“Weapons” - Lessons learned.

How did you feel about the 2022 movie Barbarian? You can read what I thought of Barbarian in detail, but, to summarize, I was not amused. Weapons is the second film solely written and directed by Zach Cregger, Barbarian being his first. Knowing that, I set my expectations for Weapons to...very guarded. My hope going into Weapons was that it wasn’t gross and disturbing the way Barbarian was and I was looking forward to Josh Brolin. I’m happy to report that Weapons was only a tiny bit gross and a tiny bit disturbing but in the best way possible. Also, Josh Brolin was excellent and the film was orders of magnitude better than the overrated Barbarian.

Before I go on, this is a great time to reiterate one of my rules for movies. Do not watch full movie trailers. No exceptions. Part of the fun of watching movies is being surprised by what you see. But trailers always show way too much of the movie, including many of the best parts. I know there are some people out there who like the anticipation of wondering when certain parts they saw in a trailer will show up in the movie. But those people don’t realize how much of the movie they’re not fully absorbing due to that same anticipation taking up part of their concentration.

I bring this up because Weapons is one of the best mystery and horror movies I’ve seen in a long time. Maybe ever. Yeah...it’s that good. And the trailers will rob you of some of that experience. Don’t worry, I didn’t watch the trailer until after I saw the film. All I knew going in was the synopsis - seventeen kids from the same classroom all disappear and only one is left. Oh, and I knew Josh Brolin was in it. If you need more than those two things to be very interested in this film - and the Josh Brolin part is optional - you and I cannot hang out.

(Side note: Teasers for movies are perfectly acceptable to watch because they are essentially the synopsis come to life. You’re welcome.)

Cregger definitely learned all the right lessons from Barbarian and implemented improvements in Weapons. The structure of the film is the most obvious improvement. Cregger is definitely fan of nonlinear narratives, showing the same period of time or the same events through different characters’ perspectives. Think Pulp Fiction or Go. When done right, this structure serves to move the plot forward while also spending ample time developing characters. Unlike in Barbarian, all of these components are done right.

In Weapons, the film opens with a child narrating the synopsis while showing us the kids running out of their houses and disappearing into the night. Once the setup is complete, a title card reading “Justine” appears and we get a chunk of the story from Justine’s (Julia Garner) perspective. After spending some time getting to know Justine, revealing more of the main story, and meeting several other characters, the film cuts to a new title card reading “Arthur.” Arthur (Brolin) is the father of one of the missing kids and he wants answers. Character development happens, more story, more character intersections, next title card. Lather, rinse, repeat for police officer Paul (Alden Ehrenreich), drug addict James (Austin Abrams), school principal Andrew (Benedict Wong), and the last remaining student from Justine’s class, Alex (Cary Christopher).

As we get the various character perspectives, the film does an excellent job of introducing questions early, then answering those questions later. All in service of a dramatic buildup culminating in the various arcs dovetailing together in a very, very excellent climax. During all of this, we get served the exact right amount of scares using various techniques. A couple of jump scares, a pinch of witchcraft, a dash of gore, and splashes of creepy imagery, including Alex’s Aunt Gladys (Amy Madigan). It’s a horror mystery recipe so well-crafted it would make Alfred Hitchcock and Agatha Christie cry in delight.

As if all that wasn’t enough, Cregger also managed to fit in some exquisitely timed moments of comic relief to break up the tension. Various characters sum up these moments nicely, uttering the phrase “what the fuck?!” several times to voice what the audience is thinking at the same time.

One of my hopes every year is that a movie comes out of nowhere to blow my expectations out of the water. Weapons is definitely that movie this year, a movie so good that an excellent Josh Brolin performance was approximately the tenth best thing about this movie.

Rating: Don’t ask for any money back and don’t watch another trailer ever again.

“The Naked Gun” - Put your zeitgeist where your mouth is.

The main attraction to spoofs and parodies is that they make fun of something popular or familiar. Think about all of the most famous spoofs - every one of them has an explicit target. Scary Movie took aim at Scream and horror movies. Austin Powers made fun of James Bond and spy movies. Mel Brooks went after westerns (Blazing Saddles), Star Wars (Spaceballs), and Robin Hood (Robin Hood: Men in Tights). Even the original The Naked Gun was in on it, roasting cop shows and cop movies that were everywhere at the time. All of these movies worked because they rib the current zeitgeist of their time.

Not so with this new The Naked Gun. Instead of spoofing current events and current pop culture, it spoofs...itself. In other words, The Naked Gun (2025) is spoofing The Naked Gun (1988). I’ll admit that it’s entirely possible I missed some jokes about current stuff. I don’t doom scroll on social media and I haven’t watched scripted network or cable television shows in years. And I stopped watching cop shows after Castle went off the air. But I do watch a ton of movies and streaming shows and read a lot of news so I’m not completely ignorant of the world around me.

I also brought my thirteen-year-old son, who does know about social media stuff and other stuff for his generation. I knew he would laugh at the plethora of puns, dirty jokes, and physical comedy because he’s definitely part of the target audience and, also, he’s a thirteen-year-old boy. I laughed at the same stuff when I was his age. But he also summed up this movie quite well after it was over when he said, “I didn’t get a lot of the jokes.”

That’s not to say many of the jokes were too subtle or layered for him - or any thirteen-year-old - to understand. It’s that those jokes were based on things that happened decades ago. For example, there’s a decent bit where all of the cops in the precinct are talking to pictures of their deceased cop-parents hanging on the wall. This includes the main character Frank Drebin Jr. (Liam Neeson) talking to a picture of Frank Sr. (Leslie Nielsen). Ed Hocken Jr. (Paul Walter Hauser) talking to a picture of Ed Sr. (Goerge Kennedy). And Fred Nordberg Jr. talking to a picture of Fred Sr. (O.J. Simpson). My son had never seen the original Naked Gun and did not know what O.J. Simpson looked like, so the entire bit went completely over his head.

To be fair, that O.J. bit works, even in 2025. But what about when Drebin laments still being upset about Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl halftime show? Or Drebin bonding with another character over the Black Eyed Peas (the musical group)? Or love interest Beth Davenport (Pamela Anderson) scatting in a jazz club? Or Weird Al Yankovic making a cameo as himself? None of those have been culturally relevant for at least a decade and a half. And scatting? Just...no.

In addition to not mining anything current for laughs, the film also refuses to mine jokes from anything that Neeson and Anderson are famous for. Considering all of the decades-old callbacks, it’s weird that they didn’t also do a Baywatch joke, a Schindler’s List joke, a Playboy joke, or a Taken joke. My son wouldn’t have gotten those jokes either, but he would have laughed at something like, say, Paul Walter Hauser wearing a too-small lifeguard swimsuit while rescuing his ransomed daughter.

But it’s not all bad news, depending on your sense of humor. The best way to describe the comedy in this film is stupid. Some of it is bad stupid (I cannot stress enough how unfunny and cringy it was to watch Anderson scat), but most of it is just silly stupid or gross stupid. There is a gag involving bad chili dogs. There is a gag involving owl poop. There is a sequence of sexual innuendo gags. There’s a running gag where people keep handing Neeson cups of coffee.

And there is pun after pun after pun after pun. If you laugh at such exchanges as “I went to school here...Oh really? UCLA?...Yes, I see LA every day. I live here,” or “You really can’t fight city hall...No, you can’t. It’s a building,” then you are going to bust a gut watching this movie.

I went into this movie knowing it was going to be stupid and I was not disappointed. Since I like silly stupid and gross stupid, and am also old enough to remember why the O.J. joke is funny, I laughed at a decent amount of it. But I would have laughed much harder and more often if this movie didn’t feel like it was made twenty years ago. And so would have my son.

Rating: Ask for two and a half or thirty-three and a third back. Gen X and Boomers know what I mean.

“Fantastic Four: First Steps” - Third time’s a charm.

I know you’re worried about Fantastic Four: First Steps. You remember the aggressively mediocre first two Fantastic Four movies featuring Jessica Alba and Chris Evans. You’ve tried to forget the atrocious reboot featuring Miles Teller and Michael B. Jordan. And you still don’t trust that the MCU has truly turned the corner back into must-watch territory. But if you saw Thunderbolts*, you’ll have more confidence that Marvel has corrected itself. You did see Thunderbolts*, right?

Honest Trailers once joked that a good Fantastic Four movie did in fact exist - Pixar’s The Incredibles. It’s funny because it’s true. But now The Incredibles has competition with an official Fantastic Four film. First Steps finally gives us a film that might just be fantastic.

First Steps starts off exactly how it should - by not showing us a thirty-minute first act featuring how the Fantastic Four got their powers. Thank you, director Matt Shakman. Instead, we are thrust into a world where the Fantastic Four are beloved and considered Earth-828’s protectors. Yes, that number is important because the primary MCU Earth is 616. Don’t worry, the multiverse isn’t a focus in this movie. And because of that, bonus...you don’t have to know anything about the rest of the MCU for this movie. You’re welcome.

In New York City on Earth-828, it’s the 1960s and looks like if Disneyland’s Tomorrowland was right. The Fantastic Four live together in their very own tower in the city and everyone knows them by their actual names (their superhero names are never mentioned during the film). Reed Richards (Pedro Pascal) and his wife Sue Storm (Vanessa Kirby) have learned Sue is pregnant and share the news with Sue’s brother Johnny (Joseph Quinn) and family friend Ben Grimm (Ebon Moss-Bachrach) over their weekly Sunday dinner. If this sounds a lot like Disney’s Carousel of Progress ride to you, you’ll known what I mean by, like the ride, this idyllic scene is interrupted.

Near the end of Sue’s pregnancy, a cosmic being called the Silver Surfer (Julia Garner) arrives at Earth to inform humanity that her master, Galactus (Ralph Ineson), is on his way to eat Earth. Yes, I said eat Earth. In an attempt to save Earth, the Fantastic Four locate Galactus’ current location in the galaxy, then fly there to negotiate with him. Galactus demands Sue’s baby in exchange for not eating Earth and they politely decline. Just kidding - fight scene.

What I love about this plot is it’s a form of the famous Trolley Problem. Doom one life to save everyone else or doom everyone else to save one? Because the film focuses much more on family and community than on punching bad guys, the dilemma has real heft. And not just for the four superheroes, but for the people initially angry at what they perceive as the obvious choice. Once Sue explains to them why they couldn’t just sacrifice their child, they actually listen. I know, right? After living on our Earth these past few years, especially these last few months, the idea of people actually listening to reason sounds utterly preposterous.

There’s a lot more to like about this film than just the moral dilemma. After the casting and writing disaster of 2015’s Fantastic Four, Marvel Studios did what they do best, creating a bunch of well-written characters and finding quite possibly the best possible choices of actors for all of the main characters (and even the minor ones). Ineson portrays a very menacing Galactus, even sprinkling in some nuance that has us feeling the tiniest bit of sympathy for him. Garner is even better as Silver Surfer, powering her emotions and expressions throughout Surfer’s character arc, as well as through the CGI liquid metal covering her entire body.

Quinn and Moss-Bachrach both tone down the cartoonishness of their characters and play up qualities not emphasized in previous film versions of their characters. Ben isn’t just a rock-covered strongman; he’s caring and soft-hearted to friends and strangers alike. Johnny is no longer a cocky, dumb, playboy, but a mildly subdued, intelligent man eager to help out.

Then there are Kirby and Pascal, shining much more as the heads of the family than the heads of a superhero team. Reed is still the familiar scientific genius, but he’s also every dad trying to figure out fatherhood on the fly. He just uses checklists and robots to help. Sue is still the familiar protector and loving wife, but with an undertone of don’t-fuck-with-me-now-that-I’m-a-mom. You all know what I’m talking about.

So, breathe a sigh of relief. First Steps is the Fantastic Four movie we’ve been demanding for decades. You can finally forgive 20th Century Fox Studios for mangling the franchise. You can also forgive Marvel Studios for the flood of forgettable and subpar content they fire-hosed at us after Avengers: Endgame. Now, you can look forward to the next MCU movie now that trust has been restored. And you can go watch Thunderbolts* because the box office sure looks like many of you didn’t see it.

Rating: Worth every penny, even if you’re still mad at Carousel of Progress always breaking down.