Weapons (2025)

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.

Rating: 7 out of 10.

Spellbinder (1988)

Tonight’s October Challenge movie is the 1988 sexual thriller/horror “Spellbinder”. Directed by Janet Greek (Most famous for her TV work, especially with Babylon 5) and written by Tracy Tormé (Writer for “Star Trek TNG” and creator of the 90’s series “Sliders”). The movie stars Tim Daly as Lawyer “Jeff Mills” and Kelly Preston as the mysterious “Miranda Reed”.

The Coven

After an saving Miranda, a young woman from her abusive boyfriend in a parking lot, lawyer Jeff Mills takes her home (As she claims to not have a home anymore) and eventually falls in love with her. But her mysterious past comes back to haunt her. It turns out she is a member of a Coven of Witches, which she was trying to escape from and it is down to Jeff to try and protect her.

To talk about Spellbinder it is unfortunately necessary to talk about the ending. Skip to the conclusion if you wish to avoid knowing the twist. I’ll also be mentioning some other movies with a similar twist, though nothing from the last 30 years. You have been warned! Personally I found the ending predictable, but while I didn’t know for a fact what it was, I was aware there was a twist. That meant I was looking out for clues in that regard. I can’t say how I would have felt had I actually seen this in 1988 (Especially as I would have been twelve).

Trick or Treat?

Earlier in the movie the lead actress mentions that the Witches human sacrifice required the victim to go to the location willingly. The second she uttered that line, I knew that Jeff was going to be the victim, since he would go to whatever location to try and rescue Miranda. The thing is, given Miranda was tricking him the whole time, it was pretty stupid of her to mention that. Especially stupid given she then was pretending to be kidnapped and taken to the ritual… which wouldn’t be a willing arrival.

Of course it could be that the victim has to have knowledge of this for it to count as willingly going to the ritual location or that she secretly wanted him to figure it out and end the cycle (Because as we see after his murder, she does this regularly and the suggestion is that should she fail, she ends up sacrificed). However we all know the real reason was for the viewers sake, to explain the movie.

It’s worth noting that this isn’t the most original twist in the world. Without it however, this wouldn’t really be a Horror movie. “The Wicker Man” (1973) is probably the most famous version of this twist. What is more interesting though is that the year before this movie came out, we had “Angel Heart” (1987), which not only is an excellent horror movie, but is arguably best version of this trope. It was one that really built on the impact of the protagonists realization too. So coming out after that, this twist would feel a little basic. The scene where the deed is done also doesn’t really give Tim Daly a lot of chance of express his horror at the realisation of his situation.

Finish Him!

The trouble with the ending is they’ve made the witches out to seem tremendously powerful. Just prior to this, they apparently assaulted a heavily defended survivalist compound with little difficulty. So one unarmed lawer running down into their ritual sacrifice was always likely to end up with him getting killed. There is a sort of double tease with his lawyer friend and two cops heading to the scene behind him. However at the last minute they just end up part of the cult. Again though, what are two cops and a lawyer are going to do against this group? By the time they arrived I had no doubt at all they’d just be more bad guys.

Conceptually though, I like the idea. It just could have been worked better and if you take the ending from the film, there really isn’t much horror. It is more like fantasy than horror, very light handed. This perhaps is by design so that you don’t expect the protagonist to end up murdered, but given I guessed anyway and that this would only work at all on the first viewing, I’m not sure it was the wisest move.

There isn’t a great deal that stands out about the rest of the film. The side plot of the secretary being suspicious about Miranda doesn’t really lead to anything but that character’s off screen death (During a brief epilogue scene). The cop (Played by Shang Tsung himself, Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa) that is investigating these witches, is shown to still be at it in that epilogue, but doesn’t seem much closer to actually achieving anything.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this is a pretty average movie and it feels more like a TV movie than something that had a theatrical release. Perhaps this is why it bombed at the box office, making just about a tenth of it’s $6m production budget. To be fair, it only had a short release window so maybe it was intended to be a TV movie at some point. The movie came out the year after “Fatal Attraction” and “Angel Heart” and is pretty much a mixture of the two, but without anything close to it’s quality. It’s not terrible and makes for a pretty easy watch but unless you get caught out by the ending (Which can only work on the first viewing) I don’t think you’ll find it particularly memorable. This is slightly below average, so that’s a high 4.5/10.

Rating: 4.5 out of 10.