Not the Scariest Horror Movie of 2025

What drives a classroom of seventeen children to vanish into the night without a trace? That’s the unnerving mystery at the heart of Weapons, the latest horror outing from Barbarian filmmaker Zach Cregger. Anchored by a commanding Josh Brolin, a quietly riveting Julia Garner, and a sprawling ensemble that includes Alden Ehrenreich, Benedict Wong, and Austin Abrams, this ambitious genre-bender mixes psychological dread with cryptic storytelling. While Weapons doesn’t always land its most audacious swings, it’s an atmospheric and unsettling ride that proves Cregger isn’t just a one-hit horror wonder.

It’s always great to see original horror get a theatrical release. Likewise, it’s inspiring to see a comedian-turned-director get a $10 million as writer, director, and producer with final cut privilege, a $38 million budget, and a guaranteed theatrical release from New Line. This movie had a script so good that Jordan Peele parted ways with his management team shortly after losing the bidding war. In the world of Hollywood horror, Weapons was the hottest ticket in town, and it’s easy to see why. The premise drips with mystery. Truly original horror premises are hard to come by, and this movie has one so intriguing that even audience members unfamiliar with the world of film have likely heard about this unique premise.

Having seen the movie, which I did like, I will say that the marketing was more effectively scary than the final film. Weapons starts with a child’s narration introducing the story. It’s a good idea at first, as it creates the illusion that this is an urban legend. Now, let’s talk about the iconic imagery this film has created: a bunch of children, arms outstretched, running out of their homes at 2:17 a.m. into the dark night, never to be heard from again. That’s really disturbing, and the way it’s presented in the trailers is even scarier: far away, quiet, often through security camera footage.

The security camera footage, in particular, is an excellent way of showing this. Much like the news scene in Signs, it allows us to see supernatural events occur through something very grounded. But the film opens with a scene of the kids running out, and it’s not as scary because we have these camera shots that follow the kids as they run. It doesn’t feel as scary when we can feel the director’s camera placements. A doorbell camera is objective; Cregger’s camera movements are subjective. The addition of a mellow song playing over the scene leads to a much less eerie feeling.

It does feel a bit strange that the inciting event occurs in a montage at the beginning, but we get to our main story structure quicker. We follow this film through a nonlinear structure, broken into chapters that surround certain characters. We have Miss Gandy (Garner), the teacher whose class went missing. The town, distraught and overwhelmed by grief, demands answers, and because this phenomenon was limited to her class, nobody trusts her. It’s tragic to see her life get torn apart over events she seemingly had no control over. But to explain the unexplainable, the people needed a scapegoat.

One of these people is Archer (Brolin), whose son is among those who went missing. He’s distraught, and he takes matters into his own hands. It’s a role that requires dramatic heft. Brolin replaces Pedro Pascal, who had to drop out of the film due to scheduling conflicts. It seems like Pascal has been in nearly everything lately, and while he would have done a great job, Brolin truly feels like a perfect fit for this character. We also have perspectives from a cop, a drug dealer, the school principal, and one of the kids. Cregger has described Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia as an inspiration. This rings true, as this is a movie with a few characters, all of whom have intersecting lives. With Weapons, whenever we go into the perspective of another character, we learn a bit more about the overarching narrative.

Does this work all the time? No. It can sometimes feel as if the movie spends a bit too much time retracing its steps. Once a storyline reaches its most interesting point, the film cuts to black, and we go to a completely different character a day or two earlier, and we’re left waiting for the movie to catch up. At the core of it all is the mystery: what happened to those kids? What made them get out of bed and run away? The film slowly peels back the bandage and ultimately provides us with our answer. But once we have the answer, Weapons doesn’t do too much with it. We have a base-level answer for what happened, but the film doesn’t expand much on why it’s happening.

It feels like we get the answer about 60% into the film’s runtime, and for the rest, we’re waiting for our main characters to find out what the audience already knows. Once we get the answer, there isn’t too much left to do. Still, we have some riveting moments and genuinely horrifying imagery through it all. Cregger pulls off strong jump scares. He knows how to play around with a moment so that even when an audience can feel a jump scare is about to happen, he takes his sweet time and makes us dread it until he finally gets us when we least expect it.

But it’s worth noting that during the first half, most of the scares are dream sequences. The movie clues us in beforehand that they’re dream sequences, so on the plus side, anything scary can happen because it’s a dream and not tethered by reality. But on the other hand, whatever happens in a dream can’t physically hurt our main characters, so there’s less tension. It feels like many of the scares exist for the audience, not for the story. It’s also worth noting that the movie incorporates an unexpected amount of humor, which may be a surprise to people who saw the trailers and expected the scariest movie of the year.

Weapons is not the scariest film of the year. It’s more of a character drama with some jump scares. That’s not a bad style, but I do wish the film had embraced the horrific nature of its story just a bit more. The finale had my theater roaring with laughter, which is the exact opposite way I’d have expected a crowd to react to this movie. Cregger goes for a more conventional crowd-pleaser approach rather than something unforgivably bleak, which I was a bit puzzled by. Regardless, this movie works because of its strong performances and a decently structured narrative that always has something fascinating to grab onto.

SCORE: 6/10

As ComingSoon’s review policy explains, a score of 6 equates to “Decent.” It fails to reach its full potential and is a run-of-the-mill experience.

Disclosure: ComingSoon attended a press screening for our Weapons review.