WEAPONS (2025)
Movies being too long, too dark looking, and having meandering narration instead of visual storytelling, these are often unfortunate signs of the modern era. The ultra-slick in and out ninety-minute thrill ride seems to be a lost art whether the budgets are minuscule or astronomical. Not everything needs to be over two hours or the length of a historical epic. In the case of the two recent releases below these issues have a different impact on the final product, but it's odd that people have forgotten how to make lean stories or how to trim scenes and 'kill their darlings' as the old saying goes.
In the case of Weapons the movie is a hundred and twenty-eight minutes long and could be a lot tighter. It tells a yarn about missing children and supernatural powers through a looping chapter format, so some moments are naturally repeated or shown via new perspectives. It starts off with a long spoken dialogue explaining that this is an unsolved 'true crime' case when other expository methods could have been employed. Fortunately things do improve when the film begins properly, but although the George Harrison needle-drop is good there's always a sense this is far too baggy.
Each of the characters gets a chapter title card, and most of them are involved in trying to solve the mystery of seventeen kids all vanishing in one night. All the pupils from the same classroom walked out of their homes, apparently without force, except for Alex (Cary Christopher). Which seems highly suspicious and yet hardly anyone in town thinks it's worth more than a cursory investigation. His teacher Justine (Julia Garner) soon becomes the focus of angry parents despite the lack of motive or logic, with the main aggressor Archer (Josh Brolin) riling up the mob.
Purely as a character drama there's plenty to enjoy as alcoholic cop Paul (Alden Ehrenreich) and school principle Marcus (Benedict Wong) offer varying degrees of support to Justine, and also cause her various kinds of problems. It works as a tale of eccentric people in a small town trying to take out their frustration on a scapegoat. The subject matter is pretty bleak but there's also a growing sense as things unravel that this is going to get weirder and perhaps funnier than the first act suggests. But it also lacks a central character and often wanders from the main thread about Justine and Archer trying to uncover new pieces of the puzzle.
On the other hand as a horror movie it's also both dark and comedic. Unfortunately it also falls into the trap of including a couple of dream fake-out scenes that end with jump-scares. These are suitably atmospheric but still come under the category of worn out clichés. Which isn't helped by a dark and low contrast style which is also used in the regular night scenes. However, it's the weirder less typical inclusions that keep it interesting. Early on people acting like human puppets tease what is to come as pieces of hair are stolen and things start to turn violent.
Which is to say the film gets very gruesome in a few major shock sequences. It might dance around a few elements of subtext, such as violence in schools and people choosing to ignore the causes of crime, but at the core the whole thing is a grisly suburban nightmare. The inclusion of drug addict James (Austin Abrams) figuring out the solution thanks to greed and random luck suggests this early on. But there are even moments of overt slapstick towards the end when it turns into outright carnage. Even the reveal of the true villain often comes across as partially sad and pathetic and partly absurd.
Eventually all the structural and tonal issues, and the loose ends, do coalesce but it takes too long getting to the 'main' flashback, which is frustrating when most of the main plot points have either been covered or heavily signposted already by then. As a solid chiller there is plenty to enjoy but at the same time it seems like the director wasn't sure how much comedy, commentary, and cruelty, to include, and it becomes too meandering and uneven. The climax is certainly a case of going all out to wow the viewers in the end, but the road getting there could be much sharper.
3/5
BONUS REVIEW
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - THE FINAL RECKONING (2025)
Meanwhile the film makers behind the Mission: Impossible sequels have apparently lost all sight of cohesion and brevity. Again there's a strong finish with a well advertised biplane stunt sequence but the rest of the film could have been at least an hour shorter. Instead of realising the mistakes made in Dead Reckoning they've apparently decided more filler was needed. New cast members Pom Klementieff and Hayley Atwell seemed like a good idea last time but are wasted here, while dramatic character deaths from 'Part One' as it was then feel pointless. It's almost hard to believe the same team worked on Fallout when this is the end result.
The big set pieces are at least more believable (in a visual effects sense that is) than last time around. There are far fewer notable blue screen moments during the main highlights, a submarine investigation and an aerial chase. The underwater scenes could have been too similar to the ones from Rogue Nation but are instead claustrophobic and tense in new ways. The climactic plane duel veers close to being a repeat of the helicopter sequence in Fallout but manages to be its own thing. But the rest of the story in between these action beats is almost entirely a slog and could have been ruthlessly cut by almost half.
Scenes trying to make the villain Gabriel (Esai Morales) more nuanced fall flat, while attempts to tie this all to the prior adventures of Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) are a total failure. There are so many flashbacks that could all have been dropped entirely, along with so many discussions about nuclear Armageddon and artificial intelligence. Beyond the incredible second unit stuff almost every scene becomes bloated and drags the pacing to a halt. Even the usual comic relief has been dropped in an attempt to make this bigger and more intense, but the outcome is the opposite. It should have been a big finish to the series instead it's often just baffling.
2/5
