We need to discuss Amy Madigan's performance in the new horror film "Weapons"

Saw it last night.

Definitely a wild ride. I got a good jump scare in one scene and was laughing my ass off in others....especially the ending with Madigan.

Not at all the film I was expecting so I was happily surprised. Benedict Wong's boyfriend/husband was cute. But that dinner he made. Were they really going to eat all those hot dogs?

British critic Kim Newman wants an Oscar nom for her in this

Perfect blur of hilariously camp and terrifyingly uncanny. Really unsettling performance. AUNT GLADYS needs to be a drag staple.

Is she playing Carrot Top?

I love her! Proud Marquette alum and rider of Ed Harris' no doubt great dick

Does anyone have a clip that's not a spoiler?

The Academy never awards Chicago Actresses! Especially those who age naturally!

r6 you can't really go beyond the basic premise without spoiling.

That trailer looks fucking weird and dark. Just like Madigan's last movie, about a wendigo in a very dark room.

And I mean dark in the literal sense. I couldn't see a fucking thing.

i'm taking mother to see it this weekend, it'll be my second viewing.

[quote]Perfect blur of hilariously camp and terrifyingly uncanny.

That's what was so brilliant about it. She effortlessly could go from one to the other. That scene at the table with the parents...

The crackhead was also good.

R11 i think those parts were inspired by the south park episode where butters’ grandma abuses him. The vocal tone is similar.

Totally R3. I was completely giddy during her main entrance scene in the principal's office. Such a fantastic, kooky, and scary performance.

R1 I'm not sure how this ties into any themes in the movie or whether or not it was intentional, but a YouTube reviewer whose review I watched pointed out that all of the main characters in the film seem to have clear addictions/afflictions: Julia Garner's character is an alcoholic, the police officer is a recovering alcoholic/ostensible sex addict, the young homeless kid is a tweaker, and it's suggested that the principal is a glutton (there's the absurd hotdog scene later on as you mention, but there's also the scene in the grocery store where we're introduced to the husband who is helping him pick out different junk food cereals). The only one I'm not sure of is Josh Brolin's character—I suppose his "weakness" is his misguided vengeance against Garner, though maybe there is another character flaw that I can't recall off the top of my head.

R14, Brolin seemed to be a bully which is probably where his son learned it from.

R14 they’re all supposed to represent facets of zach cregger’s grief over the death of trevor moore. That’s why the kids leave at 2:17 am. That’s when Trevor fell and died.

R6 Madigan's role in this hasn't received much press/advertising attention I think because showing too much could jeopardize the film's plot reveals. I think they've kept her role (smartly) oblique, aside from that ghastly shot of her in the Baby Jane makeup we see in the trailer. Don't be fooled, though—she is unforgettable in it and easily gives the most memorable performance.

Cregger will be writing and directing a reboot of the Resident Evil franchise. Those movies are so awful, but some of the games are funnily camp and have some good world building and drama. If he can make that franchise a hit with critics, he's going to be in high demand. He's perfect for it - a nerd with a good sense of humor and a high level of taste. I'm looking forward to the hearing more about a supposed sci-fi script he's working on too. Jinkx Monsoon as Aunt Gladys on stage when?

The short dialogue where she explains wanting water in a bowl is hilarious.

The film came out last night.

“We need to discuss”

Most haven’t seen it.

And the movie was silly.

For a straight man, Zach Cregger really has a gay sense of humor, because Aunt Gladys is a celluloid camp monster of the highest order. The second this bitch walked onscreen, I felt my homosexuality surging through my bones. Few heterosexual men understand this type of humor, let alone having the ability to write a character like her.

r20 he performed in drag a ton on his sketch comedy show 'whitest kids u know'

Madigan reminded me of elderly Bette Davis.

I loved it. It looked like a graphic novel. Amy certainly has left *her* imprint on the wicked witch archetype.

Just watched a Thai cam version and it's good... once it gets going. Which is my issue with most horror movies, I guess.

The witch's wig was clearly inspired by Kathy Griffin, which made me cackle.

Saw it at one of the 2:17 premiere showings on Thursday. Great movie.

r24 midwit nerds have the opposite impression. they loved the serious and logical beginning and thought the camp and absurd ending absolutely ruined it. i watched one reviewer hop on about how the movie was ruined because the internal logic of the branch artifacts didn't make perfect sense to him.

This is the guy who played Wong's husband, right? Cute.

Was in Screams Queens opposite JLC and in Ratched previously.

Saw it today. Overall, it mostly works but holy shit it's slow and frankly it's not as scary as the marketing suggests. Things do pick up though and the ending is a satisfying one. Bold move releasing this in the middle of summer when it might've fared better around Halloween but I think there's a chance it could be Freakier Friday for the number one slot at the box office.

Yeah, it's slow as hell in the first half (third?). I did like the conceit of going back in time and resuming the story through other characters. Haven't seen that done before.

The Thai people I watched this with were all cringing their asses off in the unlocked car scene. A nightmare come to life, and a masterclass in suspenseful horror.

R29: Yeah everyone in my row went nuts during the scene when Alex's Mom (under Gladys' spell) cuts Justine's hair.

R29 he should have been more explicit about the context of grief and the death of trevor moore, it makes the first half a lot more impactful and cohesive.

R27 i only know him as charlie’s molesting uncle in it’s always sunny

Alden Ehrenreich looks hot in a policeman uniform.

Agreed. And the stache needs to stay.

R32 Definitely not the same actor

If you're dedicated, you go there.

It’s beating FF and is coming in number 1 at the box office with 40 mil, R28, well over projections. It also landed an A- Cinemascore, which is extremely rare for horror. It’s already made its budget back.

She was giving me Ruth Gordon in Rosemary's Baby vibes. Loved it, and loved Barbarian.

You may not understand everything that happened by the end but it's still a fun movie.

Barbarian was ok til the giant woman showed up at the end. Ridiculous and ruined the film.

Weapons only kept getting better as it continued and the ending was incredible.

Of all the ratty Korean wigs available to her, she really went with the carrot orange idiot fringe one, with bouncy tresses WAY too youthful for someone her age.

Carrie Gibson was like, "what the fuuuuck" when she came over to the principal's office. She could tell immediately something was off.

I've liked Amy Madigan since the first movie I saw her in - Field of Dreams. I've kept up with her through Gone, Baby, Gone and I just can't see her in OP's picture! I can't wait to see Weapons just to see the transition!

I felt it was all an allegory about addiction and the harm it can inflict on children. So many addicts in the movie — alcohol, drugs, junk food.

HATED that the gays were the first to die, and so gruesomely.

But what a great film. The last 25 minutes are fun.

I think the horror and comedic aspects work equally well. The plot is slowly revealed with all the characters' povs. I never would've guessed the "twist" and who was behind it all.

I don't know why but the actor who played the junkie reminded me of Chalamet.

This just in! Amy Madigan hates the gays!

He was amazing, r45.

With Saturday estimates now coming in, it appears Zach Cregger’s “Weapons” will come in further ahead of expectations than first thought.

After snagging $18.2 million on Friday (including previews), the film looks set to only fall 24-27% on Saturday, and so estimates for the overall domestic opening weekend have now been revised upwards to $40-43 million.

Additionally, it has been revealed that IMAX and PLF screens account for a massive 34% of that haul. The film also landed an A- CinemaScore, rare for horror movies.

Every gay male audience member's inner monologue when Gladys enters stage left: "WHO is this diva?"

Looking back, the mom taking Julia Garner's hair instead of just strangling her in that car while she was sleeping, so Wong could come after her later in broad daylight, was campy as well.

I'm an idiot, it just clicked with me that this is the same woman who played Iris in Carnivale. She great in Carnivale and great in this, and married to Ed Harris.

Kathy Griffin's and Ronald McDonald's cursed child.

This movie is what Megan 2 wanted to be for this summer, but failed. Especially now that the gays have embraced the witch character as their own. Prequel NOW! Make several actually, taking us right back to the Oregon trail, henny.

[quote]I don't know why but the actor who played the junkie reminded me of Chalamet.

I didn’t clock that while watching the movie but holy shit!

Love the woman who loves Ed Harris!

Chalamet from Wish. I liked him.

Jinxx Monsoon?

I didn't realize the junkie played the kid who gouged out Carl's eye on The Walking Dead.

The trailer didn’t make it seem like a black comedy AT ALL. In fact it kinda reminded me of the good horror/thrillers of the late 90s like Sixth Sense. I really want to see this film.

I wish they gave her some exposition — who actually is this woman and where did she really come from?

She is the mother's aunt.

I'm assuming that if she had gotten enough "youth," she would have reverted to some sort of young creature. I think she was some kind of demon/succubus/witch thing.

Which is why we need her lore explored! R60

Maybe it’s all totally arbitrary, but I’m still wondering what the deal was with Gladys’ potted tree. Obviously it was something she used to perform her rituals, but a lot of this was left quite vague.

R46 shut up Larry, Amy is a friend of the gays

R62 I thought it was her tree of life where she collected the energy of the children to renew herself. Fuck if I know though.

[quote] a lot of this was left quite vague.

It was a fun movie but not one that stands up to a lot of scrutiny. My friend and I were discussing it over lunch after watching it and there are a lot of things that don't really make sense

Can you share what you and your friend discussed R65? What didn't make sense to you?

I had zero trouble just going with it. I loved it. The ending was deservedly satisfying.

There were a weird amount of gay innuendos in nearly every scene from the principal's POV. Fruity pebbles at the store, his decor being fruit, him and his husband eating a tray of hot dogs. He was wearing a Mickey tee shirt and his husband was wearing Minnie. It was a little excessive.

And they were watching a nature doc in the middle of the day, which straight couples surely don't do.

There were a few issues with the movie, but I still loved it. For example, the blonde hair that she wrapped around the stick was clearly not the same hair that was cut from Julia Garner's head. Also, when Brolin and Garner are authentic hospital, where were the police?

*at the hospital

Not R65, but as much as I enjoyed this movie, it requires a pretty substantial suspension of disbelief. Spoilers ahead, since I guess we're going there . . .

It's hard to believe that the aunt would have ever gotten away with as much as she did, for a lot of reasons. Abducting an entire classroom full of kids in such a public way already brings a lot of attention, which is acknowledged, but her nephew, as the only one who doesn't vanish, escapes scrutiny pretty easily.

Meanwhile, his parents essentially vanish from public view at the same time, he's suddenly coming home alone with bags full of soup, the windows of his house are papered over, the house feels derelict, and despite all of this in a town full of hysteria, no one seems to notice. None of the neighbors or investigators take of note? The parents' friends and employers don't find it strange that they're also gone in the middle of all of this?

The film also establishes the prevalence of home cameras, and yet no one seems to have captured any evidence of where the children may have gone, especially since we find out they were running down the street to the house together very openly. None of the investigators thought to examine which direction the children were running off to?

I liked this movie quite a bit, but there are some huge gaps in logic to get past, and I'm only touching on some of the most obvious ones. Ultimately the pay off is worth it, but a solid editing pass could have gone a long way.

To do that, Cregger began to separate the narrative into chapters that filled in the blanks slowly, one character’s P.O.V. at a time. (He credits Paul Thomas Anderson’s 1999 movie Magnolia as the role model for how he wanted Weapons to play.) And he began to shake the fear of making it personal. He mentions that he strongly identifies with Garner’s character, the teacher whose classroom is the only connection among all of the missing kids, and is an alcoholic; Cregger himself has dealt with the disease and has 10 years of sobriety under his belt. He understands the anguish felt by Brolin’s character, a father who’s attempting to wrap his head around his child being there one moment and inexplicably gone the next.

And in writing the section told from the perspective of Alex, the one third-grader who doesn’t go missing, Cregger says he tapped directly into his own past. “That is straight-up, like — I lived that chapter as a kid,” he admits. “Again, I don’t know if people need to know this going in, but… it’s very much what it’s like to have a parent who’s an addict, and the child has to become the caretaker as this sort of foreign thing comes in, and…” The look of horror is back. “I’ll leave it at that.”

R72 she brought the cops into the house to search everything, remember? I think it’s facing a cross street with a wide yard, meaning no cameras on the front door. It’s also plausible that her powers include confusion, suggestion, or that it could interfere with electronics that are near her domain. I think it’s really unnecessary to get into the details, that’s for “lore” focused storytelling like Star Wars and whatnot. This is an absurd fairy tale.

[quote]The film also establishes the prevalence of home cameras, and yet no one seems to have captured any evidence of where the children may have gone, especially since we find out they were running down the street to the house together very openly. None of the investigators thought to examine which direction the children were running off to?

I took that to be perfectly in line with the movie being a metaphor for school shootings. Which can also happen in privileged neighbourhoods with helicopter parents. Same for the authorities not responding appropriately, and people moving on quickly from the whole class going missing.

I just assumed at a certain point they couldn’t track it. Not enough cameras around Gladys’ lair and the home was inspected anyway. The newspaper makes sense for a family anticipating dealing with lookie-loos.

behind the scenes photos of amy as gladys

I loved the Suddenly Last Summer vibe at the end. I was okay with the parents disappearing from public view and the papered-up windows. I see that as a reaction to the hysteria in the town. I assumed that the tree was Gladys' familiar. What I didn't quite get was whether Gladys turned them all into zombies or if they were in some other kind of trancelike state.

There's a very brief sex scene but no nudity from Alden.

I read there was a whole sequence with Gladys's back story. Hopefully will make it to the DVD.

I want an entire film from Gladys’s perspective.

Zach Cregger’s “Weapons” didn’t just open domestically this weekend; it also launched in 73 global markets.

As a result, the film pulled in $42.5 million domestically and $27.5 million overseas for a $70 million worldwide debut. With its tight $38 million budget, the film is already set for a quite profitable run in cinemas.

He discussed the possibilities with Madigan as she shaped her performance. “I presented Amy with two options of her origin story. I was like, ‘You can pick one of these two,’” Cregger says. “They’re very different options. And was like, ‘You don’t have to tell me, but it is either this or that.’ I don’t know which one she picked.”

One is that she was once a regular person, but her spells and corrosive actions are a last-ditch effort to heal herself of a life-threatening illness. In that scenario, he said, “She had to adopt this methodology that she uses out of a place of emergency to keep herself alive. I won’t say any more than that.”

The other option was that maybe she’s not a person at all. The off-kilter red wigs and outlandish make-up suggest Gladys is some other kind of creature, trying to simulate what she thinks a normal human being looks like. But she’s doing it very badly. “That’s an interesting way to think about it. I like that a lot,” Cregger says.

This was one of the possibilities he presented to Madigan, which he framed in the context of Javier Bardem’s Oscar-winning role as the uncanny, unstoppable killer in No Country for Old Men. “I talked with her about the Anton Chigurh character. You get this sense Anton Chigurh is potentially an immortal who has come to New Mexico and is doing an impression of the people around him,” Cregger says. “That’s why his haircut is so wrong and his clothes are clean, because he’s doing a bad impression of these Southwesterners.”

I'm assuming that Gladys costumes will be big this Halloween.

She reminded me of Eva Moskowitz (Mrs. Mouth) come to life! I actually walked past her doppelganger on 6th Ave and 44th st in NYC last week going to work. But I hadn't seen the movie yet. The poor woman was long past retirement but I could tell she got dolled up everyday to go to work as some admin or clerk in a law firm with a bunch of other old geezers. She had about two pounds of make up on and outlandish eye shadow. My hands were full or I'd have pulled out my phone for a picture. She had on heels and the whole outfit from the 60's. I bet back in the day she was Va Va Voom.

I bet they filmed all of Josh Brolin's scenes in one week to keep costs down.

R86 He was an executive producer, and did have to come back to do the exact same things again for the different vignettes. Nothing was reused.

I got the impression that Aunt Gladys may be quite old (like over 150 years) as she kind of slips up at one point and refers to someone having “consumption” which is a very antiquated term for tuberculosis.

She could have been doing this kind of thing for decades, moving from town to town visiting distant relatives and sucking the life force out of the local young.

Loved her performance and the film.

She is great in this part at the end!

Gladys is also giving the old, decrepit Elisabeth (Demi) in The Substance.

R89. Except she's not shaking her saggy tits to a TV screen.

Did she say at one point that the mother was her baby sister? Someone above mentioned that she’s the mother’s aunt, but I think I remember her telling the principal that.

Cregger is mulling an Aunt Gladys prequel which is what I desired.

R91 My theory is that's bs, and she already hypnotized the mom to some extent. It seems like the dad is uncomfortable about something more than just the typical despair over in-laws.

Or the entity invaded what was her actual older sister's body. But she's clearly like 35 years older than that mom.

The junkie from this movie is going to star in Cregger's original Resident Evil reboot.

'Cregger’s upcoming “Resident Evil” reboot is rumored to follow a hapless courier (Abrams) tasked with delivering a package to a remote hospital. He soon finds himself caught in the middle of an outbreak and must fight through hordes of mutated creatures to survive.'

Cregger said he's a massive fan of the games and particularly wants to capture the slow feeling of dread that comes from the actual source games. Like, being faced with a horribly creepy dark corridor, you know something bad will happen that you don't have the resources to really deal with, but you are compelled to move forward. He hasn't seen any of the RE films and insinuated he's really turned off by the action movie style.

There is already talk about an Aunt Gladys prequel.

R93, the dad mentions them having a difficult history with Gladys. She didn't bother coming to their wedding. It's certainly possible Gladys inserted herself into their lives by some mystical means, but there's not much to support that beyond speculation. That's part of the problem with not establishing some internal consistency with how magic works in a given narrative. You can otherwise just say, "A wizard did it."

I like that whatever Gladys is, and whatever her powers are, wasn't explained in detail. All we know is that she needs the life force of young people to survive, and that the tree is either the source of or aids her powers. I'm fine without knowing any more than that; let imaginations decide.

R96 Oh, I totally forgot all about that. I definitely need to see it again, I think I missed quite a few details. I get distracted by one particular element and sometimes miss dialogue. I also missed some bits at the end because I was covering my eyes as soon as ole girl took out that peeler.

R98 MARY!

Director is rebooting Resident Evil again, it just started shooting in Prague.

Austin Abrams (r53) will play the lead in this. I already like him more than Timmy.

When Alex asks Gladys if she’ll go home when he helps her get the kids, Cregger said he interpreted Gladys’ reaction as pained and rejected. Like she somehow believed the boy would or could love her.

R97: She's a witch.

This on-set shot is everything

She was the weak link in Romero’s “The Dark Half.”

Loved her in the highly underrated Streets of Fire

His old sketch group rereleased one of their funniest sketches as a shout out to Weapons. I was a big fan of them in high school, it's crazy that Zach is so successful. Zach plays a director in the sketch. The tall guy is his friend who died in 2021.

The Vulture discussion about Amy Madigan's performance captures it perfectly with its opening sentence:

"Rarely does a character arrive onscreen as gay-guy-Halloween-costume-ready as Aunt Gladys in Weapons."

R102 yes, but is she a human who just happens to practice witchcraft or is she a demon pretending to be a human?

The antiquated reference she makes to "consumption" that R88 notes does make me think that Gladys is probably an ages-old witch who has been harvesting' life forces for some time. Like a vampire, I think the bitch has been around the block.

Madigan is a lot of fun in this but the film is just another zombie movie. More hysterical screeching, gratuitous gore, crazy violence as a substitute for clever, compelling writing. In the end, the film makes no sense. Not garbage but pretty damn close.

She will 100% be nominated and very likely win that Best Supporting Oscar.

Hollywood is overdue for proper acknowledgement of horror as its last bastion of good and profitable original storytelling.

I’ve been a fan of Amy Madigan and her husband Ed Harris for years but I didn’t recognize her as Aunt Gladys until she was being mean to little Alex at the dining room table without her makeup. I was like, ‘Oh my God! That’s Amy Madigan’.

I do hope she gets some award consideration because she is the highlight in what I think is one of the best films of the year. That ending alone was worth the price of admission. Hilarious in the most karmic way.

Her role and how she played it was the only redeeming thing about this shitty, pointless movie. There was no reason or motivation for what she did given.

[quote]She will 100% be nominated and very likely win that Best Supporting Oscar.

I've already seen articles bringing up Ruth Gordon's Supporting Actress win for Rosemary's Baby when discussing Madigan's potential nomination. I think that's a good strategy because it's easy to see the parallels between the characters and performances.

She was great in Field of Dreams!

Why is it titled Weapons? I saw the film last night and it was a major disappointment. It's convoluted and doesn't make any sense. And Amy Madigan's performance just seemed ridiculous in the context of the film.

[quote]Why is it titled Weapons?

Because she uses people as weapons.

R117 Were any of the 17 students that were in the basement ever deployed as weapons?

Yes, r118.

R113: Her goal was to remain eternally young and beautiful. She had Alex's parents in a catatonic state but the spell failed to rejuvenate her. She thought she'd have better luck with the kids so she summoned them to the house.

R119 other than the end where they turn against Aunt Gladys when were they deployed as weapons and against whom? Also, what was the point of all the Campbell's Chicken Noodle soup which basically dibble down people's chins when being fed?

I hope she's able to overcome genre bias and get at least a nomination.

^ dribbled

[quote]other than the end where they turn against Aunt Gladys when were they deployed as weapons and against whom?

Did you miss the part where Alex deploys them against Gladys, r121?

No, I didn't R124 If you read my post, I clearly alluded to that.

It would be a bit of kismet if madigan got a second nomination after her first nomination was for “twice in a lifetime”

*That's* when they were used as weapons, r125. You asked. Gladys wasn't using them as weapons at that point.

A better title then would have been The Avengers

[Quote] Gladys wasn't using them as weapons at that point.

Was she ever planning to use them as Weapons? It's really not clear. I agree with what some of the other posts that indicate that she was using them for some sort of eternal life or to get well. And yet she looked like shit throughout the whole movie.

And can anyone answer what the whole thing with the Campbell's Chicken Noodle Soup was all about.

Was the film financed by the Campbell Soup Company?

R129 The director said he was inspired by his shitty childhood with alcoholic parents. Like an outside malevolent force changing your parents and forcing you to take on adult responsibilities. I don't think the soup itself has any particular significance. Maybe they did take some money.

Apparently soup was the only thing keeping Alex's parents (who were under Gladys' spell) alive. Again, who knows why.

Gladys got the principal to kill his husband and deployed him to kill Justine. She also tried to get Josh Brolin to kill Justine.

She also deployed the mother to get a cutting of Justine's hair.

Exactly. In order to deploy a weapon, she first needs to get a hair sample from her intended victim and mixes it with that tree she's always carrying around.

It doesn't have to be hair, r134, just a personal item.

I don't think there's that much explicit symbolism in the film. Zach Cregger has said as much. He started writing it as a way to distract himself from the death of his best friend and the leader of his comedy troupe. He just started with the scene about the teacher walking into an empty class. I think he was more concerned about making a film that was exciting and creepy than anything. Given that he executed on that so well and the film is very well shot it might come off as being higher brow than it's even intending to. I think people are really being silly demanding detailed explanations for Ronald McDonald's witch magic. That's for shit like Star Wars where you can buy a book that explains exactly how lightsabers are manufactured.

Fingernails work, too

Agreed, r136. I just went with it. I think one can analyze it and find symbolism, but I didn't feel the need to do that while watching the movie. Why *were those birds in Bodega Bay? I dunno, but I still love The Birds.

R138 for example, the gun in the sky is just something zach saw in his own dream and thought it was cool. it has no particular meaning. david lynch is my favorite filmmaker and i always come back to the way his imagery provokes a visceral and immersive experience - this way he is able to transcend beyond narrative meaning and create a unique kind of magical realism. cregger is nowhere near his level, but injects just a little bit of that into the framework of pop filmmaking without being so dour like ari aster is. i'm really looking forward to what's next. he already has another original script going around that's getting buzz - a sci-fi called "flood".

I think a case could be made that it's a reference to school shootings, r139. The idea that 17 children were there one minute and gone the next. We don't get a sense of what the other parents are going through because that's what happens in mass shootings. All the attention is put on the shooter.

Will the Academy forgive Amy for not clapping and sitting with her arms folded with an angry look on her face when Elia Kazan received his honorary Oscar.

Why is it that perfectly good actresses really make their mark in hagsplotation movies? The Substance started this new trend and I love it.

Madigan was a revelation in this. I saw her in Buried Child and really started to see her range. Normally she plays bitter, lesbian adjacent characters but this was the most fun I've seen her have in a flick since Uncle Buck. I hope she gets to play more characters like this. Aunt Gladys will be everywhere this Halloween.

[quote]Why is it that perfectly good actresses really make their mark in hagsplotation movies?

R140 the director has come out and done several interviews clearing up that he definitely didn't have that in mind. he said himself, he just saw that in his own dream and put in the movie. that's it. a recent podcast interview title was "no this movie isn't about school shootings" or something so i think he's even annoyed.

[Quote] Why is it that perfectly good actresses really make their mark in hagsplotation movies?

💲💲💲💲

[Quote] Exactly. In order to deploy a weapon, she first needs to get a hair sample from her intended victim and mixes it with that tree she's always carrying around.

She didn't have a hair sample for the 17 children that are in the basement doing nothing in particular in order to have them leave their homes at 2:17 AM. Were the children weapons?

I could be wrong but I think she needs a hair sample to get the weapon to kill. To simply summon a weapon, she just needs a physical object.

R147 your guess is as good as mine since the film really leaves a lot unexplained and makes little sense.

It needed to be a personal item, r146. Alex thought to use their hand drawn bin tags and he could get all 17 at once. They weren't used as weapons until Alex sicced them on Gladys.

R149, that must be the oldest belief in the world about how witches work: they need something of yours in order to gain power over you.

In her younger days, I used to think Amy Madigan looked a lot like DL fave Bonnie Franklin.

[Quote] Apparently soup was the only thing keeping Alex's parents (who were under Gladys' spell) alive. Again, who knows why.

Exactly who knows why including even the screen writers. Why would Aunt Gladys want his parents alive, and they didn't seem to eat any of the soup; it seemed to all dribble down their chin

[Quote] What didn't make sense to you?

R66 Why would Aunt Gladys send Alex to school on the day that the kids went missing? Being the only one in class who didn't go missing would certainly put of a lot of attention on him which is something I would think she wouldn't want.

^ well, no one said witches were smart

I recently watched "The Dark Half" with Timothy Hutton, which co-stars Madigan as his wife. Her performance in it was okay I thought (nothing mind-blowing) but some of the reviews I've read were very critical of it. She's really good in Streets of Fire and Uncle Buck, which is a classic. Never seen Love Letters or Female Perversions, but I kind of want to check those out.

I kept trying and trying to understand this movie, until I realized I didn't care.

So if the kid was responsible for feeding soup to his parents and all his classmates did he have to clean up their pee and poop as well? They should have shown him carrying home giant packs of toilet paper or diapers

Madigan lets loose while accepting a Golden Globe for Roe vs Wade

R157 her energy in that is very butch.

[quote]I could be wrong but I think she needs a hair sample to get the weapon to kill. To simply summon a weapon, she just needs a physical object.

A personal item is used to control someone (the Weapon) and to feed off their life force. When she uses that person to attack someone, she needs hair of the intended victim.

The Weapons:

Marcus, the principal - his ribbons

The kids - their nametags

Paul, the cop - unknown

James, the junkie - unknown

Archer, the Brolin character - unknown

Alex's parents - unknown (but many things available in the house)

The Victims:

Justine - lock of hair

Terry, the gay husband - lock of hair

Aunt Gladys - strand of hair

We never see what personal items she uses to turn Paul, James and Archer into weapons. And we don't see how she gets them to attack their victims (Paul and Archer attack Justine, James attacks Archer). But it's a horror movie, not an educational film. So we just need to go with it.

Justine is attacked in the house because she crosses the salt line, the same trigger for Alex's parents to attack. I'm assuming it's meant to be some kind of ward that's another way of activating her thralls.

The surprisingly light, somewhat tongue-in-cheek tone allows for major suspension of disbelief.

This gonzo universe would otherwise crumble under basic scrutiny - how is a town in which 17 children disappeared under insane circumstances not overrun by FBI, all the media, sleuths, religious freaks, and the like?

How can the one child who didn’t disappear fly under the radar so much that no one even notices that his parents are nowhere to be seen and that their house is covered in newspaper?

How did but one civilian come up with an idea to draw two straight lines and narrow down the area of interest enough to notice that it sure is weird that this suspicious house is in it?

How the hell did it take him a whole month to come up with the concept of two lines on a map? What did the rest of his ‘investigation’ even consist of?

And how did the mere existence of a character as over-the-top as Aunt Gladys not raise immediate suspicion and warrant a welfare check on that poor child?

Once you accept that this universe lets all that slide, the movie is a really fun ride.

R162 it seems like his “investigation” mostly involved harassing people and yelling at his wife up to that point. The cops went to Gladys’ house already.

R163 So I don’t think it’s that much of a pothole. Look at Delphi, Richard Allen practically confessed within a week of the murder directly to the police, and they bumbled around for nearly a decade. There’s clearly no real evidence proving Gladys has anything to do with it, she took care of that by bringing investigators into the home herself. There’s no across neighbor with a camera to record the kids going in. People are just assuming there must be an unbroken chain of video tracking them all the way, that’s not how it works in real life cases in far denser locations where there would be even more cameras.

R152 because Gladys is just a metaphor for addiction/alcoholism entering the home

Saw Amy on the Broadway with Lange, Baldwin and Gandofini in "Streetcar".

The kids were running in clear directions. Wouldn’t take a genius to put a few of those on a map and see if they intersect.

My theory is that Aunt Gladys wasn't actually related to the family, that was another one of her spells. She would pick some poor unsuspecting family and through a spell would make them believe she was a relative, and she had done this before with other families. She introduced herself to the principal as Gladys Lilly, but Lilly was the father's surname and she was supposed to be the mother's aunt so her surname wouldn't have been Lilly.

The whole purpose of her ruse was to drain the life force out of people to keep herself alive, but it's not known how often she had to do this.

Aunt Gladys was VERY old, like much older than a natural human lifespan. When she was in the principal's office she called tuberculosis "consumption," and the principal found that very odd, noting that nobody had called it consumption since the 1800s. Aunt Gladys had been around since at least the 19th century.

Shit, r168, I’ve been around since the 1900s

Very creative, R168, but it’s not in question that Gladys is Alex’s mother’s aunt. There’s never even a trace of a hint given that she’s some sort of imposter.

just as there's hardly even a trace of a hint what Aunt Gladass' ultimate goal is.

The movie sucked. They killed off both gay guys. That trope is so fucking lame. Someone said homophobes cheered when they died. Wtf?! And of course they had the most gruesome murders too. Not cool. Bury your gays is unforgivable. I sadly saw this movie, but never again. I also stopped watching The Gilded Age for the same reason. That show is dead to me.

R170 there’s constant references to parasites and imposters in the background

r170 Aunt Gladys could've cast a spell on the family to make them think she was their aunt. I would bet money she'd done this with other families over the centuries. And as I said, she introduced herself to the principal as "Gladys Lilly" when Lilly was the husband's surname and she was supposed to be the mother's aunt so her surname could not have been Lilly.

I think the whole film is a metaphor for the public school system under Donald Trump.

I think many metaphors can be found, even if they weren't the director's intention.

It’s kind of crazy that this movie is the number one movie again, four weeks in. Austin Butler cannot open a movie, but Amy Madigan and Julia Garner do keep bringing them in.

Amy Madigan should get an Oscar nomination for this, she is fantastic.

She will, r178.

R177: Being beaten by a 50 year old movie has got to hurt. Austin Butler ain’t no star.

[quote]Will the Academy forgive Amy for not clapping and sitting with her arms folded with an angry look on her face when Elia Kazan received his honorary Oscar.

R141 thank you. Amy and Ed obviously live their beliefs.