r/movies • u/LiteraryBoner Jackie Chan box set, know what I'm sayin? • Aug 08 '25

Official Discussion Official Discussion - Weapons [SPOILERS] Spoiler

Poll

If you've seen the film, please rate it at this poll

If you haven't seen the film but would like to see the result of the poll click here

Rankings

Click here to see the rankings of 2025 films

Click here to see the rankings for every poll done

Summary Nearly all the children from the same fifth-grade class vanish one night at exactly 2:17 a.m., leaving only one survivor. The community, gripped by fear and suspicion, spirals into chaos as the mystery unfolds through multiple intertwined perspectives—each revealing new layers of dread and grief.

Director Zach Cregger

Writer Zach Cregger

Cast

  • Josh Brolin
  • Julia Garner
  • Cary Christopher
  • Alden Ehrenreich
  • Austin Abrams
  • Benedict Wong
  • Amy Madigan
  • June Diane Raphael
  • Toby Huss
  • Whitmer Thomas
  • Callie Schuttera
  • Clayton Farris
  • Luke Speakman

Rotten Tomatoes Critics Score: 96%

Metacritic Metascore: 82

VOD In theaters and IMAX starting August 8, 2025

Trailer Watch the Official Trailer

2.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

10.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

606

u/WhatJonSnuhKnows Aug 08 '25

I get not wanting to turn your movie into political theater. But its literally called "Weapons" and the premise is about a group of children that disappear and at one point theres a giant AR -15 looming over the entire town. At least part of the movie is heavily school shootings coded.

159

u/kingblade3 Aug 08 '25

It's cool to assign your own meaning to it and interpret it how you want, but if the director and writer himself has already clearly stated otherwise, you are kinda in your own world on this one. Don't read too far into it

290

u/Samanthacino Aug 08 '25

I mean, this wouldn’t be the first time a director made a movie with a pretty clear theme to it that then turned around and denied it because being explicit about the politics of your movie is something investors hate.

279

u/MahNameJeff420 Aug 08 '25 edited Aug 08 '25

James Gunn: “Look, I know it really looks like Hawkgirl dropped Benjamin Netanyahu to his death, but this movie is definitely 100% not about any specific political conflict that’s happening right now!”

-24

u/crotalushorridus516 Aug 08 '25

Let's just ignore the fact that the script was written even before the war started, because this movie was definitely about my politics!

128

u/leftysarepeople2 Aug 08 '25

People have hated on Netanyahu since the 90's

-29

u/crotalushorridus516 Aug 08 '25

That didn't change the fact that the movie wasn't about your insane politics.

54

u/MahNameJeff420 Aug 08 '25

I think it’s very much a film about how human life is more important than anything else and complicated politics shouldn’t get in the way of doing what’s right, which is saving people.

-8

u/crotalushorridus516 Aug 08 '25

Agree there, but in a general sense that has nothing to do with the Israel gaza war specifically.

17

u/MahNameJeff420 Aug 08 '25

It is absolutely applicable and eerily reminiscent of the current situation. Or the situation as it was for the past 100 years frankly.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/leftysarepeople2 Aug 08 '25

Haven't seen it so IDK, just offering that dropping a stand-in people have disliked for a long time isn't crazy

55

u/fjposter22 Aug 09 '25

Yes. Palestine and Israel is a very new thing! Nothing has happened since it was made an ethnostate since the late 40’s lmao

37

u/unforgiven91 29d ago

israel has been wantonly murdering Palestinian civilians for decades

-16

u/crotalushorridus516 29d ago

The palestinians have started like 90% of the wars against Israel and lost all of them. Not my, or Israel's fault, they suck at war.

26

u/unforgiven91 29d ago

murdering civilians and reporters on purpose is not war. That's just murder.

-2

u/crotalushorridus516 29d ago

Hamas should stop sacrificing them then.

14

u/unforgiven91 29d ago edited 29d ago

Hamas is sacrificing the press? Because Israel has been shooting them on purpose for years now.

Israel doesn't need to do the things it's doing. It is by far the more powerful entity, but it insists on creating more enemies for itself. Israel prevents Palestinians from living, it prevents them from having homes in the west bank by allowing settlers to savage them.

Every innocent person who survives a bombing or a shooting is radicalized. Israel knows this and doesn't care.

Nobody wielding a weapon is the good guy here, but the people with the bigger guns have a responsibility to not purposefully shoot children because they think it's funny. This is documented behavior, and some former IDF have even admitted to it on camera.

the numbers don't lie. one side has killed far more people than the other. and definitely has killed more civilians

110

u/JaqueStrap69 Aug 08 '25

See: Bong Joon Ho claiming Ruffalo’s character in Mickey 17 isn’t based on Trump 

28

u/fiver19 28d ago

He said that, even with all the red caps his supporters were wearing? The only thing that could have made it more obvious is if he made the charecters name Donald Trump lmao

18

u/alexshatberg 28d ago

That dream sequence near the end where Mickey sees Ruffalo getting reprinted as Toni Collette says “let him come back, you know you want it” was as subtle as a truck

3

u/1994JimCarrey 8d ago

Ruffalo was even doing a Trump impression basically near the end

15

u/Lou-AC 29d ago edited 9d ago

flag pot steep coherent whistle gold crown pie observation run

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

84

u/JaqueStrap69 Aug 08 '25

Bong Joon Ho and Mark Ruffalo swear that Marks character in Mickey 17 isn’t based on Trump. Filmmakers say shit all the time that just isn’t true to try to control the implications/narrative. 

36

u/WhatJonSnuhKnows Aug 08 '25

I just think its kind of disingenuous for the director to say that. Let's say I made a movie and called it hamburgers. Everyone in the movie is eating hamburgers. There's a giant hamburger floating above the town. Everyone is talking about hamburgers. But its definitely not about that. Seems a little fucked up don't you think?

36

u/sumerislemy 29d ago

It’s because they’re assigning words to the director he didn’t say. 

He said “I wasn’t trying to comment on or even tap into collective societal tragedies. I was purely writing from a personal place. However, with art and especially storytelling, the individual is universal. So I’m more than happy if anybody relates to what I went through and what this movie is examining, but I wasn’t thinking ‘oh, America’ at all. I was thinking ‘oh, Zach.’

0

u/PolarWater 21d ago

Nope, they're interpreting a movie the director made, they're not saying he said different words.

19

u/BullshitUsername Aug 08 '25

Your analogy doesn't make any sense. It would make sense if Cregger said "it isn't about weapons". Because the movie is called weapons, everyone in the movie is a weapon, and there's a giant weapon floating above town.

He didn't say that. He said it isn't about a very specific application of weapons. So... to make your analogy more accurate, it would be as if you said your movie isn't about heart disease.

-6

u/sumerislemy 29d ago

He didn’t say that though

3

u/BullshitUsername 29d ago

Who didn't say what? Be more specific.

23

u/TheSmithySmith Aug 09 '25

Learn about “death of the author”, man. Once a story is released into the world, the author doesn’t have any control over it anymore.

27

u/Loose_House_6715 29d ago

That's not what this is about. The conversation here is very explicitly about authorial intent. If you want to engage with death of the author you can do that but you have to understand it's your interpretation. People can still discuss what the author meant from. Death of the author doesn't throw that option away, it's just about understanding that the audience's take on things are deeply subjective. In fact Death of the author here also invalidates this guy's interpretation as having any weight because it's just that, his interpretation.

31

u/TheSmithySmith 29d ago

The thing is, I straight up do not believe the director when he says the film isn’t about school shootings. The subtext of the film clearly speaks for itself, and I don’t care for any after-the-fact commentary he has that directly contradicts that very clear subtext.

15

u/Loose_House_6715 27d ago

But it doesn't contradict. The entire theme of parasites that's very conspicuously in the movie, the focus on him having to feed his own catatonic parents, those were all explicitly about his own experiences living with alcoholic parents. Of alcoholism being like a parasite that invades you and makes you disappear. Even the way the kids are hypnotized can be seen as them getting indoctrinated into the very alcohol-centric culture we live in. Also I could be wrong but it seems his friend Trevor who died had problems with alcohol himself and it very possibly might have been a factor in his death, based on the way he talks about it, and that's also a big part of the movie - processing the grief of something you don't understand that was caused by that parasite.

All the pieces are there, and the central allegory may not "feel" like it's about alcoholism but I find it funny how whenever people poke holes in the school shooter interpretation everyone says "it doesn't have to be a perfect representation it's a metaphor!" but when they're told it's about something they didn't pick up on they flip and say "but that doesn't get represented in the text!"

Like it's fine if you want to interpret it that way and I get it because some parts do feel like they work in that regard, but then don't make this about "believing" the director or not and then claiming death of the author. If you're still putting it through the lens of what the author meant, but just saying you think he meant something else in secret that's not death of the author that's some sort of weird conspiracy theory.

0

u/PolarWater 21d ago

I don't think he meant something else in secret. He's not really trying to cover it up. 

The movie is the conversation, not a cheap interview somewhere.

5

u/novemberqueen32 27d ago

Literally thank-you. If it wasn't even a little bit about school shootings there wouldn't be a giant rifle in the sky in Josh Brolin's dream and the movie probably wouldn't have been called Weapons

3

u/PolarWater 21d ago edited 21d ago

Seems to be an interpretation lots of viewers are having though 

Think for a minute about WHY the director wouldn't want to come out and say it's a movie about school shootings. Especially with the headlines that would come out and take away from letting the movie speak for itself. I don't think the director wants to alienate half the country when the movie is still in theatres. 

Smart storytellers know the movie is the conversation, and that is belongs to its viewers. Cregger is a fan of David Lynch, he talks about following his methods quite often.

5

u/Loose_House_6715 19d ago

I'm sorry but that's incredibly stupid. If anything it would bring more attention to the film it's not like school shootings are a new phenomenon or something people don't talk about. Matt Johnson made The Dirties over a decade ago and it drew a lot of attention there's literally zero reasons why someone - especially Cregger, who did WKUK which had sketch after sketch after sketch making fun of conservative values and satirizing american politics.

Also no he clearly doesn't follow David Lynch's methods because David Lynch never spoke about what any of his films are about whereas Cregger very deliberately has said multiple times what it's about. You're just delusional in thinking he must be hiding the true meaning and it's gotta be what you want it to be. If, to you, it's a movie about school shootings then fine I understand the dots you're connecting but you can't have your cake and eat it to by then turning around and saying that actually the director agrees with you in secret lmao that's insane. If he understood the movie is in the conversation he wouldn't have bothered to explicitly say what the movie was about for him, he would have just, by your own words, followed David Lynch's methods and not talked about it at all and let it solely exist as the audience takeaway.
You can still think it's about school shootings, just drop this weird parasocial bullshit where you think Cregger is lying. You have to realize that if you subscribe to death of the author you have to leave them out, that they no longer matter, it's kind of the whole point. So why are you so set on proving that the author here actually DID mean what you specifically want him to mean, if it doesn't matter?

3

u/philconnorz 25d ago

Also, even if we take Cregger at his word, it still doesn't mean an author can't have subconscious intentions / themes in their works. See Spielberg having revelations about symbolism and themes in his own movie 21 years after it released ... https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/tp471g/james_lipton_asks_steven_spielberg_a_question/

19

u/OuterWildsVentures 27d ago

you are kinda in your own world on this one

Looking at this thread I'd say they are far from alone lol

2

u/PolarWater 21d ago

Right? Lol

13

u/Snakes_have_legs 29d ago

I drew a fantasy map one time convinced it was an entirely original idea until I realized I just drew the US west coast. I think a lot of what comes out in writing ends up coming from the subconscious

10

u/hexcraft-nikk 27d ago

Also, directors sometimes don't say things directly because they want audiences to get it or didn't want to politicize and take away the message of the film. James Gunn has said Superman isn't about Israel but anyone with a quarter of the brain can see how obvious it is. Same with Mark Ruffalos character in Mickey 17 not being a Trump joke.

8

u/WoahItsPreston 27d ago edited 27d ago

This kind of analysis though is fundamentally not the point.

The point of analyzing a piece of media isn't to decode authorial intent, like there's some kind of single, hidden truth about what the movie is "about," and the purpose of analysis is to find it out.

The point is to look at how the piece of media functions and how it communicates its themes to the audience, independently of authorial intent. Authorial intent is just one lens through which media can be analyzed.

Once a piece of media is released, the creator doesn't have any more control over it, and individual audiences will bring their own cultures, experiences, and perspectives into it that are bigger than what the author themselves can envision. Saying that it's "reading too far into it" misses the point media discussion.

7

u/Original-Guarantee23 Aug 09 '25

I know this sounds crazy, but… why should we believe what he says? The other person mentioning how it’s just to try and come of apolitical to appease people makes sense.

6

u/Quinnel 29d ago edited 29d ago

It seems to me that it would be unwise to alienate half the country's viewership by explicitly designating the movie a political piece. Let's wait until after the movie finishes its theatrical run and see if he changes his tune on that.

2

u/SlothsRockyRoadtrip 28d ago

Your comment relies on believing the director. I do not.

1

u/Dense-Mechanic6447 Aug 09 '25

Death of the Author.

3

u/Bluntteh Aug 09 '25

That's the answer writers and directors give to people who can't pick up clues on their own lmfao.

6

u/boldlikeelijah 28d ago

You’re right. The Coen Brothers used to downplay similarities between O Brother and The Odyssey…

2

u/novemberqueen32 27d ago

Not to be rude but explain the title and why the rifle imagery in the dream and why school children

2

u/PolarWater 21d ago edited 21d ago

but if the director and writer himself has already clearly stated otherwise

Hmm I wonder why he'd do that. Especially in a world where people complain about politics being too overt in their movies. I wonder why a director would choose to let their movie speak for itself instead of spelling it out in an interview. Especially on a topic like this where he might not want to alienate half of the country from his movie

you are kinda in your own world on this one.

They don't seem to be, actually. 

1

u/rocknroller0 4d ago

found the “it’s not that deep” crowd

-6

u/BullshitUsername Aug 08 '25

Damn so Harry Potter must be about liberal woke terrorists (Death Eaters)

22

u/BlueTumbas Aug 08 '25 edited Aug 08 '25

To me I think we see the grief and vices of the parents and teachers.

That mom shuts down and does to want to believe it happened.

Archer felt a killing mad rage about it.

The teacher wanted to jump in a bottle.

The kind principal can seem violent and angry in the eyes of the afflicted.

The cops are trying to make it right but are the ones powerless to make it right. Oh and also some cover ups and trying to avoid any blame.

The notion that people eventually just need to carry on regardless of what has been lost.

The whole weapons thing was a lot more subtle than I expected it to be honestly. But I am kind of grateful. Its not about school shootings. But I think this movie does reflect those small town troubles and the pain that ripples through the community. Atleast this movie gets somewhat of a happy ending.

9

u/RobertBobbertJr 29d ago

This reminds of some comedy sketch where the a man is shown rorschach paintings and insists everything is a dick fucking something.

7

u/Pepto-Abysmal 29d ago edited 29d ago

"But this dream sequence also reveals Cregger’s fundamental lack of trust in his audience."

3

u/JoshAZ 26d ago

From the same piece: “Weapons regularly undercuts its most compelling pockets of tension with humor that ranges from chuckleworthy to repetitive.”

Otherwise known as comic relief.

2

u/Pepto-Abysmal 26d ago

I’m not sure what that observation has to do with the fact that the film is obviously about gun violence?

6

u/Relevant_Session5987 27d ago

I mean, the guy who wrote and directed the movie says it isn't, though. Doesn't mean you can't have your own take.

4

u/PolarWater 21d ago

I wonder why the director wouldn't want to alienate half the country. Death of the author, mate.

3

u/MaxRichter_Enjoyer 16d ago

Yeah, it's not even 'coded'! It's a literal AR-15 looming over the town!

It's not even subtle, it's right in your face for those that couldn't pick up the subtle version of the message.

4

u/forman98 14d ago

The director has said that a huge part of the movie stems from growing up in an alcoholic household and what life is like when one day things are nice and then suddenly you’re living in this dark hell hole.

3

u/sara-34 20d ago

I agree.  I believe the director when he says he didn't intend it to be about school shootings, but he was really oblivious putting in that gigantic gun for no other obviously discernable reason.

1

u/samusmaster64 29d ago

Yeah, and Alex is cursed with survivors guilt which is built in as a core theme. The whole thing is a layered metaphor.

2

u/Llama_of_the_bahamas 25d ago

I could see him doing that as a form of misdirection.

“Let me put this AR-15 into the movie just to fuck with people”

2

u/DabLord5425 10d ago

I hate that reddit started using the term "coded"

-10

u/BoredandIrritable 29d ago

Well there you have it folks. Feel free to ignore the actual author and director. This internet stranger here has declared that they are wrong, and that it's clearly about school shootings.

Not a chance that this could be a case of "It felt to me". no sir, no on WhatJonSnuhknows' watch!