movements and a vibrating score, feels more like an attempt to mimic "elevated horror" auteurs like Denis Villeneuve than a genuine build-up of dread. The nonlinear structure, dividing the story into character-specific chapters, is meant to add layers and interconnectivity, but it instead fragments the narrative into disjointed vignettes that repeat information without advancing the plot. We revisit the days leading up to the disappearance from the viewpoints of Archer (Josh Brolin), a proactive father; Paul (Alden Ehrenreich), a conflicted cop; James (Austin Abrams), a drug-addled informant; and Marcus (Benedict Wong), the beleaguered principal. Each segment pulses with on-and-off tension, like a blender that's been left running too long without anything substantial to mix. The result is a film that winds you up only to let you down repeatedly, fostering boredom as viewers wait in vain for the promised revelations. By the midway point, the repetitive security cam glimpses and whispered rumors of witchcraft feel like filler, not foreshadowing. Cregger's confidence in storytelling, evident from his "Barbarian" roots, here translates to overconfidence, assuming audiences will care about these underdeveloped characters without earning that investment. There's something missing—a spark of genuine human connection or escalating stakes—that leaves the entire endeavor feeling dull and interminable.

Compounding this boredom is the film's contradictory tone and messaging, which undermines any attempt at thematic depth. "Weapons" wants to be a sharp commentary on American suburbia's underbelly: the satanic panics of the 1980s and '90s, the pervasive trauma of school shootings, the irony of Ring cameras providing surveillance without security, and how communities weaponize fear and division in times of crisis. The title itself plays on dual meanings—literal arms like the hallucinatory semiautomatic rifle looming over a house, and metaphorical ones, where impressionable children become unwitting instruments of destruction. Yet, these ideas clash haphazardly. One moment, the film adopts a grim, self-serious tone, with Garner's Justine unraveling under accusations of being a witch who must know something about the vanishings. The next, it injects goofy humor, like the kids running with arms extended downward in a manner that's become a meme for Halloween costumes. This tonal whiplash isn't clever genre-bending; it's contradictory sloppiness that dilutes the horror. For instance, the community’s response—labeling Justine a witch and turning on neighbors—aims to amplify how tragedy breeds greater trauma, but it rings hollow because the characters' motivations flip-flop without logic. 

Archer starts as a level-headed parent but devolves into vigilante paranoia; Paul, the cop, embodies institutional corruption one scene and reluctant heroism the next. Even the broader allegory falters: if the kids are "weapons" in a school shooting metaphor, why does the film pivot to supernatural elements like blood rituals and religious abuse without reconciling them? Cregger's script refuses to connect every dot, which some might praise as artistic ambiguity, but here it comes across as lazy contradiction. The film critiques surveillance culture through the omnipresent cameras, yet uses them for cheap reveals that contradict the mystery's buildup. By refusing straightforward explanations, "Weapons" contradicts its own promise of a "twisted bedtime story," leaving viewers with a patchwork of ideas that don't cohere. This inconsistency extends to the performances, where strong turns like Garner's haunted intensity clash with over-the-top portrayals, such as Madigan's eventual campy villainy, making the whole ensemble feel uneven and uncommitted.

Perhaps the most damning aspect of "Weapons" is its failure to deliver scares, despite claims from critics and audiences that it's the "scariest movie of the year." Hype around the film's bone-chilling premise and Cregger's unpredictable spins aside, the horror elements are not as scary as people claim—they're tepid, reliant on lame jump scares that elicit eye-rolls rather than screams. The early sequences, with children slipping out of bed at 2:17 a.m. and marching into the night, could have been unnerving, tapping into primal parental fears. Instead, the execution is so restrained—slow pans revealing empty classrooms or shadowy figures on door cams—that it borders on somnambulant. When violence does erupt, it's in gory bursts that feel unearned, like the sudden homicidal turns where adults are compelled by an unseen force to wield everyday objects as weapons, from vegetable peelers to improvised blades. These moments aim for visceral impact but land flat, lacking the psychological buildup that makes true horror linger. 

The jump scare scenes, in particular, are lame: a door creaks open to reveal a lurking figure, or a reflection in a window flashes a grotesque face—clichés executed without innovation or timing. One purported highlight involves a hallucinatory assault where the spectral rifle manifests, but it's more visually confusing than terrifying, dissolving into abstraction without payoff. Cregger's direction, with its dream-like focus and steady-handed camerawork by Larkin Seiple, prioritizes style over substance, resulting in scares that are more startling than substantive. Even the gore, which escalates in the home stretch, feels gratuitous rather than frightening, as characters kill on command in ways that evoke the Brothers Grimm but without the folkloric weight. Compared to "Barbarian's" clever Airbnb terrors, "Weapons" underwhelms; its horror is diluted by the ensemble format, where individual frights get lost in the shuffle of perspectives. People claim it's shocking and genre-mish-mashing, but in reality, it's a bland thriller masquerading as elevated horror, with scares as ineffective as a rubber knife.

A significant portion of the film's frustration stems from its baffling supernatural core, centered on an elderly aunt figure—portrayed by Amy Madigan as Gladys, a reclusive neighbor—who inexplicably controls people using a simple twig. This element introduces a creative spark, blending witchcraft accusations with blood rituals in a small-town Florida-like community (though set in Pennsylvania), but it's portrayed so poorly that it unravels the entire narrative. There's no explanation whatsoever for why the aunt can control people with this twig or where the twig originates, turning what could have been a intriguing MacGuffin into a nonsensical plot device. Is the twig a relic from some ancient curse? A product of generational trauma? The film hints at religious abuse and ironic twists where kids become weapons, but it never clarifies. 

Gladys emerges late in the story as the antagonist, compelling the children to flee and adults to turn violent, yet her powers are introduced abruptly without backstory. Madigan "saved" the movie according to Cregger, but her performance veers into ham-fisted territory, making the twig-wielding scenes feel like a bad parody of folk horror. The creativity lies in subverting expectations—the twig isn't a gun or knife but an innocuous branch symbolizing how ordinary things become deadly—but the poor portrayal leaves it dangling. Why does the twig work on children but also adults? How does Gladys discover or inherit this power? The script's refusal to explain feels like a cop-out, especially when earlier chapters build mystery around police corruption and junkie informants that lead nowhere. This lack of origin or mechanism contradicts the film's allegorical ambitions; if it's meant to represent manipulated innocence in school shooting narratives, why not explore that? Instead, the twig becomes a lazy stand-in for unexplained evil, poorly integrated into the ensemble arcs and rendering the creative concept DOA.

As the film barrels toward its climax, these unresolved elements culminate in a finale that's not just contradictory but outright comical, transforming horror into farce. The aunt, now fully unhinged, runs through homes and backyards in a frantic chase, evading pursuers with absurd agility and using her twig to command more chaos. This sequence becomes unintentionally hilarious, evoking Ferris Bueller's day-off antics from the 1986 comedy classic rather than any genuine threat. Gladys dashes across manicured lawns, peeks through fences like a mischievous teen skipping school, and even pauses for a breath in a way that's more slapstick than sinister. The campy turn, which Cregger embraces as "darkly comic," feels like a tonal betrayal after hours of grim buildup. Characters like Archer and Paul pursue her in vehicles that comically fail, while the junkie James stumbles into the fray high as a kite, adding to the Keystone Cops vibe. It's as if the film, exhausted from its own contradictions, gives up on scares and opts for laughs, but without the charm of intentional comedy. The bittersweet ending, where the community confronts its divisions, lands with a thud because the aunt's rampage undermines the allegory—how can this be a serious commentary on trauma when it devolves into a Bueller-esque romp? This comical shift highlights the film's poor pacing and portrayal; what starts as a slow-burn mystery ends in a frenzy that's more exhausting than exhilarating.

Amid this chaos, "Weapons" does include a few nods to horror history, such as an Easter egg referencing Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining." In a particularly grotesque moment, the young boy Alex's mom, under the aunt's control, breaks through a door with a grimace face, mirroring Jack Nicholson's iconic axe-wielding expression from the 1980 hotel breakdown. It's a clear homage—the splintered wood, the frozen snarl—but it's so on-the-nose and poorly timed that it feels like fan service rather than clever intertextuality. Placed during a jump scare sequence that's already lame, it elicits a groan instead of a chill, pulling viewers out of the story to spot the reference. While creative in its winking acknowledgment of classic horror, it's another example of the film's contradictory nature: borrowing from masterpieces without earning the gravitas.

Ultimately, "Weapons" has no purpose and offers no explanation for its central mysteries, leaving viewers adrift in a sea of unanswered questions. Why did the aunt control the kids— was it to weaponize them against the town, or something more personal tied to her isolation? Why extend that control to adults, turning parents and cops into puppets? How did she or the twig acquire this power—through some unspoken ritual, illness, or supernatural inheritance? The film teases connections to generational trauma and religious abuse, but never delivers. If Gladys was sick and needed children—perhaps for some life-force ritual to cure her ailing body—why wasn't she better after compelling an entire class of seventeen kids? The implication is that consuming their innocence or energy sustains her, but it's never shown or resolved; she remains frail even after the mass control, contradicting any logical progression. These gaps aren't artistic ambiguity; they're narrative voids that render the film pointless. Cregger's script, auctioned for $38 million, prioritizes structural chicanery—overlapping timelines and ensemble perspectives—over coherent storytelling. The creativity in flipping the "weapons" concept, where kids are the danger rather than victims, is squandered by poor execution: dialogue that's expository without insight, visuals that are pretty but empty, and a resolution that's as unsatisfying as it is comical. Performances vary—Garner shines in her terror, Brolin brings grit to Archer, but Madigan's Gladys overplays the villainy, and Christopher's Alex is more prop than character. Technically, the film impresses with Seiple's cinematography and the co-score, but they can't salvage the boredom.

In a year of stronger horrors like the visually dazzling "Demon Slayer: Infinity Castle" or even Cregger's own "Barbarian," "Weapons" stands out for all the wrong reasons: dull pacing, boring repetition, contradictory tones, lame scares, unexplained powers, comical endings, and purposeless plotting. It's creative on a superficial level but so poorly made and portrayed that it collapses under its ambitions. At roughly two hours, it feels interminable, and the $255 million gross seems driven by hype rather than merit. Skip this one—don't waste your money on a film that promises twisted thrills but delivers only frustration.