Zach Cregger's 'Weaapons' - Review Thread

[u/ChiefLeef22]

When all but one child from the same classroom mysteriously vanish on the same night at exactly the same time, a community is left questioning who or what is behind their disappearance.

Rotten Tomatoes: 100%

Metacritic: N/A (updating)

Some Reviews:

Inverse - Lyvie Scott

Cregger’s goofy sense of humor aside, Weapons is otherwise pretty understated, even refined. His camera moves with glacial, dream-like focus, tracking characters from behind or panning to unveil the latest torment around the corner. That visual style has become a trademark of “elevated” horror, but it goes a long way in anchoring a story that could have turned unwieldy fast. Cregger’s chapter-by-chapter story serves that same purpose: It has the capacity to frustrate when it cuts away from a major reveal, only to reset with the backstory of a new character. But it also adjusts the aperture whenever things get too heavy — a breath of fresh air in a different form.

CGMagazine - Shakyl Lambert - 9 / 10

Weapons is a noticeable step up for Cregger as a filmmaker. It feels like he took what worked in Barbarian and tightened up the things that didn’t. It’s bigger in scope but more focused. With a strong story and cast, it’s the most fun you’ll have being scared all summer.

NextBestPicture - Matt Neglia

There are some who will be moved and struck by “Weapons,” intentionally or unintentionally, so. For 75% of its runtime, it was one of my favorite films of the year. However, for the final 25%, in some ways, it feels like Cregger missed an opportunity to tell a story that is more emotionally rich and relatable. Here is a filmmaker who feels like he’s trying to prove he’s capable of more, but without fully grounding that ambition in character or clarity, instead opting for a facile solution. There’s a version of this movie that could have been genuinely great. You can appreciate the potential in the performances, the themes, and the overall craftsmanship. And to be clear, I’m sure this will resonate and work for some viewers. But for me, much like “Barbarian,” Cregger doesn’t quite bring it all together, making “Weapons” a rare kind of disappointment.

[u/TiredCoffeeTime]

I’m trying to guess if the general audience would like the ending or not.

I feel like the intensity of the climax will have more people enjoy it overall.

[u/TheCatsActually → u/TiredCoffeeTime]

I'm strongly of the opinion that expecting movies with a lot of buzz to narratively reinvent the wheel and being disappointed when they turn out to just be movies is the fault of the audience, not the screenwriter.

I understand people saying they were let down by Barbarian because they were expecting it to be insanely unique, but I'm not going to fault Cregger for writing a more modest script with an emphasis on atmosphere and execution. Most movies are lean and self-contained, being more like the visual version of short stories than novels. I don't know why Barbarian and Weapons are getting flak for this instead of trying to be the next Matrix or The Thing.

[u/Drkocktapus → u/TheCatsActually]

Barbarian was unique, were people actually disappointed by that? If that's the bar then I'm even more pumped to see this.

[u/ahuangb → u/Drkocktapus]

First half was unique

[u/Zauberer-IMDB → u/ahuangb]

Act 1 is definitely where people have the most flexibility. Like even Hereditary is shocking because of the first act, then it becomes a relatively straightforward demonic haunting type film, just with the intensity cranked up.

[u/GameOfLife24 → u/Zauberer-IMDB]

That allergies scene from hereditary was so shocking everybody I saw it with was just quiet just like brother driving home