“Weapons” Aims for the Heart of American Horror but Misses Its Mark

By Charlie Cruz     8/26/25 10:03pm

Rating: ★★★½

I first heard of “Weapons” when I noticed it sitting at a perfect 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. That number has since dropped, but it speaks to the wave of acclaim the film has ridden since its release. And while I don’t agree with the score, I get why the hype built so quickly. “Weapons” is the kind of horror-comedy that blends unsettling dread with moments of absurd humor, a tonal balancing act that feels rare in a studio horror film.

The movie’s riveting opening stretch is the film at its best. Seventeen children suddenly vanish from their homes at 2:17 a.m., all from the same classroom, running into the night as if pulled by some unseen force. The premise is instantly gripping, helped by the viral real-world marketing campaign that staged children running through Times Square. The atmosphere that follows is suffocating. Zach Cregger’s nonlinear structure — jumping between a grieving teacher, a frustrated father and other townspeople — initially promises layers of depth and meaning. For about an hour, “Weapons” feels like a mystery worthy of the hype.

---

---

That hype wasn’t accidental. “Weapons” sparked a high-profile bidding war before a single frame was shown, with studios fighting to secure the “next Jordan Peele” project. Add to that a stacked cast, plus Cregger’s newfound reputation after “Barbarian,” and expectations were almost impossible to meet. The hype framed “Weapons” not just as a film, but as an event: an allegory-heavy, conversation-starting “masterpiece.”

There’s a lot to admire here. Cregger has a knack for finding horror in the mundane: suburban homes cloaked in silence, lit-up convenience stores, children running barefoot under streetlights. At first, the film plays like a slow-burning investigation, focusing on Justine (Julia Garner), the ostracized teacher, and Archer (Josh Brolin), the grieving father. But just as you settle into their story, the film detours into the lives of a self-serving cop and a desperate junkie. Some have called this lazy — a way to pad the runtime and delay the inevitable reveal — but that’s the point. The mystery of the missing children isn’t the story; the story is the town’s sickness itself, and each perspective is a different symptom.

Through Justine, we see a community so desperate for a scapegoat that it turns on the one person actively trying to help. Garner is phenomenal, portraying a woman whose grief and guilt are weaponized against her by neighbors who’d rather invent a villain than confront a complicated horror. Through Archer, we see a father’s grief curdle into obsession, his rationality collapsing into circular thinking that blinds him to the apparent rot around him. The film’s thesis sharpens here: institutions and instincts fail us in the face of senseless tragedy. The police, represented by Alden Ehrenreich’s unraveling Paul, are more concerned with reputation than public service. The school, led by Benedict Wong’s passive principal, prioritizes appearances over student welfare. The real monster in “Weapons” isn’t supernatural at all — it’s the systemic neglect that allows evil to fester in plain sight.

But for all its strengths, Weapons also falters. The film gestures at allegory — guns, parasites, suburban decay — but never digs deep enough to pay them off entirely. By the end, the mystery narrows into something more conventional than its ambitious setup promised. The slow-burn intrigue loses steam, and what initially felt layered and unsettling resolves into a payoff that doesn’t quite match the buildup. Combined with some head-scratching character choices and a reliance on “mystery-box” pacing that confuses withholding with depth, the film ultimately feels less profound than it wants to be.

That’s where the confusion sets in. Critics have called “Weapons” the “best horror film”  of the year. I don’t see it. It’s stylish, entertaining and occasionally haunting, but not groundbreaking. In fact, the best moments aren’t scary at all. They’re the sly, absurd touches of comedy that puncture the dread. The film’s sense of humor is dry, uncomfortable, almost Coen Brothers-esque, and it hits. Those beats remind you why Cregger, with his comedy roots, is an exciting filmmaker to watch: he knows that horror isn’t just about what makes us scream, but what makes us laugh nervously right after.

So, should you watch it? Absolutely. Even if it isn’t the genre-shifting masterpiece the hype suggests, Weapons is still a strong sophomore effort from a director worth following. It’s messy, ambitious and sometimes frustrating, but it is also one of the most distinctive horror films to have come out of a major studio in recent years. Just temper your expectations: this isn’t a revelation. 

---