Weapons Is Not What You Think It Is and That’s a Good Thing

I feel I really must start this review with a kind of horror hot take. I admit, when Weapons was announced, I wasn’t very excited. Why? I wasn’t a fan of Barbarian. It felt like a modern take on Castle Freak without wanting to admit as much. However, as the marketing moved forward (and I saw chicken noodle soup was somehow involved), my interest was piqued. Fortunately, my trepidations were alleviated, and Weapons was good enough that it will likely end up in my favorites of the year. Read on to see why. (There are no direct spoilers in this review but I do mention things that could allude to things that some may consider spoilerish, be warned.)

In Weapons, “when all but one child from the same class mysteriously vanish on the same night at 2:17 a.m., a community is left questioning who or what is behind their disappearance.”

This review will be different from a lot of my reviews in that I really don’t want to spoil anything for you. Going into this film as blind as possible is the best way to go. What I can say is that the story of the film isn’t told in a linear fashion. After years of Tarantino doing this, I’ve kind of gotten sick of when movies do this because it tends to feel like a cop-out. With Weapons, that’s not at all the case. The way it is used enhances the viewer’s experience because, in each segment, a little more of the same story is told. In the production notes, Zach Creggar states, “Weapons is an interesting movie, because there’s really seven leads of this movie. Everyone gets to be the star of Weapons for their little 12-minute chunk. And so, every person I cast, I’m casting the star of the show.” This is part of what really works about the segments. Each character is given enough time for the audience to maybe not care about, but at least stay interested in how and why they are involved in the events of the film.

Speaking of the cast. There is not a single bad casting choice in this film, in my opinion. Everyone showed up and clearly gave 110%. Benedict Wong’s segment was probably my favorite. The direction his character goes is wild. Amy Madigan’s Gladys steals the show for me, though. Every moment she is on the screen, she just chews the scenery. I’d forgotten she was in Carnivale and now plan to go back and rewatch the show.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t discuss one of the most important topics to me, the gastro elements. Weapons uses food and alcohol in great ways to further the story. From chicken noodle soup to hot dog trays and jelly beans, we learn a lot about the characters by what foods and drinks they seek out and/or share with others. After the film has been out a bit, I will likely do another article on this with spoilers because, as I mentioned before, I’m keeping this completely spoiler-free.

THIS IS NOT A DIRECT SPOILER BUT STOP READING HERE IF YOU WANT TO GO IN COMPLETELY BLIND

The film’s main “twist” worked for me because it’s a type of thing I enjoy seeing in horror. What I appreciated about this and the film’s ending is that it never feels like a deus ex machina. The clues are there the whole time if you’re paying attention. I am looking forward to seeing the film again so I can look for more clues and context.

Overall, I think Weapons is a must-see film this year, and a theatrical experience is the way to go. There is something about seeing this film with an audience that makes it a better experience. Afterwards, go home and watch The Front Room. They will make a banger of a double feature that will make sense after you’ve seen both. Just trust me on this one. Weapons is in theaters now. 

My Rating: 4/5