Weapons 2025 film review: Is Josh Brolin’s new horror a hit?

Zach Cregger’s ‘Weapons’ lands with the jolt of a late night knock on the door and the confidence of a director who knows exactly where the chills live. The question everyone seems to be asking online is: is it a hit? Well, yes. Weapons earned a number one opening weekend in the U.S. with about 43.5 million and has crossed roughly 242 million worldwide as of early September. Loads of critics praised its tension, bold structure, and cast led by Josh Brolin and Julia Garner.

Over the past decade, mainstream horror has learned to balance big ideas with Friday night fun. Weapons fits that mold and then stretches it. The mystery hooks quickly. The craft keeps tightening. The humor sneaks in at human moments, which makes the scares bite a little harder when they arrive.

So is Weapons worth your time? Definitely. Stick around and find out why.

Weapons 2025 Film Review: Quick Verdict And Summary

Bottom line without spoilers

Weapons plays as a smart mystery horror that treats fear like a story engine rather than a gimmick. The movie earns its reputation with sharp performances, a multi perspective structure, and a knack for letting dread bloom in bright daylight as often as in shadow. The result feels ambitious but grounded, unsettling yet oddly funny in exactly the right places.

Call it this year’s crowd pleaser for people who like their genre movies a little weirder. It satisfies on first watch and invites conversation on the ride home. Surprising.

What the trailer sets up

The trailer tees up a clean premise without handing over the map. A classroom goes empty overnight. A town starts grasping for answers. A few key figures carry secrets and scars that complicate everything. The tone promises creeping unease, character driven turns, and a payoff that prefers shivers to tidy explanations.

Who should watch it

• Fans of mystery/horror who enjoy piecing together a puzzle while the tension rises
• Viewers who liked Zach Cregger’s film Barbarian (2022) and want something bolder in scope with similar dark wit
• Anyone curious why a studio horror film with an R rating can feel this human and this playful at once

Story And Structure Without Spoilers

What the movie is about

Weapons unfolds in Maybrook, Pennsylvania, where all but one child from the same elementary school class slip out of their homes at exactly 2.17 a.m. The town wakes to a hole where normal life used to be. The disappearance becomes the spark that exposes grief, guilt, and suspicion across neighbors and institutions.

A teacher, Justine Candy (played by the Silver Surfer herself,Julia Garner), finds herself at the center of a storm. A father, Archer Graff (played by Josh ‘Thanos’ Brolin) channels his heartbreak into restless action. A cop, Paul Morgan (played by young Han Solo Alden Ehrenreich) tries to keep control while his own life frays. The premise is simple. The emotional stakes on the other hand, are not.

How the narrative is told

The film is built in chapters that shift perspectives between the main characters. Each segment reframes what came before, which pulls you deeper instead of simply moving you along. The structure recalls mosaic dramas that braid individual crises into a shared catastrophe, while staying firmly rooted in genre rhythm.

Here is where the approach pays off. By letting different characters lead in turn, Weapons reveals clues sideways and lets quiet details carry weight. The style raises questions about how communities tell stories during trauma and who gets believed when fear is loudest.

Who the story follows

Key perspectives include Justine Gandy, the teacher under sudden suspicion, Archer Graff, the grieving father who cannot sit still, and Paul Morgan, the police officer juggling duty and personal chaos. The ensemble widens to include a principal (Benedict Wong), a homeless drug-addicted teen on the margins (Austin Abrams), and the one student who did not leave that night (Cary Christopher). The cast choices make every viewpoint feel lived in rather than convenient.

Performances And Cast Highlights

Josh Brolin as Archer Graff

Brolin gives Archer a heavy center of gravity. The character’s anger arrives raw, but the performance keeps returning to the ache beneath it. Small choices land. A pause before a hard question. A prickly edge that melts at a memory. It is the kind of grounded turn that steadies the film while its mystery leans strange.

Even the funniest moments stay human in his hands. A well timed exclamation during a surreal beat became a talking point for filmmakers and critics alike, proof that horror can be hilarious without breaking tone.

Julia Garner as Justine Candy

Garner meets the script’s prickliness with nerve and nuance. Justine navigates scrutiny that feels both specific and familiar, the kind that turns whispers into verdicts. Garner charts shock, dignity, and defiance across a face the camera reads like a diary. The performance anchors the first stretch and keeps echoing through later chapters.

Ensemble cast and character dynamics

Alden Ehrenreich plays Paul with a jittery humanity that suits a cop who is barely keeping it together. Benedict Wong brings sinew and steadiness to an administrator caught between compassion and policy. Austin Abrams adds texture as a young man whose bad choices keep getting worse. The ensemble draws real breath, which lets small interactions matter as much as big reveals.

Direction And Craft From Zach Cregger

Cinematography and editing choices

Larkin Seiple’s camera moves with intention. You feel it park inside an argument, then glide with a character who is not ready to face a door. Joe Murphy’s cutting respects silence and tension, then snaps you into motion when panic takes over. A few clear choices stand out.

• Camera placements inside cars and doorways that place you uncomfortably close to the action
• Long holds that let dread arrive without orchestral nudges
• Perspective shifts that reframe earlier scenes with new information rather than cheap tricks

Tone scares and pacing

The film trusts quiet. It also trusts well timed shock. One of its most unnerving spikes happens under bright sun, which says a lot about how the movie thinks fear works in daily life. The humor is sparing and human, the kind that slips out when people hit limits and mutter what everyone else is thinking.

Score and sound design

Zach Cregger co-scored the film, and the sonic profile favors pulses and textures over bombast. You hear floorboards where no one wants to check. You feel the low throb of a neighborhood holding its breath. The restraint keeps attention on faces and choices, then lets sound carry the floor out from under you when needed.

Themes And Takeaways On Community And Fear

Grief and blame in a small town

Weapons understands that grief does not arrive alone. It drags blame behind it. The town’s search for answers turns into a mirror for the stories people tell when the truth is missing. Who gets trusted. Who gets scapegoated. Who benefits when chaos needs a target.

There is a moment many viewers will recognize. A crowd at dusk. Murmurs that feel like static in the throat. The feeling that facts are losing to fear.

Allegory and subtext without spoilers

Viewers have read the inciting event as a school shooting allegory and also as a Pied Piper fable filtered through American anxiety. The film refuses to underline a single answer, which lets multiple interpretations breathe at once. That choice will frustrate some and reward others. Both reactions make sense.

What the ending suggests

The closing movements lean eerie over explanatory. Questions remain on purpose. The film cares more about what collective panic reveals than about closing every loop. The last stretch suggests renewal by confrontation, but it does not hand out easy comfort. That restraint is part of its staying power.

Box Office Results And Audience Reception

Opening weekend and staying power

Weapons opened first in North America with about 43.5 million. It held well into a second weekend that dipped less than many horror releases. As of September 6, 2025, the global tally sits around 241 to 243 million on a reported 38 million budget, a clear win that turned into one of the year’s better box office stories.

Critics consensus and scores

Critics have been strong on the film’s structure, craft, and performances. Rotten Tomatoes shows a mid 90s critics score with an audience score in the mid 80s. CinemaScore polling landed at A minus, and PostTrak reports average four out of five stars with strong recommend intent. Time boxed to early September for accuracy.

What audiences are saying

• Praise for the daylight scares and for a final chapter that gets under the skin without over explaining
• Some pushback on the last movement’s ambiguity, which tracks with the film’s choose to trust mood over neat answers
• High marks for Brolin and Garner, with steady appreciation for the wider ensemble

How It Compares To Barbarian

Similarities and differences with Barbarian

The new film feels like a bigger canvas that keeps Cregger’s taste for left turns and black comedy while trading the trapdoor surprises of Barbarian for a steady tightness that accumulates dread. Comparisons to Magnolia and Pulp Fiction from the director’s own influences make sense here.

The Wrap-Up

Measured by box office and buzz, Weapons sits near the top of the 2025 class. It has outpaced several same year genre titles and timed its digital release and expected Max window neatly ahead of Halloween. That means a second wave of viewership is likely, which often cements a film’s place in the conversation.

The final verdict: The film’s blend of very human comedy with sustained unease is not common in studio horror right now. That mix helps it play to both the Saturday night crowd and the Monday morning debate club.

What are your thoughts on Weapons, longbox dwellers? Let me know in the comments.

My Rating

Where to watch: