Tag Archives: josh brolin

Buried Truths & Walking Away: Why Weapons (2025) Matters

27 Monday Oct 2025

Posted by in Movie review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

From the sinewy shock of Barbarian, Zach Cregger already marked himself as a horror director to watch. With Weapons, he doesn’t just advance — he detonates expectations. This second feature is not merely a follow-up; it’s a recalibration. It announces that horror’s pulse today beats in the fissures beneath the suburban façade, in the worn edges of trust, in the vanishing of innocence — and in the uncomfortable realisation that the scariest weapon might already be inside us.

Disappearance as the new nightmare

The opening image of Weapons is deceptively simple: at exactly 2:17 a.m., seventeen third-graders leave their homes in a quiet Pennsylvania town and vanish. One child remains. One teacher becomes suspect. One grieving parent begins to hunt. On paper, it’s a disappearance-mystery. In execution, it becomes a sprawling meditation on what gets lost when the promise of security dissolves. Wikipedia+2High On Films+2

Here, Cregger takes the school as a metaphor for safety, the teacher as a figure of authority, the parent as wounded faith. But the vanishing children — they become more than victims; they are the unlost ghosts of generational damage. As one analyst proffers, the “weapons” of the title are not just guns or hooks, but systems: fear, manipulation, the warp of hope. High On Films+1

Style, structure and the fracture of form

What distinguishes Weapons is how formal mechanics mirror thematic unease. Cregger and cinematographer Larkin Seiple create a visual rhythm that is at once pristine and off-kilter: children running in long-takes, snow-white lawns under dawn light, the teacher caught in surveillance shots, the father hidden behind phone-screens. NME+1

The narrative fractures into multiple perspectives: the teacher (Julia Garner), the parent (Josh Brolin), the cop (Alden Ehrenreich), the one remaining child (Cary Christopher). The result is less a linear mystery and more a mosaic of dread. As one review put it: “It’s a puzzle you’re almost too afraid to solve”. Heaven of Horror+1

This is significant because horror today often demands instantaneous clarity; Weapons gives the opposite. It gives blur, ambiguity, the feeling that you’re running in corridors of your own assumptions. In its uncertainty lies its power.

Grief, legacy and the weight of genre

Cregger has admitted that the film was born of very personal trauma — the sudden death of a close friend. Polygon+1 This grief is not neatly transmuted into “the monster”, but folded into the film’s architecture: the teacher slipping into alcoholism, the parent’s rage, the town complicit in its own blindness.

In this sense, Weapons speaks to horror’s evolving ambition. No longer content with jump-scares or superficial transgression, it invites emotional excavation. The “missing children” are shadows of lost futures; the investigation is a metaphor for the long haul of trauma. That it arrives with mainstream box-office success (grossing in the hundreds of millions) means more: it signals that audiences are open to horror that doesn’t just frighten — it unsettles and lingers. Wikipedia

Why it matters for Halloweekend

As you craft your Halloweekend marathon, Weapons deserves a place not just as a scare-ritual but as a statement piece. It isn’t the easiest watch — the payoff is less about shock and more about reflection. But that makes it an essential counter-balance to more straightforward fright-fests.

It offers:

  • Depth – an exploration of communal wounds rather than a lone killer.
  • Style with substance – formal horror mechanics married to emotional weight.
  • Conversation starter – the kind of film viewers will talk about long after the credits.

This is the horror film that proves the genre still has places left to unearth. In between the classic chills and the fun cult throwbacks, Weapons is the grown-up scare that stays with you when the children have finally gone to bed.

The Prognosis:

Weapons may not offer the catharsis of a neatly tied-up thriller, but perhaps that’s the point. In a world where so much is unresolved, to leave with a question instead of an answer is the greater horror and the greater gift. Cregger invites us into a house of mirrors — only to show that the reflection we fear is our own. Watch it not just for the chills, but for the echo that follows.

  • Saul Muerte

WEAPONS: BUY OR RENT NOW

Weapons (2025): Secrets Buried, Stories Unleashed

Weapons (2025): Secrets Buried, Stories Unleashed

07 Thursday Aug 2025

Posted by in Movie review

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

When Zach Cregger entered the horror feature scene, he didn’t tiptoe — he detonated expectations. Barbarian was less a debut than an ambush: a grimy, surprising, and brutally effective tale that revealed the monstrous rot beneath the airbrushed façade of Airbnb America. Its impact was seismic enough to place Cregger alongside names like Ari Aster and Jordan Peele — auteurs reshaping horror into the cultural mirror it was always meant to be. So when Weapons, his sophomore effort, sparked a bidding war (with Peele among the contenders), it was more than a surprise — it was a coronation in waiting.

Needless to say, Cregger won that war — and what he’s delivered is not Barbarian 2.0, but something stranger, more ambitious, and arguably more fractured. Weapons is a moody mosaic of trauma and silence, a sinister Rubik’s Cube where every rotation deepens the dread.

The premise? Devastatingly simple: seventeen children vanish in a single night from a third-grade classroom, leaving behind one silent survivor. From this incomprehensible event, the narrative spirals outward — or perhaps downward — following a grieving parent, a guilt-ridden teacher (Julia Garner in one of her finest, most haunted performances), a cop on the edge, and a child forever changed. But where other films would tighten their grip around whodunit logic, Weapons unspools into something looser, more hypnotic, and more unsettling.

Like Magnolia if directed by a sleep-deprived David Lynch with a grudge against PTA meetings, Weapons stitches together fractured timelines and parallel points of view. What emerges is not a thriller in any traditional sense, but a psychological pressure-cooker about grief, complicity, and the invisible rot hiding beneath the manicured lawns of America’s suburbs.

This underworld — literal and figurative — is fast becoming Cregger’s signature terrain. In Barbarian, it was the basement: that dread-soaked labyrinth of generational abuse buried beneath a “perfect” Detroit neighborhood. In Weapons, there is no single basement, but many — emotional caverns, buried truths, suburban crypts dressed as cul-de-sacs. The “what lies beneath” motif returns, only now it’s diffused across an entire town, each household its own cracked mask.

Cregger’s knack for dissonant tonal shifts — likely honed during his time with the absurdist comedy troupe The Whitest Kids U’ Know — is used here not just for comic relief, but as a narrative landmine. Just as you settle into one emotional register, he flips it: tragedy becomes absurdity, horror becomes farce, and laughter curdles into a scream. The comedy doesn’t soften the horror — it accentuates it, like a smile too wide on a corpse.

Though Weapons doesn’t carry the shocking immediacy of Barbarian, it proves Cregger isn’t a one-trick provocateur. He’s a filmmaker drawn to structure — and its collapse. He’s fascinated by what people repress, and what happens when that repression becomes radioactive. What makes this second feature particularly resonant is its willingness to linger, to disorient, and to drag its audience down into the darkness without the promise of catharsis.

Josh Brolin, as a grizzled, emotionally feral father, grounds the film with a gut-punch performance that crackles with grief and rage. And Garner’s turn as Justine Gandy — a character navigating guilt, authority, and maternal ambivalence — is quietly devastating. Their presence not only adds gravitas, but signals that Weapons is aiming beyond the horror niche. It wants to haunt, not just horrify.

Yes, Weapons will divide. It lacks the clean arc of a traditional mystery. It demands attention, patience, and a willingness to fall into its emotional sinkholes. But for those attuned to its wavelength, it’s a rewarding descent — a fever dream that lingers in the bones.

The Prognosis:

Cregger has once again shown that he isn’t just interested in jump scares or gore. He wants to excavate — to dig through the ruins of modern life and see what festers beneath. With Weapons, he’s pulled up something malformed, tragic, and oddly beautiful.

The question isn’t whether he’ll push boundaries in future films. It’s whether we’ll be ready for where he takes us next — or what lies buried when we get there.

  • Saul Muerte

Vanishing Point: 25 Years of Hollow Man

03 Sunday Aug 2025

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Released at the turn of the millennium, Hollow Man promised a slick, effects-driven update on the classic H.G. Wells tale of invisible terror. With Paul Verhoeven at the helm—then still riding high off a string of bold, provocative genre films—and a high-profile cast including Kevin Bacon, Elisabeth Shue, Josh Brolin, and Kim Dickens, the ingredients were there for something groundbreaking. But 25 years later, Hollow Man feels less like a bold new direction and more like a misstep for one of cinema’s most iconoclastic directors.

The film follows brilliant but arrogant scientist Sebastian Caine (Bacon), who, obsessed with achieving the impossible, volunteers himself for an invisibility experiment that—shock—actually works. When the reversal proves ineffective, Caine slowly descends into unchecked id, using his newfound power for voyeurism, violence, and ultimately, murder. While the premise has classic sci-fi horror bones, Hollow Man seems content to coast on digital wizardry and B-movie sleaze rather than dig into the existential or psychological possibilities it flirts with.

For Verhoeven, a director never shy about subversion or satire, this was a surprising step into formula. After electrifying audiences with RoboCop (1987), Total Recall (1990), and the now-iconic (and initially maligned) Starship Troopers (1997), Verhoeven had made a name for himself as a master provocateur—balancing exploitation with critique, violence with intellect. Even his divisive Showgirls (1995) has been reappraised as audacious camp. Hollow Man, by contrast, is stripped of that sly intelligence, reduced to a glossy, FX-heavy thriller that seems to misunderstand its own potential.

That’s not to say the film is without merit. The visual effects—cutting edge for the time—were rightly praised, earning the film an Academy Award nomination. Bacon brings a creepy physicality to the role, especially once he’s rendered literally faceless. And Shue, Brolin, and Dickens do their best to ground a story that frequently loses interest in its characters the moment they’re not running or screaming. But the screenplay fails them, turning complex performers into disposable archetypes.

What’s most disappointing is how Hollow Man wastes its central conceit. The idea of invisibility as a metaphor for unchecked power, surveillance, and toxic masculinity is timely, but the film barely scratches at these themes. Instead, it leans into tired genre tropes—gratuitous nudity, generic lab-coat dialogue, and a final act that plays like a subpar slasher in a science lab. Verhoeven’s usual satirical edge is dulled here, replaced by something far more conventional and far less daring.

Looking back, Hollow Man marks the end of Verhoeven’s Hollywood phase—a seven-film run filled with wild highs and chaotic experiments. He would return to Europe for more introspective, boundary-pushing work (Black Book, Elle, Benedetta), suggesting that the rigid machinery of American studio filmmaking had finally worn him down.

The Prognosis:

Two decades on, Hollow Man stands as a footnote in an otherwise fascinating career: not quite terrible but deeply underwhelming. For a director who once gave us corrupt cops, brain-busting rebels, and fascist bugs, an invisible man never felt so forgettable.

  • Saul Muerte