
The Feel-Bad, Feel-Good Movie of the Year
The most daring aspect of Weapons is that it answers all of its big questions. The sleeper-hit horror film, written and directed by Zach Cregger, has a distressing but undeniably hooky premise: One night, at 2:17 a.m., all but one student in the same third-grade class got up out of their beds and ran out of their suburban homes with their arms outstretched, vanishing into the night. Where did they go? Why did they run away? The story hinges on an intriguing mystery, but often, opening the mystery box can backfire.
Yet by eventually laying out the reasons behind the kids' disappearance—and thus making sense of the tragedy—Cregger is doing two things: First, he's doing his job as the maker of entertainment, creating a dynamite ending that offers real closure. Second, he's underlining the fallacy of catharsis. Weapons is a movie about a local misfortune that then reveals the enigmatic villain behind it and delights in her comeuppance. Yet it also reminds the viewer that vanquishing evil doesn't undo the terrors it has already wrought—and that there's only so much relief a conclusion can actually bring.
Cregger, who was a founding member of the comedy troupe the Whitest Kids U'Know, has said that he began writing Weapons after the tragic accidental death of his close friend and former collaborator Trevor Moore. While the incidents at the core of the film are mythic and supernatural, they also feel utterly senseless; much of Weapons follows the characters trying, and failing, to understand the bizarre thing that's happened to them. Archer (played by Josh Brolin) is the father of one of the missing children; Justine (Julia Garner) is the teacher who doesn't know where her students went; and Alex (Cary Christopher) is the missing children's one remaining classmate, whose continued presence is as curious to everyone as the vanishing of his peers.
Each of their isolated stories, including those of a few other, more tenuously connected townspeople, functions as a chapter in a larger tale. Cregger is chronicling a community, albeit a dispersed one: People seem to barely know one another, and the town's institutions, such as law enforcement and the school administration, have responded ineffectually at best. The central conceit of the kids' disappearance is horrifyingly contemporary—their flight into the night is captured by Ring cameras—but in a neighborhood of identical-looking houses, it's also troublingly plausible that nobody can figure out where they went.
Eventually, Archer and Justine start to make some progress in their respective searches for the kids, nudged forward by weird dreams and their desire for answers. Yet the person to finally stumble upon the children is an unhoused, drug-addicted man named James (Austin Abrams), who finds them standing zombified in a basement while he's trying to burglarize what he thinks is an empty home. Cregger thus stages the movie's most pivotal moment from the perspective of the community's least emotionally invested member. The unconventional choice hints at the director's disinterest in a tidy search-and-rescue, and the relief that comes with it. Instead, like Paul Thomas Anderson's multicharacter opus Magnolia —which Cregger has cited as inspiration— Weapons is rooted in diffusion, tracking lost souls struggling to connect; the action only really begins when they start talking to one another.
After a barrage of freaky, teasing scares, and a lot of ominous attention directed at Alex's house, where something evil is clearly going on, Weapons gambles on providing solutions. The film recounts what happened from Alex's point of view. It reveals that his parents have been possessed by his peculiar great-aunt Gladys (Amy Madigan), a dying witch who has set up camp in Alex's house to drain the life of those around her. When the souls of Alex's parents prove not to be enough, she enlists the boy to help her bewitch his classmates too, luring them into the house; Alex obliges only when Gladys threatens to kill his parents if he doesn't help her.
Madigan is the big reason the final-act revelation works. Chalking up all this madness to one person's doing might be hard to buy, but her performance is astonishing; as Gladys, she seamlessly slips between brassy charisma and steely menace. The character generates the movie's biggest laughs and its best jump scares, and her magic is both cryptic and formidable: She can weaponize the people she bewitches as undead assassins, leading to a showdown in which she keeps throwing her thralls at Archer and Justine once they finally figure out what she's up to.
The catharsis of her defeat is twofold: Not only is Gladys taken down, but her demise also comes at the hands of the children she's captured. Alex figures out how to work Gladys's magic and sends them after her, running and screaming, until they tear her apart like a pack of hyenas. The moment is pure cinema joy, even more so because of the transgression—it is a real spooky delight to realize you're with a packed crowd, cheering on a group of third-graders who are intent on murdering an old lady with their bare hands.
But Cregger gets to have his cake and eat it too. The threat has been taken care of, by way of the kind of kinetic filmmaking that might make anyone punch the air. The battle, however, was long ago lost. The voice-over narration tells us that Alex's parents remain catatonic, and, after a couple of years, some of the recovered children have only just begun to speak again. Weapons offers a fantasy of triumph, and it's a satisfying one, but with that exhalation comes many more details to ponder. The wreckage of grief and loss all the characters have been mired in is hardly swept away. As a result, Weapons is the feel-bad, feel-good movie of the year—a rare horror masterpiece that leaps beyond its genre without abandoning its sick, sad heart.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Onion
20 hours ago
- The Onion
What To Know About ‘Weapons'
Weapons , a new horror film from the director of Barbarian , topped the box office on its opening weekend. The Onion shares everything you need to know about the movie. Q. Why is the film called Weapons ? A. The title Where Did The Kids Go? Find Out, Josh Brolin! didn't test well. Q: Is it scary? A: It's less 'ghost scary' and more 'going to the bad CVS at two in the morning scary.' Q: What is it about? A: Two hours. Q. Who is the villain of the film? A. The AMC employee that keeps telling you vaping isn't allowed in the theater Q: Is there a cliffhanger? A: It's still unclear whether the students have to complete any make-up work. Q: What is the film's message? A: If 17 kids can disappear overnight, then losing a couple in the Poconos Mountains doesn't make you a bad mom.


Geek Tyrant
20 hours ago
- Geek Tyrant
How Old Is Aunt Gladys in WEAPONS? The Witch Theory That Changes Everything — GeekTyrant
If you walked away from Weapons wondering what the deal was with creepy Aunt Gladys, you're not alone. Her eerie presence, strange behavior, and influence over everyone around her suggest there's way more going on than just a creepy relative showing up after a long absence. So how old is she really? And is she even human? While Weapons never comes right out and says how old Aunt Gladys is, there are plenty of clues that she might be centuries old. One of the biggest red flags is her use of the word 'consumption' when talking about tuberculosis. That's a term that hasn't been commonly used since the 19th century. Either she's a history buff or she's been around a very long time. Then there's the timeline mess. Alex's parents claim they haven't seen Gladys in 15 years. But Gladys insists the last time she saw Alex was when he was a baby. That doesn't line up at all. When you add in her ability to implant false memories. Gladys shows up after Alex's parents get sick, presenting herself as his great-aunt. But it quickly becomes clear that she's more than just a distant relative. She's a witch who practices sympathetic magic, a nasty form of sorcery that lets her control and feed off others. She needs a piece of someone (like hair or a personal item), her own blood, and blackthorn branches to activate her spells, which she casts using a bell covered in occult markings. She keeps all of this hidden from everyone, except Alex, forcing him to promise not to tell anyone about her or what she's doing. At first, she takes control of his parents. Then she sends Alex to gather items from his 17 classmates. Using those items, she traps the kids in her basement and feeds off their life force to heal herself and slow down the disease that's consuming her. Her reach goes beyond just Alex and the kids. She hypnotizes Principal Marcus into murdering his husband. She sets her sights on Justine Gandy and Archer Graff too, using her controlled victims to attack and kill anyone who threatens her plan. The magic-fueled chaos doesn't stop until Alex finally figures out how to take control of her powers. So, is Aunt Gladys immortal? Not exactly. But she may have found a way to cheat death. Zach Cregger, the film's director, explained the character's true nature like this: 'Gladys is either a human who turned to dark magic to survive illness or a non-human creature posing as one.' Either way, she's a witch in the story, and everything she does revolves around draining others to keep herself going. In the end, the very kids she imprisoned are the ones who take her down. Her reign of terror collapses the moment she loses control. Whether she's a centuries-old sorceress or something even darker, Gladys is a extremely chilling and evil character, not just because of her powers, but because of the mystery around who, or what, she really is. Personally, I don't think this is Aunt Gladys at all, I think Aunt Gladys is dead, and an ancient witch has taken over her body and is trying to keep it alive. Maybe in the movie she is trying to find a new human vessel to transfer her conciousness into, but the vessel has to have all the right elements? What do you think?


Gizmodo
21 hours ago
- Gizmodo
The Mystery Star of ‘Weapons' Talks About Its Most Unforgettable Scene
After watching Zach Cregger's Weapons, a lot of things may run through your mind. There are the characters, the reveals, and the scares. Additionally, there's a lot of actual running that could be running through your mind. Kids running through the streets. Kids running through the woods. Kids running through… other things on the hunt for… someone. We won't spoil it here, but in her first interview about her role in the film, actress Amy Madigan talks about filming her character's unforgettable scene at the end of the plays Aunt Gladys in the film, the eccentric witch aunt of Alex, the last remaining child in the class where everyone else disappeared. We soon learn that Gladys is the one responsible for the kids in Alex's class disappearing, but near the end of the film, Alex turns the tables. He uses her magic against her and sends all the kids from the class after her at the exact same time. They barrel through houses, walls, everything, in a hilarious, exciting, and ultimately gory turn of events. Speaking to Entertainment Weekly, Madigan revealed she was actually the one person running from the kids. 'I said, 'Oh no, I'm going to be doing this running,' except when I get tackled at the very end,' the Field of Dreams star said. 'Thank goodness this stunt woman came in and was tackled. Then I had to roll over and get eviscerated. Zach would say 'you're panicked' and all that, but 'just have your body be out there, flail around.' That's all I need to hear because I like being a physical actor.' So that wacky running? That was Madigan. The screaming and flailing on the ground? Madigan. But the being tackled was not. In terms of talking more about Gladys, like where she came from or what her deal was, Madigan was less open. 'I used a lot of different bits of information, but I wouldn't say it's one or the other. I think it's a combination of a lot of things,' Madigan said. 'People ask that question, 'Is she real or is it this or that?' I said, 'Good, you guys figure it out 'cause I can't answer that.'' She also commented on the potential of an Aunt Gladys prequel, which she doesn't quite believe in yet but is seemingly interested in. 'It's not that I discount it, but in this business, nothing's real till it's real,' she said. 'I just had such a great time working with Zach and being inside that brain of his. That's really the gift of how the movie came out. The other stuff has to do with all sorts of conversations that I would never be privy in and business things like that. But, you know, I love Gladys, so I'll leave it at that.' Hopefully, we don't all have to leave it at that, and we learn more about Gladys in the future. Weapons is now in theaters. Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what's next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.