Weapons - "... And They Never Came Back."

SPOILERS

It seems like (financially and/or critically) successful “elevated” horror movies face a bit more scrutiny from audiences. For instance, the latest Final Destination (Bloodlines) seems to be accepted as a good, gory time, and most people enjoy it without digging into the weeds of the logic of the film (for the record, I enjoyed it with my brain off like most viewers). But when something like Weapons comes out, you get countless YouTube analysis videos and Reddit threads. Many of these are effusive or just a little clickbaity (“Weapons Ending Explained!”), but others are more along the lines of “Did I watch the same movie as everyone else? Because that was garbage.” 

First off, Weapons and other horror movies getting this treatment because they are “elevated” is bullshit. Yes, there are different types of horror films, but that doesn’t mean some are immune to criticism while others need to be picked apart. Yes, a film like Weapons lends itself to analysis more than a slasher sequel does, but that doesn’t mean it can’t just be a good time, too. 

Personally, I loved Weapons, and I thought it was a fun movie. Sure, there were traditionally creepy moments (Julia Garner getting her hair cut while sleeping in her car comes to mind), but a lot of it was darkly funny (young Han Solo getting his face peeled) or regular funny (seventeen screaming children bursting through multiple houses like an army of Kool-Aid men). It kept me absolutely engaged throughout, and I found the multiple POVs interesting and often humorous, especially when they got shorter and borderline redundant. 

Whenever I love a movie, I immediately start checking out the negative reactions (I don’t read full reviews until I write my own piece, but I’ll read blurbs and short Letterboxd entries). I do this because I like to see what didn’t work for others but also because, and this says more about me than it does any movie I’m writing about, if I love a movie I think there must be something wrong with it. Secretly, this movie I love must suck, so I’m going to find out why. That’s just a bit of impostor syndrome shit that happens to me as a sorta critic, but it usually wears off. If it doesn’t wear off, then I start to consider that I might be wrong about a movie, but if it does wear off, I embrace my love of the film.

All my stupid insecurities out of the way, I realized that Weapons worked for me because it wasn’t trying to be elevated. An elevated film would probably never reveal what happened to the children, and the point of them being missing would be the community's reaction to the situation. Vigilantism would pop up, marriages would fall apart, the true “Weapons” would be revealed, blah blah blah. (For the record, there’s nothing wrong with that premise, as a movie like Prisoners kind of does that, and I love that movie.) There are beginnings of that in Weapons with the community’s reaction to Garner and Josh Brolin’s character. We get scenes of Garner being frightened at home, and we see Brolin as a broken man, ignoring his wife and work in his grief. But before the film can devolve into full on misery, it’s revealed that some witchcraft shit is going on, and a goofy old lady is behind it all.

At first, I was kind of disappointed in that reveal. It’s just a witch wanting to live longer? Beyond the witch stuff, I was disappointed that the missing children were found at all. But looking back at writer/director Zack Cregger’s previous film (Barbarian, which I also loved), it turns out he’s a dude that likes to tell you most of the story. As someone used to things not being spelled out in critically acclaimed horror films, I realized it was refreshing to be given so many answers, and from multiple viewpoints.

The reveal makes Weapons a less scary film (aside from a few moments, I didn’t find it all that scary in a traditional way), but it’s a more entertaining one, for sure. The scariest, or at least most disturbing element, is Alex having to live and take care of his zombified parents and the effect zombification has on them and the children. The darkest aspect of the film is the line, “every kid woke up, got out of bed, walked downstairs, and into the dark, and they never came back.” While watching it, the reveal of the children in the basement made me think that line was bullshit. But when it’s later revealed that they are still at least partially zombified, I realized they didn’t truly come back, making that line much more disturbing. 

So how the fuck can I say this is funny? One minute I’m laughing at the sight of the children storming through houses and ripping Gladys apart, and then I’m hit with the reveal of their mental state afterwards. That juxtaposition shouldn’t work, or at least I should consider the death of Gladys as unintentional comedy. But I don’t buy that the laughs in this movie are unintentional. First off, the junkie dude (James, but I’m going to keep calling him “junkie dude”) part of the movie is a comedy, through and through, and so is young Han Solo’s POV. So the humor is there. With that possibility gone, all I can chalk it up to is this is a true dark comedy. 

A dark comedy about missing children might seem insensitive, but I think that says more about our society than any possible interpretations of this movie. I enjoyed this movie almost completely on the surface level, but others have wanted to dig deeper (you know, because of the elevation of it all). I’ve seen that it’s a commentary on gun violence, because of the focus on the empty classroom and the giant gun Brolin sees in a dream. Cregger denies any intention there, but that doesn’t matter because once a movie is made the interpretation is up to the viewer, not the filmmaker. I saw the giant gun as a metaphor for the children becoming the titular weapons, but that’s just me. As for the empty classroom part of it, that’s America for you. We just assume a film about kids missing from a classroom is about gun violence because we’re so fucking used to school shootings. Unfortunately, large groups of children being killed are a “normal” part of American life. That’s why you can make a dark comedy about it; it’s commonplace. Once again, that says a lot more about us as a society than this film does. 

None of this is to say negative reactions to this film are “wrong” or “missed the point.” Unless you flat out misheard a line or didn’t notice something onscreen, your opinion is valid. I’m not writing this to try to convince anyone who hated it to love it; I just wanted to work through why I loved it. 

Random Thoughts

The seven hot dogs stuff is great, and I love that it’s been revealed to be a tribute to Trevor Moore (Cregger’s castmate from The Whitest Kids U’Know who died in 2021).

The only thing I thought was silly about the hot dog reaction online was that some people were wondering who was getting four hot dogs to the other’s three, but I think it’s pretty fucking obvious that Wong planned on eating all seven, and his husband seemed fine with it.

Toby Huss was great in this. He’s perfect for someone who’s meant to be a little funny, but can look downright dangerous (that look he gives Han Solo, knowing Solo cheated on his daughter) when necessary.

Han Solo was great as Cregger’s tribute (ripoff?) of John C. Reilly’s cop from Magnolia. Cregger has acknowledged the connections to Magnolia, but it still feels a little too obvious. Oh well, I still enjoyed it, and he really wasn’t like Reilly’s character aside from not being a great cop and having a mustache. He’s pretty much a complete scumbag, whereas Reilly seems like a well-intentioned guy.

I’m a soup guy, and this movie proves it. I should be grossed out by the end of this (I’m kind of surprised Campbell’s signed off on this product placement), but it just made me want to eat soup. 

Speaking of the soup…so Alex had to feed everyone, but what about the end result of eating? Was he putting diapers on everyone, even his parents? Or were they all just shitting and pissing themselves for days? Either scenario is possibly the most disturbing part of the movie. Honestly, the lack of acknowledgement of these zombies needing to use the bathroom is the weakest element of the film. Just show one of them going to the bathroom at some point or have Gladys acknowledge it in some way. Am I the only one hung up on this?

It definitely seems like the cops should have done the legwork Brolin did on the route the kids’ took, but if they have a bunch of young Han Solo dirtbags working there, I can see how it slipped through the cracks. 

And with Ring cameras factoring into the plot, it seems kind of fucked up that the children didn’t show up on any other Ring cameras after they left, making it easier to show that they went to Alex’s house. 

But then again, his house was searched. So I guess that explains it. This wasn’t a story told from the detectives’ point of view, so that’s why I can write off stuff like this. 

It’s plenty disturbing as is, but I think all those fork stabs to the face would have bloodied up Alex’s parents more than it did. 

Alex’s story is the true horror element of the film. The idea of having to go through that at that age is so disturbing. 

As a parent, I’m glad this wasn’t focused too much on parents being miserable about missing children because I’ve written about too many movies from the perspective of a parent (I’m trying to lay off that angle).