Weapons (film): It's good, but is it as good as they are saying?

I think that there are a handful of actors and actresses that if they are in something that the press are going to be on their side even if the film isn't very good. Julia Garner, I believe is one of those actresses. The reason for this might because she came out of nowhere and stole the show in Ozard. Prior to that she was an active actress but her performance in that show was second-to-none and I do include Jason Bateman in that comparison.

Since then she has been in a lot of movies but most of them never really cracked the big time. However, a lot of them were quite bad but never really faced the wrath of the reviewers like many other actors would have been subjected to. It is at least partially because of this that I believe Weapons is getting higher marks than it truly deserves.

src

Now before people decide to dogpile on me I am not saying this is a bad film. It is not a bad film. I enjoyed it and I thought it was a decent horror / thriller. The problem I have with the teetering at around 8/10 rating on various sites is that I feel like this level of rating should be reserved for films that are truly top-tier and well, Weapons is not that.

src

It's got good performances, a reasonably original story, good direction and they use jump-scares and dread sparingly rather than relying on either for the progression of the film.

There are a couple of things that I don't much care for in this movie though and this is something that irritates me about any film: The implausibility of the entire setup.

Since this is revealed in the trailer and at least to some degree in the poster as well as being very clearly spelled out for you in the first 2 minutes of the film, I do not consider it a spoiler.

A group of kids all in the same class that a bunch of kids from one teacher's class all ran away in the middle of the night without a trace. Just one student remained. The teacher is Justine Gandy (Julia Garner) and the child is Alex (Cary Christopher). The town initially turns on the teacher and the boy because no one can explain why they are not affected by this.

And this is kind of where the show loses me as far as the plot is concerned. Those of us that live in the United States sees exactly how over-the-top the law-enforcement reaction is to just the suspicion of one child disappearing is, but 17 at once? It would be a nation-wide never-ending manhunt that would not concern itself with various things like court orders in order to search your very suspicious looking house.

src

Also, the idea that all of these kids just walked out the house with zero evidence of which direction they went and nobody had caught anything on CCTV is just too absurd for me to get on board with.

I get it, this is what is necessary for the story to happen but there was no magic hocus pocus that makes it so the evidence is magically not there and honestly, as cheap of an excuse as that would be, I would have welcomed it in lieu of "oh, nobody saw anything because it was really late at night."

src

I realize that this is mostly because of my own quirks but I have a difficult time enjoying a film when the premise, the setup if you will, is rooted with so much impossibility when a film is meant to take place in modern day Earth.

If you can suspend this, and I think you should, it can be an enjoyable experience and I did enjoy it as much as I could. However, another problem is that this film is meant to be a real shock when the big reveal takes place towards the end but for a lot of people, it wasn't shocking at all. It reminded me of Shutter Island where your ability to enjoy that film is largely based on you not knowing what the twist will be, but I think that with that movie, as well as Weapons that a lot of people could see the twist coming about 40 minutes before it was actually revealed to us.

I will not reveal it to you because I do still think you should watch this and come to your own conclusion. It IS a good movie but I simply don't agree that it is an 8/10 movie.

Until I was writing this I actually forgot that Josh Brolin was even in it. His performance is not bad, it's just kind of unnecessary and I feel as though he was placed there because Julia doesn't seem to be capable of pulling the crowds in with her name alone. Just look at the highly anticipated prequel to Rosemary's Baby called Apartment 7A which I thought was a wonderful film yet almost nobody even saw it. Why? Because it was starring Julia Garner and a bunch of people you have likely never heard of.

src

Weapons is a good movie, or I should say IMO, it is better than average. I do not agree that it is one of the best movies of the year though and an 8/10 rating would suggest that is the case.

Should I watch it?

Please be assured that I am saying that yes, especially if you are a horror fan, you definitely should see this. Horror is a particularly difficult "nut to crack" so to speak and I think many people, such as myself, are going to be overly critical of all elements of it when the media kind of seems to be playing favorites with who they are going to promote. A lot of this attention to detail on my part is built on a profound distrust of professional critics and how I think they actually have a plan about what it going to be determined to be "good" and what isn't before they even watch it.

Weapons is a solid film and yes, you should see it. Then report back and tell me if you think it is one of the best movies of the year, or if it is just a teensy bit overrated.

_{unfortunately, the only way to legally watch this film at the moment is to rent it for around $20. It is available on Amazon Prime, Fandango, and many others. It will likely be available as part of a subscription if you can wait a few months and I recommend that you do exactly that}