Weapons (2025) – A Bold, Bloody Mystery That Doesn’t Quite Stick the Landing(Spoiler Free Review)

 Weapons is in theaters now — but should you Naruto-run out of your house and into a seat at your local multiplex? Let's talk about that.

The much-anticipated horror mystery from writer-director Zack Kregger, whose last outing, Barbarian, took the genre world by storm. This review is spoiler-free beyond the basic premise and setup, so feel free to read on — but as always, if you're the kind of viewer who likes going in completely blind, consider this your gentle warning.

A Killer Premise

Weapons arrives with a great deal of hype — not only from a clever marketing campaign but also because it marks Kregger’s follow-up to Barbarian, one of the more unapologetically bonkers horror films in recent years. And honestly? The premise is one of the most intriguing I've seen in a long time.

At precisely 2:17 a.m., an entire class of children walks silently out of their homes and vanishes into the night. No trace. No explanation. Just gone. In the aftermath, their teacher (played by Julia Garner) is immediately caught in a storm of suspicion and grief-stricken rage. One of the parents — Josh Brolin’s character — takes it upon himself to unravel the mystery, disillusioned by the authorities’ inability to find the kids or even offer answers.

That’s all I’ll say in terms of plot, because Weapons thrives on mystery — and as with any mystery, the journey and the reveal both matter. In this case, the journey is mostly engaging, even if the destination doesn't fully deliver.

Building Tension, But Not Always Payoff

Following up a breakout hit like Barbarian is no easy task. That film worked in part because it caught us off guard. With Weapons, the expectations are already sky-high, and Kregger leans into the challenge by eschewing traditional storytelling.

The narrative here isn’t linear. We jump around in time. We shift perspectives. Scenes get recontextualized. It’s ambitious — and when it works, it really works. There are moments where pieces of the puzzle slide perfectly into place, giving that satisfying "aha!" feeling. But other times, the film introduces characters or scenes that feel like they should matter… and then just don’t. One particularly striking scene involving Brolin’s character, for example, looks cool but ends up feeling unnecessary.

That inconsistency makes the mystery feel more scattered than cohesive. It doesn’t ruin the experience, but it does take away from the sense of overall purpose.

A Master of Mood and Atmosphere

What Kregger does excel at — again — is mood. Weapons is a film soaked in dread. It’s unsettling not because of jump scares (though there are a few well-placed ones), but because of the tone. There’s a creeping sense of wrongness that permeates almost every frame, helped in no small part by Larkin Seiple’s dreamy, hazy cinematography. Seiple, whose work you might recognize from Everything Everywhere All at Once, helps blur the line between dream and nightmare in visually stunning ways.

Flawed Characters, Strong Performances

The performances across the board are stellar. Julia Garner’s character is a fascinating contradiction — a caring teacher who’s also a bit of a mess in her personal life. That complexity adds layers to how we perceive her as suspicion mounts. Josh Brolin, meanwhile, portrays a father consumed by loss in ways that are compelling and occasionally disturbing.

One of the best things about Weapons is that it doesn’t spoon-feed you likable heroes. These characters are messy, sometimes misguided, and not always easy to root for. That ambiguity adds to the tension and makes the story more emotionally rich.

Horror, Mystery, or Both?

While the marketing pushes Weapons as the next great horror flick, it's just as much a slow-burn mystery. Yes, there’s blood. Yes, there’s terror. Yes, there are WTF moments. But the film also withholds a lot — sometimes too much — in its pursuit of suspense. And not everyone will enjoy that.

It’s not a matter of the film being slow — it’s more that not all of the threads it weaves are pulled tight by the end. Some audience members will be frustrated by how long they’re kept in the dark. Others might be disappointed that the answers don’t live up to the strength of the setup.

Final Verdict: Good, Not Great

In the end, Weapons is a good film — not a great one. It features strong performances, an incredible hook, and some truly memorable moments. It also has a resolution that’s absolutely bonkers — in a way I kind of loved. But the path there is uneven, and at times it feels like a few too many puzzle pieces were left under the couch.

Still, I have to respect the ambition. Kregger once again proves he’s not interested in playing it safe. Even when Weapons stumbles, it stumbles in interesting ways. It’s not predictable. It’s not boring. And it’s certainly not forgettable.

So if you're into horror with a side of mystery, and you're okay with a film that makes you work for your payoff — this one might be worth your ticket. Just keep your expectations in check. Sometimes, the hype is your worst enemy.

Rating: It’s good.
I’ll probably revisit it at some point, but I’m not rushing back to rewatch and decode every scene. Still, I’ll be keeping an eye out for whatever Zack Kregger does next.

---

Have you seen Weapons yet? Are you planning to check it out this weekend? Let me know your thoughts in the comments!