Weapons: A Review - Big Creepiness in Small-Town America

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 3.25 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT.  A solid piece of elevated horror moviemaking that is worth watching when it hits streaming.

Weapons, written and directed by Zach Cregger, is a horror movie that tells the mysterious story of seventeen children in a small town who one night all run out of their homes into the darkness never to be seen again.  

Zach Cregger’s first feature film, Barbarian (2022), was two-thirds of a great horror movie that lost its way a bit in its final act. Despite its flawed final act, Barbarian showed Cregger to be a serious talent as it was a taut, smart, well-shot, well-acted and until its final act, very effective piece of horror filmmaking.

Weapons once again reveals Cregger to be a filmmaker to watch despite being somewhat similar to Barbarian in that as good as it is it still has some flaws that keep it from being great.

Weapons, like Barbarian with its commentary on Reagan and the destruction of the American working class, has some insightful social commentary artfully ingrained into its narrative core – the most obvious of which is the predation of children.

In an age where the Epstein files are forgotten before they’re ever released, and sex trafficking and exploitation of children runs rampant, a movie which opens by telling us it is a true story that powerful people have covered up, where seventeen kids disappear without a trace…is making a point for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Weapons is, in many ways but not all, Pizzagate, The Franklin Affair, Johnny Gosch, the Epstein story, and all the rest of the horrific child exploitation stories in recent times, subtly made manifest in narrative fashion…and that in and of itself makes the film unnerving – particularly if you have kids.

Cregger structures Weapons in an interesting way as the story is broken into chapters that feature the different perspectives of each main character – Justine – the kid’s teacher, Archer – parent to one of the kids, Paul – a cop in the town, James – a homeless drug addict, Marcus – the school principal, and Alex – the lone kid in the class who doesn’t disappear.

These perspectives are structurally staggered and non-linear and then intersect and converge to form the story as a whole. This approach really heightens the film and elevates what could have been rather mundane material in lesser storytelling hands.

Cregger’s greatest accomplishment with Weapons though is that he, along with cinematographer Larkin Sieple, create some very memorable and distinct visuals that stick with you.

For example, the poster for Weapons shows the silhouette of kids running in a very distinctive arms-out style, and that is used to very creepy effect in the film.

I won’t get into any of the details of the film to avoid spoilers – but I will say that there is a character in the movie that is so well-designed, well-acted, well-shot and visually unnerving that it makes you wince whenever it arrives.

There’s also a recurring motif of a certain door opening where it is so dark you strain to see what is in it, that is simple yet very effective. As is the scene where someone walks out of the door – a sequence that is chilling.

Cregger as a filmmaker is sort of a cross between Jordan Peele and Ari Aster. Cregger’s ability to create notable visuals is right up there with Peele – a noted visual stylist (although a filmmaker who struggles to tell a story), and his type of horror is reminiscent of Aster’s early work – most notably Hereditary and Midsommar.

Cregger’s skill, talent and style places him among the premiere “elevated horror” filmmakers of this era, namely Peele, Aster, and Robert Eggers.

What elevates Weapons besides Cregger’s storytelling and visual style, is a top-notch cast doing terrific work.

Julia Garner as Justine is a startlingly compelling character that is both sympathetic and abrasive. Garner, who was terribly misused in Fantastic Four earlier this summer, gives a very deft performance here.

Josh Brolin is really good as Archer, the devastated father determined to find out what happened to his son. Brolin has developed over the years to be such a reliably good actor that when he arrives on-screen you feel assured that the film is in strong acting hands.

Both Alden Ehrenreich and Benedict Wong, as Paul the cop and Marcus the principal respectively, really make the most of somewhat smaller parts that in lesser hands would have been thrown away, but in theirs are fleshed out to be really captivating pieces of work.

And finally, Cary Cristopher as the young boy Alex, is perfect as a creepy, lonely, sad and slightly scary little kid. Christopher looks like he could be the cousin to Damien from the Omen movies, and gives a really solid performance.

As much as I like Cregger, I do think Weapons has some issue that keep it from being a great film, but I will withhold the specifics of why so as not to spoil the film for those who want to see it – except to say that part of the conclusion to the mystery feels a bit unsatisfying…which is similar to how I felt about Barbarian. I’d also say that the film is better at being creepy than it is at being “horrifying”…but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

So, Weapons isn’t a great film but it is a good horror film…and in this day and age that is definitely good enough.

I think Weapons, just like Barbarian, is a perfect Halloween watch if you want to creep yourself out – particularly once it hits streaming. I also think it would make a wonderful companion piece to Ari Aster’s Hereditary.

In conclusion, writer/director Zach Cregger continues to show glimpses of brilliance in his second feature film and is quickly establishing himself as one of the premiere talents in the horror genre.

Weapons isn’t a perfect film, and it isn’t quite a great film, but it is a top-notch horror film that delivers copious amounts of creepiness, enough to have you squirming in your seat…but for less horror inclined individuals that seat can be in your home, and not necessarily in the theatre.

©2025

Wolf Man: A Review – A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT/SEE IT. A tepid horror tale that lacks bite. Horror aficionados can wait to watch it on streaming, everyone else can skip it altogether.

Wolf Man, written and directed by Leigh Whannell, chronicles the journey of a young family of three as they travel to a remote section of Oregon, where they try to stave off a werewolf attack.

Leigh Whannell had some success with his last film, The Invisible Man (2020), which was a modern re-telling of the 1933 Universal Film horror classic of the same name. This time out he attempts to do the same thing with the Wolf Man, a modern re-imagining the 1941 Universal classic The Wolf Man starring Lon Chaney Jr.

While Whannell’s The Invisible Man was a box office smash, making $144 million off a $7 million budget, I found the film to be a bit too heavy-handed with its feminist politics…or to be more precise…it’s male-hating politics, which were quite en vogue at the time, the height of the Trump hysteria (or so we hope).

That said, Whannell, who made his bones writing the Saw movies, displayed some nice cinematic flourishes on ocassion in The Invisible Man, so I was intrigued to see what he could do with The Wolf Man without the burden of having to frantically push a cultural and political ideology.  

I was also interested in seeing Wolf Man because I just dig monster movies. I absolutely love the Universal Classic Monster movies like Frankenstein, Dracula, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, and The Wolf Man, and I’m always fantasizing about those movies being remade in the modern era but somehow being even better. I realize that is a pipe dream, but I dream it nonetheless.

Having recently seen Robert Eggers’ outstanding remake of Nosferatu, which is essentially my monster movie remake dream come to life, I found myself excited to see the new Wolf Man.

Having seen Wolf Man, I feel foolish for having been excited for it. The film isn’t awful, but it isn’t good either. It’s a rather tepid retelling that never really grabs you by the throat and sinks its teeth into you. Its biggest sin is that it is rather blasé and bland.

The film tells the tale of the Lovell family, Blake, Charlotte and their young daughter Ginger (I’d guess she is maybe 9 years old), who live cosmopolitan lives in San Francisco. But Blake grew up with a very strict father deep in the wilds of Oregon, amidst rumors of a beast in the woods that is half-man and half-animal, and he, and frankly the rest of his family, seem pretty unhappy in the city.

While trying to figure out the status of his rocky marriage to Charlotte, Blake gets the official, and apparently long-awaited, death certificate of his father along with keys to his house in remote Oregon. To try and save their marriage, the Lovell’s decide to make a road trip for the Summer up to the Oregon house….and so their tale begins.

As is my wont, I won’t give away any spoilers whatsoever…but instead will speak in generalities.

Here are some issues with the movie.

I recently heard a discussion about werewolves that wondered whether people liked their movie werewolves to be more human than wolf or more wolf than human. I am in the more wolf than human camp, but I understand the opposing argument.

Wolf Man is definitely a more human than wolf movie, and to me that translates into it looking often-times cheap and tawdry. It doesn’t help that the make-up and special effects are, at best, uneven.

There are some very cool effects, for example shots of hands morphing were particularly quite good, but I found the rest of it less than convincing and not the least bit frightening.

Another issue, and this may be a function of the shitty movie theatres we have nowadays, but I thought the film didn’t look very good. The inability for there to be a sharp, distinct contrast between shadow and light was grating, and undermined the effectiveness of the film a tremendous amount.

All of the darkness had a hazy, smoky hue to it, which again, may not be entirely on director Whannell and his cinematographer Stefan Duscio, it could be that the projector in my theatre sucked and the idiotic theatre owners refuse to turn the lights in the theatre down all the way – a never ending frustration for me. Regardless of why the film looked so bad, the bottom line is that it looked bad.

The film also fails to fully use its setting to its advantage. The house the family are trapped in is never turned into a claustrophobic hell, as it should have been. In fact, the house seems to get bigger and bigger somehow as the movie goes along. In addition, the film never fully utilizes the inherent horror of the vast forest, particularly at night. This should be an easy thing to do, as anyone who’s ever been in the woods at night can attest, but Whannell seems disinterested in utilizing setting for horrific effect. The inability to use setting for effect leads to a muting and dispersal of tension, which is never good for a horror film.

On the other hand, there were sequences in the film that I thought were very clever, original and worked incredibly well….namely when Whannell lets us see the world through the perspective of the wolf man. This works incredibly well and not only looks really cool (and is pulled off seamlessly) but adds a significant layer of depth and drama to the film.

The cast, which features Christopher Abbot as Blake, Julia Garner as Charlotte, and Matilda Firth as Ginger, are hamstrung by a script that feels rushed, not fully fleshed out and a tad shallow.

Garner is a remarkable actress as she well established in her Emmy-winning turn on Ozark, but here she feels criminally underused, and dare I say it, slightly miscast.

Matilda Firth does her best in the child role, but it’s a child role so the less we see of her the better.

The weakest link though is Christopher Abbot as Blake. Abbot has the most work to do in the film and frankly, he just isn’t up to it. He lacks the charisma, magnetism, vivid inner life, and the primal/paternal power that is necessary for him to thrive in the role.

Ultimately, Wolf Man is a pretty forgettable film that never fully fleshes out the glorious myth at its core or the horror in its heart yearning to break free.

If you’re a horror and/or monster movie fan, I think you can skip this one in the theatres and wait to watch it when it comes to streaming. Besides that, normal movie goers and cinephiles alike have no need to see this movie as it’s a toothless horror film that lacks any and all bite.

©2025

Ozark: Season 4 (Part One) - A Review

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

‘Ozark’ is back in all its brooding, blood-soaked, brilliant glory.

The dark Netflix series kicks off its final season with a binge-worthy cavalcade of crime and corruption.

The first part of the fourth and final season of ‘Ozark’, the hit Netflix show about a middle-American family that launders money for a murderous drug cartel, is finally here.

‘Ozark’, much like ‘The Sopranos’ before it, has split its final season into two parts, and premiered the first 7 episodes of its final season on January 21, with the last 7 coming out later this year.

When ‘Ozark’ first appeared back in 2017, I had little faith it would be a worthwhile watch. The premise, a regular guy getting caught up in the drug trade, seemed derivative, and its star, Jason Bateman, while being a terrific comedic actor, didn’t strike me as having the chops to carry a dark drama.

After watching the first episode of season one, it quickly became apparent that I was fantastically wrong. Yes, ‘Ozark’ certainly owes a debt to ‘Breaking Bad’, as it borrows the “regular guy gets into the drug business” blueprint, but it’s no cheap ‘Breaking Bad’ knock-off. It’s an original, captivating, stylish series that boasts scintillating performances and searing social commentary.

Just to remind you, the show follows the trials and tribulations of accountant Marty Byrde (Bateman), a middle-aged, middle-American accountant who happens to be a money launderer extraordinaire.

When Marty gets in too deep with the Navarro drug cartel, he and his wife Wendy, teenage daughter Charlotte and son Jonah, leave Chicago for the backwaters of the Ozarks, where the whole family must navigate their internecine conflicts while also dealing with the perils of drug lords and law enforcement.  

The show’s cast is tremendous, but it’s Jason Bateman as Marty Byrde that is the straw that stirs the drink. Bateman’s Marty is a masterwork of skilled, subtle and intricate acting.

Marty is a problem-solver, and while it’s his original sin that sets the story in motion, he’s now blessed/cursed to be surrounded by a coterie of combustible women who seem to cause all his problems.

For example, there’s Marty’s wife, Wendy, gloriously played by Laura Linney in full Lady Macbeth mode, who is a ferociously ambitious sort who hides her ruthless nature behind her smiling mom exterior. Wendy’s reach often exceeds her grasp and leaves the whole family in danger, but it’s Marty who must be the calm and cool voice of reason that has to clean up her mess.

Then there’s spitfire Ruth Langmore, Marty’s protégé, phenomenally portrayed by two-time Emmy winner Julia Garner. Ruth is a firebrand, vicious, volcanic yet vulnerable. When Ruth’s deep-seated wound is sufficiently agitated and she unleashes her existential fury, she’s a diabolical dervish that can destroy everything and everyone in her orbit, including Ruth herself.

And then there’s the queen of the Redneck Riviera, Darlene Snell, the local drug boss and all-around low-rent lunatic. Darlene (fiercely portrayed by Lisa Emery) seems like she could be the in-bred sister of the backwater rapists in ‘Deliverance’, and her shotgun-toting, mama bear energy, is as unnerving as she is relentless.

It’s a stroke of cultural/political sub-textural genius that the women of ‘Ozark’ are, almost universally, the catalysts of the story and are also consistently irrational, incorrigible and violently narcissistic. They are equally as diabolical and depraved as any of the men, if not more so. And it always falls on Marty, flaws and all, to put the pieces back together after one of these witches casts a wayward spell.

Too often nowadays movies and tv shows want to empower women without having them grapple with the insidious shadow that comes with power. ‘Ozark’ though, empowers women, but also lets them wallow, flail and drown in the same deep, dark waters that engulf men when they venture too far from shore, and it’s utterly delicious to watch.

Another great thing about the show is that it’s persistently a brooding, blood-soaked meta-commentary on life among the ruins of an American empire in steep decline.

For example, the stench of desperation and the rot of corruption, both personal and institutional, is absolutely everywhere.

The Byrdes start out trying to do the right thing, but their moral and ethical corruption spreads like a virus, and contaminates everyone with which they come into contact, leaving a trail of broken bodies and spirits in their wake.

Also corrupt are every law enforcement agency, both local and federal, every politician, and every corporation that shows their ugly head and bare their teeth in the Byrdes direction.

Another stroke of creative genius was having the Byrdes get into the riverboat casino business, as ‘Ozark’ is a running commentary on the absurdity of our casino capitalist system, where the little people are cannon-fodder, the rigged shell game is never ending, the money is made up out of thin air, and nothing is built on solid ground.

As an artistic endeavor, ‘Ozark’ is fantastically well-crafted. Creators Bill Dubuque and Mark Williams, as well as season four directors Andrew Bernstein (one of the very best directors in television), Alik Sakharov, and Robin Wright (the famed actress), consistently set the menacing mood with ominous atmospherics using a stellar score and masterfully-executed cinematography.

Ultimately, despite some minor plot missteps I felt didn’t work, the first part of season four proves ‘Ozark’ is as good as it gets on television. It’s not for the faint of heart, but it’s remarkably compelling and thoroughly satisfying. I’ll be sad to see the series go, but I’m glad it’s here for a little while longer.

A version of this article was originally published at RT.