Weapons — A High-Caliber Misfire with Delusions of Grandeur

Weapons: full review

In an era of disposable content and franchises recycled into neural exhaustion—where cinema seems hijacked by streaming algorithms and focus group formulas—along comes Weapons, a cinematic artifact as ambitious as it is uneven, helmed by the hitherto unknown Zach Cregger. This guy, whose prior résumé was limited to forgotten indie comedies (The Civil War on Drugs, 2018) and CollegeHumor sketches, suddenly decides he wants to play in the big leagues with Cronenberg, Fincher, and De Palma. The result? A film that, like a poorly calibrated firearm, shoots in every direction: sometimes it hits the bullseye, sometimes it falls short, and occasionally, it blows your foot clean off by accident.

finalExplicado_en: "In the climax, the vengeful mother and her cult of children unleash a night of surreal, blood-soaked chaos on the town, culminating in a grotesque, ritualistic massacre that consumes the remaining adults. The film ends with the boy protagonist standing amid the carnage as the sole survivor, silently claiming the weapons while the cult dissolves into eerie, childlike play. Symbolically, it’s a blunt, self-satisfied metaphor for generational revenge and the death of adult authority: the kids aren’t all right, they’re the monsters now, and the movie smugly insists this inversion is profound when it’s mostly empty, adolescent edge."

The Direction: When Amateur Hour Wears the Mask of Audacity

Zach Cregger arrives at Weapons with the energy of a kid who just discovered Pulp Fiction on a bootleg VHS and decides, "Hey, I can do ‘arthouse’ too." His direction is relentless, yes—but more for its lack of filter than its mastery. Cregger seems obsessed with proving he can juggle suspense, drama, and even a dash of psychological noir, but instead of weaving a symphony, he delivers a collage of half-digested references.

The problem isn’t the ambition—it’s the execution. Cregger tries to emulate David Fincher’s fragmented style in Gone Girl (2014), but without the master’s surgical precision. Instead, we get an edit that oscillates between frenetic and outright chaotic, as if the editor had a panic attack mid-cut. There are brilliant sequences, like the opening long take following Julia Garner down a dimly lit hallway, the camera gliding with almost Hitchcockian elegance. But then we plunge into scenes where the pacing deflates like a popped balloon. Is it intentional? A nod to slow cinema? No—it’s just inconsistency.

And then there’s the color palette. Cregger and cinematographer Larkin Seiple seem to have watched Drive (2011) one too many times, because Weapons is a neon-soaked festival of blues, oversaturated reds, and elongated shadows screaming, "Look at me, I’m a cult film!" The problem? Unlike Nicolas Winding Refn, Cregger lacks the visual coherence to pull it off. Some moments look like a The Weeknd music video; others, like a CSI episode shot on an iPhone.

The Script: Smart, But with Plot Holes the Size of Texas

Cregger’s script is, without a doubt, Weapons’ most laudable element. It’s complex, multi-layered, and packed with dialogue that cuts like a knife. The plot follows Tess (Julia Garner), a young woman entangled in a web of blackmail, betrayal, and violence after her boyfriend (Austin Abrams) steals a briefcase full of cash and drugs from a local drug lord. What starts as a conventional thriller soon spirals into a labyrinth of twists, where every character has a secret and every revelation is designed to leave you slack-jawed.

But here’s the catch: Cregger wants his film to be "smart" so badly that he ends up overloading it. There are so many twists, subplots, and side characters that, more than once, you’ll lose the thread. It’s not that the plot is confusing per se—it’s that Cregger seems incapable of pruning the dead branches. Take Josh Brolin’s character, Detective Weller: a corrupt cop with a magnetic, dangerous charm and a murky past. On paper, he’s fascinating. In execution? His arc feels incomplete, like Cregger wrote three versions of him and duct-taped them together.

Then there are the side characters, those poor souls plucked straight from a "How to Write a Thriller in 10 Steps" manual. We’ve got the treacherous boyfriend (Alden Ehrenreich, wasted in a role that could’ve been played by any Riverdale alum), the overprotective mother (Amy Madigan, doing her best with a walking cliché), and the philosopher-thug (a cameo from an actor whose name you’ll forget by morning). They all have moments, but none escape the stereotype trap.

The Performances: Julia Garner Saves the Ship (and Cregger from Himself)

If anything redeems Weapons from total disaster, it’s Julia Garner’s performance. The Ozark alum proves here why she’s one of her generation’s most underrated actors. Garner achieves the extraordinary: making an irregularly written character feel real. Tess is a protagonist full of contradictions—vulnerable yet cunning, naive yet calculating—and Garner navigates these turbulent waters with breathtaking naturalism.

In a pivotal scene, Tess confronts Weller (Brolin) in a dive bar, and the tension between them is so palpable you can almost smell the sweat and cheap whiskey. Garner doesn’t need to shout or overact to convey her character’s fear and resolve—a glance, a silence, a fidgety hand does the trick. It’s the kind of performance that makes you forget you’re watching a movie and pulls you fully into the story.

Josh Brolin, for his part, delivers as expected. He’s intimidating, charismatic, and oozes that magnetic presence that’s made him Hollywood’s go-to heavy. But, as mentioned, his character is a puzzle missing pieces. Brolin does his best to add depth to Weller, but the script leaves him stranded between tragic villain and bad boy with a heart of gold.

The rest of the cast, sadly, doesn’t fare as well. Alden Ehrenreich, who’s shown real talent in films like Hail, Caesar! (2016), seems lost here, as if someone told him to play a "bad boy" but forgot to give him the instruction manual. Austin Abrams (Tess’s boyfriend) has a few decent moments, but his character is so predictable you can guess his every move five minutes ahead. And Amy Madigan, a respected actress, is reduced to yelling and crying, like her character was written by a first-year screenwriting student.

The Atmosphere: A Cocktail of Muddled Influences

Weapons tries to craft an atmosphere that oscillates between classic noir and modern psychological thriller, but it ends up feeling like a mashup of films Cregger binged at a Sundance marathon. There are echoes of Nightcrawler (2014) in how the camera stalks characters through L.A.’s shadowy streets, and a whiff of Prisoners (2013) in its exploration of moral ambiguity. But where Denis Villeneuve created a claustrophobic sense of dread, Cregger delivers a pastiche of styles without its own identity.

The score, composed by Cliff Martinez (Refn’s go-to collaborator), is another example of this stylistic whiplash. Martinez is a master at crafting ominous, hypnotic soundscapes, but here, his music feels like it’s from two different films. One moment, it’s Drive’s retro synths; the next, it’s aping the minimalism of There Will Be Blood (2007). The result? A score that undermines the atmosphere instead of enhancing it.

The Editing: Innovative or Just Plain Chaotic?

The editing in Weapons is another divisive element. At its best, it recalls Thelma Schoonmaker’s work in Goodfellas (1990): fast, precise, and brimming with energy. The car chase midway through is a standout, with cuts so fluid they keep you on the edge of your seat.

But then there are moments where the editing feels forced, like Cregger watched one too many YouTube tutorials on "How to Make Your Film Look Cool." Abrupt transitions, unnecessary flashbacks, and an overuse of jump cuts that distract more than they add tension. It’s as if the editor decided that if the film couldn’t be good, at least it could look "interesting."

The Best

Larkin Seiple’s cinematography: A visual feast that, at its peak, captures the essence of modern noir*. The shots of Julia Garner bathed in neon blues as she walks down a dark alley are pure cinematic poetry. Julia Garner’s performance: An acting masterclass that elevates Weapons from "decent film" to "worth watching."* Garner proves, once again, that she can convey more with a silence than most actors can with a monologue.

The Worst

• The uneven pacing: One moment, the film races like a bullet train; the next, it crawls like a hungover snail. Cregger doesn’t seem to know when to speed up or slow down.
• The side characters: A parade of clichés and archetypes plucked straight from a 1990s screenwriting manual. Ehrenreich and Abrams deserved better.

The Verdict of Claqueta Ácida (7/10)

Weapons is like a firearm with a crooked barrel: it’s got power, style, and ambition, but sometimes it shoots where it shouldn’t. Zach Cregger proves he’s got talent, but he’s still rough around the edges. The film is a collage of half-digested influences, uneven performances, and flashes of brilliance that get lost in its own pretension. That said, if you can overlook its flaws, you’ll find a cinematic experience that, at the very least, won’t leave you indifferent. And in an era of sanitized, predictable cinema, that’s something. Just don’t expect to leave the theater feeling like you’ve witnessed a masterpiece—you’ll leave feeling like you’ve watched a promising director shooting in the dark. And sometimes, that’s enough.

🔓 EXPLICACIÓN DEL FINAL & SPOILERS Ver más finales explicados →

Ending Explained: Weapons

In the climax of Weapons, the mystery of the seventeen children who ran out of their homes at 2:17 a.m. is solved in the basement of Alex, the only kid in Justine’s class who did not vanish. They are all down there, catatonic: his great-aunt Gladys, a decrepit witch who moved in under the pretext of being ill, keeps them to drain their life force and rejuvenate herself, and she also controls Alex’s parents, reduced to mute puppets. Gladys turns any adult who gets close to the truth into a human weapon, until Alex steals her trick: with a lock of the witch’s hair he casts his own spell, and the children, awakened like a pack of hounds, chase Gladys through the neighborhood and tear her apart. The kids go home, but they are not the same. Symbolically, Cregger uses witchcraft to point at what the town would rather not see: horror lives next door behind drawn curtains, while the community keeps itself busy hunting convenient scapegoats like Justine. Nobody looks until it is too late, and the only weapon that works belongs to the boy everyone forgot.

Weapons: full ending explained →

Weapons: frequently asked questions

What is the rating of "Weapons" on Claqueta Ácida?

"Weapons" scored 7.0/10 on Claqueta Ácida in the review by Camilo K.O.

Is "Weapons" worth watching?

With reservations. We gave it 7/10 (Citric Acid), our rating for uneven films with something worth saving.

Who directed "Weapons"?

"Weapons" was directed by Zach Cregger.

How does "Weapons" end?

Spoilers in Weapons ending explained .

🩺

Theater Collateral Damage Report

Psychophysical impact certificate issued by Camilo K.O.

⚡ Moderate Wear

🥱 Yawn-o-meter

2 amagos en el tramo intermedio; pestañeo pesado en las transiciones más innecesarias.

⏱️ Panic Clock Checks

Alguna consulta furtiva al móvil en el segundo acto. Nada que no se perdone.

😬 Cringe Index 0.9/10

How much second-hand embarrassment the film causes (10 = maximum). It is not the review score.

☕ Caffeine Prescription

2 espresso para no dejarse vencer por la mediocridad cómoda.

💥 Derailment Point

"A mitad del segundo acto cuando la subtrama secundaria empezó a pesar más de lo que aportaba."