Julia Garner Archives

Horror is booming. The entire genre has become a licence to print money and shows no sign of slowing down. That’s not to say every film has been a success, but the general rule of low costs and easy returns has made it most profitable. Horror and Anime are the only safe bets these days, with every other genre struggling to break even. Given that, it’s no surprise to see a trend of the odd horror movie getting a huge boost from hype and word of mouth. Last year it was “The Substance” that got the hype, this year it is “Weapons”. This is a movie from writer/director Zach Cregger (Whose previous movie “Barbarian” also landed on the hype wagon). It features an ensemble cast but primarily Josh Brolin and Julia Garner. Larkin Seiple provides cinematography and music is by the collaboration between Cregger and the “Holladay Brothers”.

One night, in the town of Maybrook, Pennsylvania, seventeen children from elementary school teacher “Justine Gandy”‘s (Garner) third-grade class suddenly ran from their homes at 2:17 a.m. and disappeared. Only one student, “Alex Lilly” (Cary Christopher), remained. The story picks up two years later and follows the lives of various characters impacted by this event as they try and move on with their lives and get to the bottom of what happened. Specifically Justine, parent “Archer” (Brolin), Police Officer “Paul” (Alden Ehrenreich), junkie “James” (Austin Abrams) and the surviving child Alex. But to figure it out they must get over their own mistrust of each other first.

Narrative Technique

There are several movies that tell a story from multiple characters perspective. It’s one of a few techniques that allow the writers to hide important information from the viewer while still constructing a compelling narrative. The other main way of doing this is by telling the story out of order (Such as in “Memento” or “Strange Darlings”). The advantage with giving character perspectives is that you can change events based on how a human remembers them, adding in the “Unreliable narrator”. Weapon’s doesn’t really do this. Instead, it’s more like the time jump technique but without a set protagonist. In that regard it’s more comparable to “Strange Darlings” than a film like “Rashomon”.

The technique does had it’s advantages here. Effectively how it works is to give you a little more both at the start and end of the story with each new character. Our final character provides us with both the start and end of the story. There are a few horrors that recontextualize the timeline with it’s conclusion. There’s several that hold off from showing the true beginning of the story until the end. But I can’t think of any that progresses it in quite the same way. So point for originality there. The structure keeps the mystery alive far longer that a straight forward narrative could (Even if it held back the true beginning).

Unravelling The Mystery

The movie gives a very good atmosphere throughout. While I’m avoiding spoilers, so won’t reveal the nature of the evil in this story, I will say that I approve. It’s rare that this particular horror archetype is actually scary. A bit like vampires being made into sexy/romantic characters, this archetype is usually portrayed as heroic, misunderstood, sexy or an allegory for… Well that would give it away. So I appreciate that. Perhaps not as much as I appreciated Nosferatu and Last Voyage of the Demeter making Vampires scary again, but I do approve. This is a fairly long horror and the pacing is steady. Definite slow burn, but not one that will have you checking your watch.

Where I have some issues with the story is that it requires a seriously incompetent police investigation to work. Really almost anyone in that town not doing even the vaguest bit of investigation would have figured it out. Of course that is basically what did happen, but only after two entire years of it not crossing anyone’s mind to plot likely paths of the children for intersections. The evil plan was ultimately never going to work We’re also seeing a power level that is so off the charts that it draws into question the need for such a crazy plan. There’s a lot here that falls apart if you think about it too much.

Conclusion

Overall, this is a very impressive horror movie. If you remember my “Wolf Man” (2025) review earlier in the year you may remember that Julia Garner was the lead of that movie as well. So she gets the “Skarsgård” award for being in both the strongest and weakest horror film of the year. If you don’t get the reference, Bill Skarsgård was in both the abysmal “Crow” remake last year and the magnificent “Nosferatu”. So this is becoming a bit of a redemption arc trend. Anyway, Garner wasn’t the problem with “Wolf Man” and she’s actually very good here. The whole cast is pretty solid to be fair.

Ultimately this is a film that gives a great first experience in watching. It has definite flaws (Such as incompetent police and FBI investigations) and I am not sure it will maintain my appreciation through too many re-watches. But it’s one of the most original horror films I’ve seen for years and is well deserving of a strong 7/10. Highly recommended.

Today I have a Werewolf double bill for you, checking out the just released “Wolf Man” from Universal/Blumhouse and “The Beast Within”, an independent release, directed by Alexander J. Farrell, from last year. I’m going to put these two wolves head to head. These movies are pretty similar so it makes sense to make a comparison. Wolf Man though has the backing of two of the biggest players in the horror field in Universal and Blumhouse and is of course part of Universals ambition to make use of the classic Universal Monsters they are associated with. A while back they wanted to establish a shared universe for these characters, but a real clanger of a “Mummy” movie cause a rapid re-think. That rethink has seen director Leigh Wahnell tackle “The Invisible Man” and now “Wolf Man”.

Really, the whole Universal Monsters thing is a fools errand for the studio. Almost none of those monsters are IP’s owned by Universal and are almost all public domain, or generic enough (I.E. Werewolves & Mummy’s), that anyone could make a movie. This is a similar situation to a lot of Disney’s classic line up. What the studios actually own is their own take on the products, some of which will be under copyright but all thick with trademarks. But if that is the case, what is the benefit of doing entirely new and modern takes on these products? Perhaps an attempt to try and claim the public perception of ownership? Certainly the shared universe plan made some sense (Especially given the Universal Monsters were the first shared universe). Anyway, let’s dig in.

Two Wolves Inside You

The plot for both movies is similar. Both feature a small family of husband and wife and one daughter. In both it is the families’ patriarch that is the wolf of the story. There are a few key differences though. In Wolf Man, the male lead “Blake” (Christopher Abbott) doesn’t start off as a “Wolf Face” and instead is infected. Meanwhile in The Beast Within, “Noah” (Kit Harington) is implied to always have been the monster. Both films end up with the wife and daughter desperately battling for survival against their father/husband at a remote location. The Beast Within tells the entire story from the point of view of the daughter “Willow” (Caoilinn Springall). In Wolf Man, the daughter “Ginger” (Matilda Firth) is the focus but the film is from a more neutral perspective. The name of course is a reference to “Ginger Snaps” (2000), a much better movie.

The other main difference is in the look of the character. Both productions opted for a 100% practical effects, which I definitely approve of. The Beast Within went with a traditional Werewolf design, but Wolf Man went in a very different direction. The idea seems to be to modernize the look of the “The Wolf Man” (1941), but in practice there is little resemblance. Really the beast looks more like some kind of sasquatch. The transformation is also very slow, so you don’t see much of the full transformed monster. The Beast within saves the Werewolf’s appearance until near the conclusion too and both films work a very, very slow build up.

Werewolves For Modern Audiences

Perhaps disappointingly, the themes for both movies are exactly what you’d expect in the current year. That is, both basically tackle “Toxic Masculinity”. The difference though is that Beast Within is far more clear cut. That is really about how families stay with an abusive man and make excuses for them. That is a genuine problem, so while it is obvious, I can’t complain about it. Also portraying that from the young girls perspective opens up a lot of creative avenues. Ones we’ve seen a few times before, in better films. It’s not a bad take though, and I appreciate the attempt, even if it is at times clumsily implemented.

Wolf Man however tackles a far more debatable version of “Toxic Masculinity”, suggesting that masculinity in general is a problem and that one may inherit this toxic behaviour from your father. I don’t want to use the “W” word here, but lets just say it reminded me a bit of a certain Gillette advert. The thing is the behaviour the movie paints as negative is entirely protective in nature. The leading man’s father shouts at his son for wandering off alone in a forest full of bears and that he knows has at least one Werewolf in. This is portrayed as an abuse of some kind. Later Blake shouts at his daughter for tight rope walking on a concrete barrier by a main road. The movie suggests he learned this bad behaviour from his father and similarly…. well, there’s an obvious plot twist down the road.

Style And Atmosphere

As far as atmosphere goes, I find myself favouring Beast Within. It’s notably cheaper, but it is creatively put together and provides a constant atmosphere of tension. Wolf Man relies on the a lot of jump scares, but does have some moments of good cinematography. The music wasn’t especially notable in either case. All the actors are reasonable in both movies, perhaps a little stronger in Wolf Man. However, the dialogue is better in Beast Within. Honestly a lot of the dialogue in Leigh Wahnell’s movie felt clunky and forced.

Special effects is a trickier one to rate in a head to head. The design for Wolf Man is not very good, but it is well executed. The slow transformation provides a lot of interesting moments, making this movie a bit of a body horror. While Beast Within punches above it’s budget, the final act provides a good few shorts of the monster that don’t look particularly realistic. The design though is solid. You don’t see the werewolf until very late in the movie, but there are a few good dream sequences featuring transformation effects. I’m favouring the underdog (Pun intended) again here.

Werewolf Vs Wolf Man

So in conclusion… Well, I don’t recommend either of these movies really. But let’s tackle them one at a time. If you like slow burn horror with an unreliable narrator then you may enjoy The Beast Within. But it’s not something worth going out of your way for but personally I enjoyed elements of it and didn’t feel like I wasted my time watching it. It is however not really what most people want from a werewolf movie. That it the metaphor is so obvious doesn’t help it either. It’s not particularly clever, even with the use of the child’s perspective and there is no fun here at all. It is passably average so I give The Beast Within – 5/10.

I have to be honest here and tell you that Wolf Man was a very disappointing movie for me. Leigh Wahnell made a very good low budget movie with “Upgrade” (2018) and provided a solid if somewhat obvious take on “The Invisible Man” in 2020. Here however, he’s made an absolute clanger. Clunk dialogue, bad creature design, slow to the point of boring and a frankly cringe subtext. Indeed given that Invisible Man was also basically about toxic masculinity, I’m starting to wonder if Wahnell actually has more than one idea in his head. That also means currently the entire new body of Universal classic monster movies is about modern identity politics. Lame and disappointing. I give Wolf Man – 3.5/10.

Tag: Julia Garner

Weapons (2025)