Zach Cregger’s Weapons has emerged as 2025’s most surprising box office success, raking in over $150 million worldwide and cementing Cregger’s place as a new voice in original horror. The film follows a series of interconnected suburban tragedies that seem to orbit Weapons’ Aunt Gladys, a reclusive, eccentric woman with an eerie presence and a mysterious connection to Alex.

While Weapons presents itself as a high-concept mystery thriller, Amy Madigan’s chilling performance as Gladys has fueled much of the film’s buzz. Equal parts tender and terrifying, Gladys is not a standard horror villain. Madigan’s performance blurs the line between caregiver and predator, making Gladys one of the most fascinating and ambiguous horror characters in recent memory.

Now, in an interview with The New York Times, Madigan reflects on her approach to the Weapons character and Gladys’ motivations. Despite admitting that her character is “the bad guy in the movie,” Madigan defends her villain character, stating that “she’s a very misunderstood woman.” Furthermore, she adds the role “just spoke to me.” Check out her comments below:

I think she’s a very misunderstood woman! For lack of a better term, I am the bad guy in the movie, but a girl’s just doing what she has to do to get through. She has a plan, but I don’t think she quite knew how that was going to unfold. She’s like an artist, she’s very extemporaneous.

I think she’s moved around a lot. She’s had to go to different places and when one’s not working, she’s kind of a creator of invention: “OK, I’m going to have to reach out to this family.” She’s really needy in the sense that she needs all these people, she can’t do it on her own, and I found that really intriguing about her. She manipulated a few people […] And I understand that. But she has such confidence and she’s charming in this really sick way. She just makes me sit up, Gladys. She just spoke to me.

When she was questioned about whether Gladys was truly Alex’s aunt in Weapons, or if her mysterious character had just insinuated herself into Alex and his family’s lives, Madigan gave a rather teasing response, asking, “Well, what do you think? Because I’m more interested in what you kind of got from it. Who am I to say, honestly?”

What This Means For Weapons’ Gladys

Madigan’s comments underscore the real complexity that made Aunt Gladys such a compelling character in Weapons. She is not just the witch-like villain in Cregger’s horror film. Instead, Gladys is a multidimensional character driven by need, cunning, and resilience. Her manipulations display both desperation and creative survival, traits which hint at trauma beneath her facade of control.

Madigan’s refusal to confirm Gladys’ true idenтιтy amplifies the horror film’s lingering mystique, a feature which Cregger thought was important during marketing, as he purposely hid the character. By treating Gladys as an enigma rather than a fully explained monster, it leaves many of Weapons’ mysteries purposely unsolved, allowing personal interpretations and deeper psychological unease overall.

Our Take On Aunt Gladys In Weapons

Some audiences think that Madigan’s performance as Aunt Gladys deserves an Oscar nomination, and it’s kind of hard to disagree. Her brilliant role in Weapons is the kind of nuanced horror acting that revitalizes the genre. Blending unsettling charm and raw emotional survival, she transformed Gladys into a complex character who, despite her monstrous acts, remains achingly human.

The popularity of Madigan’s character has caused such a buzz that there has been talk of a possible Weapons prequel exploring Aunt Gladys’ backstory. While I think that would be interesting, Gladys’ character is made perfect by her mysteriousness. By leaning into ambiguity, Weapons delivers something rarer than typical horror: a story that lingers.