Let’s be clear: “Weapons” was not supposed to be an awards movie. And when we wrote about the possibilities in The Breakdown almost two weeks ago, it was off the prospect of stellar reviews and bubbling box office. Now days away from crossing $100 million in the U.S., there is ample evidence that the Zach Cregger thriller could be a legit player. Well, that is until it’s not.
_____
A version of this commentary originally appeared in The Breakdown Newsletter. Sign up here to get industry analysis, box office, Oscars, Emmys, and more. And it’s free.
_____
To be fair, this whole scenario is likely a nightmare for the leadership team at Warner Bros. The theatrical division already has a “surprise” Best Picture frontrunner in Ryan Coogler’s “Sinners.” In theory, the studio’s publicity team and awards consultants are knee-deep in strategy over which performances to focus resources on to realistically land an acting nomination that will, potentially, assure a Best Picture win. Trust, they did not want to hear any awards scuttlebutt about “Weapons.”
It’s too late now.
WB also has Paul Thomas Anderson’s “One Battle After Another” with Leonardo DiCaprio, Benicio del Toro, and an already buzzed-about performance from Teyana Taylor. And despite the film skipping festivals, a reported 161-minute run-time, and a long way to profitability that media hawks will fixate on (are we ever going to talk about how much “There Will Be Blood” really cost and how its failure essentially shut down Paramount Vantage? No? Too soon?), it’s still PTA. Even the um, inherently divisive “Inherent Vice” had a robust awards campaign. And, don’t forget, the industry loves PTA. He’s had three Best Picture nominees in less than 20 years and arguably should have had four. A quintessential American cinematic auteur, he gets priority, whether he cares about awards or not.
And yet, here comes “Weapons.” The Rotten Tomatoes score may not seem that impressive for a prestige flick – it’s still a fantastic 94% – but the Metacritic score should make everyone take notice. It’s at a “universally acclaimed” 81 with 46 reviews and six 100 grades. There are raves not only from The Playlist, but the Los Angeles Times, Variety, and Rolling Stone, among others. It’s already in the top 25 of narrative films reviewed this year, a list that already includes award-winners at Cannes, Berlin, and Sundance.*
*It also reminds us that Steven Soderbergh’s “Black Bag” still has a stellar 85 score, but let’s keep that quiet for Focus Features’ awards season sanity.
Just as important, after a $70 million global opening, “Weapons” is a breakout box office hit. And, it’s going to be a substantial hit. We’re talking a minimum of $200+ million worldwide hit. So not only do you have a player that’s going to make a lot of critics’ top 10 lists (or come damn close), probably win some Critics’ groups awards, but, like “Sinners,” be touted as an “original” industry success story. A contender many voters like to (but not always) tend to rally around. These are the kinds of opportunities that He Who Shall Not Be Named and their now legendary in-house awards experts would salivate over (y’all know who I’m talking about). This is a scenario you go for even if it seems dicey at first.
So, let’s assume WB toppers Pam Abdy and Michael De Luca give their teams the go-ahead to position “Weapons” as an awards film. That, unlike previous WB regimes that waited too long (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) or wasted energy on never-rans (“Black Mass”), “Weapons” is full-steam ahead. Is there an actual road to awards success?
Well, sure.
Beyond obvious below-the-line categories such as Cinematography (Larkin Seiple, snubbed for “Everything Everywhere All At Once”) or Editing (Joe Murphy, would have to work it), and Hair and Makeup (a short-list lock), the film could find success in the new Casting Oscar race (“Barbie,” “Lady Bird” and four-time Emmy winner Allison Jones). Cregger could be at play in a super competitive Original Screenplay category, while Directing would essentially be out of reach. But then we have that cast.
The surprise player so far is Amy Madigan for her transformative turn as Aunt Gladys. Sure to be a Halloween party staple (hey, it didn’t hurt “The Substance”), Madigan is a veteran who earned her first and only Oscar nomination to date in 1986 for “Twice in a Lifetime.” But she has a long list of feature credits, including “Field of Dreams,” “Pollock,” and “Gone Baby Gone.” She’s also worked on a ton of major TV shows over the past four decades, which means she knows a lot of actors (we mean a lot). And both she and the movie have already received euphoric praise from influential guild members such as Sarah Paulson, Damon Lindelof, and Stephen King (yes, he’s an AMPAS member), among others. She was also just profiled by the New York Times’ Oscar columnist, which certainly positions her performance in the movie in a specific direction (even if it’s an off-season feature). Moreover, as many have joked, Madigan’s performance is one the New York Film Critics Circle tends to embrace with its year-end awards more often than not. And no one would complain about it either.
All that being said, Madigan’s co-star, Julia Garner, would be key to the film’s prospects. If you can get Garner a Supporting Actress nomination, a Best Picture nomination may be in the cards. Garner is fantastic in the film, but more importantly, knows how to campaign. Her years on the Emmy and FYC circuit for “Ozark” were like minor league training for the Oscars. Garner is also insanely well-respected by her peers in SAG. Not only is she a three-time Emmy winner, but she has been nominated four times for an individual SAG Award. She’s got indie cred (Spirit and Gotham Award nominations), and is a Golden Globe and Critics’ Choice darling, assuming you want free publicity. Again, you’d need her buy-in and willingness to work the circuit.
We’re not sure he has a shot for a nod this time around, but Josh Brolin is a former Supporting Actor nominee and a SAG Award winner who has starred in four Best Picture nominees. He has major cred with his peers. Brolin is also on a short list of about 10 stars who can currently work a room or a red carpet like no other. He’s your Jamie Lee Curtis with four decades of legit Hollywood and legit Academy connections. His contribution to getting both “Dune” movies across the finish line are likely still underappreciated. Again, like Garner, you’d need his buy-in and availability.
The thriller also features fantastic turns from Austin Abrams and Alden Ehrenreich. That doesn’t hurt with SAG or a Casting Oscar campaign.
But there’s no super prolific producer for WB to appease, er, impress behind-the-scenes. Does Cregger, busy with his “Resident Evil” reboot, even care? He was interviewed by a major industry newsletter this week and seemed excited by the prospects (that topic coming up likely made Warner Bros execs shudder). We know Madigan’s team is down, but does Garner or her team care? Does New Line topper Richard Brenner think it’s a priority? Where does the Zas fit in all this? Then again, if the movie is a monster hit. If it earns $300-400 million worldwide, with those reviews? How can they not? Of course, they would need to start now…so…ponder the willingness.
But it is a thing. And it will remain one if the avalanche of new films arriving at the fall festivals falter (which always happens). Now, if the cupboard becomes too full of worthy contenders? Well, “Weapons” and/or Madigan won’t be the only players fading as the 2025-2026 campaign unfolds.
“Weapons” is playing nationwide.
Follow Gregory Ellwood on Bluesky
Follow Gregory Ellwood on Threads
Follow Gregory Ellwood on Instagram
Sign Up For The Breakdown Newsletter
