Julia Garner as Justine in “Weapons.” Credit: Warner Bros. Pictures via TNS
In the age of cash-grab spin-offs and long overdue prequels, Zach Cregger’s “Weapons” boasts what many of this year’s films lack — a brand-new, genuinely distinct and creative screenplay. The film released in theaters Friday.
The plot of the film is laid out in the beginning, leaving no room for misinterpretation. A young town girl (Scarlett Sher) narrates the scene for us; at 2:17 a.m., 17 elementary-age kids, all from the same class, got out of bed and ran off into the night, never to be seen again.
Alex Lilly (Cary Christopher) was the only boy to show up to class the next day.
The subsequent scenes that follow depict community members in grief, angry parents desperate for closure and a large vigil reading “Maybrook Strong.” The imagery of which sets the viewer up for an allegorical take on not only the overarching community impact of school shootings, but also the impact it has on the people involved.
The method of storytelling in “Weapons” may seem repetitive at first, but it’s actually what sets the film apart from its competitors.
The film is broken up into six parts, with each depicting a different point of view from the most affected characters: the class’ teacher, a grieving father, a police officer, a homeless drug addict, the school principal and finally, Alex.
It begins with the class’ teacher, Justine Gandy (Julia Garner), who walked into work that day not knowing everything was about to change. It wasn’t until she was faced with 17 empty desks and one quiet, shy boy looking up at her that her life took a turn for the worse.
As expected, the blame is thrown directly at her. Parents demanding answers, demanding the police grill her until they find something — anything — to give them some understanding as to why their children left.
Justine is as confused as the rest. It’s clear that she’s concerned for the well-being of her students just as much as the community is; however, she does not conform to the typical kind, doting teacher archetype. She’s troubled and turns to alcohol to cope with the public scrutiny she faces. She’s determined to find her students but often oversteps boundaries, especially with Alex.
From Justine we switch over to Archer Graff (Josh Brolin), one of the missing boys’ fathers. Brolin’s outstanding performance in this film does not go unnoticed. He plays the role of a grieving father authentically through the spectrum of emotions he exhibits: from heartwrenching grief, sleeping every night in his son’s empty room, to seething anger, berating Justine publicly. His range as an actor cannot be understated; I mean, this is Thanos from the “Avengers” films we’re talking about.
A portion of the film, specifically in Justine and Archer’s segments, are dream sequences. Though, the dreams aren’t confusing or a cop-out as they often are in horror films. Cregger’s intention was not to confuse the viewers, but instead to slowly prepare them for the chaos that was about to ensue.
One of Archer’s dreams further supports the school shooting narrative in a less-than-subtle way. While there are several other messages hidden within the film’s 2-hour 8-minute run time, Cregger doesn’t keep this one in the shadows — a surreal AR-15 rifle, a weapon often used in mass shootings, lingers in the sky in Archer’s dream, or rather nightmare.
Brolin’s hilariously horrified exclamation of “What the f***?” after waking up elicited a laugh from the audience and quickly tore them away from the dream, only allowing them to grasp a semblance of its deeper meaning.
The film isn’t called “Weapons” for nothing, although there is much more to the title than just that.
Now, the first hour or so of the film can seem redundant — the aforementioned repetitiveness of the separate narratives is due to the non-linear storytelling of the mystery. The character’s stories are distinct yet interconnected. The abrupt switches in points of view make it feel as though you’re rewinding the film. Every time something truly wild happens, we go back in time and run through the story with a new character’s perspective.
This gives the viewer bits and pieces of new information along the way, never giving away too much but always adding the right amount of backstory. It’s a necessary slow and steady way to move the story along before the madness that happens in the latter half.
Next, we step into the shoes of Paul Morgan (Alden Ehrenreich), a miserable police officer with an alcoholic past, a raging temper and a convoluted romantic history with Justine. While his perspective serves as insight to the ongoing police investigation — or lack thereof — and segways us into the next portion of the film, it didn’t add much depth to the plot.
In any other film, this would be annoying. It seems like wasted time, almost.
Not in “Weapons.”
Cregger does not waste a second towards something that won’t play out in the end. Every unnecessary or confusing set-up leads the viewer to another unexpected turn of events, similar to in his 2022 directorial debut, “Barbarian.” His style comes through loud and clear. The two films share that fun, wacky horror narrative that takes what would be an otherwise predictable outcome in a whole new direction.
Paul leads us right into the story of James (Austin Abrams), a homeless, thieving, down-on-his-luck junkie. As you’d expect from a “Euphoria” actor, Abrams knows how to portray the low-life character he’s cast as like the back of his hand. Not only that, but he makes the character so likeable through his nonchalance and hilarious ignorance that is picture-esque of the horror film character we know and love — the one with no survival skills, whatsoever.
If you take a glance at the lineup of perspectives we’re shown, you can see how each person ties into the mystery. With James, you’re thrown into something entirely new. It may seem out of place, but you have to trust the process.
The last perspective before the entirety of the story is revealed belongs to Andrew Marcus (Benedict Wong). As the principal of the school, Andrew is at a crossroads; he’s tasked with balancing the grieving parents’ demands while maintaining the everyday operations of the school. After already encountering him earlier in Justine and Archer’s narratives, we know his outcome — what we don’t know is how he gets there.
When we finally make our way to Alex’s perspective, there are still a lot of unanswered questions. At this point, we now know what happened at 2:17 a.m. that morning. We know what happened to Andrew. There’s still a piece of the puzzle missing, though — why? Why did those things happen, why did these events unfold the way they did and what is the reasoning behind it?
Well of course, Alex’s perspective of the story wraps that all up. Not only do we discover the true nature of this unsolved case but we also discover the driving force behind it. It isn’t the clarity that makes Alex’s part of the story so enthralling to watch, nor is it the chilling performance by Christopher; it’s the outright absurdity of the film’s final 10 to 15 minutes that solidifies “Weapons” as a film to be reckoned with.
The end scene is incredibly cathartic — a proper ending to a film that could’ve easily been wrapped up in a less-than-ideal way. While the scene provides closure to the plot, the closing narration is open-ended; we aren’t left with a happy ending, but we aren’t left with a bad ending either. The ending itself is a nod to the prevailing themes of trauma within the film, because there is no happy ending when it comes to trauma. It is a life-long, deeply embedded hurt that even closure cannot resolve.
I would not hail this film as the best horror film of 2025. While it was scary at times, the bulk of the gruesome scenes are not what you’d expect. That being said, “Weapons” is overall one of the best films released this year thus far, and 100% lives up to the hype — Jordan Peele fired his managers after they lost the bidding war for this script, and upon watching, I’d have fired them too.
Rating: 5/5
