Weapons Review: New Age Comedic Horror (spoiler-free)

Zack Cregger crafts a new age horror thriller that eschews classic tropes to keep you on your toes, with a masterful blend of hilarity and absurdity.

Weapons

Directed by Zach Cregger
Starring Julie Garner, Josh Brolin, Benedict Wong,

Runtime: 2 hours, 8 mins

Synopsis

17 classmates suddenly disappear from their homes by walking right out the front door, leaving a traumatized community grasping for answers as the key suspect, the children’s teacher (Garner), begins to unravel the mystery.

New Age Comedic Horror

Well, okay, maybe calling this horror is a bit of a stretch. In the past few years, there’s been a trend of recent movies in this vein, like Barbarian (2022, also directed by Cregger), Bodies Bodies Bodies (2022), or releases this year like Companion and Death of a Unicorn, that have leaned on more comedic elements while they present some horrific or hard thriller elements. Whereas many earlier horror films may have been unintentionally funny or garnered an unexpected laugh due to the framing, these modern films are intentionally leaning into the horror tension and releasing it with well-timed laughter, only to dive into another terrifying or scary moment to keep us guessing.

Weapons continues that same balance, crafting some scenes or jump scares that genuinely get a good rise out of the audience, while also being immensely funny in how this small town reacts to the carnage piling up around them. The key trick with this style of movie, and what separates it from potentially becoming a parody, is how the comedic elements never undercut the seriousness of what’s going on. Sure, heads may be rolling, but our characters genuinely react to that terribleness like actual human beings. This narrative truthfulness maintains the reality long enough that oscillating between two extremes feels natural and not as a big joke for the entire audience.

Completed Scripted Chaos

Modern script writing has sort of become a lost art, and even more so when it comes to horror films. That’s not a knock on the amazing writers who work their asses off trying to make it in this industry. But I’ve been increasingly disappointed by so many stories and how they come together. While the other parts of a film may cover up these flaws, it can be frustrating to hear weak dialogue come out of an actor’s mouth or have flimsy plot elements trotted out as moments we, the audience, should take seriously.

Weapons was a breath of fresh air that I had forgotten I needed.

Cregger presents the story mostly through a series of vignettes, focusing on one character at a time, that may start right as one character’s vignette ends or a few hours before, to fill in context we had yet to see. Time shifts can sometimes be frustrating, but withholding critical details or character flaws while still creating meaningful, connected scenes is how Weapons becomes a masterclass in doing them right. It’s here we really see the writing shine as none of these vignettes would have worked without careful planning and structure to let one vignette after another feed or expand the knowledge we gleaned from a previous scene.

It’s this sort of interconnectivity that has been sorely missing from so many films that it was a bit of a system-shock to receive that level of precision and execution from a director’s sophomore outing. Now, I will admit that while the third act reveals worked really well for me, I’ve already seen reviews and reactions online that pushed back against this a tad, so your mileage may vary. And unfortunately, I can’t really dive into details here because it’s truly spoilery. However, I do believe this film will hold up after repeat viewings and, ultimately, despite any over/underhype the film is currently experiencing, those third-act issues won’t hold a candle to how the film made you feel. That said, I certainly had a few facepalms after my screening about early details that clue you into what happened, so I would encourage my fellow reviewers to think a bit more about these supposed “plot holes” they are clamoring about.

One last thought on Weapons‘ time shifts; while I think presenting this story in a straightforward manner would have also worked, I like how much it fleshed out characters we would have likely seen very little of in other horror films. Can you imagine a film like Jaws (1975) taking a whole 10-15 mins to follow the Mayor around town and see how his daily interactions affected the plot?

Well, yes, you can actually. Spielberg does this on the ferry when the Mayor Vaughn (played by the late great Murray Hamilton) pushes back against Chief Brody’s (portrayed by Roy Scheider) decision to close the beach and all their subsequent interactions. All Weapons decides to do is combine those moments into one vignette that still serves the story while also giving additional context to some of the Mayor’s decisions. Whereas Jaws would allow us to pick those things up in the subtext of his scenes (or absence), Weapons does so through combination or deliberate withholding elsewhere. To that end, it’s a masterpiece of how to move a narrative forward without hurting the flow and overall effect.

The Town of Maybrook

Despite the plot seemingly focusing on several characters, the actual cast of Weapons is fairly small. Julia Garner as Justine does a fantastic job as the schoolteacher whose classroom has been targeted. Her messy life is unfortunately brought to the forefront as the investigation and blame by the townspeople stresses her drinking issues and poor romantic choices. Garner’s passion for her kids, despite her personal missteps, shines through in her moments and anchors the first half of the film. Which is needed as we begin shifting character perspectives to Josh Brolin’s Archer or Alden Ehrenreich’s Paul, who each inhibit some familiar horror conventions like the worried father or bumbling town policeman, respectively. While their archetypes are certainly familiar, where they end up and what they eventually reveal in the story are definitely more impactful than those types may suggest.

Brolin’s Archer doesn’t come off like a bumbling dad like those in A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) or Stranger Things (2016-2025), but much closer to Hugh Jackman’s obsessed father in 2013’s Prisoners, who is willing to do almost anything to get his child back, but still has enough moral compass to see that Justine’s involvement or lack there of may be more complicated than previously thought. When the narrative throws them together, it creates some sweet moments and sets up an interesting finale between the two.

Ehrenreich as Paul, even as a bumbling police officer, is one of the more nuanced officers we’ve had in recent horror memory (or ever honestly). You can feel for him as someone who’s trying to get their life together, but still makes enough poor choices in the time we have with him that compromise those goals and ultimately flesh out his deep character flaws. Ehrenreich really gives a great performance here and delivers plenty of laughs as he’s pulled deeper into the mystery.

However, the biggest laughs certainly go to Ehrenreich’s unsuspecting co-star, Austin Abrams, playing the homeless addict James. When we get a small intro to his character early in the movie, we have no idea how large a part he’ll play later on, but when he gets his moments, it’s absolutely fantastic. Again, I can’t say much more about his parts without venturing into spoilers, but I suspect he will be the breakout character for many fans of the film. It also affirms why he’s landed a leading role in Zach Cregger’s next film project, rebooting the disappointing Resident Evil film franchise. I have much greater hope that these two can deliver something amazing.

A Town of Dread

Cinematographer Larkin Seiple should take a bow, honestly. A few years removed from his amazing work on the Oscar winning film Everything Everywhere All At Once (2022), Seiple has crafted a great looking thriller, casting the right amount of shadows to conceal reveals, moving the camera in subtle ways to setup a few jump scares (which are minimal, if I counted correctly there may only be 4, but don’t hold me to that), or presenting some moments brightly and straightforward, so the absurdity becomes all the more apparent. That shift between legitimately creepy dark scenes and brightly lit suburbia echoes a major tonal shift that Cregger employed in his first film, Barbarian, but to repeated, successful effect here.

Conclusion / Recommendation

Zach Cregger’s Weapons avoids the sophomore slump directors can fall into by crafting a horrific fairy tale that manages to garner plenty of laughs and scares while giving us a unique story that fans will be dissecting for years to come.

I highly recommend checking this out in theaters ASAP to avoid spoilers. However, I would also strongly advise you to go into it with an open mind, avoiding the trailers and online hype if you can. So many reviews or conversations about the film seem focused on how it didn’t meet their expectations, which I have always found to be a bizarre complaint about a film. I’m not saying the marketing tone doesn’t matter, but we should aim to take a movie for what it gives us, not what we solely wanted out of it. If we entered into every movie that way, we would constantly be disappointed because no one could ever match our desires on every single outing.

Score: 9 out of 10

• A Tightly Woven Fairytale- 9
  • Sporting a story that fits its puzzle pieces together nicely, Cregger’s story and direction ultimately showcase a bizarre story neatly, utilizing skills that many of Cregger’s directorial peers could learn a thing from.
• Unique Vignettes- 9
  • Like Rashomon (1950) or Magnolia (1999) before it, Weapons expertly crafts a most-linear story with well-timed flashback vignettes that serve to enhance the story, avoiding the pitfalls other non-linear stories can fall into.
• Fabled Performances- 9
  • Anchored by Garner’s performance as Justine and flanked by Brolin and Ehrenreich, there’s no weak performance among the bunch, and even the unnamed performers in this review (due to spoilers) afford themselves well once they show up to ramp up the proceedings.

Check Us Out On Patreon

Love Nerd Union? Consider supporting us over on Patreon. You’ll get access to early access articles, commercial-free video essays, online discussions and more. Plus, you will be directly responsible for supporting journalism in a field that’s currently being overwhelmed by clickbait focused sites. Supporting us keeps the lights on but it also sets a standard to sites in our field about fair wage practices, citing sources, debunking unconfirmed sources, and helps us investigate stories better.

About Author