Director Zach Cregger made one extremely bold overarching choice while crafting the narrative for Weapons, and it’s the best move he could have made for the movie’s long-term future. The mystery horror movie stars Julia Garner, Josh Brolin, and Amy Madigan at the head of a talented cast, and follows the fallout of 17 schoolchildren disappearing one night from a small town.

Weapons has dominated the box office since it debuted in theaters, and it seems unlikely to slow its momentum any time soon, given how strong the word of mouth surrounding the movie has been. Thanks to its gut-wrenching, gory images and its brilliant blend of frightening mystery and cartoonish comedy, Weapons has captivated the movie-going audience at large.

While the performances in Weapons and its clever marketing have certainly played a role in the movie’s success, there is one key element of the narrative that can be pointed to for why it has remained a topic of discussion. A key decision on the part of writer/director Zach Cregger is the main reason that Weapons sticks with its audience long after they exit the theater.

Weapons Leaves Most Of Its Key Mysteries Unsolved

While the ending of Weapons ultimately resolves its central mystery by revealing the whereabouts of the missing children, it leaves so many more questions completely unanswered. While many modern “elevated horror” movies wrap things up neatly by tying their threads together at the end, Cregger leaves the audience with a rat’s nest of puzzling mysteries that go completely unresolved.

Hands-down, the most significant mysteries revolve around Amy Madigan’s Aunt Gladys, the mysterious woman who claims to be Alex’s aunt, but actually appears to be some kind of parasitic witch. A prequel following Aunt Gladys is reportedly being discussed after the breakout success of Weapons, but until then, moviegoers are left with nothing but questions about her.

Based on context and repeтιтion, we can make some ᴀssumptions about why she wanted the schoolchildren (to siphon their life force off to restore her own vitality), but we have absolutely no idea how she does it, or why she wanted school-aged kids. We are led to believe that she was unable to restore herself just with Alex’s parents, but that’s as far as the movie goes.

We have a cursory understanding of Gladys’ magic, inasmuch as we understand her creepy little blackthorn tree is a major conduit for her power. We know she controls people via personal items, and can target them for death at the hands of her “weapons” with a lock of hair, but where did she get this power? How old is she? Where did she really come from? Audiences are left to wonder.

There are smaller mysteries scattered throughout the movie as well. One of the most striking images in the entire movie is the floating gun in Archer Graff’s dream, but we’re given no further insight into it. In fact, Zach Cregger claims that there isn’t an explanation to be had for the scene, it was merely a powerful image that he felt it was important to include.

There are plenty of other examples that we are left to guess about. Why did the children leave right at 2:17? Why do none of the adults seem to question Alex’s behavior, or see through Gladys? How does Gladys appear in everyone’s dreams even if they haven’t met her?

It’s a bold choice on Cregger’s part, because there is a very fine line between leaving some questions unanswered for the audience to interpret for themselves, and outright frustrating people with a lack of explanation. Cregger dances over the line beautifully, providing just enough resolution to satisfy while leaving plenty of questions to consider further.

Cregger’s Approach Leaves The Entire Movie Up For Interpretation

Cregger’s approach bred potent word of mouth advertising in the movie’s early days at the theater, but it becomes even more important when one looks towards the future. With so many mysteries left unsolved, Weapons lends itself to repeated viewing. Trying to fully digest a movie, especially a dense mystery horror like Weapons, is extremely difficult to do in one sitting.

That’s especially true in a theater, where the sound and imagery are at their most powerful. The average audience member is, rightfully, concerned not with playing detective, but with experiencing the movie. That bodes particularly well for the movie’s long-term box office potential as moviegoers seek multiple viewings, and certainly VOD sales revenue.

Once Weapons hits streaming, however, the theories will begin to fly as viewers are finally afforded the opportunity to watch multiple times, pause, rewind, and fully break down the movie. Weapons is virtually a lock to become one of, if not the year’s most-streamed movie once it hits HBO Max thanks to Cregger’s coy refusal to answer many of the smaller mysteries surrounding the movie’s narrative.

The number of unexplored threads also bodes well for the movie’s franchise potential. Zach Cregger has already mentioned interest in returning to the universe of Weapons for another story, and the aforementioned Gladys prequel could be another corner to explore. Ultimately, Cregger’s refusal to show his entire hand during the mystery horror was the best possible move he could have made, risky though it was.