Weapons

[Dicktar2023]

See this movie immediately.

[3dender]

See this movie immediately.

Why

[Dicktar2023]

See this movie immediately.

Why

Because it's really good. And it's not about vampires (when I saw the newspapers taped over the windows of the spooky house in the trailer, I thought, "Vampires...yawn." It's not.)

Any further information will only hurt your experience.

[Dicktar2023]

Which is not to imply the movie is built around some gimmicky Big Twist. It isn't. But the best part for me was being given a little, and then a little more, then a little more then, almost all the information, and still not being able to guess where it was going--thanks to some very nuts-and-bolts, Stephen King-style genre storytelling.

That kind of page-turner storytelling is a lost art, especially in modern horror movies.

[Backesdraft]

Which is not to imply the movie is built around some gimmicky Big Twist. It isn't. But the best part for me was being given a little, and then a little more, then a little more then, almost all the information, and still not being able to guess where it was going--thanks to some very nuts-and-bolts, Stephen King-style genre storytelling.

That kind of page-turner storytelling is a lost art, especially in modern horror movies.

Wife and I can’t wait to see it. Great cast too. Appreciate the spoiler free recommendation.

[George Zipp]

I saw this on Saturday. I think I liked it. I'm not nearly the movie buff that you are so my problem is I'm still trying to process what I watched. I have a bunch of questions but I won't ask them yet as they will spoil things. I agree with your take about the nuggets slowly being dropped.

I thought it was really well cast and acted. Had to go to the credits at the end before I figured out Gladys was played by Amy Madigan. It was really well shot in a way that captivated my interest, lighting, sets, takes, all that fine stuff that I know nothing about.

Still spending time reading about it post seeing it to really try to get a better handle on it.

[edwin drood]

Appears to be a financial success doing $42 million in the US this past weekend.

[rangergiff]

Not much of a horror fan myself but I endorse this one for sure. Love the fact that the trailers don't give out much. Kept you interested and guessing. Enjoyed the odd humor it had at times as well. Well placed and just enough to give it the weird creepy vibe I love in the horror I do like.

[dutch]

Which is not to imply the movie is built around some gimmicky Big Twist. It isn't. But the best part for me was being given a little, and then a little more, then a little more then, almost all the information, and still not being able to guess where it was going--thanks to some very nuts-and-bolts, Stephen King-style genre storytelling.

That kind of page-turner storytelling is a lost art, especially in modern horror movies.

This is the perfect description! I can’t stop thinking about this movie! I absolutely loved it! It’s one of the better “horror” movies in years.

[FrankTheTank]

I saw the movie today, and I really liked it. I have already told friends to go see it. I loved the story, and the way it was told from different points of view/perspectives. It is well worth the price of admission and the acting was really good. I really enjoyed it and it is one of the better movies I have seen in months.

The movie time today was 2:17. I thought that was really odd, but then I guess I missed that the kids disappeared at 2:17am. Pretty cool.

[3dender]

I'm not a big horror fan but I liked this one, for the reasons stated here. The tonal shifts were a little confusing, and it was 10-15 minutes too long for me... the best example is the first few minutes of the movie where they spend a ridiculous amount of time showing a montage of kids running.

The cinematography was outstanding though, some genuinely captivating camera work that is imo the movie's biggest contribution to the genre by far... especially the POV tracking shots e.g. in the liquor store and in the final chase.

I do wonder how much we'd actually be talking about this movie if not for the cinematography and even moreso the nonlinear, POV-hopping storytelling. If it had been told traditionally it'd be a pretty standard supernatural thriller, so it does feel a little gimmicky in that sense.

[Dicktar2023]

I'm not a big horror fan but I liked this one, for the reasons stated here. The tonal shifts were a little confusing, and it was 10-15 minutes too long for me... the best example is the first few minutes of the movie where they spend a ridiculous amount of time showing a montage of kids running.

The cinematography was outstanding though, some genuinely captivating camera work that is imo the movie's biggest contribution to the genre by far... especially the POV tracking shots e.g. in the liquor store and in the final chase.

I do wonder how much we'd actually be talking about this movie if not for the cinematography and even moreso the nonlinear, POV-hopping storytelling. If it had been told traditionally it'd be a pretty standard supernatural thriller, so it does feel a little gimmicky in that sense.

Yeah, I'm a sucker for that kind of storytelling, though. A lot of people have been writing about how this story isn't really "about" anything besides intrigue, and whether that's enough in our era of elevated horror. These days, monsters, ghosts, chainsaws, etc. are supposed to be symbols of trauma. Personally, I'll take Weapons 10 times out of 10 over Sinners or Bring Her Back--two movies that were definitely "about something" but seriously neglected basic storytelling.

Weapons was very well-filmed in the big picture ways. But here is my one gripe, since you mentioned it: the camera lost a lot of the low light moments. This kind of thing happens all the time with the modern digital cameras, and it always looks better on streaming, but on the big screen (remember the big screen, filmmakers?), there were a lot of moments when the shadows were just gray slop. This is a big issue with modern DPs, and a huge pet peeve of mine.

That said, I'd be very surprised if I see a movie I liked as much as Weapons this year. I look forward to seeing it again.

[3dender]

I'm not a big horror fan but I liked this one, for the reasons stated here. The tonal shifts were a little confusing, and it was 10-15 minutes too long for me... the best example is the first few minutes of the movie where they spend a ridiculous amount of time showing a montage of kids running.

The cinematography was outstanding though, some genuinely captivating camera work that is imo the movie's biggest contribution to the genre by far... especially the POV tracking shots e.g. in the liquor store and in the final chase.

I do wonder how much we'd actually be talking about this movie if not for the cinematography and even moreso the nonlinear, POV-hopping storytelling. If it had been told traditionally it'd be a pretty standard supernatural thriller, so it does feel a little gimmicky in that sense.

Yeah, I'm a sucker for that kind of storytelling, though. A lot of people have been writing about how this story isn't really "about" anything besides intrigue, and whether that's enough in our era of elevated horror These days, monsters, ghosts, chainsaws, etc. are supposed to be symbols of trauma. Personally, I'll take Weapons 10 times out of 10 over Sinners or Bring Her Back--two movies that were definitely "about something" but seriously neglected basic storytelling.

Weapons was very well-filmed in the big picture ways. But here is my one gripe, since you mentioned it: the camera lost a lot of the low light moments. This kind of thing happens all the time with the modern digital cameras, and it always looks better on streaming, but on the big screen (remember the big screen, filmmakers?), there were a lot of moments when the shadows were just gray slop. This is a big issue with modern DPs, and a huge pet peeve of mine.

That said, I'd be very surprised if I see a movie I liked as much as Weapons this year. I look forward to seeing it again.

I've seen some interesting thematic discussion on Twitter... not sure if I actually buy it but it's food for thought:

Spoiler

- nods (approving?) to QAnon type conspiracy thinking with the 5G tower and the police cover up and Brolin's dad taking investigation and map lines into his own hands
- influence of digital culture and social media which "feeds" on our children/us and then transforms them into mindless and potentially violent zombies
- atomization of individuals and destruction of community, especially in suburbs.

[edwin drood]

No mentions of Amy Madigan. A fine actress, now 74 years old, she was Chanice Kobolowski, Uncle Buck's girlfriend. Also the wife of Ray Kinsella in Field of Dreams. How was she?

[3dender]

No mentions of Amy Madigan. A fine actress, now 74 years old, she was Chanice Kobolowski, Uncle Buck's girlfriend. Also the wife of Ray Kinsella in Field of Dreams. How was she?

Great, the acting highlight for sure.

[dutch]

No mentions of Amy Madigan. A fine actress, now 74 years old, she was Chanice Kobolowski, Uncle Buck's girlfriend. Also the wife of Ray Kinsella in Field of Dreams. How was she?

She was incredible! I believe a prequel is in the works with her backstory?? I’m typing this without double checking but I thought I read that. She seriously turned, what was a very suspenseful movie, up another notch!