“Fight or Flight” stars Josh Hartnett, Charithra Chandran, Julian Kostov, Marko Zaror, and Katee Sackhoff.  Released in the United Kingdom on February 28, 2025, followed by a U.S. release on May 9, 2025, the film has a mercenary surviving an airplane full of assassins.
​
The film was directed by James Madigan in his feature directorial debut. Madigan is a visual effects supervisor and second unit director known for directing episodes of “Medal of Honor” and “Marvel’s Runaways”.  When people travel by airplane, they expect it to be a relaxing experience, equipped with a breathtaking view and free peanuts.  If that’s what they desire, it’s probably best not to ride on this particular plane, because this flight is anything but relaxing.  In fact, it’s the flight that’s literally to die for.  If you think fighting a band of special forces agents is intense, try being on an airplane full of deadly assassins striving to make your trip a living hell.  This weekend brings us another piece of action-packed, blood-splattering mayhem that’s looking to heat up the summer movie season for adult audiences.  You know, in case they’re already burned out from the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  Was this dangerous, cinematic flight worth taking, or are we better off driving to our destination?  Let’s find out. 

The story centers on Lucas Reyes (Hartnett), a retired mercenary on the run from a top-secret organization led by Katherine Brunt (Sackhoff) due to an incident.  Lucas is brought out of retirement when Brunt reluctantly tasks him with tracking down a wanted criminal known as “Ghost,” who’s located on a departing airplane full of seemingly innocent passengers.  While searching for “Ghost", he eventually discovers that the “passengers” onboard are actually assassins intent on killing both Lucas and the target.  Now trapped more than a thousand feet in the air with no backup, Lucas must rely on his limited options, including a flight attendant named Isha (Chandran), to survive this deadly flight and uncover the criminal’s true intentions.

After watching its trailer for the first time, I knew “Fight or Flight” would be higher on my list of films to see this month.  In addition to the returning Josh Hartnett following “Trap”, the movie is among many others involving a one-person army surviving against a bunch of nefarious killers, which is usually my guilty pleasure regarding the action genre.  While a regular “army vs. army” storyline isn’t without its moments, having only one guy facing impossible odds and coming out on top is not only satisfying but also fun and intense in its stakes.  It may not always work, but it’s one of the elements I can easily get behind whenever I’m in the mood for some bloody carnage.  Why else would I enjoy the John Wick movies?  “Fight or Flight” looks to be an occasion where the execution of its B-movie-esque, one-person army concept usually compensates for its narrative shortcomings, at least based on the trailer.  After watching it for myself, do I think this flight lived up to its expectations?  Well, yes and no.

With its relentless action and far-fetched comical nature, “Fight or Flight” offers exactly what people want from an ultra-violent plane ride through hell.  It’s claustrophobic, white-knuckled, and borderline wild, all of which are essential for an enjoyable good time at the movies.  However, it didn't quite soar as high as it hoped, mainly due to its story.  I wasn’t expecting this film to be the next “Mission: Impossible” in terms of its character depth and groundbreaking action.  It’s just a straightforward, nonstop B-movie thriller involving a mercenary getting caught in the middle of a plane full of assassins.  But that doesn’t mean the writers, Brooks McLaren and D. J. Cotrona, can let this ridiculous concept do all the heavy lifting, as they had plenty of genre traits to work with to make its story competent for takeoff.  The result is a pleasant yet understandably formulaic mishmash of haphazard ideas that don’t always stick the landing.

Some of its narrative elements can be quite enjoyable with the right mindset, including its protagonist, Lucas Reyes.  On paper, Lucas seemed like a typical action hero who gets caught in the right place at the wrong time.  Instead, he’s actually an alcoholic and careless mercenary with a troubled past who’s reluctantly forced into a mission he can’t refuse.  Among the action thrillers featuring a seriously skilled protagonist, “Fight or Flight” stands out by presenting a seemingly unlikable mercenary who’s amateurish and reluctant to partake in the assignment.  This bodes well for Hartnett’s capabilities as an actor, but it also played a role in the film’s comedy, which was about as deranged as its protagonist, with some leaning into the B-movie parodic side of things.  While not as smartly written as it seemed, the humor shared no expense in expressing the film’s ridiculously dumb aesthetic, leading to a suitable amount of laughs and even some shocks.

However, even with the movie’s gleeful mixture of comedy and violence, its screenplay wasn’t up to code with how it handles the characters and plot.  “Fight or Flight” is more like a B-movie version of “Bullet Train” on an airplane, but without the intelligence, surprises, and heart of some of the action-packed classics of years past.  It followed the basic guidelines of making an action thriller, including a hardened mercenary gradually opening up and a mission to protect a specific McGuffin from criminals, leading to a few predictable moments.  There was one surprise introduced earlier involving the “Ghost” character that could’ve made the film better if it had been reserved for the climax.  That way, it’ll build up the mystery behind the target’s true identity instead of relying on the by-the-numbers “protect the target” plot device.  The film also spent too much time with its few exposition scenes in between the action due to its runtime.  It’s only 97 minutes long, which doesn’t seem too bad regarding its simplistic concept, but the time it took to explain what’s happening can be a bit of a drag when Hartnett’s not throwing fists.  There’s also the ending that needlessly sets up a sequel that may not happen.

Despite its flaws, I had an enjoyable time watching the film, notably because it set out to be a white-knuckled, gonzo roller coaster and nothing else.  Regardless of the quality or what people thought of it, “Fight or Flight” maintained its intended tone by having fun with its crazy ideas, even if some didn’t work well in the filmmakers’ favor.  One reason was Josh Hartnett, who began his career comeback two years ago with his role as Ernest Lawrence in “Oppenheimer”.  Admittedly, it wasn’t until his commendable leading role in M. Night Shyamalan’s “Trap” that I started to recognize Hartnett, so I apologize to the actor’s fans for being late to the party.  Seeing him in that film made me confident that Hartnett would repeat that success as an action star in “Fight or Flight”, and after watching him do his thing, I was not disappointed.  Hartnett embraced Lucas' lunacy and instability due to his character’s alcoholism and reluctance, resulting in a performance that further emphasizes the actor’s ability to embody these characters with charm and insanity.  Charithra Chandran also did pretty well in keeping up with Hartnett with her satisfying portrayal of Isha, which makes me interested in her take on Miss Wednesday in the upcoming second season of Netflix’s live-action “One Piece” series.  

Another reason was, of course, the action sequences, the film’s main attraction.  James Madigan was tasked with ensuring the violence is just as insane and over-the-top as its surreal humor, which seemed challenging given his experience directing television episodes.  While his direction may not be refreshing enough to stand alongside other worthy action directors, Madigan was able to complete this mission most of the time.  With the film’s combination of its claustrophobic setting and dark comedy, Madigan showcased the brutal and far-fetched kills in all of their glory.  Although the shaky cam maneuver can be constantly annoying sometimes, the absurdity of its B-movie violence, and Hartnett going full-on “Evil Dead” with a chainsaw, was enough to maintain its gleefully savage appeal and amusement.
 
Overall, “Fight or Flight” offers enough absurdity and mayhem to provide an enjoyably blood-filled flight despite its shortcomings weighing the experience down.  This is the type of movie that aims to delight audiences with an undemanding yet enjoyable roller coaster of violent carnage and merciless chaos instead of being the next “John Wick”.  Regarding its humdrum plot and runtime, this strategy may not be the perfect in-flight movie for everybody, including me.  However, with the right mindset, it’s best seen as a watchable mid-afternoon streaming movie that benefits from Hartnett’s performance as the crazed, unconventional protagonist, the claustrophobic action scenes, and amusing humor.  If a film that embraces its flawed and violently silly concept is what you seek, then “Fight or Flight” may be the trip worth taking.  Everyone else may be better off riding a different plane to their destination.  

“Clown in a Cornfield” stars Katie Douglas, Aaron Abrams, Carson MacCormac, Kevin Durand, and Will Sasso. It will be released on May 9, 2025, and it involves a teenager confronting the town’s malicious mascot.
​
The film is directed by Eli Craig, who also directed “Tucker & Dale vs. Evil” and “Little Evil”.  It is based on the 2020 novel by Adam Cesare.  There’s no doubt that clowns are not trustworthy, whether you are young or old. They may seem friendly and goofy at first glance due to their appearances, but these makeup-wearing figures serve as reminders not to judge people by their looks. In reality, some may be psychotic murderers who brutalize others.  Why else would you think Stephen King wrote “It”?  This “murderous clown” trend continues with the latest slasher from horror director Eli Craig, showcasing that just because a clown has a friendly name, it doesn’t mean they actually are.  But is this mask-wearing psychopath capable of standing alongside other classic killers of years past?  Let’s find out.

The story follows Quinn Maybrook (Douglas), a young woman attempting to find a fresh start with her father, Dr. Maybrook (Abrams), after moving to a tiny town called Kettle Springs.  However, they realize that the town has been divided by its residents since the Baypen Corn Syrup Factory burned down.  While the adults strive to rebuild Kettle Springs, the town’s teenagers are busy having the time of their lives, which doesn’t bode well for the adults’ mission.  As Quinn and her father struggle to adapt to their new home, Quinn discovers a sinister figure is at large by the town’s cornfield.  That figure happens to be the factory’s mascot, a clown named Frendo, who turns homicidal and targets the “rotten” kids to bring the town back to its glory days.  Accompanied by her new friends, Quinn attempts to protect her new home by subduing the clown’s murderous rampage.

If I were to tell you that I had a phobia of clowns, I wouldn’t even bother checking out “Clown in a Cornfield”.  But, in reality, I’m still indifferent about them, even as a child.  So, I was in the right mood to see what this movie offered regarding the murderous clown concept.  I did survive the “It” movies, after all.  Of course, there was another reason for my interest in the film: Eli Craig.  I was first introduced to Craig’s works through “Tucker & Dale”, which I thought was a fun and hilarious take on the slasher genre.  I also remembered watching Craig’s other film, “Little Evil”, on Netflix, which I found to be an unfortunate downgrade compared to his directorial debut.  So, in a way, one good film out of two from Craig was enough for me to see how he’ll handle a killer clown murdering clueless, stereotypical teenagers.  Fortunately, thanks to another mystery movie event I attended, I didn’t have to wait too long to find out myself.  I initially thought it would be “Rosario,” but I was lucky to get this film instead.  Why was I lucky?  Well, I’m glad you asked.

The trailers classified “Clown in a Cornfield” as a traditional slasher movie that involves, you guessed it, a psychopath dressed as a clown.  Even before watching it, I can see the signs that reflect the usual slasher narrative, including a group of teens causing trouble without adult supervision, a masked killer murdering teenagers, and my personal favorite, adults being none the wiser.  Upon watching it, I was pretty much right about how the narrative would turn out.  However, after finding the courage to keep going, I became pleasantly surprised that this wasn’t the case.  It’s not a mind-blowing reinvention of the slasher genre, as it still delivers plenty of elements found in other similar slasher movies.  But, when it injects a meta energy into its balance of modern and old-school traditions, it becomes a fun and cleverly humorous splatter film that proves slasher movies can be fun again if the proper effort exists.

This is primarily thanks to Eli Craig’s direction, which found a way to maintain this challenging balance throughout its runtime.  “Tucker & Dale” became a cult classic for performing a complete 180 on how we see a slasher movie by comically making fun of its horror tropes and expectations.  It was not only unexpectedly hilarious but also blended well with its outrageous depiction of gore. “Clown in a Cornfield” is sort of like the lighter version of “Tucker & Dale” regarding the meta-humor, but with more emphasis on some of its genre rules and slasher elements.  Regarding the horror side of the spectrum, the film was unsurprisingly plagued by its weak scares and a few formulaic traits that dragged its experience down a notch. However, the kills were nicely balanced with its humorous appeal without going too over-the-top.  But, when it resorts to embracing the B-movie throwback and the meta side of its commentary and tropes, that’s where the movie shines the most.  More importantly, it provided plenty of surprises that suitably subvert its usual narrative thanks to Craig and Carter Blanchard’s screenplay.  Some can be on the nose regarding its reflection on generational tradition and “Gen Z” stereotypes.  However, those types of twists kept the movie from becoming overly safe and mundane, making it another example of the phrase “don’t judge a book by its cover.”

The characters are portrayed in a way that was supposed to be one-dimensional stereotypes but was intentional for its meta humor.  They’re far from a memorable set of victims, but this direction made the characters bearable, with most of the jokes landing better than others.  Yes, that includes the one scene from the trailer.  You’ll know what I’m talking about when you watch it.  The characters’ approachable yet cliched appearances were conveyed respectfully by the cast portraying them.  Katie Douglas from “Ginny & Georgia” assumes the position of the teen protagonist in a slasher film, and the result was pretty decent.  She was another actress who flew under my radar regarding the filmography, and based on her performance, I won’t be surprised if she starts getting more roles like this.  Carson MacCormac also provided some respectable moments as Cole, one of Quinn’s new friends, and yes, he’s the same guy who played one of the bullies in the “Shazam” movies, which I didn’t realize until now.  I’m also happy to see Will Sasso continuing to make me see him as more than just Curly from the “Three Stooges” movie.  He plays the sheriff of Kettle Springs, who doesn’t take too kindly to troublemakers, and I thought he did a nice job conveying that arrogant personality along with some decent comedic chops from his portrayal.

Overall, “Clown in a Cornfield” makes a clown out of me with a clever and mildly entertaining throwback to its seemingly traditional B-movie slasher tropes.  It may not be a top-tier reflection of its commentary and formulaic narrative, and the movie's first act might take a bit to unleash its delightful chaos.  However, its focus on being a fun horror-comedy mashup that’s bearable, funny, and even competent in its meta-humor makes it a worthy addition to the everlasting horror catalog.  More importantly, it marks a solid start to this year’s summer of horrors amid the crowd of high-budget blockbusters.  The cast was decent in their roles, and Eli Craig’s direction and script delivered a solid balance of meta-comedy and slasher gore, even if the scares were underwhelming.  Despite that lack of effective frights, the film’s execution will likely make slasher fans giggle with glee like a clown for the right reasons.

​“The Accountant 2” stars Ben Affleck, Jon Bernthal, Cynthia Addai-Robinson, Daniella Pineda, Allison Robertson, and J. K. Simmons.  Released on April 25, 2025, the film has Christian Wolff joining forces with his brother to solve a murder.

The film was directed by Gavin O’Connor, who also directed films such as “Comfortably Numb”, “Miracle”, “Pride and Glory”, “Jane Got a Gun”, and “The Way Back”.  It is a sequel to O’Connor’s action thriller, “The Accountant”.  People who are diagnosed with autism can bring about a series of challenges for others, especially with how they behave or approach specific topics.  But they’re also known for seeing and doing things in ways other people couldn’t, helping others see them with a different perspective.  As someone who’s also diagnosed with autism, I can heavily relate to that.  For someone like Christian Wolff, their gifted knowledge can do more than just help people.  2016’s “The Accountant” utilized the action thriller tropes to depict Ben Affleck’s autistic character using his talent of creative accounting to take down more than just taxes.  While a mild box office success, the film was met with mixed reviews, with its depiction of autism receiving the most criticism.  Despite that, Hollywood decided to bring Wolff out of retirement for another round of criminal-busting and tax-destroying mayhem almost a decade after the first film.  Was it able to take its predecessor’s issues into account?  Let’s find out.

The story again follows Christian Wolff (Affleck), also known as “The Accountant”, as he’s traveling across the country following the predecessor’s events.  However, Wolff’s new peaceful life was eventually interrupted by his confrontation with former Treasury Agent turned deputy director Marybeth Medina (Addai-Robinson).  Marybeth tasked Christian with finding the people responsible for murdering her mentor, Raymond King (Simmons), resulting in him returning to the past he left behind.  With the help of his estranged brother Braxton (Bernthal), Christian resorts to his brilliant mind and skills to solve the case King started.  Unfortunately, their investigation puts the brothers and Marybeth at odds against the killers, who are determined to end their search, resulting in the estranged brothers putting aside their differences to fight back.

“The Accountant” was one of the earlier films I reviewed during my website’s early years.  I didn’t say much about it since I was at a point where I occasionally resorted to the pro/con bullet point approach to get my point across.  Thankfully, that writing approach didn’t last long as I grew more fond of explaining my thoughts in detail.  I remember saying it didn’t do anything new to the genre but was solid enough to emphasize Ben Affleck’s portrayal of Wolff and the action sequences.  It also made me happy to see the autism diagnosis represented well in the film.  Was it overlong?  Yes, but it’s the type of slow-burn thriller that I could get behind.  This made me skeptical about its follow-up since I thought the first film’s ending tied things up well.  Fortunately, those concerns may have been put to rest after hearing the early reviews praising it as one of the few sequels that improve upon their predecessors.  This got me wondering what they saw in the sequel that made it better than the original.

The trailers indicated that “The Accountant 2” focuses more on the bond between Christian and Braxton as they reluctantly team up to solve the case of the missing Salvadorian family.  In comparison, the first film focused more on Christian sanitizing financial records for criminals, while Braxton made a few appearances as an assassin.  As a result, the sequel leans heavily on the "buddy action comedy" narrative while retaining the predecessor’s slow-burn mystery thriller approach.  This direction seemed to have worked well for the critics who saw it early at the South by Southwest Festival last month, but was it able to work for me?  I was hoping to find that answer sooner, but my schedule got in the way, so I had to wait until the weekend after its release to solve this case myself.  On the bright side, it allowed me to rewatch the first movie to prepare myself for the sequel.  Following my experience with “The Accountant 2”, I can definitely see the comparison between the two.

While both movies share a similar tone regarding their grim atmosphere and brutal violence, “The Accountant 2” attempted to provide some of its light-hearted elements into the mix, mainly the brotherly chemistry between Christian and Braxton.  The result is a surprisingly fun and suitably directed sequel that emphasizes the charisma and bond of the estranged brothers while retaining its predecessor’s thrills, craft, and mystery vibes.  More importantly, it successfully recalculated some of the first film’s issues to make it a well-deserved improvement over its predecessor.  Those issues in question were the pacing and narrative.  While I appreciated its predecessor for its filmmaking craft and enticing violence, some of the scenes in between dragged a bit for me.  The story can also be confusing if you’re not paying attention, especially with its slow-burn approach.  Fortunately, director Gavin O’Connor and writer Bill Dubuque understood this miscalculation and used their sequel as an opportunity to fix those issues.  “The Accountant 2” provided a much better pace despite being a few minutes longer than the first film, and the plot, while straightforward by design, was easier for me to decipher.

The pacing in this film was due to the primary heart of the story: Christian and Braxton.  With its focus on the estranged brothers, the film allowed its audience to feel more connected with them through their chemistry and even the humor.  While the latter may sound risky, Gavin O’Connor, who directed the first movie, ensured the tone was strategically organized to avoid signs of pointless tonal whiplash.  The filmmaker maintains his signature bleak yet impressively shot vision, especially regarding Seamus McGarvey’s wide-angle cinematography and the engaging action, but his lively approach to the characters’ chemistry felt refreshing amid the brutality and slow-burn tension.  Not only was it effective in providing some genuinely amusing moments between the protagonists that didn’t feel out of place, but it was also surprisingly heartfelt in their brotherly relationship.  

Bill Dubuque’s screenplay adheres to the fundamental elements of a traditional mystery thriller.  However, it also highlights the character growth between Christian and Braxton, with the former attempting to connect with others and fulfill the role of Braxton’s big brother despite his autism.  Much like my experience with the first film, I found myself relating to “The Accountant 2” because I, too, am working on connecting with other people.  It’s a work in progress that’s been going pretty smoothly.  Of course, with Christian being autistic, along with the children from the New Hampshire compound, the film also had the task of representing autism in a way that doesn’t feel too stereotypical to the point of being offensive.  Based on what I’ve seen, I didn’t have much of an issue with its representation, especially with how Christian’s methods differ from others.  The script does have a few problems involving its tropes and not following through with its themes on a sentimental level.  Still, it’s functional enough to deliver a solid, straightforward thriller that’s accessible in its plot and approachable in its buddy chemistry and dialogue.

The chemistry between the estranged brothers also benefited strongly from its main leads, Ben Affleck and Jon Bernthal, who reprised their roles from the first movie.  Affleck continues to deliver on his calculations regarding his compelling and nuanced portrayal of Christian and his condition.  He retained the subtlety of Christian’s constrained demeanor and conveyed a charismatic approach that I couldn’t help but get attached to, even when he was intellectually pointing out the details.  Regarding my experience with Jon Bernthal, the actor didn’t stay on my radar until 2016 when he appeared in Netflix’s “Daredevil” as The Punisher.  Since then, I have paid close attention to his supporting roles, which I was glad to do because he was pretty darn good in “Daredevil: Born Again”.  For his role of Braxton, Bernthal attempted to go for a more humorous, “younger brother” approach to the deadly assassin, and the result was…surprisingly enjoyable.  I was worried he might wind up going too far deep in his comical moments.  Thankfully, Bernthal managed to refrain from doing so without losing the dynamic energy he was going for, resulting in a performance worthy of his talents and the film’s pacing.  Cynthia Addai-Robinson also did a good job portraying Marybeth Medina and making her character’s chemistry with Christian just as enjoyable as the brothers’ interactions.

Overall, “The Accountant 2” fixes most of its predecessor’s miscalculations to provide a straightforward yet consistently entertaining file marked for financial approval.  Despite being a bit longer than the first film and the genre tropes overshadowing its narrative potential, the sequel offers enough moments in its thrills and charm to highlight the brothers’ chemistry and its fun concept.  Ben Affleck and Jon Bernthal provided a delightful brotherly bond worthy of coinciding with the film’s well-shot cinematography and Gavin O’Connor’s direction of its mixture of brutal violence and buddy comedy.  The story and pacing were also suitable improvements that make the follow-up a more approachable experience compared to its predecessor.  If the upcoming third film is anything like this, we could be looking at another trilogy that improves in each installment, which is a sign of good faith for Affleck and O’Connor.  Regardless of your thoughts towards its predecessor, it’s worth watching if you’re a fan of Affleck and mystery thrillers.

​“Thunderbolts*” stars Florence Pugh, Sebastian Stan, Wyatt Russell, Olga Kurylenko, Lewis Pullman, Geraldine Viswanathan, David Harbour, Hannah John-Kamen, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus.  Released on May 2, 2025, the film has a group of antiheroes tackling a dangerous mission.

The film is directed by Jake Schreier, who also directed “Robot & Frank” and “Paper Towns”.  It is based on the Marvel antihero team created by Kurt Busiek and Mark Bagley.  It is also the 36th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  Heroes can come from the most unusual and often unexpected places.  Some were made through their uncommon abilities and heroic natures, while others are formed through their acts of redemption due to their villainous pasts.  Those individuals may not be the heroes people want, but they may be the only hope people have, whether they like it or not.  The Marvel Cinematic Universe has introduced audiences to teams that fall under their radar, including the Guardians of the Galaxy and the Eternals.  The former became one of the best trilogies of the franchise, while the Eternals…well, at least they have their fans.  This year, the ever-expanding superhero franchise is once again kicking off the summer movie season by introducing a new superhero team that’s neither super nor heroic.  The Avengers are usually responsible for starting the summer season with a massive bang, and I don’t just mean that figuratively.  This year, that responsibility now falls in the hands of the self-proclaimed “Thunderbolts”, who had undergone several member changes throughout its history before settling with the ones we’re familiar with from previous installments.  Was this lesser-known group able to accomplish this daunting mission?  Let’s find out.

The story follows Yelena Belova (Pugh), a Black Widow assassin tackling specific jobs following the events of “Black Widow” and “Avengers: Endgame”.  She’s then tasked with a special mission by CIA director Valentina Allegra de Fontaine (Louis-Dreyfus), only to discover that it was actually a deadly trap organized by her.  As a result, Yelena encountered several people who were also tricked by Valentina, including disgraced Army Ranger John Walker (Russell), Taskmaster (Kurylenko), Ava Starr (John-Kamen), and amnesic Bob (Pullman).  Accompanied by Bucky Barnes (Stan) and the Red Guardian (Harbour), the group reluctantly joins forces to confront Valentina.  However, little did the dysfunctional team know that a larger threat arises from one of their own, forcing them to confront their sins on their paths toward redemption.

I appreciate the Marvel Cinematic Universe's opportunity to introduce certain characters or teams most people weren’t familiar with, whether in film or television.  It may not always work, but it does make audiences, including me, aware of the lesser-known characters in the Marvel universe besides Iron Man and Captain America.  The Thunderbolts may seem no different, but its members are a different story, as they consist of characters from other installments that haven’t gotten as much love as the Avengers or have yet to.  That includes Ava Starr, the forgettable “antagonist” from “Ant-Man and the Wasp,” and the infamous gender-reverse Taskmaster from “Black Widow”.  This is one of the reasons for my interest in “Thunderbolts*” besides the fact it’s from Marvel: to see if this concept has enough material to flesh out these secondary characters compared to their first appearances.  Of course, this is also another MCU installment that connects with “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier” due to John Walker, so it has plenty to work with to win over those uninterested in watching the streaming show beforehand.  

In a way, this film was seen as a chance to redeem the franchise following its unfortunate misstep with “Brave New World,” especially with its upcoming multiverse events on our doorsteps.  Thankfully, the movie has the benefit of straying from the franchise’s multiverse subplot in favor of a more grounded and surprisingly mature storyline in the superhero realm.  Yes, it offers the usual antihero shenanigans we’re accustomed to.  But, instead of providing us with endless amounts of CGI-filled spectacles, “Thunderbolts*” injects itself with a down-to-earth, medium-scaled action thriller that happens to have a super-powered being in it.  The result was a much-needed boost for the MCU that, believe it or not, has something important to reflect underneath its cape.  With its mixture of laughs, action, and heart, “Thunderbolts*” suitably reflects the traditional “fun time at the movies” the franchise is known for.

One reason for this was the story, which can be best described as Marvel’s “Suicide Squad”.  However, I would describe it as the movie that both “Suicide Squad” films wished it was.  You have the usual side characters who don’t see themselves as heroes due to their past actions but must come together when a greater threat arises.  Sounds pretty similar to the “Suicide Squad” movies, right?  Well, it is, along with the dysfunctional and dynamic chemistry we’ve come to expect, but “Thunderbolts*” also had the one thing that DC’s antihero team lacked: an emotional core.  Sure, the members were complete jerks, notably John Walker, but they’re also surrounded by the complex nature of their internal pain that’s been haunting them, making them more human than marketable “heroes”.  This originated from the movie’s maturity in its metaphorical representation of mental illness, including depression, especially for Yelena and her regretful past.  While it does incorporate some of the light-hearted and comical elements the MCU is known for, they don’t detract from the deep complexity of the film’s characters and grounded themes.  Of course, given the mature and unsettling themes present, this is also another movie that requires parents to discuss these topics with their kids before and after viewing.  There can be specific scenes that may be too intense for anyone under at least six or seven, but the conversations about them can prove beneficial if parents are smart enough to address them thoughtfully. 

With a screenplay that balances heart with thematic depth and provides a finale worthy of my tears, the film fits alongside others like “Captain America: Civil War” and “Black Panther” that properly inject real-world commentary into the franchise’s superhero antics.  However, if you’re going into this film expecting a lot of game-changing twists and turns, you might wind up feeling disappointed with the result.  Except for the post-credit scene, the film was a straightforward and predictable thriller showcasing the team exacting revenge against Valentina without any distractions slowing them down.  If that’s what you desire, then there’s a good chance you’ll enjoy it as much as I did, even if it doesn’t provide much else in its narrative surprises.  Eric Pearson has been working on the MCU since 2011, and it’s evident that the film showed his love for the franchise’s lore and characters through his script, which he co-wrote with Joanna Calo.  More importantly, they ensured that the characters were easily approachable for people unwilling to watch the previous installments for further contexts, including John Walker and Ava Starr.  Of course, there’s also the humor, which was suitably written enough to be genuinely amusing, with most of the comedy coming from Red Guardian.

Jake Schreier is another director who makes a giant leap to blockbuster filmmaking after directing smaller, more humane dramas.  Most of the installments helmed by indie directors successfully provide something fresh to the franchise, including Ryan Coogler, the Russo Brothers, Taika Waititi, and even Chloé Zhao.  With “Thunderbolts*”, I would gladly put Schreier alongside these directors worthy of expressing their visions in the blockbuster franchise.  Jake Schreier achieved a near-perfect balance that combines the elements of a superhero action thriller with the mind of a sentimental therapeutic drama without relying heavily on only one side, all while invoking a perspective that makes its small scale feel grander.  This was largely attributed to Andrew Droz Palermo’s cinematography, which featured stunning wide-angle shots and slick panning effects complementing the film’s gripping action sequences and production designs.  I would also credit the filmmaking team, including Schreier, for utilizing practical effects to envision some of its jaw-dropping sequences, including the film’s beginning.  But, of course, it also has to include CGI for specific moments because not all stunts can be performed practically.  Some of the CGI effects looked a bit wonky in the stunt work, but they didn’t hinder the experience of witnessing the practical effects in action.

A team that’s as dysfunctional as the Thunderbolts deserves a talented, dynamic cast, and lo and behold, that’s what they offered.  Florence Pugh had consistently won me over through her roles before she joined the Marvel Universe in 2021’s “Black Widow”.  While her smaller roles have already made her a star in my eyes, I’m still happy that her involvement in a blockbuster franchise got her the attention she deserves.  Despite my mixed feelings about “Black Widow”, I did appreciate Pugh’s efforts in combining Yelena’s snarky attitude with humor and humanity.  This resulted in “Thunderbolts*” giving Pugh’s character the leading spotlight for the first time, and I have to tell you, it was worth the wait.  Not only did the film enhance Yelena's likable appeal through her thought-provoking arc, but it also further highlighted Pugh’s remarkable talent as an actress, particularly evident in her command of her Russian accent.  Wyatt Russell reprised his role as John from “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier”, delivering another impressive performance that makes the character’s ignorant and short-tempered nature tolerable and amusing.  It was no easy task for Russell, but he managed to nail that balance down in the Disney+ show and now “Thunderbolts*”.  David Harbour was the film's main highlight regarding his enthusiastic and enthralling performance as Red Guardian, and it wasn’t just due to his comical timing.  Red Guardian is basically the heart, humor, and soul of the dysfunctional team, and Harbour managed to accomplish all of them in one fell swoop.  It also happens to be another reason Red Guardian is one of my favorite performances from Harbour, who first grabbed my attention in “Stranger Things”.  Julia Louis-Dreyfus also had some fun moments playing the manipulative, self-centered Valentina.

Overall, “Thunderbolts*” roars proudly like actual thunder with a highly entertaining antihero team-up adventure that’s also thoughtfully therapeutic.  Its straightforward narrative and rough CGI effects prevent this underdog team from rising beyond its genre standards.  However, its eagerness to balance superhero chaos with mature and metaphorical themes delivers enough worthy moments to reign supreme during the Avengers’ absence.  The cast was a delight to watch regarding their performances and chemistry, and Jake Schreier’s direction provided plenty of pop and skill through its action, heart, and practical effects.  The screenplay also overcame most of its predictability with its well-written characters and earnest, medium-sized stakes.  This is a much-needed change of pace in the MCU’s longevity and a worthy conclusion to the franchise’s fifth phase that teases plenty of exciting stuff for the Multiverse Saga’s climax.  If you plan on starting the summer movie season on the right foot, make sure you do so with this unlikely band of thunderous underdogs.

​“Until Dawn” stars Ella Rubin, Michael Cimino, Ji-young Yoo, Odessa A’zion, Ji-young Yoo, Maia Mitchell, Belmont Cameli, and Peter Stormare.  Released on April 25, 2025, the film has a group of young adults surviving a deadly time loop at a lodge.

The film is directed by David F. Sandberg, who also directed films such as “Lights Out”, “Annabelle: Creation”, and “Shazam!”.  It is based on the 2015 video game developed by Supermassive Games.  They say that you only live once, which is pretty challenging when you’re in the world of a horror movie.  Whether it’s by a psychopath or a monstrous being, your life can instantly end without any warning.  However, on this occasion, death resembles a video game, in which you get plenty of chances to reach the endgame and…you know, avoid dying again.  Unfortunately for its victims, it’s far from an easy task.  “Until Dawn” revitalized the survival horror genre by emphasizing the butterfly effect system in which players control how a horror story plays out and who survives the night.  In a way, the player served as a writer of the game’s story instead of just playing it, which is less complicated than becoming one.  Praised for its execution and gameplay, “Until Dawn” expanded its world-building through its spin-off, prequel, and spiritual successor.  It also spawned a film adaptation that took a much different direction to the game’s concept, much to the fans’ frustration.  I survived through the “Minecraft” adaptation and its tiring “chicken jockey” meme, so now it’s time for me to do the same with this.  Was I able to accomplish this daunting challenge?  Let’s find out.

The story follows Clover (Rubin), a young woman whose sister Melanie (Mitchell) mysteriously disappeared a year ago.  Eager to know what happened, Clover and her friends take a trip to the remote valley where Melanie vanished and come across a welcome center for them to rest for the night.  One night, Clover and the others are suddenly killed by an unknown presence, only to find themselves back at the beginning of the night, forcing them to relive their deaths repeatedly.  The group discovers that they are trapped in a time loop where they encounter a different killer each time they die, each more horrendous than the last.  However, they also found that the previous victims didn’t survive the loop past the 13th night.  Their only hope of escape is to survive the entire night until dawn before the point of no return.

“Until Dawn” is another video game I only see other gamers play instead of trying out myself.  Unsurprisingly, this is due to me not being a massive fan of horror video games despite my tolerance towards horror movies.  Sometimes, it’s best to watch someone getting chased by a scary-as-hell presence than stepping into that victim’s shoes.  Regardless, I have profound respect for the game’s influence on the horror genre and approach to the butterfly effect system, which is enough to get me intrigued and cautious in its film adaptation.  On the one hand, it had David F. Sandberg returning to the realm of horror after helming the “Shazam” films for the failed DC Extended Universe.  On the other hand, it’s the latest adaptation that doesn’t follow the game’s storyline beat-by-beat and features an original story that’s set in the same universe, which has already gotten fans up in arms even before its release.  But, knowing me, all I care about is whether the quality of the film is fun or scary enough to warrant this approach.

The concept of the “Until Dawn” movie is best described as the horror version of “Groundhog Day”.  However, the only catch to this scenario is that each night is different than the rest, and the time-loop effect has a time limit.  This means these characters have until a certain point in the loop to survive only one night without prior knowledge of the previous one they died in.  It emphasizes the game’s survival choices, in which each player's decision changes how the story progresses.  This mechanic has worked in the game, paving the way for others with similar gameplay like “Beyond: Two Souls”, but the real question I should answer is whether it works in the movie.  As someone who hasn’t played the game, I can say that the concept works, but not always.

“Until Dawn” utilized its time loop narrative to convey a tension-filled and enjoyable reflection of the horror genre tropes we grew up with.  Slashers, demon possessions, monsters, the works.  Everything you crave in a horror movie is present in this twisted and grisly tribute to the genre.  However, despite being one of the more bearable films of the genre, it’s not without its obvious shortcomings that dampen its chances of surviving the expansive sea of horror films.  One such case is the story, which has already turned off the fans’ interest even before the film came out.  The game’s plot was a basic survival horror experience involving a group of teens confronting a masked killer and the monstrous wendigos in a lodge on a snowy mountain, with the players deciding the story’s direction.  The film adaptation, on the other hand, offered a time-loop twist to the concept, complete with a new location and original characters.  Fortunately, it retains several elements from the game to ensure its place in the source material’s universe, including the wendigos, the missing sibling trope, and Dr. Alan Hill, who Peter Stormare reprised from the game.  But even so, this isn't a true adaptation of the popular choose-your-path game, which would prove difficult to win over fans already skeptical of the movie’s direction.

But, if you toss the comparisons aside and see the movie for the way it is, there’s a slight chance you’ll have a decent time with what it delivered.  Was it the best video game movie ever?  Not in the slightest.  However, I will consider the film something I can enjoy without playing the game, mainly because I cannot play a horror game to save my life.  One reason is that it offered several different horror films for the price of one, all of which occurred in the same house.  This allowed the filmmakers to go crazy with how these characters gruesomely die in multiple ways without resorting to only one choice, and yes, the kills are pretty graphic.  Most kills are what you expect from an R-rated slasher film despite being in the trailers: gory, brutal, and mildly fun.  But there was this particular kill I didn’t expect would happen, which helped maintain my interest and enjoyment in its time-looping concept.  If you watched the ending of “Ready or Not”, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about.

Another reason was Sandberg’s direction, which continues his trend of providing atmospheric eeriness and unsettlement to accompany the movie’s basic tropes.  Some of its scares have this usual balance of terror and predicable emptiness, with the latter being from the scenes we saw in the marketing.  However, Sandberg did enough to compensate for the genre’s traditional “jump scare” routine by injecting chills and suspense into its darkly lit environments, build-ups, and nightmarish scenarios.  However, for the former, there were a couple of scenes where the ill-lit lighting made it difficult to see what was happening.  Regarding the horror genre, It didn’t match the heights of Sandberg’s earlier works like “Lights Out”, but it further showcased the filmmaker’s strengths in combining anxiousness with straightforward horror elements through his spine-chilling vision and atmosphere.

Unfortunately, the one thing that held “Until Dawn” back from success was its screenplay by Gary Dauberman and Blair Butler.  On the positive side, the script surprisingly offered characters that were tolerable to get acquainted with and humorous outside of them getting murdered multiple times.  Were they dumb sometimes?  Yes, but they’re not to the point of me having to come into the screen and slap them silly.  It didn’t have much emotional depth in their development, especially when referring to Clover’s relationship with Melanie and its themes involving psychological trauma and death.  Fortunately, this is one occasion where I didn’t mind the characters being one-dimensional or even two-dimensional due to their personalities.  The reason for their tolerability was because of its young cast.  Their performances weren’t anything special, but they ensured their presence was enjoyable enough to convey their characters’ approachable aura.  Ella Rubin, who recently appeared in Sean Baker’s “Anora”, was pretty decent in conveying Clover’s horror-stricken persona.  Michael Cimino and Belmont Cameli were also respectable in their roles of Max and Abel, respectively.  Of course, for all you Disney fans out there, Cimino is the same guy who voiced Kevin in Disney Channel’s “Hamster & Gretel”.  Peter Stormare was the only actor who returned from the game to reprise his role as Hill, and he maintained the creepiness that his character possessed through his performance.  

There were also specific scenes with characters acknowledging the film’s common tropes, including the time-loop narrative device.  In a way, I can see it as an attempt to create a “love letter” to the horror genre and the time-looping movies that came before it while simultaneously providing a playful critique of the repetitive tropes found in other similar films.  However, the writers didn’t seem to follow that through with this approach, transforming itself into a cliche-heavy horror experience it’s poking fun at as the film progressed.  It’s not terrible since it delivered what the concept suggested, but I think they could’ve done more with its meta references and plot to make it worthy of its deviation from the source material.

Overall, “Until Dawn” didn’t survive all of the genre tropes it encountered, but it delivered enough entertaining moments in its concept and gruesome kills to escape its shortcomings.  Its heavy departure from the source material’s plot would understandably make fans want to stay elsewhere.  As a result, it serves as another occasion where audiences unfamiliar with the game might enjoy the adaptation more than the hardcore fans.  There’s still the matter of its hit-and-miss scares and screenplay, which provided plenty of familiar tropes it’s making fun of in a straightforward way.  Fortunately for me, “Until Dawn” still functions well as a basic yet enjoyable approach to the time-loop concept that’s combined with graphic murders and chilling tension.  The film may not reach survivor status like the other crown jewels of video game adaptations like “The Last of Us”, but thanks to its suitable cast and Sandberg’s atmospheric vision, it is one night I wouldn’t mind living once.  If you’re familiar with the horror genre and the other time-loop movies like “Groundhog Day”, I’d say it’s worth giving a chance.  However, don’t expect it to be anything like the source material plot-wise or even a game-changer in the realm of video game adaptations.  If you keep that in mind, you might survive this experience.