This article contains spoilers for "weapons".

Zack Kreger's "weapons" is the sincere sensation of box office, which is great news for anyone who appreciates the original films in the mainstream, which can boast values ​​of the production of honest to gods. Along with Ryan Kogller's "sinners", His adult demographic suggests that studios leave money at the table by training their focus on four quadrant grabs on cash, built around superheroes or other wildly popular IP. There is a generation that wanted to go to China; If you hire a great talent and bait the hook properly, they will return to multiplex.

While I am currently calming the enthusiasm (just because a few expensive originals that turn to box office can quickly drive the executions that the risks have exceeded the tried brands), I taste the existence of these films and hope the best. This is tricky because I grew up in the eighties of the last century, when any film that turned orderly profits (or found mass monitoring in home entertainment) earned at least one sequel. And these were not carefully developed films! Cheap SLASHER extensions and sex comedy aside, we were subjected to such inert cuts and abductions like "Short Circuit 2," Arthur 2: On the Rocks, "Crocodile Dundee 2", "Rambo III", "PolterGea III", "Kaddishak II", Studies have always been great at protecting their bets.

When the studio does not rely on the existing IP, they often accentuate the results of the test screening results. Sometimes, they lie to the game to overcome the commercially unverified director who is dug into their heels. I personally watched this as it descended after Screening of "Bad Santa Claus". It's a story for another time. Anyway, According to inverseIt sounds like Creger encountered a little test -screening turbulence when he showed his first intersection of "weapons". Did he make the right call?

After breaking the magic of Gladis over her victims, the "weapon" breaks down into a joyful Bedalam. Children break it, and, the world seems to be restored. But the end of storytelling tells another story - and that storytelling exists only because the screening of the audience's test needed after definitely closing.

As Kreger told Invers, "initially, that voice that enters the end was not there either. I wasn't really in that idea. I wanted to finish (Matthew) look. But people were not stopped." This was not the worst problem in the world. As Kreger told Invers, "people loved the film, but everyone was like:" It can't be the end. "

This is one of those rare cases where I don't think the end of screening-screening-scrolling destroyed a great movie. More than 40 years ago, the audience was looking for a happier end for Tom Cruise's Eloel Goodman in a "risky business", but the compromise, which revealed that Eloel was entering Princeton, despite his entry interview that appeared in the pop -up brothel. This, we understand, is how the world works, and ELOEL will advance in this miserable, salary-to-play (and set up) the environment.

By informing the audience that Alex's parents have never recovered, and most of the children are still semi-catonic, we remain with more debris than redemption. It is strange to me that Creeger wanted to shorten the film without a finished story (which We do not enter Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia, The film Creger cites it as a mass impact on "weapons"); This is a neat film that requires some meaning. The idea that we will not go back to normal for these children or their families, even after the witch is dead, rings depressed right in our time.