The opinions expressed here are strictly those of the writers and do not reflect the views of University School of Nashville or the Peabody Press.
Editor’s Note: This review contains spoilers.
At least once a year, a new horror movie takes the box office by storm and has people raving on the internet about how it’s the ‘scariest movie they’ve ever seen,’ or ‘the best horror movie ever made.’
Last year, it was “Smile 2,” directed by Parker Finn. This year, it was the horror comedy “Weapons,” directed by Zach Cregger.
Grossing over $265 million worldwide as of September 22, “Weapons” is told through the perspective of six different characters throughout the fictional town of Maybrook, Pennsylvania.
As the viewer joins Maybrook, it is explained that around a month ago, 17 children from Justine Grandy’s elementary school class, played by Julia Garner, mysteriously disappeared in the middle of the night.
Only one student from Grandy’s class remained, Alex Lilly.
We come to find out that Alex’s Aunt Gladys, who had recently come to live with Alex and his family, is a witch who can use the souls of people to rejuvenate herself.
Previously, she had ordered Alex to bring items from each of his classmates back to his home, which is what allowed Gladys to take control of the students’ souls and led to their disappearance.
The finale of the movie sees the 17 children hilariously chase a stumbling Gladys all throughout Maybrook until they eventually catch up to her and rip her to pieces.
If that sounds confusing, it’s partially because that was a 150-word summary for a 129-minute movie, but it’s also because this movie was completely all over the place.
Despite being a pretty hectic movie, there were plenty of elements I really enjoyed.
First, the way the movie was split into chapters, depending on whose perspective we were watching from, was really well done.
There is something especially fun and unique about watching the same event play out through the eyes of multiple different characters.
For example, one chapter is seen through the eyes of a damaged cop and another through the eyes of a junkie. Their relationship was particularly amusing and, at times, provided a welcome respite from the anxiety of the main plot.
“Weapons” also meets the main criteria for a solid horror movie by being scary.
More than a couple of times throughout the movie, I was watching through the cracks in my fingers.
One technique Cregger uses really well throughout the movie is not letting the viewer know precisely when a jumpscare is coming. There were times when it seemed so painfully obvious a jumpscare was coming, and then nothing happened, or the exact opposite occurred.
However, the acting was subpar at times. Most notably, the performance by Alden Ehrenreich as Paul, the police officer I mentioned earlier. His line delivery was extremely awkward, and his character seemed like five different people throughout the film.
Additionally, one of the main reasons this movie drew so much public attention was for its obvious commentary on gun violence and school shootings.
When I say ‘obvious commentary,’ I mean extremely obvious, especially in a dream sequence in the mind of grieving father Archer Graff, a giant AR-15 rifle appears in the sky.
While I don’t necessarily mind when movies are overt in their messaging, I do mind when that messaging is poorly executed throughout and, in this case, an element added solely for the purpose of making headlines.
Still, within the central metaphor for gun violence, there are a couple of things I think “Weapons” gets correct.
For example, after Gladys’ demise, the children do not suddenly return to normal. Instead, they remain in a sort of expressionless state, with many of them unable to speak. This was a powerful way to represent the lasting trauma and damage of gun violence and other similar violence.
Additionally, in a public forum towards the beginning of the movie, the parents of the missing children can be seen furious with both the school administrators and with Grandy.
While I think this type of anger is a good representation of the activism by parents at schools where gun violence has taken place, there is one piece of the allegory that “Weapons” is missing, which I think makes all the difference.
Throughout the movie, the parents are fighting against the unknown. They don’t know why their kids are missing or who is responsible.
However, in the issue of gun violence today, the enemy is not some mythical witch. The enemy is the government of the United States and the powerful gun lobby.
As of September 10, there have been 47 school shootings in the United States in 2025, leaving 19 dead and 77 injured. Incidents of gun violence have become so common that they rarely make national headlines anymore.
On the contrary, following the Dunblane Primary School shooting in Scotland on March 13, 1996, which left 19 dead, there was an almost total ban on handguns in Great Britain within two years.
If we continue to spread harmful rhetoric, like that in Weapons that compares the fight against gun violence to the fight against an unknown force, Americans will lose hope in the fight for gun control legislation.
While I appreciate the idea behind the central metaphor, it ultimately feels empty, leaving me with an unforgivable taste in my mouth. With the lack of thought behind the central metaphor, it is clear that “Weapons” weaponizes the issue of gun violence for the studio’s own monetary gain, rather than providing an actually meaningful commentary on the issue.
While “Weapons” was an enjoyable watch with fun moments now and then, it is hard to look past this glaring flaw.
I give Weapons a 4/10.
