Weapons is one of the best films of the year – but a prequel is a terrible idea

by

In recent years, it’s clear that horror movies have emerged as an especially fertile playground for unique ideas and imaginative storytelling within cinema. Movies like Longlegs and The Substance are prime examples, leaving lasting impressions and iconic characters that resonate with audiences, something many other film genres often find challenging to achieve.

It appears that this genre has become a place where large production companies are ready to take daring, innovative creative risks, giving talented screenwriters and filmmakers freedom to explore unique concepts without any reliance on established intellectual properties. This risk-taking allows for projects with no known brand association, and even if these films don’t perform exceptionally well financially at the box office, it doesn’t discourage such efforts.

Indeed, it has been quite remarkable this year. Initially, we saw the release of “Sinners,” a period drama vampire film by Ryan Coogler that captivated audiences everywhere. Critics praised it, and it turned out to be a massive box office hit as well.

Subsequently, Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later emerged as a Sony production – while classified as a franchise film, it exhibited an unusual craving for innovation and peculiarity, surpassing collectively the norm of this summer’s box office releases.

Now, Warner Bros. is once more releasing a new movie titled “Weapons,” directed by Zach Cregger, who also brought us the acclaimed film “Barbarian.” The film has garnered high praise from both critics and viewers alike. In fact, it sparked an intense bidding war among major studios due to Cregger’s original script. The positive reviews and its successful box office debut confirm that all the hype around this movie was justified.

It’s not surprising, given the success, that discussions about expanding the franchise have started. Interestingly, these conversations have partly originated from Cregger himself who expressed interest in another project set within this universe. As confirmed by Deadline, initial talks are indeed taking place for a potential sequel, rumored to be a prequel.

At present, no additional information is available, but fans familiar with the Weapons series (and those who haven’t watched it yet are strongly encouraged to do so) understand that a prequel implies a probable scenario: we might be in store for an account of the origins of our film’s ominous central antagonist, Gladys.

In the movie, Amy Madigan’s character is scarcely present during the first two-thirds, limited to a few intense yet fleeting appearances in the dreams of other characters. However, starting from the fifth act, she commands the spotlight and essentially captivates the audience, leaving an indelible impression.

Gladys, with her unusual look featuring a bright orange wig and eccentrically applied makeup, adorned with various odd witchy accessories that she uses for peculiar and unnerving antics, stands as a character straddling the line between unsettlingly evil and undeniably camp. She manages to be both frighteningly terrifying and uproariously amusing at once. It’s likely that come October, she will be one of the most sought-after Halloween costumes of the season.

Though Gladys undeniably captivates and unsettles me with her enigmatic charm, I must admit, exploring her origin story doesn’t quite resonate with me. Part of what makes her so intriguing lies in the vast, uncharted territory of her past that remains shrouded within our collective imagination.

The movie’s eerie, fabled atmosphere is what makes it so impactful, as it delves into the mysterious and unexplored, evoking the type of incomprehensible anxieties that can leave children sleepless at night. It’s best to let her character remain enigmatic, with hints of wickedness and otherworldliness, without providing too much explanation as it may diminish the suspenseful impact.

Notably, Cregger has shared that he presented Madigan with two distinct concepts for Gladys’ origin. The first idea suggested that she was originally a typical individual, but her magical abilities and destructive actions were a desperate attempt to cure herself of a grave illness. Alternatively, there was the possibility that she might not even be human.

He explained to Vanity Fair that the two choices were quite distinct. He found himself saying, “You don’t need to inform me, but it seems to be a case of ‘either-or.’ I’m unsure which one she ultimately chose.

It becomes even clearer with this ambiguity that understanding Gladys’ identity and motivations might be beneficial for the actor, but for most of us, it’s not a necessary or significant detail.

Despite its success, carrying on the narrative of Weapons might, in my opinion, be drawing the wrong conclusions. A significant part of the film’s appeal lay in its innovative storytelling style and the masterful way it mixed tones. The novelty and uniqueness of these elements, combined with the air of mystery surrounding the film before its release, were key factors contributing to its success. It appears that audiences still crave fresh and intriguing content.

Absolutely, there’s a strong chance Cregger might have discovered another captivating approach for his next film, and it would be unwise to dismiss the likelihood of another masterpiece at this early point. However, my gut feeling leans towards preferring an entirely new tale set in a unique universe rather than another narrative within our own.

Read More

2025-08-13 20:14