Weapons - A Review

Zach Cregger, the man who brought us the superemly messed-up film 'Barbarian', brings us something colder, weirder, more ambitious in storytelling as he weaves together a puzzling movie from different timelines, perspectives in a nonlinear structure that's disorienting by design and shifts you into feeling uneasy throughout the entire film.

At the heart of all this splintered storytelling is Justine Gandy (Julia Garner, who anchors the film with her sharp humour and slightly feral persona), the teacher of a class where each student went missing at exactly 2:17 am. She carries the emotional weight of the narrative, an educator who cares too much, has a bit of a drinking problem and does not allow her chaotic sense of self to be undermined by people talking down to her. She's ruthless in her pursuit to find out what happened to the children, despite warnings from the principal, Andrew (Benedict Wong), that her behaviour is inappropriate, and townsfolk, like Archer (Josh Brolin), who is convinced that Justine has something to do with the missing children. ACAB Paul (Alden Ehrenreich) and his sequences induce paranoia, deep-seated trauma and emotional turmoil that play with the story while serving to highlight the incompetence of the police work.

The humour and sheer amount of gore are unforgettable. Cregger knows how to make you laugh, then make you feel uncomfortable for doing so. The chaotic music in the score that plays with your emotions was thrilling. One moment, upbeat songs that suggest we are in for a zany ride, the other, massive and eerie, soaked in grief. The gore is specific, horrifying in the way that you want to turn your head, but fascinating enough to not be able to take your eyes off the screen. There's discomfort in this movie,

The cinematography is haunting, off-kilter shots that will cause you to feel unsteady, unnatural movements that tell you something is off because the reveal finally shows it. Weapons is a horror that I do wish had fewer moments of humour, it has rots in its bones. Its simplicity is refreshing; there's no complication in what is going on here, no deep backstory that explains the narrative for you, no world-ending stakes, it's simply a story about children going missing and why.

4/5 🖤🖤🖤🖤🤍

– Emotionally resonant, visually striking, and just haunting enough to follow you home. Almost fully consumed me.

🖤 WEAPONS (2025) – FAQ - Spoilers Inclulded

A few answers for a film full of questions

What exactly is this movie about? At its core, Weapons is a story about grief, violence, and control.

Why is the story told out of order? Because it’s not interested in giving you clean answers. The film plays like memory: foggy, broken, and contradictory. Director Zach Cregger uses this to shift focus — from what happened, to how it felt. Different timelines, perspectives, and tones all reinforce the emotional chaos under the surface.

Who is Justine Gandy? Justine (Julia Garner) is the emotional anchor of the film — a teacher whose students vanish at the same time on different days: 2:17 AM. She’s sharp, messy, compassionate, and unafraid to push back when people try to shut her down. She drinks too much, cares too much, and knows something is wrong, even when no one else will admit it.

What’s the deal with 2:17 AM? 2:17 AM is the exact time the witch snaps her stick to bring all the children to her.

Is there a monster? Aliens? Something supernatural?

Yes. The antagonist is a witch, the "aunt" of a family. She's old and fragile, pure evil, and it's heavily implied that she is using the townspeople and children to heal herself. Why is it so funny sometimes? Because it’s human. Weapons uses dark humour the same way real people do: to break tension, to cope, to deflect. It’s uncomfortable laughter, not comic relief. And it makes the horror hit harder when it returns.

What’s up with the cop subplot? Let’s just say Alden Ehrenreich as Paul is not here to save the day. His storyline explores police failure, performative justice, and the quiet ways institutions can gaslight people. His scenes are tense, ugly, and frustrating on purpose.

What’s the score everyone’s talking about? The score is unhinged — in the best way. At times it’s whimsical, like a carnival ride, and other times it’s soul-crushing. It's one of the film's best weapons.

So… what does the ending mean?

It means there's a direct correlation to f*ing around and finding out.