By Kaylon Coleman

I had the opportunity to see Zach Cregger’s Weapons twice recently, a movie sweeping the box office with a 94% certified fresh Rotten Tomato score and 86% audience score as of time of writing and let me just say — it fell a little flat for me. 

I can definitely see where the hype is coming from, I’m not blind on that front. In fact when I try and think of a movie that this one compares to I draw a lot of parallels between Weapons and Sinners (2025). The script for the film was so coveted that companies like Netflix and Universal entered into a bidding war for production rights and when New Line Cinema ultimately won the bid, Jordan Peele was so upset he decided to fire both his managers.

Without giving away too much, the movie focuses on a community grappling with the loss of 17 kids all from the same classroom when one night they all got up at the same time, ran outside and disappeared into the night with no explanation. The movie is labeled “horror,” but still has its fair share of funny moments to break the tension between plot points. Unless you’re extremely squeamish to jump scares and gore, I believe you’ll come out of this movie just fine. 

What really makes this movie stick out to me is the cast, the storytelling and the overall quality. Originally, the movie had a very different cast, with four out of the six main characters having been recast due to scheduling issues. But, to be completely honest, I think that was for the better. 

For instance, Archer — played by Josh Brolin — , a disgruntled but well meaning father of one of the missing kids, was originally supposed to be portrayed by Pedro Pascal. While I, along with what seems like most of the world, love Pedro, I just don’t think he would’ve brought the performance needed for this movie and that sentiment remains for all those who were recast.

As for the storytelling and overall quality, I really liked the way Weapons was formatted. It opts for a more character-driven plot line that opens the door for unreliable narrating, but better serves to tell the story as a whole. If this sounds like something you’re into, you’ll love Weapons. That is, if you’re unlike me and don’t care about the numerous plot holes that result because of it.

I had to see this movie twice, because after my first watch I really liked the movie — until I started to piece together how much of it didn’t make sense. Cregger himself said that there were major plot holes [in an interview he did with Cinemablend]. So going into the second viewing with an open mind and knowing of the unreliable narrator I thought my perspective would change a bit. Which it might’ve, if it weren’t for the “big reveal.” 

I really feel the last part of the movie is where my interest starts to cut out, and my second viewing just further helped to cement that point. I personally don’t think Weapons did it for me as much as other people, but hey, catch a viewing at Broadway Cinema and let me know where I’m wrong. 8.3/10 in my book.

Kaylon Coleman is a junior journalism major with a concentration in news and a minor in Psychology and Communications. He is the opinion editor for LJ. He is also the president of the Black Student Union at CPH, social media coordinator for the Umoja Center and a part-time radio DJ. If you have a movie you want him to review, email him at kc403@humboldt.edu