In the fascinating realm of mystery horror, an intriguing new film called “Weapons” has emerged, helmed by the talented Zach Cregger, known for his previous work on the film “Barbarian.” The film has garnered quite a bit of praise, showcasing Cregger’s knack for storytelling, though not without its own set of quirks. In a classic whodunit with a twist, the story revolves around a mysterious event where children from Mrs. Gandy’s class disappear in the middle of the night. It’s a plot that beckons viewers into a web of suspense and curiosity.
Cregger, it seems, knows how to seize an audience with what appears to be a flair for setting up a good scare, similar to an Alfred Hitchcock classic. Unfortunately, there seems to be an Achilles’ heel in his storytelling armor—especially when it comes to wrapping up the mystery with a satisfying conclusion. The so-called “McGuffin,” a term popularized by Hitchcock himself, refers to the object or plot device that sets the story in motion. However, unlike the master, Cregger seems to leave this aspect a bit undercooked, as though forgetfulness set in while concocting this cinematic stew.
The essence of a good mystery, as Hitchcock might argue from behind his rhetorical smokescreen, is that the McGuffin ought to be engaging and resonant, quietly shifting the film into a deeper narrative. When the reveal in “Weapons” flutters into view, it doesn’t quite soar—more of a limp landing than a graceful glide. It somewhat mirrors his previous work on “Barbarian,” where a promising start eventually unravels under the weight of conventional horror tropes. This tendency to under-deliver on the film’s central mystery suggests that Cregger might have overemphasized the sizzle and undercooked the steak.
One might compare this to the masterful execution seen in “The Sixth Sense,” where the twist doesn’t just surprise but reshapes your entire perception of the story. There’s emotional depth and genuine engagement with each character’s journey, a benchmark that “Weapons” appears to hint at but ultimately misses. This begs the question, is Cregger perhaps overpraised in a manner akin to the trajectory of Shyamalan post-“Sixth Sense,” reveling a bit too much in the applause thereby skimming on the introspective labor necessary to solidify his storytelling prowess?
Naturally, there’s potential for redemption. Cregger is undoubtedly a talent, and given time and perhaps a little less clamor, he could channel this into mastering the art of the McGuffin. For now, however, “Weapons” serves as a reminder that while a film might captivate with its initial promise, the true test lies in its resolution. Much like the mysterious disappearances in the film, a riveting mystery demands a compelling end—ideally one that resonates just as much as its beginning.
