Breaking Down the Absolutely Bonkers Ending of Weapons

by

On a single, mysterious night, all but one child from an elementary school class in Maybrook mysteriously wake up, leave their homes, and disappear into the darkness at 2:17 a.m., causing the town to be thrown into a tumultuous whirlwind of confusion, sorrow, fear, and outrage.

The central idea propelling the chilling narrative of Zach Cregger’s latest horror film, “Weapons“, is what sets this sequel to his successful 2022 directorial and screenwriting debut, “Barbarian”, in motion. Narrated from six distinct Maybrook residents’ viewpoints-such as Justine Gandy (Julia Garner), a struggling teacher, Archer Graff (Josh Brolin), a tormented father, and Paul Morgan (Alden Ehrenreich), a troubled police officer-the movie gradually unravels the terrifying circumstances surrounding the children’s disappearance. This leads to an escalating third act filled with shocking revelations that offer unsettling solutions to the enigma haunting the town.

The movie “Weapons” currently enjoys a nearly flawless rating on Rotten Tomatoes and is now playing in cinemas. Predictions suggest it could earn over $25 million during its opening weekend, even contending for the number one spot at the box office. However, excitement for director Cregger’s second film had been growing since early 2023. At that time, it was announced that New Line Cinema had bought the rights to “Weapons” for $38 million, outbidding Jordan Peele and his production company Monkeypaw, who had initially offered around $7 million less through their partner Universal Pictures. Around the same period, Peele ended his long-term partnership with his management team, sparking rumors that the split was due to disagreements over the “Weapons” auction.

Despite no direct link being established between the two occurrences, the idea that they were connected, along with the movie’s high cost, stirred up a lot of excitement among horror enthusiasts. One popular tweet even read, “This film is going to be truly extraordinary if its screenplay auction was THIS intense!

Viewers now have the opportunity to make up their own minds as to whether the film “Weapons” and its unconventional finale live up to the buzz.

What happened to the missing children?

It becomes apparent halfway through Justine’s perspective, our initial viewpoint, that something unusual is occurring at the home of the only classmate who didn’t vanish, Alex (Cary Christopher). However, it isn’t until we delve into the perspectives of the school principal, Andrew Marcus (Benedict Wong), and later, Alex himself, that we discover the identity of the person responsible for the mysterious events in Maybrook.

After Justine describes an unsettling scene at Alex’s house – his parents seemingly unresponsive on the couch – Marcus decides to arrange a welfare visit for them. However, instead of the concerned parents, a woman claiming to be Alex’s Aunt Gladys (Amy Madigan) shows up at his office. This woman bears an uncanny resemblance to the eerie and grotesquely dressed old lady that various characters have been intermittently spotting in disturbing glimpses.

Marcus strongly emphasizes his requirement to converse with one of Alex’s legal guardians on the following Monday. This statement triggers Gladys to unexpectedly visit his home that weekend, aiming to display her true nature. Upon arrival, she requests a bowl of water rather than a glass and extracts a peculiar thorny stick from her pocket. She wraps Marcus’ school ribbons around this stick and cuts open her hand with it, causing her blood to flow into the bowl. When Terry tries to assist her, Gladys seizes a hidden pair of scissors and snips off a piece of his hair before wrapping it around the stick as well. The horror escalates as Marcus comes under her influence and viciously attacks Terry. In an attempt to halt his rampage, Gladys submerges the stick in the bowl of water. She subsequently employs a strand of Justine’s hair, which Alex’s mother had collected earlier in the movie, to manipulate Marcus and instigate another attack on Justine, leading to the gas station incident depicted from Archer’s perspective earlier in the film.

Following what appeared to be an invincible Marcus being struck by a vehicle and spread across the road as he pursued Justine, Archer comes to understand that Justine may not be the antagonist he had assumed. Instead, they join forces to uncover the truth behind the strange events. Meanwhile, we switch perspectives to Alex, who finds himself in a chilling situation when terminally ill Gladys showed up at his home with a magical potted tree several weeks prior. She performed a ritual that rendered Alex’s parents catatonic and threatened him into gathering the name cards of every student in his class. These names were needed for her to conjure them to Alex’s house, where she kept them confined in the basement. Although her reasons aren’t fully explained, it’s hinted that Gladys is a witch capable of maintaining her existence by gradually draining the life-force from those trapped under her curse.

In this rephrased version, I’ve tried to make the text more approachable while maintaining the original context:

Gladys anticipates Archer and Justine’s arrival at Alex’s house, so she readies her prisoners – Alex’s parents, Paul, and drug addict James (Austin Abrams) – whom she has brainwashed, to serve as attackers when the duo enters. A violent confrontation follows, but Alex manages to turn the tables by using Gladys’ power against her, unleashing all his classmates upon her instead. The children chase Gladys through town before brutally attacking and dismembering her.

In a concluding narration, it is revealed that all the kids were eventually returned home. Some of them even regained their ability to speak over the following two years. However, Alex’s parents never recovered from the trauma and he was placed with a kinder relative.

Is there a message behind Weapons?

From my perspective, just like each movie can be perceived differently by its viewers, “Weapons” is no exception. However, if you’re curious about the message that Cregger aimed to deliver through this film, he himself has clarified that it wasn’t primarily designed to delve into the heart of communal trauma, satirize suburban life, or serve as a school shooting allegory, contrary to some interpretations.

As a film critic, I pen this review from the perspective of an individual artist pouring out his heart onto the canvas of cinema. When I sat down to craft this story, I wasn’t aiming to dissect or resonate with societal catastrophes that plague us all. Instead, my primary intention was to channel raw, personal emotions.

However, it’s essential to remember that art, particularly storytelling, has a unique ability to transcend the individual and touch upon universal truths. So, should any viewer find solace or resonance in my experiences and this film’s examination, I am more than gratified. But rest assured, when I penned this script, it wasn’t a cry for America, but rather a call from Zach within me.

Rather than stating directly that “Weapons” was his work, he expressed that it served as an attempt to cope with the death of a dear friend. He explained, “I experienced a personal tragedy that was incredibly painful,” he shared with Entertainment Weekly. “Someone I held very close passed away unexpectedly and, in all honesty, I was so overwhelmed by grief that I began writing ‘Weapons’ not as a pursuit of ambition, but merely as a means to confront my own feelings.

The title of the movie, seemingly implying various means by which humans can be manipulated to harm each other, appears to be intentionally vague. As Cregger explained to Vanity Fair, multiple interpretations have been proposed, and he finds them all valid. He believes the title is legally open to interpretation.

Read More

2025-08-08 21:06