Welcome, creepy babies, to the Book Squad Blog, which is totally a thing now and we’re all writing and being really productive!
Weapons is the latest movie from Zach Cregger, who also directed Barbarian (2022) and was a founding member of The Whitest Kids U’Know. The movie follows the events surrounding the disappearance of a 3rd grade class. All of the students Naruto-ran into the night at 2:17 AM, except for one boy, Alex, who knows nothing about the events. This movie is horror, but like Barbarian, it’s not traditionally categorized into a neat box. Let’s talk about it!
Spoilers to follow. You have been warned.
Emily: So before we get into Weapons, let’s talk Barbarian. I loved Barbarian, so my expectations were HIGH for this movie, and story-telling-wise, I anticipated unexpected turns. It’s unfair to assume every movie by the same writer/director will take similar narrative beats, but I was kinda looking out for that here. So my first question(s) for you both is: what were your expectations going into this movie based on Cregger’s previous work? And did we see echoes of Barbarian in this?
Mary: I also loved Barbarian, and also had super high expectations. It seemed clear up front that something was up, so in that way it’s similar to Barbarian. That said, things were unfolding slowly throughout, so Weapons didn’t feel like as abrupt a shift. Cregger has a distinctive style, though, and it seems like he really enjoys breaking up his films into multiple parts, or chapters. Both movies follow that pattern, too.
I do think both of the films are thematically similar, in a way, about how there can be dangers in the home, where you’re supposed to feel safest.
Kelli: I, three, loved Barbarian, and I also had high expectations going into this. I think both movies have that same approach of turning the movie on its head a couple times throughout, though I will say that Weapons is a little easier to predict once the central conceit is revealed. In Barbarian, I remember the second and third chapters taking very sharp left turns into completely different storylines (which did end up tying in, of course), and that was confusing in a fun way. It really kept me on my toes. Here, we know from the beginning that we’re in this town and following this story with the missing kids, so the movie never takes us too far away from that.
Another similarity the movies have is that they both do lean into the ‘scary old crone’ trope. Obviously, the character in Barbarian (mommy?) ends up being a more sympathetic figure, but a lot of the horror and grossness comes from the physicality of her body, and we get some of that here, too, with Gladys. I’m not totally sure how I feel about a male filmmaker creating horror from elderly-women-coded bodies but maybe we can talk about that more later.
Mary: I love a scary old crone, I’ll be honest. It’s time to talk about the legend, the icon: Gladys. TikTok has really taken a shine to Gladys, and it’s easy to see why. She’s kooky, with an interesting character design that leans heavily on campy makeup and an absolutely wild wig. Gladys blows in one night to stay with Alex’s family and she immediately gets to work remaking the home to be her personal haven, complete with her living weapons (Alex’s classmates and anyone else who gets in her way). Even though Alex’s dad says that Gladys is Alex’s aunt, she doesn’t seem particularly related to anyone, and no one in the family seems to know her.
Gladys’ appearance makes her a campy horror icon, for sure, but she’s also leaning on a sinister childhood fear: witches. What did y’all make of Gladys, and how did her appearance work in the film for you?
Emily: I feel like Gladys was much scarier in the first half of the movie when we (like the characters) have no idea who the hell she is or what she wants. By the time she fully reveals herself as a real-life, walking and talking old lady with bad make-up and a bad wig in Marcus’ chapter, I didn’t really find her scary anymore. And, actually, I have seen this movie two times. The second time I saw this movie, I didn’t find her scary at all because the unknown of it all was relieved. Does she need to be scary to be effective though? Clearly not. I feel like we’re going to see a lot of Gladys costumes come Halloween. She has, as you said Mary, already cemented herself as a horror icon. A queer horror icon, in fact. The likes of which we haven’t seen since the Babadook.
Kelli: Aunt Gladys: evil crone or chaotic bisexual?
I am on the record as not being super into witches-as-horror, mostly because I love witches and think they’re cool, and it’s tough to do ‘evil witch’ without getting a little bit… weird… about women. That said, I did love her costume design, her wig, her overlined lips, her kooky glasses, all of it.
Mary: I was completely shocked when Gladys appeared, but that’s probably because I watched a majority of the jump scares from between my fingers. I think Gladys is scary after she appears not because she’s a witch, and not even because she’s been doing upsetting things. She’s scary because I’m not sure how to feel about her. Is she a campy queen? Is she straight up Evil? I’m not sure, and that uneasy line is scary to me.
We all have that one zany aunt, right?
Kelli: For me, the scariest moment in this movie is when Justine (played by Julia Garner) looks up at her ceiling while she’s in bed, and there is some kind of evil clown person TWISTING out of the ceiling in a way that I can’t really describe, I think because it was so fast and shocking that I remember how it felt more than what it looked like. We get a couple of moments like this before Gladys shows up, and the imagery is very much giving fucked up Ronald McDonald.
When Gladys showed up at the school in Marcus’ chapter, it was definitely a comedy moment, which was one of the ways the movie surprised me and subverted my expectations, because up until that point, all of the imagery that pointed to her existence was way scarier than the weird little lady sitting in the principal’s office. But that’s the point right? The character is using this persona of ‘silly aunt’ to lure people into her trap. She makes herself seem harmless, almost pathetic, and she leans on the assumption that people aren’t threatened by elderly women to worm her way into their lives. During a classroom scene, Justine is teaching the children about parasites, and that seems to be the Modus Operandi of Gladys: she’s not only using these people as weapons, but when it comes to the kids, she is presumably feeding on their energy and their youth. She is also a parasite to Alex’s family, like Mary already said, using their home and their resources while they waste away.
Again, when I think about the way that people treat elderly people in this country, or anyone who needs extra support, I am unclear what exactly this movie is trying to comment on. I think maybe it’s presenting these elements and asking you to think about them more than it has a ‘message’ it wants to send, and that’s okay too.
Emily: I really think in terms of commentary, this movie is more focused on the imagery of the children running off into the night. And there does seem to be some allegory about school shootings and trauma going on here. In terms of Gladys and what it means that the villain of the story is a seemingly innocuous old lady, I don’t know. That to me seems more like a motif than a fully realized theme. Maybe that’s part of the problem?
Mary: Yeah, I agree that it’s not 100% clear what the movie is commenting on, but I like it when there’s some ambiguity that leaves room for interpretation. To go back to what you were saying about using older women/crone-like witches as horror, it really does only rub me the wrong way because Cregger is a man. For example, something like The Substance, which also leaned into the grotesquery of aging, seemed more like a thoughtful commentary than a jab.
Emily: Yeah, The Substance is definitely doing more with the elderly woman imagery. And I think importantly, the disgust and fear of elderly bodies is more self-inflicted in The Substance. And we see how Hollywood’s obsession with youth turns into fear of one’s own body and self-loathing. These aren’t issues Gladys is grappling with. I do feel like she is feeding on the children to get stronger as well as using them as “weapons” (maybe? Although they only ever become weapons against her… maybe there’s something to pick apart there). But overall, it doesn’t seem like Gladys wants to be younger or change her appearance in any major way. She just wants to be stronger. Any disgust at her appearance and/or her age comes from other characters or the lens of the camera, which is perhaps a problem.
Kelli: To pivot, I want to talk about the comedy here, because I feel like this is a horror-comedy more than a straight-up horror movie, especially with the way it ends. I was listening to a podcast recently and one of the hosts was talking about how he felt like the movie deflated itself a little bit when you realize that the whole thing is leading up to a punchline — the children all running after Gladys — rather than something really terrifying. But I’ve heard from other people (including my girlfriend) who love that about it, that so much of the movie is an elaborate set-up for a really good bit. There was also something cathartic about that whole end sequence. The joke just kept being funny, and my whole theater was laughing for basically the entire thing, maybe because it felt like we’d been holding our breath for the last hour and a half.
Mary: Oh, I don’t know…the children running after Gladys is funny (the repeated breaking of windows had me laughing in the theater), but the necessary end to that sequence is that the kids brutally rip her limb from limb.
Kelli: It’s played for laughs!
That’s how dark comedy works, honey
Emily: Yeah, I can see both sides. And I have to say the first time I saw it, I definitely saw it as mostly funny. It is funny. To be clear, on the second viewing, the children breaking through homes and chasing after this old lady while the neighbors cluelessly look on is STILL FUNNY. But on the second viewing, I actually cried during this segment.
I just thought a lot about the trauma aspect of what was happening to these children. As they are coming back to themselves, their first image is ripping apart a woman with their bare hands. And this clearly traumatizes them to the point where some of them (or all of them?) never truly come back to the way they used to be. I also thought a lot about how much Alex did to protect his family from the threat of Aunt Gladys, this strange woman who entered his home and turned his parents into zombie-like creatures. Alex also went through extreme trauma, and in spite of all of the things he did to take care of his parents and ultimately SAVE all of the kids at his school (even though they mercilessly picked on him), nothing goes back to the way it was. Alex’s parents are in a vegetative state to this day, and Alex has to go live with another aunt. And we’re told this other aunt is very nice, BUT HOW CAN WE KNOW THAT FOR SURE?
Anyway, on my second watch, knowing everything I knew about what was going to happen, the trauma I was witnessing really stuck out to me, And the movie doesn’t shy away from that. Yes, these moments are often ridiculous and played for laughs, but the effect these events have on the characters is not downplayed at all. No one is the same after this. Just because the “bad guy” is vanquished doesn’t mean anyone gets their lives back.
Mary: Right! The children are never going to be okay again. At the end of the film, the narrator says that some of the children are even beginning to talk again. SOME of them. They’re not okay, and they’ll never be okay. If we’re saying that this is commentary about school shootings or gun violence, or indoctrination of children in some way or another, this idea that the children will never recover from their trauma goes along with that. How can you recover from living through a school shooting or any other traumatic event?
Kelli: Speaking of childhood trauma, I know that in several interviews, Zach Cregger has said that he considers parts of this film to be autobiographical. Alex’s storyline is based on Cregger’s personal experience growing up with an alcoholic parent. Watching it through that lens makes Alex’s scenes even more heartbreaking — I’m thinking specifically about the part where he is sitting at the table and being forced to watch while his parents stab themselves with forks, and he can’t get them to stop. That scene is incredibly visceral, and not just because of the violence, which there is plenty of throughout the movie. It’s watching a kid watching his parents inflict violence on themselves.
I also just want to shout out the young actor who plays Alex, Cary Christopher. He did a phenomenal job with this role. It’s giving Jacob Tremblay talent levels.
Mary: Word just dropped that Aunt Gladys is getting her very own prequel. I’m excited just because I loved Gladys and want to know more about her! Any thoughts on this?
Kelli: I’m definitely curious! I wonder if the movie will be structured similarly to Weapons or if it will be a totally different vibe. Either way, super down to see Amy Madigan get to dig deeper into this role. Assuming she gets to do the prequel. She kind of makes the role, so it would be weird to me if they decided to cast someone younger.
That’s it for Day 3 of this year-long Spooktober! Will we finish all ten days before 2026? Stay tuned.
Running off to watch more horror movies this October!