'Weapons' just took the lead as my most anticipated movie of summer 2025 — here's why
Look, I love a good sequel as much as the next person. I'll definitely be there for 'Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,' I'm curious (and a little nervous) about' 28 Years Later,' and of course I'm going to see 'Jurassic World Rebirth' because dinosaurs are still cool.
But with summer 2025 absolutely stacked with sequels, spinoffs, and reboots, it's starting to feel like original stories are getting pushed to the sidelines. That's why 'Weapons' has quietly taken the top spot as my most anticipated movie of the summer.
We don't know a ton about it yet, and honestly, that's part of the appeal. It's the latest from Zach Cregger, the writer/director of 'Barbarian' (a.k.a one of the wildest horror surprises in recent memory). And while there's been speculation that 'Weapons' might exist in the same universe, it's not a sequel but instead a self-contained story with new characters, a new mystery, and a completely different tone.
That makes it feel fresh, even if there are some connective threads. It's being described as a 'multi-story horror epic in the vein of Magnolia… but scary.' That's all I needed to hear.
Maybe it'll be brilliant, maybe it'll be a mess. But either way, I want more movies that take risks. And right now, 'Weapons' feels like one of the boldest bets of the summer. Here's why it's at the top of my list.
Horror has always been my favorite genre, so it's no surprise that 'Weapons' immediately caught my eye. But it's not just the genre — it's how this movie presents itself. The first trailer didn't give too much away, which I honestly found refreshing. These days, it feels like most trailers lay out the entire plot beat-for-beat, but 'Weapons' knows how to keep things very mysterious.
More than anything, 'Weapons' feels like a breath of fresh, eerie air in a summer packed with franchise fare. Original horror movies (especially ones with big casts and wide releases) don't get nearly as much attention as they deserve. And yet here's a movie with a killer premise and major talent behind it.
The setup is simple but chilling: an entire classroom of children vanishes at the exact same time — except for one. But what really has my attention is how confidently this horror-thriller is carving out its own identity. Even with whispers that it may connect to 'Barbarian,' it's not riding coattails, but instead it's forging its own, strange, unsettling path.
Warner Bros. Pictures is clearly going all in on 'Weapons,' and it shows. They've launched a cryptic website that unpacks pieces of the story like a digital breadcrumb trail, almost like an ARG, in the spirit of the 'Blair Witch Project' or 'Cloverfield' marketing.
There's even a short faux news clip referencing the events of 'Barbarian,' which hints that the two movies might exist in the same universe. Nothing's confirmed, but the connections are fun to spot and they add a layer of intrigue without giving the game away. It's the kind of promo that trusts the audience to lean in and engage, not just sit back and be spoon-fed spoilers.
And then there's the cast that adds to this movie's appeal. Josh Brolin, Julia Garner, Alden Ehrenreich, Benedict Wong… this isn't your average horror ensemble. The fact that they signed on tells me this script isn't playing it safe.
Cregger, when speaking with Entertainment Weekly, said: 'That mystery is going to propel you through at least half of the movie, but that is not the movie. The movie will fork and change and reinvent and go in new places. It doesn't abandon that question, believe me, but that's not the whole movie at all. By the midpoint, we've moved on to way crazier s*** than that.'
Movies like 'Weapons' don't usually get the biggest budget or the loudest campaign, but they're often the ones people end up talking about months later. It's refreshing to see something that isn't just a continuation of something else, and I hope audiences make room for it between all the big-name reboots. Because if we want more original stories, we need to show up for them.
So yeah, bring on the dinosaurs and the spies — but I'll be saving my real excitement for the weird little horror epic tucked away in August.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tom Cruise earns Guinness world record for burning parachute stunt in 'Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning'
It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Tom Cruise jumping out of a helicopter with a fiery parachute! The Academy Award-nominated actor is now also a two-time Guinness World Records title holder, earning a new title this week for a jaw-dropping stunt performed in his newest movie, Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning. Cruise, 62, set the record for 'most burning parachute jumps by an individual' on Wednesday. While filming, the actor leapt out of a helicopter 16 times while strapped to a parachute presoaked in fuel and then lit it on fire. Cruise then had seconds to cut himself out of the remnants of the first parachute, before deploying a backup to break his landing. No other actor or stunt person has come close to that number of drops with a lit parachute, according to Guinness World Records. It's not clear whether Cruise, who is famous for doing his own stunts, is the first to receive the title for this particular stunt. 'Tom doesn't just play action heroes — he is an action hero!' Craig Glenday, the editor in chief of Guinness World Records, said in a statement. 'A large part of his success can be chalked up to his absolute focus on authenticity and pushing the boundaries of what a leading man can do. It's an honour to be able to recognize his utter fearlessness with this new Guinness World Records title.' This is Cruise's second Guinness World Records title. In 2024, he was deemed the actor with the 'most consecutive $100-million-grossing movies.' On Thursday, the studio behind the Mission: Impossible franchise released a behind-the-scenes video of the filming of the lit parachute stunt, which includes clips from Cruise's body camera. While filming the scene in Drakensberg, South Africa, last year, the team spent weeks planning and preparing the sequence, Guinness World Records explained. The helicopter would take Cruise up to an altitude of at least 7,500 feet before he would jump out, lighting the fuel-soaked parachute on fire and then cutting himself out of it. 'If [the parachute] is twisted while it's burning, I'm going to be spinning and burning,' Cruise says in the video released by Paramount. 'I have to kick it out of the twist and then ignite within 10 seconds.' The stunt was filmed 16 times, and during some of the jumps, Cruise wore a 50-pound camera rig on his body to capture the fall up close. In the behind-the-scenes video, Cruise consults with the director, Christopher McQuarrie, about which shots to get while wearing the camera. 'We're going to be real smart,' Cruise tells the crew while sitting on the helicopter in the clip. 'I'm not saying be risky. We don't take risks, obviously.' It's certainly not the first time Cruise has performed a daring stunt. In 2011's Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol, he hung off the side of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, the world's tallest building. In 2022's Top Gun: Maverick, he trained to fly his own P-51 Mustang. (Despite being a licensed pilot, Cruise could not fly the F-18 in the movie because of restrictions from the Navy.) 'I feel that [when] acting, you're bringing everything, you know, physically and emotionally, to a character in a story,' Cruise told Graham Norton in an interview in 2014. 'I've trained for 30 years doing [stunts] that it allows us to put cameras in places where you normally are not able to.' Mission: Impossible -—The Final Reckoning was released in theaters throughout the United States on May 23. It has since become the fifth-highest-grossing film of 2025.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Michael Phillips: In a world of easily manipulated images, can movies retain their magic?
I love getting faked out by the movies. I love believing the impossible, if only for a moment. Moviewise, I live for a lot of things; one of them, by which I was floored at the age 5, was Buster Keaton's 'Cops' (1922) and his startling genius as a physical and comic presence. Half the time, at that age, I wasn't sure if what I was watching was actually happening. That's how it is with beautiful illusions, created from real risks that become the audience's reward. When the right people collaborate on the right movie, it sometimes happens: a fresh combination of legitimately dangerous stunt work and crafty but not frantic editing, along with the inevitable layer of digital effects elements. What do you get? Honest fakery. The best kind. The kind that elicits a single, astonished, delighted response in the mind of the beholder: Can I believe what I just saw? Across eight 'Mission: Impossible' movies, including the one now in theaters, Tom Cruise has been doing the damnedest stunts for nearly 30 years to provoke that response. Action movies can make anybody do anything on screen. Cruise doesn't do it alone; the digital effects teams stay pretty busy on the 'M:I' franchise. Cruise is now 62, and denying it with every maniacal sprint down some faraway city's waterfront boulevard. He knows that dangling, at high speed and altitude, from various parts of an antagonist's biplane in 'Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning' is a good, old-fashioned selling point, in an era crowded with deceptions. In 'Final Reckoning' we don't see the harnesses and cables ensuring that stunt's relative safety. Those implements have been digitally erased, a visual filmmaking practice now as common as the common cold. But there he is, the secret agent ascending and descending, with someone trying to kill him. Tom Cruise, doing something most of us wouldn't. Lately, though, the movie industry's most sought-after audience response — can you believe what we just saw? — lands differently than it did a few years ago. We mutter that question more darkly now, with troubling regularity. And it's not when we're at the movies. The real world lies to us visually all the time. An onslaught of photographs and videos are presented as verified visual evidence without the verification part. It happens everywhere around the world, every day. And I wonder if it's altering, and corroding, the bargain we make with the movies we see. Can honest fakery in the name of film escapism compete with the other kinds of fakery permeating our visual lives? 'It's an interesting question,' says University of California-Berkeley computer science professor Hany Farid, a specialist in digital forensics and manipulated media detection. 'It was easier to separate the movies from real life in the analog days, before digital. Now we live in a world where everything we see and hear can be manipulated.' The real-world stakes are high, Farid warns, because so much evidence in courts of law rests on the truthfulness of visual evidence presented. He says he's been asked to verify a dizzying number of photos for a variety of purposes. The questions never end: 'Is this image really from Gaza? Is this footage from Ukraine real? Is the image Donald Trump holds up on TV real, or manipulated for political purposes?' Farid's referring there to the alleged and quickly debunked veracity of the photo the president held up on camera during his March 2025 ABC News interview with Terry Moran. In the photo, Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia, deported to an El Salvadoran prison, is shown as having 'MS-13' gang-signifying tattoos on his hand. The image, widely cited as having been altered, doesn't qualify as a deepfake, Farid says. 'It's not even a shallow-fake.' Manipulated images and audio have been with us as long as technology has made those images and sounds possible. Not long ago, manipulated falsehood and verifiable visual truth were a little easier to parse. 'When we went to the movies,' Farid says, 'we knew it wasn't real. The world was bifurcated: There were movies, which were entertainment, and there was reality, and they were different. What's happened is that they've started to bleed into each other. Our ground, our sense of reality, is not stable anymore.' Part of that is artificial intelligence, 'no question,' says Farid. 'Generative AI is not just people creating images that didn't exist or aren't what they're pretending to be. They accumulate to the point where we're living in a world in which everything is suspect. Trust is shaken, if not gone.' And here's the blurred line concerning the movies and real life, Farid says. Earlier, 'when we viewed images and video, or listened to audio, we thought they were real and generally we were right. And when we went to the movies, we knew the opposite: that they weren't real. Reality and entertainment — two different worlds. Now, though, they're bleeding into each other. The ground is not stable anymore.' That, in Farid's view, has a lot to do with contemporary American politics and a climate of strategic mistrust created by those in power. 'The outright lying,' he says, is 'dangerous for democracy and for society. And it makes the idea of believing in movies sort of weird.' Our entertainment can't get enough of AI as a villain right now. On HBO, we have 'Mountainhead' with its Muskian creator of next-generation deepfake software too good to pass up, or slow down. Meantime, the plot of the new 'Mission: Impossible' hinges on AI so fearsome and ambitious, the fate of the world hangs in the balance. Though, for some of us, seeing Ethan Hunt dangle from a biplane, however rickety the narrative excuses for that to happen, is more fun. So we turn, still, to the movies for honest fakery we can trust. But these are strange days. As Farid puts it: 'You sit in the theater, you immerse yourself in the fantasy. But so much of our real world feels like that now — a fantasy.' Maybe it's time to retire the phrase 'seeing is believing.' ——— (Michael Phillips is the Chicago Tribune film critic.) ———
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
The repetitive, decadent end is nigh in Mission: Impossible—The Final Reckoning
For almost 30 years, we've watched as Tom Cruise's daredevil secret agent Ethan Hunt has dangled from helicopters, scaled dizzying heights, and ripped off who-knows-how-many rubbery masks. But now, as the series' villains so love to say, it's all coming to an end. We bid goodbye to Ethan and his buddies at the IMF (Impossible Missions Force, not to be mistaken for the International Monetary Fund), their high-gadgets and Byzantine heists, and those interchangeable globe-trotting plots that always seem to involve the team being disavowed and going rogue. For one last time, the world finds itself faced with the threat of nuclear war, and its only hope is one lucky adrenaline junkie and his willingness to risk life and limb for our amusement. Some kind of recap is probably in order. Mission: Impossible—The Final Reckoning (originally titled Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part Two) is a direct sequel to the commercially underperforming Dead Reckoning Part One, which introduced a global bogeyman in the form of a media-manipulating, truth-warping 'parasitic AI' called the Entity. It was an unusually topical threat for a series that had, in previous entries, kept itself to the world of nominally apolitical post-Cold War spy fantasy. Most of Dead Reckoning involved Ethan and the IMF team trying to get hold of a MacGuffin-esque key and keep it out of the hands of the Entity's human minions, who were led by the mystery man Gabriel (Esai Morales). The Final Reckoning picks up some time later. The Entity has infected the internet with misinformation, sowing geopolitical discord and inspiring a doomsday cult. Erika Sloane (Angela Bassett), who was last seen as a steely CIA director in the terrific Mission: Impossible—Fallout, is now the President of the United States. Ethan, who is still in possession of the key, has been lying low in London while the ailing IMF computer wizard Luther (Ving Rhames) works out a plan to destroy the Entity. Said plan will, as one exposition-spouting character puts it, probably lead to the 'total eradication of cyberspace.' The alternative, favored by the U.S. government, is to try to control the Entity, which was already revealed in the earlier film to be an American cyberweapon run amok. One can safely assume this is a very bad idea. Laying on the callbacks, flashbacks, and flash-forwards, The Final Reckoning moves at a hectic pace, but takes a while to set up the stakes. Ethan and the IMF crew—perpetually worried Benji (Simon Pegg), recent addition Grace (Hayley Atwell), and antagonists-turned-recruits Paris (Pom Klementieff) and Degas (Greg Tarzan Davis)—must find a Russian submarine that sank in the Arctic, use the key to recover a hard drive infected with an earlier version of the Entity, and use said hard drive to wipe out the AI before it manages to take control of the world's nuclear arsenals, all while trying to outmaneuver Gabriel, who's fallen out of the Entity's good graces and developed some megalomaniacal plans of his own. Or something like that. Brian De Palma's stylish Mission: Impossible established the series as an auteur sandbox, transforming as it was passed from one director to another, but the later entries, all capably helmed by Christopher McQuarrie, have turned it into an showcase for Cruise's crowd-pleaser philosophy, a stunt-filled star text that appears to resist a serious ideological reading. (Unlike with James Bond, there has never been much of a conversation about what values Ethan Hunt might represent.) The plots are all easy to confuse, not only because they tend to be filled with double-crosses and disguises, but because past a certain point they are all basically the same plot. It's this recycled plot framework that has allowed the Mission: Impossible movies to develop something like a thematic throughline. The villains of these films are arms dealers, double agents, Machiavellians, extremists who want to bring about the end times. They represent some kind of collective cynicism or nihilism that the series has, increasingly, connected to the idea of a technology-dependent civilization. What the IMF represents, as the opposing force, is some individualistic mix of ingenuity and foolhardiness, or whatever illogical drive has repeatedly led Cruise to perform his own stunts. They may have their own arsenal of high-tech, sci-fi gadgetry, but, as one of the series' more reliable tropes dictates, the gadgets usually end up breaking down, necessitating some improvisation on the part of our heroes. McQuarrie and his co-writer, Erik Jendresen, aren't operating in ignorance here. They play with analog nostalgia (Ethan's signature self-destructing briefing comes on a VHS tape this time around) and anxieties about digitization, and make some strained attempts to connect the plot and characters of this film to earlier entries in the series, going all the way back to the first one. This inspires a little too much dialogue about self-actualization and destiny, which is mostly lost in a script that comes to involve a lot of invented techno-babble, various governmental intrigues, and a doomsday vault that contains all of the world's accumulated knowledge. Not that most of us are really watching these films for the story particulars or simplistic subtexts. It's the awesome setpieces that have made Mission: Impossible into something of an institution, and though The Final Reckoning doesn't top any of the series' highs, it does deliver its share of spectacle. Ethan's trip into the lost Russian sub—a largely wordless sequence that involves some really elaborate rotating sets—is a standout, as is the over-the-top climax, which combines a ticking atomic bomb, improvised surgery, and sleight-of-hand with an extended biplane duel (something we don't really get enough of in today's Hollywood movies). There are, as before, gnarly brawls, suspenseful close calls, narrow escapes, death-defying leaps, shenanigans involving parachutes, and knife fights. Over and over, Ethan Hunt keeps asking for one more chance, a little more time, a little faith, like an addict whose fix is saving the world. Sure, it gets repetitive, and as one of the most expensive productions in history (the reported budget was around $400 million), it inevitably smacks of an imperial industry in decadent decline. But somewhere into the nearly three-hour runtime, the movie passes that crucial point where a critic stops taking notes and decides to simply enjoy themselves. The end is nigh, and it's mostly a good time. Director: Christopher McQuarrie Writer: Christopher McQuarrie, Erik Jendresen Starring: Tom Cruise, Hayley Atwell, Ving Rhames, Simon Pegg, Esai Morales, Pom Klementieff, Henry Czerny, Holt McCallany, Janet McTeer, Nick Offerman, Hannah Waddingham, Tramell Tillman, Angela Bassett, Shea Whigham, Greg Tarzan Davis, Charles Parnell, Mark Gatiss, Rolf Saxon, Lucy Tulugarjuk Release Date: May 23, 2025 More from A.V. Club Doctor Who does Eurovision in space Deborah plays angel and devil in Hacks' latest twofer There goes Foo Fighters' new drummer
