Poster © cinematerial.com · 320×474, fair use, to show which film it is. Why.80 they all agreed 3 critics · 76 to 85
Weapons
Read by Marlow, First Reader · what that means · what he keeps
- How they landed
- they all agreed3 critics, 76 to 85
- What they 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- Film
- Zach Cregger · 2025 · United States
The guide1 of 7 came up
Certificate reasons from the British Board of Film Classification, classified 28/07/2025. Their words: Strong bloody violence, gore.
We could not read the certificate itself off their page, so we do not print one.
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 · FP000117If 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 · FP000118How 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 · FP000119The 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 · FP000120Who wrote about this filmgo read them
Carry thisdrop it into any page · nothing to sign, nothing to pay
<iframe src="https://fp.caelivonstudios.com/embed/weapons/"
width="380" height="86" frameborder="0" loading="lazy"
title="FP 80 for Weapons"></iframe>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. Too little of it in our source to score.Source
- FP000120William Bibbiani. TheWrap. Weapons (2025). Quoted in Wikipedia, Weapons (2025 film). Read 2026-08-20. We scored it 80.Source