‘Weapons’ (dir. Zach Cregger) | Warner Bros (8/8)

[storyteller]

The only real plothole to me was the copcar being there for so long before Alex or the cops themselves noticed.

The other stuff y'all talking about is improbable, but not impossible.

Also horror = fantasy. Not that it excuses everything, but something like keeping the parents and kids alive on soup (and whether they need to go to the bathroom or not) is about as believable as a witch controlling them to begin with. That's a weird thing to get upset about once you buy into voodoo powers

Yep, that's the one actual plot hole. Alex was surprised to see the cop and crackhead in the house, but they shoulda been there before he left for school in the morning since the cop yolked up the crackhead in the middle of the night.

You hit the nail on the head with "horror = fantasy." Dudes want to use "defies the laws of science" as a plothole, which would mean the entire plot is a plothole because the main instigating forces go beyond the realms of science. Kids are Naruto Running out their homes...no science to it.

Spoiler

There's a magic tree, a witch who begins aging backwards, people are turned into puppets....there's no science behind it. It's magic.

That's why I made a joke about these goofies just being Karens. There's a basement full of hypnotized children, with a magic witch who attacks a grown man and manages to overpower him and turn him into a puppet...if someone leans in to ask me where the piss bucket is during that scene, I'm rolling my eyes and telling them to shut up and watch the movie.

To put it another way, a plot hole should actually be relevant to the story. Not just to someone's random whims. We don't need to see everything that happens in the story or have our hands held and everything explained in detail. "Why did the kids run from their homes at 2:17? Magic." and "How did the kids survive off soup alone for a month and how did no one smell the house? Probably the same damned magic."

Dudes are reaching for reasons to complain. There are valid issues with the movie. Tonal shifts can throw it off; the laughs disrupt the scares. Some of the POV characters play fairly minor roles in the main plotline, so their chapters coulda been cut to show us more of the key figures. The ending is definitely abrupt and I'd like to have seen some of the fallout. But damn...dudes really worried about bowel movements and nutrition? That's just reaching.

 

[SchoolboyC]

lol imagine not having eddington at 1

I said movies Ive seen in theaters this year, and Eddington is not one of them

 

[OJ Simpsom]

lol imagine not having eddington at 1

Is it really that good? Saw it just leaked online.

 

[Poetical Poltergeist]

Imagine if people started dissecting The Thing, Poltergeist & The Exorcist for “plot holes” lmao

Y’all can’t be serious.

Most movies have plot holes and some movies have major obvious plot holes that can totally collapse the movie unto itself. Not sure why people have to deny that just so they can't criticize a movie even if they liked it.

 

[hex]

Yep, that's the one actual plot hole. Alex was surprised to see the cop and crackhead in the house, but they shoulda been there before he left for school in the morning since the cop yolked up the crackhead in the middle of the night.

I agree with all of your post except this part.

Watching the movie I noticed the first scene told from a different perspective (Justine leaving the school meeting vs Archer leaving the school meeting) had very subtle changes.

They could've just saved time shooting the same scene with two different cameras, but didn't. So then I started to look at any scene that overlapped (the junkie vs the cop, the principal vs the teacher) and most of the scene weren't the same.

Which leads me to believe it's a stylistic choice because what you see isn't necessarily objectively what happened. Which goes back to the whole unreliable narrator thing I mentioned.

Now if people dislike this but I wouldn't say it's a plot hole.

Fred.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

For me the scenes don't have to look exactly the same when the narrator is telling a story from different perspectives. It's a memory. Each time the memory is going to be a tiny bit different.

 

[storyteller]

I agree with all of your post except this part.

Watching the movie I noticed the first scene told from a different perspective (Justine leaving the school meeting vs Archer leaving the school meeting) had very subtle changes.

They could've just saved time shooting the same scene with two different cameras, but didn't. So then I started to look at any scene that overlapped (the junkie vs the cop, the principal vs the teacher) and most of the scene weren't the same.

Which leads me to believe it's a stylistic choice because what you see isn't necessarily objectively what happened. Which goes back to the whole unreliable narrator thing I mentioned.

Now if people dislike this but I wouldn't say it's a plot hole.

Fred.

Word, that's a fair take. I'm excited to go back in and rewatch it with a keener eye on things like the subtle differences in perspective and to focus in on some of the themes (like the addiction and parasite stuff that was showing throughout).

I'd consider it a continuity error off top, but I can definitely see it being more about different perspectives painting the story. It didn't mess anything up for me, but it was one point where I actually saw a continuity issue as opposed to people wanting explanations for things that had no impact on the narrative we're watching.

 

[FlyRy]

I don't think some people understand what plot holes are anymore. I've yet to see an actual plot hole raised during any of these criticisms of the film.

Cinemasins brains

 

[ThirdAct]

Fincher getting thanked in the credits makes a lot of sense. Opening especially had that Gone Girl vibe going on, which I’m a sucker for. Even the music during then sounded like something Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross would cook up.

Watched it again last night and while I feel the same way about the project, this is quite the level up from Cregger as a filmmaker.

Yeah big Fincher influence, especially in the swift camerawork/editing.

Yep, that's the one actual plot hole. Alex was surprised to see the cop and crackhead in the house, but they shoulda been there before he left for school in the morning since the cop yolked up the crackhead in the middle of the night.

You hit the nail on the head with "horror = fantasy." Dudes want to use "defies the laws of science" as a plothole, which would mean the entire plot is a plothole because the main instigating forces go beyond the realms of science. Kids are Naruto Running out their homes...no science to it.

Spoiler

There's a magic tree, a witch who begins aging backwards, people are turned into puppets....there's no science behind it. It's magic.

That's why I made a joke about these goofies just being Karens. There's a basement full of hypnotized children, with a magic witch who attacks a grown man and manages to overpower him and turn him into a puppet...if someone leans in to ask me where the piss bucket is during that scene, I'm rolling my eyes and telling them to shut up and watch the movie.

To put it another way, a plot hole should actually be relevant to the story. Not just to someone's random whims. We don't need to see everything that happens in the story or have our hands held and everything explained in detail. "Why did the kids run from their homes at 2:17? Magic." and "How did the kids survive off soup alone for a month and how did no one smell the house? Probably the same damned magic."

Dudes are reaching for reasons to complain. There are valid issues with the movie. Tonal shifts can throw it off; the laughs disrupt the scares. Some of the POV characters play fairly minor roles in the main plotline, so their chapters coulda been cut to show us more of the key figures. The ending is definitely abrupt and I'd like to have seen some of the fallout. But damn...dudes really worried about bowel movements and nutrition? That's just reaching.

I agree. Off the bat seventeen kids walking out their house at the same time calls for suspension of disbelief. People live to nitpick though lol.

 

[NobodyReally]

I agree with all of your post except this part.

Watching the movie I noticed the first scene told from a different perspective (Justine leaving the school meeting vs Archer leaving the school meeting) had very subtle changes.

They could've just saved time shooting the same scene with two different cameras, but didn't. So then I started to look at any scene that overlapped (the junkie vs the cop, the principal vs the teacher) and most of the scene weren't the same.

Which leads me to believe it's a stylistic choice because what you see isn't necessarily objectively what happened. Which goes back to the whole unreliable narrator thing I mentioned.

Now if people dislike this but I wouldn't say it's a plot hole.

Fred.

My only nitpick as a writer in terms of the point of view switches is that towards the end, some of the points of view become messy and not strictly told from the point of view of the character. For example, Principal Andrews' point of view is cut short because he dies lol. So we see the rest of Andrew's point of view from Archer's point of view. Same with Alex. We see him lock himself in the bathroom and break the stick, but then the chase happens. He has no view of the chase, and we're supposed to still be in his point of view. But I think perhaps the blending of the points of view was probably intentional. If I were reading it as a book though, that probably would annoy me because it takes me out of a story when a character's point of view has access to situations they aren't supposed to.

Nevermind. I just remembered there's a thing called third-person omniscient. This wasn't strictly third-person limited, so it works.

 

[hex]

My only nitpick as a writer in terms of the point of view switches is that towards the end, some of the points of view become messy and not strictly told from the point of view of the character. For example, Principal Andrews' point of view is cut short because he dies lol. So we see the rest of Andrew's point of view from Archer's point of view. Same with Alex. We see him lock himself in the bathroom and break the stick, but then the chase happens. He has no view of the chase, and we're supposed to still be in his point of view. But I think perhaps the blending of the points of view was probably intentional. If I were reading it as a book though, that probably would annoy me because it takes me out of a story when a character's point of view has access to situations they aren't supposed to.

Nevermind. I just remembered there's a thing called third-person omniscient. This wasn't strictly third-person limited, so it works.

Also the narration at the start says they are telling you what happened. So it's not necessarily 100% accurate.

Which some people might think is lazy. I'm ok with it.

Fred.

 

[Lootpack]

 

[Jx2]

The only glaring plot hole is Julia Garner's character being able to afford a car and a house on single income teacher's salary. Now I also hate this movie

 

[Makavalli]

This was the wildest shyt in the movie to me…

Thats why he threw up lol

Wild movie glad i went in blind

Spoiler

i laughed way too hard at the meth head stabbing the cop with 3 needles to the face

 

[K-Deini]

Cops wife could get it

Them titties were rounding the aisles swiftly to get after justine

Funniest scene to me was the cop punch. I've been so annoyed/aggravated by something before that I've just lost it and punched things out of frustration

Justine tryna break his sobriety. She's the real villain.