Review: Weapons

Image courtesy of Warner Bros.

The past few years have seen an increase in critically acclaimed horror movies that have become known as elevated entries in the genre. This year alone has seen a handful of well-received horror movies that have drawn large audiences - including "Sinners," "Final Destination: Bloodlines," and "28 Years Later."

But Zach Cregger's "Weapons" is by far the best of the lot - in fact, it's probably the best horror movie I've seen since "It Follows" and "Get Out" and ranks highly among the 21st century's entries in the genre. Cregger's first film, "Barbarian," was a sleeper that was full of surprises, but his sophomore film takes a gigantic leap forward in terms of ambition. Considering everything he throws at us, it shouldn't work.

But there are many reasons why the film manages to work so well: its unique narrative structure within the genre, its stronger-than-usual character development, its compelling camerawork and, possibly most of all, its ability to deftly balance various tones - understated spookiness bleeds into outright terror in the early sections, transitioning to the story's more dramatic elements in the middle passages, and finally ending on a note of hilarity and violence that could best be described as bonkers.

The film's early scenes feature a dash of David Lynch, while its structure and tendency to loop back on itself as well as its outbursts of shocking violence bring to mind Tarantino. But it's Paul Thomas Anderson's "Magnolia" that has, apparently, been somewhat of a starting point, Cregger has noted in interviews, and not just because of the mustache worn by Alden Ehrenreich's cop character. 

The film is divided into chapters in which each member of its ensemble of characters gets a starring role and then, much like Anderson's film, comes to a head in a sequence that involves most of them, although it doesn't rain frogs and no one sings along to Aimee Mann. The film takes a slow burn approach until it suddenly explodes into madness.

This is a film that, much like last week's "The Naked Gun" reboot, should be watched with the largest possible audience. And part of the joy derived from the film is its ability to surprise. So, I won't delve too deeply into what happens in it.

Suffice it to say, it opens on a haunting note when a group of 17 children leave their homes at 2:17 a.m. and run down the street in the same direction into the darkness, with their arms spread out as if they were flying as George Harrison's "Beware of Darkness" plays on the soundtrack. Like all great mysteries, this film plays its cards close to its chest for two-thirds of its running time.

The film's first chapter follows Justine (Julia Garner), the children's teacher who comes under suspicion by the town's residents. They assume she knows something about the whereabouts of the children - all but one disappeared - and some of her past actions that are signs of caring too much about the students make people trust her even less. Justine's personal life is a mess. She drinks too much and is having an on-again-off-again affair with Ehrenreich's cop.

The second section concerns Archer (Josh Brolin), one of the town's angry parents whose son was among those who ran out into the night. Having little faith in the town's police - and for good reason - he decides to investigate on his own. Then comes Ehrenreich's Paul, who is married to the sheriff's daughter and gets himself into a pickle when he acts violently toward town druggie James (Austin Abrams), whose story is observed in the fourth chapter.

Then, it's on to the school's principal (Benedict Wong), who seemingly wants to keep the peace more than anything else, placing Justine on leave, although she did nothing wrong, and discouraging her from approaching Alex (Cary Christopher), the only child who didn't disappear. Alex's story, which is the most troubling, comprises the final section. Amy Madigan pops up in this section in a memorable role as the peculiar aunt who is visiting the boy's parents.

I've seen some reviews that have highly praised "Weapons" for its craft, performances, and ability to frighten and provide laughter in equal measure, but have argued that it doesn't have much to say otherwise, thereby not quite qualifying as an elevated horror movie. To which I say: huh?

While it might not wield its concepts with as blunt of force as some other recent horror movies, "Weapons" is a film that is rich with subtext. The scenes involving the class' disappearance uses imagery and responses from its fictional community that some could argue reference such communal tragedies as the COVID-19 epidemic or, more directly, school shootings. There's even a sequence in which a character sees a massive automatic weapon in the sky, which occurs in a dream and is left to the imagination as to why it's there.

But more than anything else, "Weapons" observes our modern era of wanting to push on through tragedies and abruptly forget them (COVID-19, Jan. 6, you name it) as well as a societal decay that results in a lack of interest in others' well-being. Brolin's character isn't exaggerating when he accuses the police of having little interest in keeping the case alive. In another scene, Garner flees for her life in a convenience store and the clerk is more concerned with her exiting the building than he is lending a helping hand. Some characters treat others with a blatant sense of disregard - Wong's shunting Garner's teacher aside to appease the angry mob and Ehrenreich's cop being abusive toward Abrams' junkie, for example.

If this all sounds like heavy stuff - well, it is - and the film's eerie tone during its first half and some genuinely affective shock scares early on might leave viewers feeling tense. Suffice it to say, Cregger's ability to transition from this vibe to where it ends up in the finale - a cathartic sequence of events that is among the best endings of recent memory - is an example of chutzpah backed up by major talent. This is one of the year's best films and the best horror movie of this decade so far.