In a world of sequels, remakes and franchises, moviegoing audiences have been yearning for more original films to be released in theaters. While studios have been pushing out more original big budget features like this year’s “Mickey 17,” audience reception to such films generally hasn’t been the most ideal. With the Bong Joon-ho film receiving mixed reviews, including a 3/5 rating I gave it earlier this year.

Lately, the horror genre has been providing hope for original Hollywood cinema following the success of Ryan Coogler’s “Sinners” — a film that has received widespread critical acclaim, and received a worldwide box office gross of over $365 million according to Box Office Mojo. Hollywood is often hesitant to take bold risks with the horror genre — with many major studio produced films tending to be formulaic, predictable and reliant on cheap jumpscares. But rather than following familiar patterns, “Barbarian” director Zach Cregger follows up his modern day horror classic with a bizarre, polarizing vision that blends laughs with dread that will both divide and delight audiences.

Now, Warner Bros., who also distributed “Sinners” and “Mickey 17,” has released one of their most anticipated films of the year with Cregger’s “Weapons.” The film was so sought after that it, according to the Hollywood Reporter, was involved in an “intense bidding war” from studios to secure the rights to the film.

But is “Weapons” really as good as the faith executives have placed onto it? If there is one thing that’s certain, the film is definitely one of the most unique, major-studio Hollywood films I’ve seen this decade. And it’s destined to polarize audiences.

Told through the perspectives of its ensemble cast in a “Rashomon-esque” fashion, “Weapons” explores a bizarre, small-town mystery in which all the students of a third-grade class disappear at 2:17 a.m. — except for one. As the dysfunctional residents stumble around to solve the mystery, sinister forces begin to unravel in the community.

The most pleasant aspect of the film is its twisted sense of humor. Like Cregger’s previous film, “Weapons” is an excellent blend of horror and comedy — only further refined in its balance of tone. Cregger initially had an early career in comedy, being a member of 2000s comedy troupe, “The Whitest Kids U’ Know.” With his familiarity in comedy, Cregger utilizes his proficiency in the craft to deliver scares as he does with laughs.

As seen with some of the most iconic horror movies — Sam Raimi’s “Evil Dead II,” Jordan Peele’s “Get Out,” Nobuhiko Obayashi’s “House” — the execution of horror and comedy parallel each other in ways that are interestingly complementary. The film is as eerie and disturbing as it is hilarious. 

But don’t let the film’s playfulness fool you. The humor not only functions as comedic relief but also an amplifier to the scares. Both catch you off guard in ways that keep the film fresh and unpredictable. 

The film is still genuinely tense and uncomfortably disturbing. Despite having a lengthier runtime of 128 minutes, the tight pacing and excellent tension building of “Weapons” grip you from the start and refuse to let you go even after the credits are over. The camera brings audiences into the world of “Weapons,” and immerses them in its sinister mystery. The framing of shots is meticulous and selective in the information it wants to reveal at a time, but also builds an impending sense of dread that had me begging to not see more it had to offer. 

It’s also refreshing to see a mainstream Hollywood film unafraid to become weird and off-putting. The bizarre direction the second half of the film takes can be very polarizing, with an odd mix of delight and disgust occurring in my theater. While it can land poorly to go against the grain of audience expectation, it creates a layer of unpredictability to the mystery of “Weapons,” and sparks further discussion of the film outside of the theater. Which is something I greatly appreciate in an era of disposable, mass-consumed content currently dominating streaming platforms.

The main issue of “Weapons” also stems from its sense of direction. While the film starts off strong, the direction especially becomes a double-edged sword toward the latter half of the film. The different chapters and perspectives in the film is one of its most unique elements along with the borderline surrealism, but it tends to lead to an inconsistent narrative timeline and many of its plot holes.

Additionally, as intense and eerie as “Weapons” is, the film is quite light on scares, especially compared to “Barbarian.” Although its terrifying moments are smartly reserved, good chunks of the movie tend to feel like a different film. It’s something I didn’t mind but will certainly throw off those seeking something like Cregger’s previous film.

The result is an improvement in Cregger’s abilities as a filmmaker, but an unfortunate stumble in his storytelling. While Cregger creatively plays around with the camera and the visual storytelling it provides, audiences may be disappointed in the film’s uneven narrative quality, and lack of deeper, thought-provoking symbolism.

Despite this, “Weapons” is still a zany, fun ride that delivers belly-aching laughs while simultaneously executing spine-chilling frights. Moviegoing audiences, your prayers have been heard. Original Hollywood storytelling might be making a comeback.

4/5