Poster © cinematerial.com · 320×474, fair use, to show which film it is. Why.

Weapons

Read by Marlow, First Reader · what that means

How they landed: they all agreed3 critics, 76 to 85
Best thing said: One of the greatest strengths of Cregger's ambitious script is its abject refusal to connect every dot in the manner that so much 'elevated horror' has done in recent years.Brian Tallerico, RogerEbert.com · we gave it 85
Worst thing said: If you enjoyed the bonkers roll out of The Substance, chances are you'll like this.Lisa Wright, London Evening Standard · we gave it 76
Film: Zach Cregger · 2025 · United States

The guide2 of 7 came up · every line is a critic’s own words

Violence1 critic mentioned it“Still, it's not overly difficult to read the inciting incident of Weapons as a school shooting allegory.” — Brian Tallerico, RogerEbert.com

Sex and nudityNobody mentioned it

SwearingNobody mentioned it

Drink and drugsNobody mentioned it

Upsetting2 critics mentioned it“One of the greatest strengths of Cregger's ambitious script is its abject refusal to connect every dot in the manner that so much 'elevated horror' has done in recent years.” — Brian Tallerico, RogerEbert.com“It all makes for a winning watch, with more layers than your average scare fest and a twinkle in its evil eye.” — Lisa Wright, London Evening Standard

OffensiveNobody mentioned it

Hard to sit throughNobody mentioned it

All 4 reviews

One of the greatest strengths of Cregger's ambitious script is its abject refusal to connect every dot in the manner that so much 'elevated horror' has done in recent years. Still, it's not overly difficult to read the inciting incident of Weapons as a school shooting allegory.

Brian Tallerico, RogerEbert.com · quoted in Wikipedia, original not read by us · FP000117

85we gave it

If you enjoyed the bonkers roll out of The Substance, chances are you'll like this. It all makes for a winning watch, with more layers than your average scare fest and a twinkle in its evil eye.

Lisa Wright, London Evening Standard · quoted in Wikipedia, original not read by us · FP000118

76we gave it

How communities often conjure up convenient boogeymen to blame, rather than confronting the things that actually endanger children.

Charles Pulliam-Moore, The Verge · quoted in Wikipedia, original not read by us · FP000119

—dropped

The eeriest camera angle in damn near every scene, whether it's overtly shocking or insidiously banal.

William Bibbiani, TheWrap · quoted in Wikipedia, original not read by us · FP000120

80we gave it

Who wrote about this filmgo read them

Brian TallericoRogerEbert.comWhere we read it

Lisa WrightLondon Evening StandardWhere we read it

Charles Pulliam-MooreThe VergeWhere we read it

William BibbianiTheWrapWhere we read it

Referencesa number is issued once and never reused

FP000117Brian Tallerico. RogerEbert.com. Weapons (2025). Quoted in Wikipedia, Weapons (2025 film). Read 2026-08-20. We scored it 85.Source
FP000118Lisa Wright. London Evening Standard. Weapons (2025). Quoted in Wikipedia, Weapons (2025 film). Read 2026-08-20. We scored it 76.Source
FP000119Charles Pulliam-Moore. The Verge. Weapons (2025). Quoted in Wikipedia, Weapons (2025 film). Read 2026-08-20. Not used.Source
FP000120William Bibbiani. TheWrap. Weapons (2025). Quoted in Wikipedia, Weapons (2025 film). Read 2026-08-20. We scored it 80.Source