"CATCH YOU FUCKERS AT A BAD TIME?"

Weapons

Zach Cregger, the guy from the sketch comedy group The Whitest Kids U’Know who suddenly became a horror auteur with BARBARIAN (2022), is back with his ambitious followup. Cregger has mentioned being inspired by MAGNOLIA when trying to explain what he’s doing here, which might sound kind of ridiculous, but it makes it fitting that it’s New Line Cinema putting a whole lot of faith in a promising new director. Pretty big budget, final cut, advertising based on mystery and “from the director of BARBARIAN,” and they even gave it an IMAX release! But I think their confidence is warranted.

The only thing we really knew about from the somewhat cryptic trailers is a mysterious event explained in the opening by a child narrator (reminded me of SHOGUN ASSASSIN). One night at 2:17 AM in the small town of Maybrook, Pennsylvania, seventeen kids get up out of bed, run out their front door into the night and don’t come back. The weirdest part is that they’re all in the same class, taught by Justine Gandy (Julia Garner, WE ARE WHAT WE ARE). So when she comes to school the next day only one kid is there, Alex Lilly (Cary Christopher). Since nobody can figure out what the fuck happened some of the parents, especially Archer Graff (Josh Brolin, THRASHIN’), assume Justine had something to do with it. She’s getting harassing phone calls, threatening knocks on the door at night, her car vandalized, and she has no teaching to do. Things are not going great for her.

I know from THE ASSISTANT and THE ROYAL HOTEL that Garner can play a really compelling combination of vulnerability and strength under great pressure and harassment. Here she combines that with another type of character I enjoy: somebody I can sympathize with and relate to even though and/or because she’s a fuck up who makes bad decisions. When she literally gets chased out of a school meeting by parents, Principal Marcus Miller (Benedict Wong, LARGO WINCH) advises her to go straight home for her own safety, but instead she stops at the liquor store. I thought yeah, I get that in this type of situation, and I thought that again when she went to a bar to see her police officer ex-boyfriend Paul (Alden Ehrenreich, COCAINE BEAR). But when he pointedly ordered just a Coke and worried about her driving home I realized oh no, this is not just some extra comfort at a bad time. This is a bad problem coming back. Or it might just be every day for her.

Marcus mentions her “behaving inappropriately” with students, which turns out to mean very understandable things like giving a girl who missed the bus a ride home. But she does seem to have some questionable ideas about boundaries, because she keeps wanting to talk to Alex about what happened (even though she’s told it will further traumatize him) and then actually follows him home and when he turns out to live in a creepy house with all the windows covered in newspapers she parks her car down the street and basically stakes him out.

The story is divided into chapters that follow different characters, including Archer, who has more in common with Justine than he realizes. We can see it when he’s drawing lines on maps looking for patterns and knocking on doors asking to watch other grieving parents’ recordings from their Ring cameras. Both of them are assured that the police, under the leadership of Captain Ed (Toby Huss, COPSHOP) are going to find the answers but understandably don’t seem to buy it.

Each chapter tells us more about a character from the previous ones, gives us new context to some of the other incidents, moves the characters and story threads closer toward connecting. The one I didn’t see coming follows James (Austin Abrams, THE KINGS OF SUMMER), a squirrely junkie who lives in a tent in the woods, first seen in the story as a panhandler, later gets involved when Paul catches him trying to break into a building. He’s the saddest character but also the funniest and maybe the most important because he (spoiler) stumbles across the missing kids during a burglary. I mean maybe Justine would’ve been obsessed enough to break into that house eventually but it took an even more serious addiction to push things along.

THIS IS THE PARAGRAPH OF MAJOR SPOILERS. In a story like this there’s a risk that it’s eerie/scary/intriguing when you have no idea what happened but becomes corny/dumb/disappointing when you find out the answer. That’s kinda how I felt about LONGLEGS, but not about this one. I guess one difference is that I thought LONGLEGS was creepy when I didn’t think it was supernatural, this one you kinda figure up front that the situation is too weird for a logical explanation. So I was all-in for the kids being in a trance in a basement under the spell of Alex’s eccentric great aunt Gladys (Amy Madigan, STREETS OF FIRE, ANTLERS), in some kind of scheme to consume their youth. As different adults discover her whole deal she magically enslaves them and can use them as, you know, weapons. When she snaps their little wands made of thorns and blood and personal items they get set loose like Jet Li in UNLEASHED. Not that I’m super familiar with Madigan, but I did not recognize her. She makes Gladys an unusual horror villain with at least three stages: 1. weird old woman face seen in scary flashes and nightmares 2. mean old witch who is not a good person to have looking after kids 3. public-facing goofball representing the family and pretending everything is fine. The lady in Hansel and Gretel never had to get dressed up to go meet with the principal.

Director of photography Larkin Seiple did a bunch of music videos and EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE – compared to that his work here is obviously gonna seem subdued, but there’s definitely some invention in there. Cregger has a directorial confidence I like: lots of interesting camera angles and moves and match cuts that rarely feel very flashy or indulgent, except for the musical montage of the children running away, but that’s a perfect type of indulgence, announcing “okay, this is not like some Blumhouse ghost movie or something, we’re gonna mess around a little.” Soon Justine distracts herself and us from the horrors at hand with her messy life and I never thought “okay, let’s get back to it” because seeing her get into trouble for her personal decisions completely unrelated to the missing children is also a thrill.

This fits a favorite story template of mine: it goes all over the place for a while and then it’s a surprise how perfectly everything fits together at the end. I went to the pretty well attended 2:17 pm (get it?) Thursday show at a multiplex, and though there was one nerd bloviating about internal logic and long term plans during the end credits the rest of us were quite won over. In the last stretch when things really got ripping there were many guffaws and even some genuine applause – I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen that kind of loud reaction at a Thursday matinee before. I definitely was not thinking about Paul Thomas Anderson during this movie, but a the climax I was thinking of Sam Raimi, some RAISING ARIZONA (you’ll see), some DAY OF THE DEAD. I love a movie that can have such funny verbal and physical comedy while still feeling completely serious about its world and its characters and its horror. Shit hitting the fan in a way that gets big laughs but not at the expense of intensity – just an exhilarating release of mayhem and resolution. The good stuff.

Some of my friends have read some timely symbolism into it, and I like their interpretations. There’s definitely something there about the oldest generations holding the youth and their futures hostage and their parents’ generation being incapable of saving them. But I want to note that none of that occurred to me until it was pointed out, so I’m not high on some “here’s a horror movie for our times” kinda shit. It’s also just a good one. BARBARIAN wasn’t a fluke. By the way release that one on disc you weirdos, what the fuck are you doing?

 

P.S. SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER. One of my favorite parts was when James kept getting up over and over and Archer just kept picking him up and tossing him across the room. 

This entry was posted on Monday, August 11th, 2025 at 7:32 am and is filed under Reviews, Horror. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

56 Responses to “Weapons”

  1. So that’s what it’s about. Okay. That sounds watchable. I don’t know why that seemingly simple hook needed to be kept top secret like it was THE SIXTH SENSE or some shit, but I assume they know their business. Their business, presumably, being making me not want to see their movie until someone else told me its basic premise.

  2. Inspector Hammer Boudreaux

    August 11th, 2025 at 9:57 am

    My personal favorite moment was when the junkie was perusing the dvd collection and goes, “huh… WILLOW.”

  3. I saw this last night in a packed theater and enjoyed it a lot.

    There’s lots to say about it, but something I found interesting was how the un-bewitched characters also show similarly relentless and sometimes terrifying behavior—most obviously, Paul’s girlfriend chasing down Justine at the liquor store, Paul himself chasing down James in a hot rage, the mob of townspeople following Justine after the meeting, and Justine stalking Alex. But also in lower keys, like James compulsively checking car door handles again and again until he finds something to steal, Justine wearing down Paul until he breaks his sobriety (and fidelity), Archer pressing other grieving parents for access to their camera data until they give in, and so on.

    Not sure there’s a larger meaning to that (“we are all weapons”?) but I like when a movie makes me notice and wonder about stuff like that.

  4. I enjoyed this one a lot. I laughed for a solid minute after Brolin’s “What the fuck?”

  5. I liked this one a lot. Madigan and Garner were the stand outs for me. I was interested from the get go. Yeah, I wanted to know what was going on with the supernatural stuff, but I was all in on just following these people around.

    Speaking of the supernatural stuff **SPOILERS** I wasn’t sure how much I was going to be able to handle the scary stuff. Sometimes I’m okay and sometimes I’m a scaredy cat. When that woman came out of the house with the scissors, walking all herky jerky as Justine was asleep in the car I was all, aw hell no. Then when you heard the car door open I had to cover my mouth with my hand because I was afraid I’d cry out at whatever was going to happen. Luckily I was able to keep it quiet. Pretty soon after that I calmed down and nothing else really got to me. I do think that the principal running around with the bulging eyes and blank and yet somehow also really intense and enraged expression was pretty freaky.

    Two random things that amused me: the purple robe the aunt was wearing at the breakfast table is the same robe my mom had when I was a kid. And I loved that the principal and his husband were total junk food junkies.

  6. I forgot to say, it was absolutely hilarious that the principal and his husband had the junk food junkie’s token “healthy” food in baby carrots and ranch dressing on their lunch tray.

  7. Curious. Are there any hints of a longer running “mythos” to it all? I mean, sure, witches which make me kinda shrug. Except for Argento joints.
    Is it more esoteric or more “witches dude, they do shit you don’t know about!” INSERT plot?

    I really dug the mood of LONGLEGS but the actual plot and reveal left me…kinda hating it. There were some really cool Tolstoy nicks being toyed with but it ended up like the BLAIR WITCH PROJECT where it hung its sticks on a perfect string of “what gets our goats precisely now”.

    LONGLEGS (which I do sort of like) is so…calibrated to the forensics addicts out there that the rug-pull ruins the good faith. To just commit to your SotL homage is one thing, but magic balls inside of human sized dolls given to you by a creepy nun is, like, Jesus. Fuck that ending. It’s been a minute since I went in fully wanting to love a movie and then…
    Yeah.

    Whatever. I bought a copy of Willard from Goodwill yesterday so I’m enjoying my “A24 Blumhouse elevated” bullshit we argue about before that was actually a thing.

    Gotta dig out my BLACK X-MAS dvd now…

  8. Should’ve capitalized WILLARD since that seems to be the accepted form here. I’m working on it.

  9. Oh, I also have to point out the badges the cops wear were seven pointed stars with two points up, two on each side, and one pointing down. Not quite an the cliche devil sign of a pentagram, but definitely different than the usual badges with six points. It definitely made me think of goat horns. Like Zed above, not sure if there’s a larger meaning, but it amused me when I noticed it.

  10. Whoa, I missed that Maggie, but I’ll have to look for it on a rewatch.

    Another moment I found very suggestive but also somewhat chin-scratchy was Archer’s dream vision of the enormous assault rifle/alarm clock floating above the house. I can’t be the only one who immediately thought of school shootings—and it’s hard to see how that couldn’t be intentional? Emptied classrooms, grieving parents, etc. And yet I can’t quite map that onto the story or themes, beyond the kids (and everyone else involved) emerging at the end deeply traumatized. It’s tantalizing, and haunting, but I’m not sure it’s doing much more than pushing a button.

    I think something Jordan Peele is very good at is leaving his stories ambiguous in a way where meanings can emerge. The villain here is a terrific character, but her kind of evil is so specific—and not really rooted in the community—that I think it ultimately closes off, or at least limits, those kinds of interpretations. That said, a day later this movie is still on my mind, which is not often the case.

  11. Maggie, that’s an interesting observation. I’m hearing a lot of stuff in this movie that people are picking up. Apparently Benedict Wong’s lunch is an homage to this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRh91b74zTU

    Anyway, I liked this enough, loved it at points. It’s so cool that apparently it’s a big fat hit, because it’s so unlike any other hit movies right now. But I guess I have a problem with the structure, and I’ll try not to be spoilery. I guess I don’t have a huge problem with Cregger’s love of the vaguely Deus ex machina method of storytelling to say, oh, here’s this new element I didn’t tell you about, here’s a major detail I flat-out refused to show you until now. I mean, sure. You’re wrongfooting the audience, a little bit of that goes a long way.

    The problem is that this film has a pretty strict structure. You have a vignette about one character where you tell the story. Then there’s a new vignette with another character that tells the same story and fills in some blanks. Sure. It’s just that I think in this movie there are like five vignettes like that, and when you get to the end and Cregger plays that final card, it does feel like he had SEVERAL opportunities to show/tell us this ONE THING. Each vignette, one after the other, seems to suggest there’s a clue we have to pick up somewhere. And then you get to the last twenty minutes or so, and it’s like, why did you structure it so that you’re gonna repeat elements of the same story, only to spring totally new and important information at the end that answers most of the audience’s questions? It’s like if you have a murder mystery set in a house, and then the killer is someone you don’t know who lives five blocks away. Kind of unsatisfying.

  12. You have a vignette about one character where you tell the story. Then there’s a new vignette with another character that tells the same story and fills in some blanks.

    This actually clarifies something for me. I briefly talked to someone who saw an advance screening of it and was very lukewarm for a variety of reasons. But one being that it was a “Atom Egoyan knock-off”

    I thought she meant that it just had the same general set-up as the movie he made where all the kids in the town die except one, which I thought was a little nit-picky. But it seems the whole ‘homage’ goes a little deeper than that, since jumping around chronology and POV to gradually give the audience the big picture is pretty much Egoyan’s ‘thing’

  13. This has really gotten me thinking about the, for lack of better term, “obtuseness” of a lot of modern horror films.

    It certainly isn’t a problem but there is a part of me feels a bit let down when any film *spoilers* hand waves the entire conceit into some inexplicable magic, the devil, *mumble mumble*.

    Like, can we get some mutant sewer people, maybe a legit monster or even just a straight up werewolf film (Wolf Man really doesn’t count, sorry)?

    I’ve seen somebody say that NOPE isn’t so hot but I’d contend that in the last 30 years or so nobody has approached a “UFO” in such a unique situation.

    Ugh, tangent, sorry.

    I kinda wish the central mystery of these newfangled horrors remembered to lay out some whys, hows and whatfors instead of hanging your mystery on “eh, witches or I dunno” (looking at you LONGLEGS).

  14. Aktion, I agree about “obtuseness” in horror in general, but for me that was offset in Weapons by how specifically the logic of the witch’s magic is laid out. We’re given a pretty clear walkthrough early on, and although new elements (like the salt lines) are introduced as we go, by the climax the audience pretty much understands exactly how everything works—which makes it so satisfying when one of the characters is able manipulate it himself to bring the whole thing down.

  15. Getting those 403 errors again. So this may look like a repost from Letterboxd, but I originally typed it up for you guys!

    SPOILERS:

    Enjoyed this, though probably liked Barbarian a little more. My favorite parts here were the human drama stuff in the earlier chapters, way before we get to any supernatural goings-on. Just following around these flawed characters in a town with a sucking chest wound. I had anticipated this as being a school shooting metaphor, and expected more red herrings, like Josh Brolin’s “investigation” turning into a conspiracy theory, or Justine being off-base about Alex. In the end, they’re more or less bang on the money. But I’m realizing that’s the point. I read one take about how it’s about people are so separated from each other today. Justine is ostracized even though she had nothing to do with it, Archer is drifting away from his wife and job, Paul cheats on his wife even though his boss is also his father-in-law, James is living on the streets and estranged from his family. Nobody notices Alex’s house falling into disrepair, or a cop car sitting outside all day. Marcus chastises Justine for showing empathy to students, and the guy at the gas station doesn’t lift a finger to help her! But in the end it’s community that solves the mystery– Justine and Archer teaming up, and all the kids coming together to, well, you know. They could’ve solved this a lot faster if they just cared about one another.

    Amy Madigan reminded me of Ruth Gordon’s character from ROSEMARY’S BABY (or also Dianne Wiest in the Garner-starring APARTMENT 7A) if she was also Pennywise.

  16. Bill, it’s funny that you brought up Pennywise because I thought a lot about IT and how the witch’s spell might be affecting the town with a Nothing to See Here aspect. Like, I cannot imagine Alex’s parents passed any kind of sniff test with the police.

    Does anyone here read any urban fantasy books? This movie reminded me a lot of those kinds of books. I’m not sure how much was shown in the movie itself and how much I brought into it by reading books that deal with witchcraft or fae magic but I had no problem following the logic of the magic.

  17. Loved it! I do have some reservations*, and it does hold back a little while it takes a scenic route (SPOILERS from here on out!) but there’s enough of a steady drip of horrific stuff, the atmosphere is spot on, it’s technically gorgeous, and the witch plot is straight out of fairy tales with (as someone else mentioned) a fairly strict, well-laid out internal logic.

    That ending is enormously satisfying; The buildup had me wanting to cheer when the kids catch up to that asshole and straight up Savini her. It’s so good I wouldn’t be surprised if Creggers built the movie around the witch’s demise and worked backwards from there.
    I thought the movie also does a great job of being extremely funny while never really straying into horror comedy territory. It does get less scary as it gets along, but it’s not because of the funny stuff (of which there’s loads) but because it gets more propulsive and crowd-pleasing.

    @MaggieMayPie – I read a lot of fantasy, and run horror roleplaying games, and I agree all that made it a lot easier to figure out things like, for example, why Alex’s parents went completely catatonic but the children “managed to talk again after a while”, according to the ending narration. Same thing with BRING HER BACK – the people I went to see it with did not get, for example, what the stuff in the videotape was and what it had to do with the film, which I thought was fairly evident.

    *: The main thing that bothered me while I was watching it is that both Alex and Justine would be hounded by the press, youtubers, podcasters, and random thrill seekers for years.
    And as much as I liked it, it does feel a little… minor? when compared to SINNERS or BRING HER BACK. This year has brought an embarrassment of horror riches, and it’s not even Halloween season yet.

  18. The script for this leaked like a year ago, and when the posters and promotions started hitting I admit I gave in and read it. My reaction to the finished film is pretty much the same as I had to the script – very strong for the first 2/3rds, but all the air goes out of it once we start getting explanations. Still trying to figure out why I feel that way, there’s at least an internal logic to it unlike LONGLEGS. Maybe it’s just that ‘evil witch blood magic soul stealer” feels a bit much to drop on the audience in the last act. Or that the metaphors feel a bit mixed; the kids are the titular WEAPONS except when they’re witch food, except when they’re weapons again.

    And I felt sure, reading the script, that they would cut the giant floating AR-15 from Archer’s dream sequence. Oh. Nope.

    Still. I’m thinking about and reading about this one days later, so it must have something going for it. i just wish I felt as over-the-moon as everyone else seems to; apparently Jordan Peele fired members of his management team for failing to secure the script for his production company.

  19. Comrade Question

    August 12th, 2025 at 8:46 pm

    I saw this with a pretty decent-sized crowd last night and loved it. It’s a great audience movie and that finale is just an all-timer. I’m not quite sure whether I like this or BARBARIAN better – I only saw BARBARIAN once, but I think about it a lot. I’ll have to see if this one sticks.

    Gepard, I wonder if the movie was just more disappointing when you know what’s coming? Although it seems like you and Glaive Robber both had a similar issue with too much information being dropped at the end. It didn’t play like that for me… I thought the pacing worked. The first three chapters (Justine/Archer/Paul) were about setting up the situation and didn’t really get into the supernatural stuff besides the occasional creepy jump scare. In James’ chapter you learn where the kids are, and that there’s absolutely some spooky shit going on in the basement. Then it’s Marcus’ chapter which makes it crystal clear we’re dealing with a goddamn witch. And then Alex’s chapter which explains the motivations and (glorious) demise of said witch.

    I wouldn’t mind seeing it again, especially since I made the mistake of having a beer before the movie and had to run to the bathroom approximately once per chapter.

  20. Absolutely thought about RAISING ARIZONA near the end there. Good to see that classic horror/comedy vibe is alive and well

  21. The ending was very, very funny. One thing that played better than I expected.

  22. I liked it a lot. I primarily knew Amy Madigan as Chanice from UNCLE BUCK, so this role was something.

    SPOILERS

    SPOILERS

    SPOILERS

    One thing that I think makes Gladys a great villain and plays into the possible “old people exploiting young” theme is how she takes advantage of people’s willingness to tolerate older people’s bullshit out of an ingrained idea of being respectful and to avoid social awkwardness as there’s a number of scenes where red flags should be getting raised, but people aren’t really doing anything about it until it’s too late. I will say this does make the cops seems a bit unreasonably stupid as they apparently didn’t look further into this weird old lady telling them the one surviving kid’s dad had a stroke, the mother being unaccounted for. I like the structure and the reveals it provides and also the confusion it brings at points, like how Justine’s chapter ends with her fate unknown, but she appears okay in Archer’s later without an explanation. I also was wondering if Archer was the one who vandalised her car, which is implied, but I just realised his chapter sets up him having spare paint in his car, so he probably did do it, without it being confirmed. I like the other bits of implied stuff without confirmation, like maybe Gladys isn’t even related to Alex’s family and just used magic to set herself up like she was, especially since her bringing up consumption hints at her being much older than she even appears.

  23. Amy Madigan = The Dark Half

    Also get her confused with Blair Brown inexplicably. Red hair I guess.

  24. I saw this last night and loved it. I was thinking afterwards that first Jordan Peele and now Zach Cregger… I guess sketch comedy is the new path to becoming a horror auteur.

  25. I just came from seeing NOBODY 2 and the sheriff in that had the same seven pointed star badge that they had here. I guess it must be a normal badge and I just never noticed it before.

  26. Emteem: My grand filmmaking theory is that comedy and horror are the same thing. Set-ups and punchlines, tension and release. For the sketch guys, they have to boil all that down into quick bites with lots of escalation, so I think it makes sense.

    Similarly, I think action movies and musicals are also the same thing.

  27. PROBABLY SOME SPOILER ADJACENT STUFF, SO, YOU’VE BEEN WARNED.

    I liked this better than BARBARIAN, and would go so far as to say I liked it, period. Interesting that Vern should mention Hansel and Gretel, because I think it works best if you treat it that way, as a kind modern day Grimm Fairy Tale, nothing much more or less. The performances are excellent, and each of the vignettes has great texture that really brings the characters to life, but it’s clear by the end that the mystery box and its reveal are the filmmaker’s top priority, with the characters being incidental, glorified action action figures that exist only to service the plot. Once these excellent actors giving excellent performances of extremely compelling characters have made their respective contributions to the plot, they are discarded pretty perfunctorily.

    The problem with going all in on the mystery box is that the big mystery, secret (?), big bad, and their reveal were…fine? Not particularly “oh shit” or knocking my socks off. A pinch of HEREDITARY, a dollop of LONGLEGS. There are some good kills, jump scares, and 2.5 good set pieces. Benedict Wong is probably my MVP here as far as performance, character, and the gets-to-do-gnarly-shit departments. Drop him from the film, and it loses at least a star as far as I’m concerned. Amy Madigan is much too Longlegs, which is surely coincidental and weird timing, but I simply did not find her interesting, compelling, or sufficiently novel as a villain. I did find Alex’s journey harrowing and depressing, but the way this film shuffles through, uses, and then discards characters makes it all seem pretty empty. They all service the mystery box, whose ultimate contents are a sometimes goofy, other times generic witch lady who doesn’t want to die and feels like she belongs in a different film.

    On the other hand, Wong, Garner, Toby Huss, Brolin, Ehrenriech, and company are all top notch; the score is pretty great, and first 60-ish minutes are excellent.

  28. I’m with the people here that said they felt 2/3 good, last 1/3 total deflation. Basically other comments already covered me in full, as in the (in the end) no need for the vignettes format since there was no hidden clue for us to find and the “let’s wrap it up with WITCH STUFF” after having conditioned us to be waiting for something “new” “different” “exciting” whatever.
    I’m totally on the “barbarian was tons better” camp.

  29. “Since Aunt Ada Came To Stay”, NIGHT GALLERY, based on a story by A.E. van Vogt.

  30. Quite late to the party but the only thing I have to add is: this was great and Mr. Majestyk, they don’t say for the same reason Vern put giant SPOILER tags on it, genius. Because the movie is a fucking mystery and we spend 2/3 of the time having it slowly revealed as people figure it out.

  31. I don’t know if the director denying that this has anything to do with mass shootings is tongue in cheek or what, but it was so obvious to me. From an entire classroom of kids “disappearing” in a single event, to community leader’s complete lack of urgency to solve the problem, to a repeat of the exact same event and everyone just continues on as they had before. I can imagine when a mass shooting happens in one’s community, it feels like evil has come to live there, taken your loved ones and infected the minds of the adults, making them completely incapable of providing safety. That Weapons turns that idea into a supernatural haunted house movie is a stroke of genius, but I wish we could have more of a discussion about it. I watched it for the first time last night, and to go online and read the discourse wherein this interpretation doesn’t seem to have occurred to most people, and those it does are shouted down immediately, feels like the movie’s horror reaching out into the real world.

  32. SPOILERS FOR SURE
    Wait, what event repeats itself in this movie in a way analogous to repeated school shootings? And, even if there was such an event in the movie, mass shootings events don’t generally repeat themselves in the same place. I am confused.

    That said, I am broadly on board with the allegory, which, as has been noted, draws some additional support in the form of the giant AR-15 floating in the sky that Josh Brolin sees and that has no discernible connection to anything else at all that ever happens in the movie.

    The weird thing is that the school shooting allegory would seem to directly cut against the “gross, monstrous parasitic old people robbing the youth of their future for their own selfish motives” allegory, since mass school shootings are generally committed by students or recent former students. So, if this a movie about mass school gun violence, what is significance of the perpetrator being an old witch lady?

    A charitable reading would be that the film is pregnant with subtext and allusion, permitting of many readings. A less charitable reading is that Cregger is an excellent stylist, visual communicator, and actor’s director who tells muddled and/or trite stories that are heavy on under-baked but topical “themes” but weak in the original or compelling narrative that can stick a landing

  33. “weak in the original or compelling narrative”

    Huh. I can’t see that one. If nothing else the entire structure of the two I’ve seen is what make them compelling and the details and how they’re deployed are pretty original in the context of the majority of modern horror. Maybe it’s just me.

    Also in regards to the ambiguity of thematic intent, why can’t it be about ALL these things? I mean, doesn’t humanity contain multitudes? For myself, I see it ultimately as how scary and destructive the unknown can be. The whys, the hows and the who do blame and who do we punish of our world; answers that we’ll never really have. It’s purposely not picking a single metaphor to back itself into, rather pulling at threads that haunt us all in different ways. The structure reinforces the “mosaic” like nature of the many horrors we live with and try to understand or confront.

    Yeah, I dig this one.

  34. Is it weird that I saw the giant rifle in the dream with the clock reading and thought, primarily, yes, that’s the exact sort of thing you’d see in a dream? Like, if you had one eye open, you gazed at the clock at your bedside, and your brain would briefly fuse all this stuff together without rhyme or reason?

  35. I think virtually every horror film is on level about “fear of the unknown,” and this is the core appeal and raison d’etre for the genre. So a horror film that is about only that is a generic abstraction, not a story. On a literal level, this film is primarily about kids who disappear and people who do violence, because an evil witch has hexed and fed off them to preserve her own life. For this reason, my initial comment and continuing position is that the film works best as a kind of contemporary Grimm-esque fairy tale. Of course, there are lots of other themes, motifs, or little subplots going on in virtue of all the little vignettes. And I think the best way to think of those vignettes or chapters is that this is just a way to introduce us to the four main adults who will find themselves rumbling at the kid/witch’s house at the climax and to the forces that will draw them together there.

    There’s not much in the way of a mystery that could be solved in advance — you can’t know it’s a witch lady until they introduce a sketchy old lady, and the moment they do, it’s pretty obvious at that moment that she’s the nexus/big bad. So, you don’t really know what the deal is until she arrives, then pretty soon after she arrives, you know exactly what the deal is. So, it’s just a question of how the confrontation is going to go down. So, all the individual episodes do a good job of getting you invested in the characters, and they do a good job of moving the pieces together for them all to converge on this house, but not much in the way of actually steadily unraveling and giving you bread crumbs and engaging you in helping to solve the mystery. Beyond the character development, which is great, there’s little novel that any of them contribute to unraveling the mystery: each of them, for some independent reason, ends up discovering that the kid’s house is epicenter of bad stuff. We re-discover this with each person. And the film simply shows us pretty directly that it’s the witch and she’s bad when it’s ready to do so.

    So this is not really a mystery, or at least it’s not played out like the kind of well-constructed, layered mystery that you gradually unravel and discover throughout the running time only to get a final reveal/climax/oh-shit. If it were, it wouldn’t spend so much of the running time making you re-learn “don’t go in that house” along with each major cast member, and it wouldn’t abruptly introduce the obvious literal villain at right about the mid-way point, with no particular build-up or foreshadowing, and it wouldn’t just have her interact with a bunch of people in broad daylight, sowing chaos from about that mid-way point on.

    It’s done like much more of a layered character piece in that MAGNOLIA vein that Cregger says he’s going for. So, the mystery-style narrative experience seems secondary to, or at least tugging of war with, the MAGNOLIA “let’s just marinate and hang with these characters and get to know their quirks, trauma, and connections” aspect. The mystery is secondary to the character stuff, and if that weren’t the case, we wouldn’t have to spend so much time shadowing each character until they arrive at broadly the same point and literally the same place as the others.

    But then those characters ultimately seem to exist for the sole purpose of arriving at the house, beating the shit out of each other, and confronting the witch. None of their individual stories is handled with much care or interest, and they are almost comically dismissed with the closing narrative epilogue, which has the feel of “things stayed pretty fucked up, but they muddled through, yada, yada, please leave now, we’re done here.”

    To me, the film is a bag of individually really great moments, scenes and performances that do not add up to a compelling or satisfying story. I still say it’s a net “good” movie, because the good elements (chiefly the performances) are sooo good. But for me it seems to be all artifice, and I do not have the feeling that the film gives a shit about any of its characters, which is a weird way to feel about a film that spends its first 90 minutes really diving deep into the felt daily experiences of its wonderfully performed characters. MAGNOLIA is a very different kettle of fish: It cares deeply about its characters, and wouldn’t and couldn’t think of dropping the ball on them. SIXTH SENSE and HEREDITARY care deeply about their mysteries and wouldn’t dream of deus ex machina’ing in a hammy “big bad” halfway through with no real prior indication that this was the intended direction prior.

    I experience this film as a half-baked mood board of ideas, themes (those we’ve been discussing and others besides), and influences — that lacks the narrative center and heart and soul of its influences. It’s kind of a pastiche that is good at invidual scenes and set pieces and less good at making them add up to anything beyond that. Less ponderously: For me, the villain is a total whiff, and I cannot abide the broadly diffuse and dismissive send-off it gives its leads in the final 5-10 minutes after it spent the 1/2 to 2/3 of the film MAGNOLIA-ing us into getting deeply invested in them. The indifferent-to-“who gives a shit?!” quality of the epilogue and previous few minutes is enough to knock it down from “great” to “pretty good with qualficiations.”

  36. Execpt that we do learn new stuff as it evolves, even after we see the creepy lady, we don’t now how she’s the center of everything, or why she’s doing it.

    With the teacher we learn the one kid is somehow involved, we don’t know how but his parents are fucked up. At this point I thought the kid had something to do with it, what is he hiding and why, and how did he do it?

    With the dad we learn all the kids ran in the same direction and got a basic idea where they may be. Also, we know it ain’t just the parents who are getting fucked up, why and how did the principlal get possessed?

    Then the cop/criminal reveal the kids are all in the house. Why, we don’t know.

    Then finally things start really revealing themselves when we see the lady in the principal’s story. We know she’s a witch. We still don’t know why she took the kids.

    Then the last story with the kid we get all of the motivations and reasons.

    This movie is absolutely a pretty well constructed mystery, you don’t simply have one person figuring things out. I also like the end, I’m a fan of “you just got a banger climax now get the fuck out of here credits.”

  37. Every single one of those character-specific vignettes redundantly leads us to the conclusion that “the kid’s house is bad.” And it was clear (to me, at least) as soon as “aunt weirdo is coming for a visit” that she’s the hinge point, and once she’s introduced, the film keeps doubling and tripling down on it in how they center her and in how obviously over-the-top ridiculously weird she is.

  38. @Skani, I agree with your reading of the ending. I feel like, at the beginning, the movie won me over because they introduced the tragedy so quickly and then made us reckon with these characters, seeing how they perceived this terrible tragedy, what it could do to you. And then the ending feels similarly upsetting, and yet we spend no time with the same characters after they just watched the answer to this tragedy be a bunch of mind-controlled children tear a witch apart with their bare hands. Like, do you respect your characters, or did they exist just for that punchline? The line at the end about how, after a year, some of the kids started speaking again was ghoulish, but how did these people cope with that? Maybe I’m asking too much, I don’t know.

  39. Skani ach piece still reveals a puzzle. It’s like boiling down a murder mystery whodunnit to having scene after scene of “this guy is suspcious” or “someone here comitted a murder.” We get new, specific info every storyline. Tthe witch is shown fairly late into the movie, it’s not like she shows up 30 minutes in and so we know everything right away. When she shows up, it’s time for big reveals to happen because we’re in the third act of the movie. Of course we know aunt weirdo is the hinge point, before we get the scenes of the parents saying “aunt weirdo is coming for a visit” we literally see her do a spell and have the principal murder his husband and then go after the teacher to kill her, I think that clued me in pretty well she was the centerpiece more than a line of dialogue. The stuff with the kid is really just about the hows and whys, the dynamics of her keeping this kid hostage and what he has to go through, as well as the reasonings to why this shit is happening, none of which we knew.

    I think they easily could have told the story straight, start with the witch arriving and go through the rest and it’d still be an interesting story.

    I kinda don’t know what you guys want from the ending, another half hour of them going to therapists? By this logic we could way more to any horror movie, let’s see Wendy dealing with her kid’s trauma and becoming an emotional wreck trying to hold down a job after The Shining. Or what about the interesting forensic investigations that occur after American Werewolf.

  40. I’m with Muh.

    Hell, it was kind of a relief to me that the jig is up on the witchery fairly early on. LONGLEGS really shit the bed for me on that score; an unearned and nonsensical rug-pull. Ugh, I hated that “reveal”.
    I think there’s a misconception that the film is building to some answer to the “mystery”. The marketing played it that way but the film itself treats the mystery as an inciting incident that puts all these characters in motion and intertwining them, not something you can Google ending spoilers for and not bother with the rest of it. The rest of it IS it.

    For what it’s worth as someone who grew up with a domineering and violent step-father and still has PTSD when it comes to “authority”, the kid’s plight here really got to me. Having a random person show up, claim family rights and then torture a young mind while turning the parent(s) into hapless non-entities was chillingly on point.

    Again, this isn’t a flick you boil down to witchcraft OR direct metaphor. There’s a lot more going on here.

  41. And I’m going to need an explanation of what “respecting characters” really means. I don’t think I caught any disrespect to any character in this film. It simply begins where it does and ends where it does. Stories can do that.

  42. Let me put it this way — I think one of the film’s strengths is how it doesn’t mess around with introducing the premise, but in doing so it allows us a lot of time with these people. Julia Garner’s character means well, and she’s given certain instructions. But she’s reckless and she makes very human choices in the face of a bizarre, unimaginable tragedy– like we all would. I was touched by the empathy in that first act, and later on with characters like the junkie.

    By the end, however, you run them through this gauntlet of horror, and my thought is, how did this affect Julia Garner or Josh Brolin, both of whom the viewer has got to know so well? They responded to that disaster not like movie characters but like real people. And then at the end, my main thought is, what happened to her? How did Brolin really get over what happen? Even as it’s happening — the kids running loose after the witch — I was thinking, oh my God, the things these people have endured. Seeing something like that — kids tearing a witch apart — could break someone WITHOUT context. How does it feel for the people who see it as the latest in an insane chain of events like this? I don’t think it’s weird to be invested in that way. At the same time, I also get how someone could think, ok, story’s over. I get that. I just thought it was an unusual amount of character development for an American movie in 2025, and I would have liked to see it close on the same characters it began with, the same empathy. The WHAM BANG ending is a refusal of closure, in a way that might work for some. I didn’t think it was consistent to the movie’s overall intentions, however, particularly at the start.

  43. I would encourage open-minded discussants and onlookers to go re-watch the closing moments and how the ending narration lands somewhere between shrugging and openly dismissing the characters. “Shit was fucked up, lots of the kids stayed fucked up, kid lost his parents, them’s the breaks fucker.” It’s not just the absence of some kind of cloying happy ending — I certainly don’t need that — it’s the lack of general interest in the characters once they’ve performed their respective roles in “the kids house, which is where the bad things happen.” The repetitive, hang-with-each-character nature of the vignettes (the “MAGNOLIA stuff”) is completely undercut by the very un-MAGNOLIA resolution, which reveals that the characters only matter in proportion to the roles they play in the climax, because once they’ve played those roles, they’re essentially dropped and punted to the curb. Go watch MAGNOLIA and compare to this film that self-consciously apes MAGNOLIA for an idea of how you satisfactorily handle characters you’ve spent 1.5 hours getting me invested in. Fine if you want to insist that this was the fun and subversion of it all — to build up your investment only to show you that the cruel universe / witches are indifferent and pitiless in the face of your emotional attachments, but if so: come up with a better mystery, better and less clunky mystery unraveling process, and better cruel pitiless universe villain surrogate.

  44. Skani,

    “Wait, what event repeats itself in this movie in a way analogous to repeated school shootings?”

    SPOILER
    When Gladys calls all the kids in Alex’s second class. The movie almost glosses over it, but she took not one but two entire classes. It had me thinking about how the world would react if two Sandy Hook type events occured at the same school within days of each other. That would be utterly insane, but essentially, that is the world we live in. The movie just compresses that down to one town, which exaggerates the lack of response to an almost hilarious level, but this is America, folks.

    “So, if this a movie about mass school gun violence, what is significance of the perpetrator being an old witch lady?”

    Do we think that youth are 100% to blame for school shootings? If so, then why hasn’t this been a phenomenon since the beginning of human existence? No, there’s something broken in the society we’ve handed down to generation after generation, and I think that’s what Gladys represents. Time after time in this movie, we see parental or authority figures failing the children they are tasked to protect. Many people in the movie and in the world don’t necessarily perpetuate the broken system but continue to go along with it nonetheless. Gladys is the evil, parasitic entity that actually does perpetuate it.

    All that said, I do think this movie comments on nearly every toxic aspect of domestic American life and can be read in many different ways. I look forward to continued viewings to pull more from it, but as the parent of a 9-year-old, it’s very difficult to return to.

  45. Aktion the movie does though, lead to the resolution of the mystery…just in a different, more character centered way, and reveals the mystery not in the usual way, where the detective does a five minute monolgue explaining the hows and whens, and then the villain does a monologue spurting out their motivation. It’s just each set of characters are revealing, slowly, more and more until we get all of the pieces. The big reveals is in the top of the third act, with the witch’s appearance. Then we get the motivations and the effect on the kid for the last part.

    Glaive, I’d be interested to see what do people want after the end…this is a horror movie we’re watching. How many linger for ten minutes after the resolution? The kid’s narration may be dismissive, but so it was in the opening where the kid says “I guess so they could get together and be sad and stuff.”

    I mean seriously, look even at a genre movie like Seven. The whole movie is mystery and a lot of character stuff, and we even get to have a nice dinner with him. Ending…head in a box, cop is a murderer, or well credits. How did that affect Brad Pitt and Freeman, why don’t we see the trial? Cause that’s for season 2 of a tv show, that’s not how movies work. Unless we want a movie where we do get lots of character resolutions after the big climax, a la Return of the King, where my audience went from loving the movie to outright hostile and laughing. Maybe we’ll get Weapons 2.

    Lastly, maybe this movie has sort of theme but not really particuarily thought out ones. Themes that are in the zeitgeist but the guy isn’t necessarily reflecting on them. He even said when he was writing it, he didn’t know where it was leading, he had no idea there was a witch, apparently. Just kept going until it all came together. Maybe that’s disappointing to some, like why doesn’t this guy care about his story, is this just an empty exercise. Or, maybe this is just unconcious stuff but you may not be abe to tie a bow around it.

    Could be like that saying, I forget who said it or exactly how it goes, but it was along the lines of “themes are for term papers”.

  46. Let me add I don’t necessarily agree with that, I think interesting themes can elevate any movie. Just sayin, it’s been said.

    Can’t find out who said that, I feel it was William Friedkin or one of those old school irrascables.

  47. @David, I think you’re wrong re: a second class being taken. Watched the movie again recently and I just can’t see that sustained by the film at all… It’d break its logic completely.

    Caught a couple of fun touches the second time around, but it’s not really a movie that sustains several viewings for me. Alex’s segment, which served to spell out some specifics of how it all happened the first time I watched it, honestly dragged on a bit this time around.

    I get the people complaining about the script’s character work; All those threads get hijacked by the plot in ways that don’t really even attempt to serve or say anything about the characters, if that makes sense.
    It’s not trying to be deep, and I don’t think it’s not well constructed in the same way that, say, BRING HER BACK is. I agree 100% with whoever said it’s a dark fairy tale above; There’s nothing wrong with a movie just aiming to be fun, not when it actually manages it, and when it’s got such an all-timer of a crowd-pleasing finale.

  48. Dreadguacamole,

    Oh, I need to watch it again but maybe you’re right. I think I was confused because every other character’s story starts after the disappearance (I think?), so I assumed that was the case with Alex as well.

  49. There was 100% only one class that was taken.

  50. The reason Alex’s had to start before the abduction is because that’s where we get the explanations of the cause of the event.

  51. I would encourage open-minded discussants and onlookers to go re-watch the closing moments and how the ending narration lands somewhere between shrugging and openly dismissing the characters. “Shit was fucked up, lots of the kids stayed fucked up, kid lost his parents, them’s the breaks fucker.” It’s not just the absence of some kind of cloying happy ending — I certainly don’t need that — it’s the lack of general interest in the characters once they’ve performed their respective roles in “the kids house, which is where the bad things happen.”

    Or…it’s boldly acknowledging its own artifice by closing the curtains once the show is over.

    Seriously; a story ends at some point. I can’t see the point in winging back and forth over “what happens next/not shown”.

    The creator had a story to tell, told it and left the stage.

    Cregger has been open that this script came from a place of grief and reconciliation. As a mood and character piece that clearly has an identity to its creator, I believe this succeeds gangbusters.

    Perhaps the entire veil of ambiguity, questions and outright loss is where it wins, not in delivering some kind of “satisfying” denouement. I mean, reality tells me that we NEVER get that catharsis. No tragedy gets a sufficient answer.
    That’s a pointed response to all the tragedies this film posits.
    No one is safe and it will always be inexplicable the ways our youth are exploited, sensationalized and then the names forgotten.

    Look, just so I don’t sound like I’m downing this flicks dick, I will say that there should’ve been a scene/beat/moment where Gladys actually used the kids as WEAPONS. I mean, that’s just right there. Have the kids attack the police station, give Toby Huss another death scene and show just how dangerous Gladys could be on a bigger scale, but…that wasn’t the story he wanted to tell (yet) and I’m not really into fan-fiction “what if the story did this instead” kinda stuff. I read it as it is and this one worked.

    Side note: I love that we really don’t know anything about Gladys. So many horror stories over explain their creations while this adheres to the campfire tales. “Once, there was a witch…”
    I’m of the opinion that there’s more to her (she literally can’t even pass as a normal looking human, more like a lizard trying to blend in).

    Honestly, it almost sounds like if you are having a problem with the plot it’s because you wanted MORE which kinda means all of it was working.

    Shit dudes, wait for a sequel.
    (I’d fucking kill for a Halloween 2 style sequel to this one. Garner in the hospital, Brolin slipping and falling in a puddle of blood, Gladys getting her eyes shot out, etc.)

  52. Yeah, I didn’t get that she did it again (wouldn’t there be, like, twice as many kids at the end?) but isn’t that the ever looming fear of an inexplicable event with no clear answers? Is that not the overarching fear this tale is trading?

  53. You know I just saw that Cregger may very well do a Gladys prequel. He has the story. I’ve liked both of his horror movies so I guess I’d be down even though I’d be leery of the idea. Just not sure we really need to see her backstory but who knows.

  54. As someone who performed improv comedy on stage in front of strangers paying for the privilege of my “wit”, perhaps I’m closer to the wavelength of your Creggers or your Peeles. You can’t perform a game like “Swinging Pendulum of Death” without letting your mind run with a punchline that CHARCTERS build up to. I guess I’m blind to that being a narrative deficiency on any level. If you don’t want a “punchline” to the story, go watch one of those never ending TV series that never bothered to consider an ending or how to economically arrive there.

  55. Would the film be better if we knew more about Brolin’s home life? To know that Garner’s alcoholism is rooted in a bad dad? The struggle of a gay principal in a clearly whitewashed community? The cop and him arguing with his other girl? Explicit details on witchcraft?

    Like, do y’all need that to make it “better”?

    I didn’t need any deep background dive OR epilogue to be completely invested in Suzy’s nightmarish journey to and thru a German dance academy ran by (spoilers) witches. Would that enhance the basics?

    This one is surprisingly divisive to us to me, unlike say, WOLFMAN which was just…oh, shit. I was about to dog that one and then I remembered I watched the new SALEM’S LOT and fuck me. I can’t believe how much I miss a Andre Braugher, Samantha Morton or even a fucking David Soule and Fred Willard.

    C’mon, can’t I appreciate a pretty straightforward yet novelistic horror flick nowadays? Without it being “extreme” to get the clicks?

  56. Creggar’s WEAPONS is an expertly directed dark fairy tale. The interwoven characters each putting their part of this jigsaw puzzle together by the end. Director Creggar owes the core of his story to Rod Serling’s NIGHT GALLERY TV Series episode “SINCE AUNT ADA CAME TO STAY”. He then adds the excellent allegory of children’s school shootings and parental grief. It’s all done with great flair and excellent performances. AMY MADIGAN gives the greatest performance of her long career as ‘Aunt Gladys’. A Real Load of Horror Classic Fun

Leave a Reply





XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>