Horror movies often rely on familiar patterns to deliver a specific sensational effect. Zach Cregger’s new film, “Weapons,” exemplifies this trend by reducing complex themes to a narrow outcome. The movie follows the mysterious disappearance of 17 students from an elementary school in Pennsylvania, leading to a series of investigations and confrontations between the teacher, Justine, and her colleagues.
As the story unfolds, Cregger uses a clever narrative structure, featuring distinct chapters labeled with each character’s name, to show events from different perspectives. However, this approach also makes the characters feel like cardboard cutouts, with their personalities reduced to plot functions. The movie’s supernatural twist is predictable and lacks depth, relying on gross-out humor rather than genuine scares.
In contrast, Athina Rachel Tsangari’s “Harvest” uses folk horror elements to deliver a more intellectual experience. Set in a remote Scottish village, the film explores themes of capitalism, social justice, and the emergence of modern economics. The movie is fundamentally a work of political cinema, using its medieval setting to dramatize abstract forces of society.
While Tsangari’s vision gives the film heft, its philosophical ambitions are not matched by its dramatic specifics. The movie’s world-building is sanitized, with the villagers living in an unrealistic, idyllic environment devoid of conflict or tension. This approach undercuts the film’s ability to engage with complex themes and ideas.
Ultimately, both “Weapons” and “Harvest” demonstrate a shallow understanding of horror’s potential for depth and nuance. By prioritizing plot over substance, these films fail to deliver the scares and insights that fans of the genre crave.
Source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/08/18/weapons-movie-review-harvest