​“The Amateur” stars Rami Malek, Rachel Brosnahan, Caitríona Balfe, Jon Bernthal, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Laurence Fishburne.  Released on April 11, 2025, the film has a cryptographer blackmailing the CIA into letting him avenge his wife.

The film was directed by James Hawes, who also directed “One Life” and several episodes of television shows like “The Chatterley Affair”, “The 39 Steps”, and “Enid”.  It is based on the 1981 novel by Robert Littell.  Many people have roles to play in the Central Intelligence Agency to ensure the safety of civilians worldwide.  While some are trained to confront threats on the field, others, like cryptographers, stay in the facility to provide tech and knowledge involving their targets to help the CIA efficiently accomplish their tasks.  The latter may seem less crucial compared to the field operatives they hired, but when the right opportunity comes, they tend to exceed even the lowest of expectations.  This defines the latest spy thriller showcasing the crypto nerd’s quest to defy his lesser-known role in the agency for vengeance.  There is a reason specific roles shouldn’t be underestimated, CIA or otherwise.  Does it offer enough thrills in its plot and quality to operate in the cinematic field?  Let’s find out.

The story centers on Charles Heller (Malek), a cryptographer working with the CIA’s Decryption and Analysis division.  His everyday life begins to spin out of control when his wife, Sarah (Brosnahan), is caught in a crossfire during a terrorist attack in London, resulting in her death.  A heartbroken Charles hopes for the CIA to catch the people responsible for his wife’s death but discovers that his bosses won’t act due to their conflicting internal priorities.  Charles then takes matters into his own hands by blackmailing the agency to make him a field operative despite his inexperience with killing.  Utilizing his expertise as a cryptographer, Charles embarks on a global quest to avenge his wife and hunt down the killers while the CIA seeks to eliminate him.

This review was obviously long overdue for several reasons.  One of them was the other movies that played last weekend, “Drop” and “Warfare”, which captured my interest way more than “The Amateur”.  Even though I appreciate the spy genre, my interest in some of them has been on and off due to their seemingly slow-burn approaches, with “The Amateur” being no exception despite its main leads.  I guess the same reason could be applied to “Black Bag”, another spy thriller that came out last month.  Hopefully, I’ll get to that film eventually.  The other reason was my schedule being booked for my vacation last weekend, so I wasn’t able to check it out sooner.  Thankfully, since I didn’t have much going on besides my Easter preparation and there weren’t many movies that interested me, I managed to find the time to see it before I lost interest.  So, for those waiting to hear my perspective on this vigilante thriller, I hope you will find this helpful, and I appreciate your patience.

As mentioned earlier, “The Amateur” is another spy film that focuses more on its slow-burn dialogue-driven thrills than the usual fast-paced action set pieces.  While there are a few action scenes that kept its juices flowing, the movie emphasized the excitement of people outsmarting their villains through dialogue and wits.  Fortunately, despite some mildly slow scenes, I was relieved that the film had some merits in its spy-themed dialogue to keep my attention.  As for the story itself, that could be why I was fixated on its dialogue-driven plot, but not in the way some may expect.  “The Amateur” would likely satisfy those needing a straightforward spy thriller without the big-budget blockbuster effects and farfetched action set pieces overwhelming its tone.  However, that also served as its downfall, as it offered nothing else in its narrative and flawed stakes to elevate its formulaic yet mildly watchable revenge story.

Regarding the screenplay by Ken Nolan and Gary Spinelli, “The Amateur” is another by-the-numbers revenge thriller that calculates the same motions as other vigilante movies with a similar premise.  There weren’t any huge surprises and complex twists that put the story at a 180, nor did it provide a sense of identity to revitalize the genre in multiple ways.  It’s just a standard yet suitably-made portrayal of a global quest for revenge by none other than a seemingly ordinary tech nerd.  Charlie is seen as another “normal” person who actually possesses a particular set of skills, which, in this case, is decrypting and analyzing classified intel, similar to other action heroes like Liam Neeson in “Taken” and even Jason Statham.  However, what distinguishes Charlie from those conventional action heroes is that Charlie is his inability to engage in combat or harm others, even when in possession of a firearm.  As a result, he employs his intellect and cryptographic expertise to accomplish this task.  This narrative approach illustrated the perils of searching for criminals without formal training and highlighted the satisfaction derived from others' underestimation of the protagonist's capabilities.  However, when it comes to the movie's execution, this approach wasn’t quite skilled enough to make the risky global adventure fun or emotionally intense, mainly when centering on Charlie’s grief over losing his wife.

Director James Hawes possessed the basics for a competent spy thriller filled with dialogue-driven sequences and action.  Unfortunately, he couldn’t blend them all to manifest its muted narrative's thrills and sentimentality.  But I will give him this: Hawes had the expertise to deliver a nicely crafted thriller for most of the runtime.  Accompanied by Martin Ruhe’s cinematography, Hawes compensated for the lack of style by including numerous well-shot sequences that depict international sceneries and drama on a somberly immersive scale.  I will also admit that he did a respectable job making the movie’s violence entertaining, although there were a few scenes where the editing could’ve been less choppy.  Its two-hour-plus runtime was a bit overlong for a premise like this, especially with its hit-and-miss pacing.  Thankfully, with Hawes behind the camera, the film had a filmmaking craft and intrigue worthy of my attention span, even with its predictable outcome.

Rami Malek takes the helm of an unconventional action hero whose computer skills compensate for his lack of experience on the field.  Of course, this wasn’t the first time he played a character with computer expertise, as he previously played one in the critically acclaimed thriller series, “Mr. Robot”.  While I haven’t watched the series, hearing about it is enough to consider that this role may have been made with him in mind.  I didn't view Charlie as a conventional, charming action hero characterized by cliched one-liners.  Instead, he’s more along the lines of a vulnerable, timid, and mourning individual, determined to fulfill the responsibilities the agency failed to address while grappling with the memories of his deceased wife.  Malek was tasked with conveying this subtle personality while filling in the shoes of other action heroes, and the result was pretty good.  It’s no game-changer, but his ability to decrypt his character inside and out marked another solid feat in Malek’s acting career, which is enough to elevate the film’s minor heartbeat.  Rachel Brosnahan also provided a suitable performance as Sarah Heller despite her minor role.  As for Laurence Fishburne, his take on Charlie’s mentor, Robert Henderson, will likely entertain his fans with his commanding yet subtly charismatic performance.  Considering I’ve been enjoying Fishburne in his other roles, seeing him do what he does best is satisfactory enough for me.

Overall, “The Amateur” has some skills to make this global spy thriller watchable but lacks much else in its expertise to bypass its formulaic coding.  On the one hand, the film has enough moments in its dialogue-driven scenes and violence to impress audiences looking for a straightforward, mid-budget spy thriller.  On the other hand, that’s all it provided regarding its predictable narrative, resulting in a less-than-stellar thriller whose presentation often compensates for its lack of clever storytelling tricks.  Rami Malek works as a convincing, underestimated spy hero regarding his performance, and James Hawes makes a suitable effort to inject some life into his somberly contained direction.  However, its average screenplay, formulaic plot elements, low-level stakes, and mildly bloated runtime overshadowed the film’s worth of being in the field with other spy thrillers of years past.  It’s worth watching if you’re into the spy genre, but I recommend you wait until it’s available on streaming.  Otherwise, you might be better off with a more capable cinematic agent standing by your side.

​“Sinners” stars Michael B. Jordan, Hailee Steinfeld, Miles Caton, Jack O’Connell, Wunmi Mosaku, Jayme Lawson, Omar Benson Miller, Li Jun Li, and Delroy Lindo.  Released on April 18, 2025, the film has twin brothers discovering a greater evil residing in their hometown.

The film is written and directed by Ryan Coogler, who also directed “Fruitvale Station”, “Creed”, “Black Panther”, and “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever”.  Sometimes, the best way to leave our troubles behind is to return to where we all began.  It may not be a foolproof answer, but it helps us get our priorities straight and reunite with the people we know.  Unfortunately, in a situation like this, returning home may lead to more problems that are as bad, if not worse, than the ones we already have now.  Hell, I would even say these issues may wind up biting you in the neck if you’re not careful enough.  Easter weekend is usually the time when we come together to celebrate our lord and Savior and even eat candy we got from the egg-delivering bunny.  For film fanatics, it’s also when we watch specific movies that showcase the impact of Jesus’s accomplishments and honor the power of miracles through our beliefs in God.  However, this year takes an unexpected approach to this tradition by releasing a film that’s the complete opposite of how we celebrate religion.  Instead of something heartwarming like Jesus and the Easter Bunny, this latest supernatural horror movie brings out the devil’s deadly sins to “celebrate” this occasion.  Of course, by “sins”, I mean bloodthirsty vampires.  Was the film able to sink its teeth into the cinematic world of vampires or showcase that the subgenre has bled itself dry?  Let’s find out.

The film follows Smoke and Stack (Jordan), twin brothers who return to their hometown in 1932 Mississippi after stealing money from various gangs in Chicago.  After reuniting with their cousin, Sammie Moore (Caton), the brothers used the abandoned warehouse they purchased to open a jukebar to make money.  While reuniting with their closest friends and family, Smoke and Stack eventually discover a sinister presence lurking around their town, which is later revealed to be a group of vicious vampires looking for their next meal.  As a result, the twins must unite the residents and fight back against the blood-sucking invaders.

It bears repeating that Ryan Coogler and Michael B. Jordan are some of the best collaborators we didn’t know we needed until now.  Ever since “Fruitvale Station”, the duo has been unbeatable in delivering hit after hit in the world of African-American cinema.  Yes, that includes “Wakanda Forever”, although Jordan appeared as a cameo instead of a main role.  Because of this, seeing the two involved in a movie guarantees that I will be seated on day one.  “Sinners” is unironically no different, which sees Coogler taking on another genre film outside the drama category following his incredible approach to the superhero realm via “Black Panther”.  From the looks of things, Coogler’s original take on the bloodthirsty beings has already been winning critics and audiences over with its musical, bloody, and sexy 1930s Western vibes.  After experiencing the film people call the “original blockbuster”, I’m glad to be the next person to say that it is definitely worth sinking your teeth into.

On paper, “Sinners” seemed like a straightforward horror movie with characters trapped inside a warehouse surrounded by sinful vampires.  While it did manage to meet that expectation, the movie also accomplished plenty of other elements that make it more than just a typical vampire film: the craft, the storytelling, and the direction.  Those elements, combined with strong talent and incredible music, helped make “Sinners” a top-tier cinematic experience in the horror genre.  More importantly, it demonstrated the magnificent vision that Ryan Coogler knows how to convey, especially with his approach to African American culture.  Not only was this aspect of African American history well-represented through its detailed production designs, but the film also served as a visually compelling reflection of its layered themes, such as religion, racism, and the musical landscape.

Regarding the screenplay, Ryan Coogler offered a bold and thoughtful approach to how one’s sins affect those around them.  In this case, the film showcased Smoke and Stack, whose obsession with money made them outlaws, which didn’t fare well for their reunion with their loved ones in their hometown.  There’s also Sammie, whose dream of becoming a musician was halted by his father, the pastor, and his religious background.  In a way, the movie’s title refers to the characters whose “sinful” actions make them just as flawed as the vampires.  However, instead of following through with its traditional narrative elements, Coogler ensured that the twin brothers we’re supposed to like aren’t the cinematic heroes to root for.  They’re three-dimensional human beings trapped by the sins of their own doing, not just the vampires.  As a result, “Sinners” becomes an early-summer blockbuster that favors storytelling and characters over visual numbness while providing a refreshingly fun and frightful take on Hollywood’s well-known bloodsuckers.

However, it isn’t just the examination of religion and racial discrimination in the 1930s that elevated “Sinners”.  It’s the music that plays a crucial role in the film, not just in the soundtrack but also in the overall story.  In addition to being a meticulously crafted and consistently engrossing horror blockbuster, “Sinners” was a remarkable tribute to the generational music that profoundly influenced the African American community, including blues and gospel in the 1930s.  It effectively illustrated the music's impact on this community and adeptly integrated it into its exploration of vampiric and religious lore.  There’s this one sequence in particular that manifests this perfectly through Coogler’s immaculate vision, visual effects, and single-shot approach, making it one of the best scenes I watched in a film this year.  Ludwig Göransson did a fantastic job with his score, providing an authentic and chilling spin on the period’s blues and gospel melodies, further deepening my respect towards the award-winning composer.  As for the soundtrack, it certainly has that toe-tapping essence that emphasizes the importance of cinematic music.

The “Black Panther” movies showcased Coogler’s capabilities of pulling off African American storytelling on a blockbuster scale.  However, he also retained the down-to-earth appeal of its themes and character-driven moments shown in “Fruitvale Station” and “Creed”, setting them apart from other traditional high-budget blockbusters.  That alone was why I think Coogler was the perfect choice to bring this original concept to life, and he didn’t disappoint.  There were a few parts that could’ve gone off the rails regarding the R-rated violence and even the genre’s traditional jump scares.  Thankfully, Coogler managed to dodge those bullets to retain the innovative and often metaphorical vision he’s known for and did it exceptionally well.  The horror elements were effectively utilized through its respectfully placed jump scares and even the simplistic yet eerily discomforting vampiric designs, providing a few frights that were more genuine than annoying.  It’s pretty daring for it to refrain from heading down the Blumhouse route with its jump scares and traditional story beats.  Fortunately, that risk paid off well due to Coogler’s ability to combine blockbuster storytelling with discomforting frights and visionary finesse.  It’s also shot incredibly well through Autumn Durald Arkapaw’s cinematography, as it used a combination of 70mm cameras to recreate the anamorphic scope of epics from the late 50s and early 60s.  Combined with its lighting effects, the cinematography captured the old-school feel of watching a cinematic epic in film, let alone one from the horror genre.

The cast played their tunes through their performances, and much like the music it represents, they injected plenty of soul to make it feel alive.  Michael B. Jordan is the latest actor this year to tackle the dual role approach, this time as the identical twins looking to get extra bucks in their hometown.  Whether working with Coogler or someone else, Jordan knows how to get the acting job done.  His talents onscreen truly shine when he transforms into a different character by embodying their humane souls, and his dual performance as Smoke and Stack was no exception.  Not only did Jordan convey exceptional charm and dramatic depth in the seemingly unlikable twins, but he also distinguished them effectively through his vocal range, allowing for clear differentiation between the two characters.  He and Coogler have been making movie magic together since 2013, and their work on “Sinners” is another reason they’re still the duo to beat in terms of collaborations.  Hailee Steinfeld was also great as Mary regarding her dramatic chops and sexy vibes, and Jack O’Connell provided an engaging villainous turn as Remmick.  However, the biggest surprise from the cast was Miles Caton as Sammie.  Caton’s performance as the twin’s cousin suitably captured the subtlety of the character’s terror and the liveliness of his musical expertise.  No kidding; this dude knows how to sing from the soul.

Overall, “Sinners” repents from the sins of traditional genre gimmicks to provide a hauntingly beautiful and riveting display of vampiric horror accompanied by its musical and storytelling pizazz.  Despite being over two hours long, I surprisingly found myself consistently engaged in its visual mastery and a story that favors challenging reflections on the topics over spoon-feeding them to its audiences.  Regarding its strong cast, Coogler’s adept vision and screenplay, incredible cinematography, strong horror elements, and sublime music, the film is a masterclass of horror blockbusters worthy of the cinematic gods’ praises.  Additionally, it further displayed Ryan Coogler as one of the current generation's best and most essential filmmakers through his thoughtful narratives and honorability regarding the African American culture.  If you’re a fan of Coogler’s other works or just itching for a great vampire movie, this film is capable of answering those prayers.

​“Warfare” stars D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, Will Poulter, Cosmo Jarvis, Kit Connor, Finn Bennett, Taylor John Smith, Michael Gandolfini, Adain Bradley, Noah Centineo, Evan Holtzman, Henrique Zaga, Joseph Quinn, and Charles Melton.  Released on April 11, 2025, the film follows a group of Navy SEALs surviving in insurgent territory.

The film was written and directed by Ray Mendoza and Alex Garland.  Garland is known for directing “Ex Machina”, “Annihilation”, “Men”, and “Civil War”, while Mendoza is a former U.S. Navy SEAL.  It is based on Mendoza’s experiences during the Iraq War.  It’s no surprise that war is an absolute hellhole, especially when you’re fighting on one of the most dangerous continents in the world.  Many soldiers have been through hell and back to endure the never-ending violence and bloodshed caused by their enemies, with some surviving to tell the tale.  One of those survivors, Ray Mendoza, lived long enough to reflect on his grueling experience during the Second Battle of Ramadi.  The best part?  He got to work with one of the acclaimed filmmakers, Alex Garland, to bring his perspective to the big screen.  That’s undoubtedly another accomplishment for someone who served as a Navy SEAL, but was it worthy of delivering another riveting cinematic experience in the war genre?  Let’s head into enemy territory and find out.

The story follows a platoon of Navy SEALs, Alpha One, including Ray Mendoza (Woon-A-Tai), Officer in Charge Erik (Poulter), lead sniper Elliot Miller (Jarvis), and leading Petty Officer Sam (Quinn), with the narrative displaying the events in real-time.  The group is sent on a mission to take control of a multi-story house and stake out the insurgent territory during the final stages of the Second Battle of Ramadi.  Unfortunately, their seemingly calm surveillance assignment quickly becomes a war zone when the SEALs are trapped by enemy fire outside the house.  As a result, the group must tend to their injured allies and survive until help arrives.

I enjoy war movies the way I like modern action films: gripping, violent, and consistently entertaining.  Bonus points if they are genuinely emotional in their themes and characters amid the violence.  I may not watch many films involving a specific war, but I admire some that offer more than just a never-ending barrage of gun battles regarding their storytelling and filmmaking qualities.  The last war movie I watched was last year’s “Civil War”, which Garland and Mendoza previously collaborated on, with Mendoza serving as the military supervisor.  In case you haven’t read my review of that movie, I thought “Civil War” was a marvelously haunting portrayal of war journalism that’s also captivating in its war action and storytelling, making it a massive improvement over Garland’s heavily divided “Men”.  My experience with “Civil War” made me genuinely excited for Garland’s latest, and possibly last, directorial effort, which seeks to be more of a realistic reenactment than a story-driven movie.

Many of us asked ourselves what the cinematic experience meant, and we often conjured up different answers.  Some may say that it means seeing a film at the cinema for the first time, enhanced by the crystal clear imagery on the big screen and the immersive surround sound.  In other cases, it could be revisiting a classic movie in the theater, offering a unique perspective we can’t copy from watching at home.  There are also some occasions for the term “cinematic experience” where filmmakers utilize their craft to thrust audiences into a scenario the characters are in.  This creates an authentic and raw depiction that makes them believe they’re right in the middle of the action but with a comfy recliner and a large tub of popcorn by the side.  Regardless of the narrative's existence, these experiences illustrate the art of realism present in our everyday lives.  This can be displayed in a hopeful or unnerving manner, depending on the topic.  Ray Mendoza and Alex Garland’s “Warfare” is that type of cinematic experience that powerfully depicts this occurrence, and on a filmmaking level, it was pretty darn astounding.  

Despite being the only person who saw it in the theater, I was unsurprisingly impressed by the craft and dedication the directors took to authentically reflect the Navy SEALs’ perspective of the profound horrors of war.  At the same time, it’s also a tight and consistently gripping ride that never lets up the tension until its final minute.  However, much like other war films, “Warfare” won’t be for everybody, especially those who’ve gone through this experience as a Navy SEAL.  But, the real reason it won’t be loved by everybody is its narrative or lack thereof.  The central premise of “Warfare” is that it serves as a practical reenactment of Alpha One's dilemma in Ramadi, diverging from the traditional Hollywood narrative that typically establishes the context for that event.  We only see the soldiers performing their duty as told by the platoon members’ testimonies of what went down, ranging from their surveillance to tending to the wounded while taking cover from enemy fire.  There’s no big emotional speech for some characters to give out, no big-budget effects, and especially no explosive finale.  This is an authentic and raw imagining of real-life Navy SEALs doing real Navy SEAL stuff.  Unfortunately, with the lack of story surrounding its scenario, the film didn’t offer much room for any character development, deterring its chance of providing a narrative as emotional as its depiction.

Fortunately, this is one occasion where it didn’t need a traditional Hollywood story to make a highly intense war movie.  Mendoza and Garland’s screenplay compensated for almost all of its minor setbacks by reflecting the physicality and mental state of the soldiers through actions instead of dialogue.  Along with the authenticity of the soldiers’ line of duty, the script carried the film the same way the SEALS carry the wounded: safely and dangerously enthralling.  However, the real MVP of “Warfare” regarding the filmmaking craft was the direction.  Again, Garland provided a keen sense of vision and immersion through his brief exploration of the soldiers’ emotional stress and approach to David J. Thompson’s cinematography.  Through the use of panning shots, close-up angles, and meticulous framing, the cinematography effectively conveyed a haunting atmosphere and captured the gunfight sequences with both subtlety and clarity.  The best part is that it avoids high-budget violence and shaky camera movements seen in other action movies to maintain the excitement of being immersed in the action.  

I will also credit Ray Mendoza for his commitment to accurately portraying the Navy SEALs and the practical nature of their operational roles, including surveillance.  But, the most crucial ingredient that provided an accurate depiction of warfare was the flawless sound design.  Whether it’s for the gunshots occurring outside the house, the temporary loss of hearing from an explosion, or a jet engine roaring past enemy territory, the sound editing conveyed the unsettling feeling of actually being trapped by enemy fire in the dangerous streets of Ramadi.  This movie could be an early contender at next year’s awards season just for the sound design alone if none of the others reach that particular height.  Oh, and probably the cinematography, too, if possible.

In addition to its first-rate filmmaking craft, the film’s cast also made a strong effort to step into the shoes of the Alpha One team.  D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, who was last seen in “Hell of a Summer”, effectively captured the subtle intensity of Ray’s anxiety about being contained under enemy fire.  With this and “Hell of a Summer”, Woon-A-Tai is another up-and-coming actor with a promising career on his hands, though I think his performance in “Warfare” was better than his role in the summer camp slasher comedy.  Will Poulter continued to dominate in the A24 realm with his performance as Erik, an officer in charge left traumatized by the incident that trapped the soldiers in the house.  I would even say that Poulter superbly illustrated Erik’s understated but profound emotional trauma with clear conviction.  Cosmo Jarvis and Joseph Quinn were also excellent in their roles as Elliot and Sam, respectively, with a dedication to Elliot being a suitable touch to his line of duty.

Overall, “Warfare” is a well-crafted, hauntingly gripping depiction that’s bold enough to gun down its traditional storytelling trappings in favor of genuine authenticity.  This is another example of a film that’s best looked at as a cinematic roller coaster ride instead of a conventional story-driven movie, primarily when referring to its screenplay.  That’s exactly what I did when I walked into the theater, and I came out instantly satisfied with the results.  Would I say it’s better than Garland’s previous war film, “Civil War”?  Well, story-wise, the latter had more of a thematic impact with its portrayal of war through journalism.  But, I still appreciate “Warfare” as an immersive and enthralling cinematic experience fueled by its intense violence and gripping dialogue-driven scenes.  The cast was outstanding in their roles, the direction marvelously depicted the incident through realism and immersion, and the sound editing was excellent for making me feel like I was in the war zone myself.  As a result, Alex Garland is officially two for two in the war genre.  If you’re into war films or enjoyed Garland’s other works, especially “Civil War”, I highly recommend this one.

​“Drop” stars Meghann Fahy, Brandon Sklenar, Violett Beane, Jacob Robinson, Reed Diamond, Gabrielle Ryan Spring, Jeffery Self, Ed Weeks, and Travis Nelson.  Releasing on April 11, 2025, the film has a widowed mother being terrorized by anonymous AirDrops on her phone.

The film is directed by Christopher Landon, who also directed films such as “Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse”, “Happy Death Day”, and “Freaky”.  Occasionally, we become easily distracted by our phones while spending quality time with others, especially when someone texts us.  If it isn’t from a person we know, the first thing that comes to mind is to ignore it and go about our day.  However, this specific stranger is willing to have their texts answered, even if it means threatening to kill their loved ones to get those responses.  This is why it’s important to have phones on silent when you’re going out with someone, but apparently, someone didn’t take this hint to heart.  This resulted in the latest film by redeeming director Christopher Landon, which seeks to provide enough entertaining merits in its straightforward Hitchcockian thriller.  Was it able to accomplish this mission to distract its audience from their own phones, or are we better off putting it on silent?  Let’s find out.

The story follows Violet (Fahy), a widowed mother returning to the dating world after recovering from a toxic relationship.  She leaves behind her younger sister Jen (Beane) to babysit her son, Toby (Robinson), to attend a date with a man named Henry (Sklenar).  However, Violet’s seemingly harmless date takes a sharp turn when she is interrupted by a series of anonymous AirDrop messages on her phone from an unknown person.  Initially seen as a prank, the AirDrops on Violet’s phone turn deadly when the texter forces her to follow their devious instructions, or they’ll kill Jen and Toby.  Left with no other option, Violet is forced to compete in the texter’s sick game, eventually forcing her to make a fateful decision when she’s tasked with killing her date.

It’s no mystery that Christopher Landon has been turning his directorial career around with his works in the horror genre, mainly the slasher comedy ones.  Except for the Netflix film, “We Have a Ghost”, Landon has consistently revitalized the horror genre with charismatic humor and fun frights, especially the “Happy Death Day” movies.  His winning streak made me eager to see “Drop”, which sees him tackle a different genre than the director’s usual slasher schtick.  Instead of a straightforward killer-on-the-loose premise, Christopher Landon was tasked with using his directorial expertise to convey a “whodunit” mystery scenario that utilizes modern technology, mainly cell phones.  The outcome is precisely what I envisioned: a consistently entertaining and skillfully crafted thriller experience that highlights the cast’s talents and Landon’s expertise in his polished and visually striking style.

In fact, I might even say that this is Landon’s best work I’ve seen in his entire directorial career.  It amazes me how far this filmmaker has come after starting with three average films, only to find his creative spark with “Happy Death Day” and continue succeeding from there.  It goes to show that you only give up if you quit before finding that right spark.  You might be thinking, “How is it Landon’s best work?”  What makes “Drop” stand out from his other directorial efforts like “Happy Death Day” and “Freaky”?  The answer is Landon’s departure from the offbeat and bizarre slasher element in favor of a more down-to-earth mystery approach to its concept.  While I still appreciate his refreshing takes on the slasher genre, this approach was an excellent opportunity for the director to experiment with his signature style with another genre.  To my surprise, this experiment was more successful than I thought it would be.  In addition to the slick panning effects, immersive wide-angle shots, and striking visual designs, Landon retained the charismatic humor and suspenseful energy that made his previous films enjoyable.  This charm and energy stemmed from the main characters, Violet and Henry, whose chemistry oozes with charisma and heart, reminiscent of many romantic films we’ve seen.  It also helped Landon retain that momentum for 95 minutes straight, resulting in a non-stop, intense ride that urges audiences to stay off their phones. 

However, he also played a role in the film’s handling of the lighting and editing effects, which elevated its fancy yet contained production design and tone.  The ideas involving the lighting around the characters, including Violet, aren’t just a way to show off the film’s visually dim presentation.  The lighting effects served as a metaphorical representation of the dating world, particularly domestic abuse.  They illustrate Violet as a victim of her toxic relationship, showcasing her internal struggles to break free from the invisible chains holding her back from gaining confidence.  That’s all I can say without spoiling anything else because this is another movie worth watching without any prior knowledge.  Trust me; it's more fun this way.  If that’s the intent it’s trying to accomplish in the lighting and editing, then I applaud Landon for taking that approach to heart, proving there are multiple ways to tell a story, not just through dialogue.  Despite the one action scene that was butchered by choppy editing, “Drop” is another reason people should give Christopher Landon’s directorial style a chance if they haven’t already done so.  More importantly, it demonstrated that Landon has the proper capability to helm different genres outside of horror.

Regarding the screenplay, a good mystery always utilizes the film’s surroundings, motives, and twists to its full intent to keep people guessing until the end.  Of course, it’s also essential to deliver a good story worthy of its themes, characters, and surprises.  This is what writers Jillian Jacobs and Chris Roach were tasked with accomplishing without making certain elements too predictable or obvious.  So, how did they do?  Honestly, they did pretty darn good.  Not only was the script well-written for its contained environment and intricate twists, but it also conveyed the humanity and emotion of the characters who just want to have a good time without being bothered by blind dates or abusive relationships.  It has a genuine touch that doesn’t feel too sappy or phoned in when blended with light-hearted humor and down-to-earth frights.  When you have characters and themes that are more humane than being just storytelling tools, that’s how you know you have a suitably crafted script on your hands, and “Drop” is another example of this case.

Going back to Violet and Henry, these two characters are the driving forces behind the movie’s premise and enticing mystery.  Whenever the thriller aspect decided to take a break, the movie expected these two potential lovebirds to carry some of its laidback sequences until the thrills kicked back up again.  As someone who hasn’t watched many romance movies, I have to say that the conversations between Violet and Henry are some of my favorite parts of the film.  Whether they’re having a good time or being suspicious of one another, these two characters are incredibly likable to watch, thanks to Christopher Landon’s ability to convey charisma through their auras.  I would even be fine watching them talk for 95 minutes straight without any suspicious AirDrop messages ruining the night.  This is also due to the main leads’ delightful performances, including Meghann Fahy.  With her roles in this and “The Unbreakable Boy”, Fahy has begun to be more exposed to the film industry, which I don’t mind, given her talents onscreen.  “Drop” has Fahy expressing her acting flair in a leading role with stellar results, effectively displaying Violet’s inner turmoil, compassion, and vulnerability while infusing the character with a spark of vitality.  Brandon Sklenar also did a fantastic job as Henry, as the actor’s appealing aura matches Fahy’s spirit flawlessly.  I would also point out that Jeffery Self as Matt, the waiter of the restaurant the characters attended, was an unexpected surprise regarding the humor.  I was worried that he might become an unbearable nuisance throughout the film’s runtime, but no.  Matt genuinely made me laugh every time he was on screen.  Somebody should definitely give this server a raise.

Overall, “Drop” is a skillfully contained and consistently compelling mystery that’s worth texting about.  The movie only suffered a bit from some of its choppy editing, mainly from the one action scene I wouldn’t spoil.  Besides that, this is a well-directed and slickly designed thrill ride with plenty of AirDrop messages about the current state of the dating world, toxic or otherwise.  Meghann Fahy and Brandon Sklenar provided infectious chemistry worthy of carrying the scenes between the mystery aspects regarding their performances and characters.  Additionally, Christopher Landon continues to deliver the goods in his distinctive presentation regarding the cinematography, charming humor, suspense, and lighting effects.  Along with its strong screenplay and plot twists, the film is an enticingly fun experience that’ll make people think twice before answering their AirDrop messages.  If you’re in the mood for an exciting modern tech mystery, this is one movie you shouldn’t dare to drop.  

​“Hell of a Summer” stars Fred Hechinger, Abby Quinn, D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, Billy Bryk, Finn Wolfhard, Pardis Saremi, Rosebud Baker, and Adam Pally.  Released on April 4, 2025, the film has a group of counselors confronting a masked killer at their summer camp.

The film was written and directed by Finn Wolfhard and Billy Bryk, with Bryk making his feature directorial debut.  Wolfhard also directed the 2020 comedy short film “Night Shifts”.  Summer camp is a safe and tranquil environment where kids experience the great outdoors and enjoy various activities with friends for three months straight.  It’s also an excellent way for children to get off their electronics and enjoy the beauty of nature for once.  But, of course, it’s not without its drawbacks that may affect their fun in the sun, especially when you’re a camp counselor.  Dealing with children is one thing, but having to prepare for opening while a killer is on the loose?  That will make for one hell of a ghost story to tell the campers…that is if they don’t get murdered first.  We went from one horror comedy from a first-time director to another in the span of two weeks, as Billy Bryk and “Stranger Things” star Finn Wolfhard seek to take a stab at the genre in their feature directorial debuts.  Don’t worry; it doesn’t involve a mythical creature this time, although that doesn’t make the situation less dire.  With that said, let’s head down to camp and see if it marks an early yet gleefully bloody start to summer vacation.

The story centers on the staff members of Camp Pineway, including Jason Hochberg (Hechinger), an enthusiastic yet overgrown man whose only purpose is working at the camp.  The counselors are in the middle of preparing their summer camp for the arrival of the young campers.  However, this seemingly normal night at Camp Pineway unexpectedly hits a massive snag in their preparations when an unknown serial killer arrives and starts killing the staff one by one.  As they approach the final hours before the camp opens, Jason and the remaining counselors must trust each other to subdue the killer’s rampage before their summer gets canceled for good.

The slasher subgenre is one part of the horror category that usually piques my interest if the concept seems entertaining enough to justify its existence.  Based on the trailer I've watched a few times, “Hell of a Summer” seems like it could be another example of this occasion.  Its plot takes many pages from “Friday the 13th”, mainly a masked killer wreaking bloody havoc on teenage victims at a camp.  But, knowing me, I’m usually in the mood to see this type of rampage unfold, especially with the young blood involved behind the scenes, including Finn Wolfhard.  Wolfhard had his experience as a director through his short film five years ago and at a pretty young age, too.  I guess it shows that it’s never too early to start their filmmaking career.  Now, he’s already making a leap to feature film territory, with Bryk backing him up as a newbie co-director.  Fun fact: Wolfhard and Bryk bonded on the set of “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” over their similar sense of humor.  As someone who hasn’t watched Wolfhard’s “Night Shifts”, I was curious to see if his directorial style is as compelling as his acting career.  After viewing it at a small auditorium with a few people, I could only say it was a fine trip to summer camp that's also nothing to write home about.

“Hell of a Summer” doesn’t have much to say amid its slasher-esque throwback.  It’s just a straightforward and appropriately short movie about a group of people being killed by a masked murderer.  Nothing more, nothing less.  If that’s what you seek, this movie provides enough serviceable moments to satisfy your murderous campy desires.  However, I can also say that it doesn’t offer much else in terms of narrative and humor to stand out from other slasher movies.  Regarding its screenplay, Finn Wolfhard and Billy Bryk took several inspirations from the teen horror and comedy movies we grew up with, mainly “Friday the 13th,” but with young adult counselors instead of teenage campers.  So, it’s easy to tell that this is more of a homage to the old-school slasher movies of the 80s, ranging from stereotypical characters to the traditional slasher kills that are more subtle than over-the-top.  On the one hand, Wolfhard and Bryk certainly have an eye for acknowledging the good old days of slasher movies before the genre got bombarded by CGI and far-fetched gore.  On the other hand, it also risks the story of being another formulaic, middle-of-the-road horror movie that didn’t do much to revitalize the genre, which happens to be the case for “Hell of a Summer”.

The film’s first act took a bit to start the killing spree since it focuses on introducing the characters and their personalities.  One such case is Jason, who prefers to work at a summer camp for another year instead of being a responsible adult.  However, when the masked killer appears on the scene and his love interest, Claire (Quinn), becomes involved, Jason is thrust into a situation that compels him to take responsibility.  Despite its 88-minute runtime, the first act’s pacing can be a bit of a drag when dealing with people with personas you usually see in any other slasher movie.  Not to mention, the movie’s intended humor, which stemmed from the characters’ awkwardness and genre homages, didn’t click with me as much as I wanted it to initially.  But once the killer with the demon mask starts hunting the counselors down, it becomes an enjoyable and often humorous ride from start to finish.  It’s still plagued by its quality issues, including the dim lighting for the nighttime scenes and the underwhelming horror aspects, mainly the lack of scares and mundane kills.  Thankfully, they didn’t hinder my experience with the counselors getting paranoid about the mystery behind the demon-faced murderer.

One reason was Wolfhard and Bryk’s direction, which provided a couple of merits that are as delectable as eating roasted marshmallows around the fire.  Alongside the genre homages, the duo gets a few points for how they envisioned some editing choices, including the sequence involving the killer’s second murder.  Without spoiling anything, that scene meshes well with the timing of one of the characters’ actions.  Wolfhard and Bryk’s direction didn’t evoke a visionary spark worthy of standing alongside other horror classics, but their benefits to the quality were enough to admire their minor efforts in paying tribute to the genre’s traditional callbacks.  The other reason was its cast, which provided enough charisma in their performances to carry the film’s length, including Fred Hechinger as the naive yet kindhearted Jason.  This film and last year’s “Thelma” are some examples of Hechinger showcasing his genuine talent if the script and direction allow him to.  While his performance here didn’t match what he accomplished in “Thelma”, Hechinger’s appealing charm offered a few chuckles to elevate Jason’s character arc, which is enough to compensate for a few misses he starred in in-between.  Billy Bryk and Abby Quinn also did pretty well in their commendable performances as Bobby and Claire, respectively.

Overall, “Hell of a Summer” is a mildly watchable throwback to the slasher genre that lacks the refreshingly sharp edge to cut through its familiar trappings.  It’s far from a revitalization of the elements we’ve seen a dozen times regarding its screenplay, first act, and hit-and-miss humor.  However, it did its job of making its formulaic essence mostly entertaining and humorously brutal, even if its homage elements didn’t elevate the concept in a witty and offbeat manner.  Its cast, mainly Hechinger, and Wolfhard and Bryk’s approach to a few editing choices were enough to maintain my interest in the killer’s brutal camp activities.  Outside of that, this ghost story lacked a few spooks and laughs to keep me up all night.  If you enjoy watching slasher films, you might find some enjoyment in this one.  Otherwise, you’re better off waiting for a killer-free summer vacation.