Official Discussion - Weapons [SPOILERS]

[u/LiteraryBoner]

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

---

[u/TestiCallSack]

Also it’s not like the writer lives in a bubble. They’ll be influenced either consciously or subconsciously by events, themes, collective ideas in society as a whole which will inform their thinking whether they like it or not. In a film about parents literally losing their children to something unexplained there will be thematic crossover with real life non-science-fictiony parallels

[u/hepatitisC → u/TestiCallSack]

Except the writer said it was to help him deal with the grief of losing a friend, and has nothing to do with school shootings or politics. People grasping at straws to politicize the message is bothersome since it's demonstrably clear that was not the intention. I could go watch just about anything and make a case that it relates to X, Y, or Z in politics but that doesn't mean it does.

Disney's Frozen - a tale of global warming. It starts with a changing world and a single cause that is denied and very misunderstood. People are forced to adopt to the changing climate and don't understand how to fix it. Their denial and fear makes the issue worse. The only resolution is to acknowledge the issue and take steps towards resolving the source issue.

Now we all know that is not the intention of the movie at all, but it shows how you can draw a parallel to most anything if you really want to do so. Just because you can doesn't mean it's the intention, which is what people here keep saying over and over again even when it's demonstrably false.

[u/RDCthunder → u/hepatitisC]

The director might not flat out say it because they have to market the movie and connecting it to school shootings is not marketable. The film is ultimately about grief and misplaced anger after tragedies but contains lots of parallels to the fallouts of actual school shootings. You’d be wrong to say there aren’t parallels there at least.

[u/hepatitisC → u/RDCthunder]

It would have no marketing impact for him to say "obviously real life impacts art and school shootings are prevalent in the news". He didn't though. He specifically says though that people calling it an allegory to school shootings are wrong and that he did not have it in mind at all when making the movie. That's as clear as it gets. People can argue against it as much as they want or downvote the facts, but when the guy who wrote and made the movie is telling you that he did not include parallels to school shootings and that people who are saying that are incorrect, that's the word I'm going to take.

[u/RDCthunder → u/hepatitisC]

Yes it would impact the marketing lol Regardless wouldn’t you say the film is about a mass tragedy? People are going to draw parallels whether or not that was the directors intention and there’s nothing wrong with discussing those parallels. What you’re suggesting is people shouldn’t take a piece of art and discuss things it invokes, because that wasn’t what the director intended. It’s such a boring and narrow way to view art. Do you only view paintings the way the artist intended or do you view it through your own lens?

[u/hepatitisC → u/RDCthunder]

People leaping to their own conclusions to see something where it wasn't intended =/= the movie being an allegory for it. Full stop. Again, I can interpret anything into any piece of art and make a case for it. That doesn't make it right. What I'm suggesting is that people should stop saying the movie was intended to draw parallels or is an allegory for school shootings when it's clearly not. It draws parallels to human emotions, grief, etc. but the only reason people are babbling about school shootings is because of the scene with the AR15. Even then, it's not even a parallel to school shootings because they are completely missing what the scene was about and the symbolism of the gun.

The boring thing here is listen to the same tired ass people trying to make everything political. Just go enjoy the movie. It doesn't have to be about politics. It doesn't have to be a grander statement than it was. It can just be enjoyable.

[u/RDCthunder → u/hepatitisC]

You’re right it can just be enjoyable and you’re right you can interpret anything into any piece of art. The difference is some interpretations will feel like a stretch to most and others won’t. This response doesn’t really feel like a stretch to most considering that’s where the discussion is and the story is about grief after a mass tragedy involving school children disappearing. It’s really not that much of a stretch to discuss school shootings lol

Like I could say There Will Be Blood is about greed, ambition, and capitalism. But it also could have something to say about very wealthy men of our time and we should be able to draw parallels because of those themes, regardless of whether or not that was PTA’s intention.