The Electric State (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: An orphaned teen hits the road with a mysterious robot to find her long-lost brother, teaming up with a smuggler and his wisecracking sidekick. I know, SOOOO original.

Many reviews for The Electric State (or TES) seemed unkind. After watching it, I can confirm that they are, in fact, quite kind. Simply describing TES as “a bad movie” is the kindest thing you could say about it. I like the Russo brothers; they’ve directed some of my favourite episodes of Community and Arrested Development. But they also directed The Gray Man, a film so forgettable that having watched it is almost indistinguishable from not having watched it. I just looked at my review for that, and I was genuinely tempted to repost that with a few names changed, because I could make the same damn points for this.

Now it doesn’t make the exact same mistakes. Nope, TES managed to make newer, dumber mistakes. Firstly, it’s more expensive. Secondly, it doesn’t have a charming, charismatic lead like Ryan Gosling; instead, it’s stuck with Chris Pratt, who seems to be continuing his quest to try to be Harrison Ford, and failing miserably (well as miserably as someone with millions of dollars in the bank can fail). The music is nowhere near as good. I can’t remember that much of the music in The Gray Man, but I don’t remember it feeling as post-Guardians as this does. I’ll explain what that means, since the success of Guardians Of The Galaxy, it has occasionally felt like film studios treat soundtracks (especially for action movies with a sci-fi element) as a way for the director to play their favourite songs. When it’s done well, it’s brilliant. But when it’s done badly, it feels like they’re picking the most obvious songs, doing the cinematic equivalent of recommending you a great new place for coffee, a Starbucks. I’m not exagerrating the obviousness of the tracks. Here’s a selection:

I Fought The Law – The Clash. I mean, it’s a good song, but a little on the nose, don’t you think? I LOVE The Clash, but I realise that some of their songs are overused in media (one day, studios will realise that Londons Calling isn’t the only song with London in the title).

Don’t Stop Believing – Journey. This has been overused since Glee.

Breaking The Law – Judas Priest. Again, so obvious.

Wonderwall – Oasis. Jesus, what are you, a guy at a party with an acoustic guitar?

The only thing with less creative vision than the soundtrack is the script. I’ve heard the source material is REALLY good, and completely different from the film. I look forward to reading it, so I can also be annoyed at the changes they made. Lets face it, I have to be annoyed at one adaptation now that Disney+ has deleted Artemis Fowl. The script makes some weird choices. For example; the entire robot/human war is skipped over. Not “the film starts after the war”, the opening of the movie is set before the conflict, then the entire thing takes place via montage. They should have started after the war, that way THAT’S the world we’re in from the start. The way they do it makes TES feel like a sequel, with the opening montage being a summary of the first movie.

It’s also not good with how it handles the villain. I’m gonna be honest, I saw TES a few weeks ago, and I genuinely can’t remember the villain. Which I think says it all. I just remember them not being there for most of the film, so nothing had urgency. It felt like the characters were free to just walk around doing side quests.

TES also suffers from having no idea how to handle emotion. The death of Amherst should be a huge deal, as it is, if you sneeze you won’t notice he’s dead. The characters don’t seem to reflect on the moment, there’s no sense that their motivations or situation is changed by the death. It’s just something that happens.

Now, on the upside, the robots look AMAZING. Some of the other CGI is a bit ropey, but the robots themselves are brilliant. They all seem to have individual personalities, too. Weirdly, they feel the most real out of everything in this movie. The reveal of what they did to her brother is also suitably horrific and belongs in a much better movie.

Oh, on the subject of the brother. I’ll give the film kudos for filming their interactions in a way that makes it seem like the brother and sister DO share a bond, that they are close to each other. But…….and I’m not sure how to put this. Erm, it’s the wrong kind of closeness. They seem more like lovers than siblings (a note to Alabama; those are supposed to be different things). It’s weird and creepy.

It’s not the only “wait, that feels sexual” moment. Okay, so there’s a moment where two robots are fighting, and one grabs the other by the hat and pushes him down. It genuinely looks like he’s trying to force a blowjob. That, and only that, got a laugh out of me. It’s the only section where TES tickles me. I’m glad about that because it meant I got to use the phrase “TES tickles”, which sounds like testicles.

Shut up, this movie is fucking shit, at least let me enjoy something.

Until Dawn (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Clover is on a road trip to find out what happened to her missing sister, she finds out. Her and her friends get trapped in a repetitive nightmare.

I’ve never played Until Dawn, but I have played some games by the same studio, which follow the same principles and guidelines. I genuinely love them, not just because I’m a fan of story-based games, but also because they’re interesting and have great accessibility options. A key part of those games is the notion that choices have consequences. Something as simple as “look at this poster” could be the difference between life and death. Importantly, you, as a player, have to live with the consequences of your actions. So it’s baffling that the main gimmick of the movie is that choices don’t matter because once you die, you reset into your original position.

Annoyingly, it doesn’t even do anything entertaining with that premise. When this has been done before, the characters die because of their mistakes, and learn from them to help them survive. Here, it feels like they’re being controlled to die, and there’s nothing they can do. For example, at one point, a character gets picked up by an invisible force and dragged into a building. What’s the lesson there? What can a character learn from that to avoid it? Similarly, there’s one set of deaths which is essentially “don’t drink tap water, you’ll explode”, which feels ridiculously unfair to the characters.

It feels like the movie itself gets bored of its own premise halfway through, with the characters waking up and realising they’ve died multiple times and can’t remember a lot of them (conveniently, the characters all forget the exact same ones). Why? How does this serve the plot? It seems like they only did that as an excuse to watch videos of previous deaths on someones phone, and cram in horror movie moments.

Which is another issue; this isn’t a story, it’s a series of moments from other horror movies that the filmmakers wanted to put in. It doesn’t settle on a tone or style that’s consistent throughout. It reminded me of Cabin In The Woods, but badly written.

The characters? They’re funny, I’ll give them that. But there are so many moments where they feel like movie characters instead of actual people. Some sentences uttered are only uttered by characters who are written; nobody responds as an actual human would respond. There’s also a weird sense of detachment. The characters quickly get used to the idea of dying and coming back, despite not knowing when their last life will be, so really, they could die at any point. There’s a moment when a character disappears, and I thought they were going to announce that she had died died, which would lead to everybody becoming less flippant with death, but nope, she’s just elsewhere. I’m not exaggerating when I say the characters treat death flippantly, at times they seem to welcome it. “fuck, stubbed my toe, guess I’ll die”. At one point, one of the characters flat-out murders one of her friends. That murder is never brought up again. If a friend drove a pickax into my stomach, I would find it hard to forgive them. Plus, can you imagine what it would be like if THAT life was the person’s final life? So their friend properly killed them and has to live with that knowledge, whilst also learning that their lives are finite.

Until Dawn is not completely terrible, though. The performances are fine, although it is hard to get past the feeling that they are discount versions of other actors; specifically, Rachel Weisz, Jenny Slate, Johnny Depp, and James McAvoy. It is weird how the film has objectively lesser-known actors than the game. The game had Remi Malek and Hayden Panettiere. Okay, this was before Bo Rhap, so Malek wasn’t a big name then, but it’s still strange.

Some of the kills are fun, and as much as I hated the explosion scene for what it did to the narrative, out of context, it was entertaining. There is a basis for a good idea here. But it needed more thought than it was given. I was really looking forward to this, and I can’t feel anything except disappointed.

Thunderbolts (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: A ragtag group of misfits join together to save the day. Yes, it’s been done.

Doctor Strange, released back in 2016, was the 14th movie of the MCU. Think of everything that happened between the release of Iron Man and the release of that. All the original Avengers had been introduced, they had met, teamed up, and split. Tony Stark stepped into a leadership role alongside Steve Rodgers, Thor learned how to step back and not be so pigheaded, the Captain America trilogy showed us something special. I’m saying that because Thunderbolts is the 14th movie since Endgame, it would be impossible to argue that the MCU has taken the same steps. Post-Endgame, it’s still struggling to find an identity or story arc. There’s also been a change in intentions; it used to be focused on “we’re going to tell stories”, and now it seems to be based more on moments. When people talk about Doctor Strange 2: More Strangerer, they often don’t talk about the story, what the characters went through, etc; they talk about the scene where Scarlet Witch kills multiverse versions of characters we want to see. Even Brave New World was focused almost entirely around the scene of Red Hulk (and then spoiled in the trailer, so what was the point of watching the movie?). Thunderbolts feels like a change from that. For the first time, there are no huge reveals that are there to bait the audience (except for the Fantastic Four reference in the post-credits scene, which was spoiled by the “Fantastic Four Theme” listed in the credits itself).

For the first time in a long time, it has genuine emotion and character development. It’s been marketed as being similar to Guardians Of The Galaxy, but to me it felt more like Winter Soldier. Importantly, it feels mature. Even the way the villain is defeated is different from the usual superhero fare. It could be argued that Thunderbolts isn’t even about the villain, not really. It’s about depression, trauma, and youth football (of the non-US variety). It feels like an actual honest-to-god movie, rather than just a comic book movie.

It’s not perfect. There are a few moments which reveal things much earlier than the film intends. This isn’t a criticism of foreshadowing, I love that shit. But there are moments where you realise, “Okay, well, Marvel would never do the thing they want us to think they’ve done, which means there’s no threat in this scene” It’s hard to explain the specifics without spoilers. Also, I find it unrealistic that Bucky Barnes would be nominated as a congressman. Not because he has killed multiple people, including JFK, and the Starks. Not because you can never be truly certain if he’ll kill again. But because he has a definitive history of being anti-Nazi, that just won’t fly in modern America.

I liked how grounded this film felt. This is a weird thing to say about a film that features a character who is basically Superman. But it felt relatively small, in a good way. They weren’t saving the world from an extinction-level event. They were nipping a local event in the bud before it became a problem. This was superheroing as prevention rather than reaction. When people are in danger, it’s not directly because of the villain, but because of the side effects of what he did. The biggest threat to human life, the scenes which feature the most near-deaths, are focused around one helicopter crash; it flies into a building, causing structural damage, and that damage rains down onto civilians below. I love that. I also like when it allowed my favourite superhero cliche to happen; characters running towards danger while everyone else runs away. That image in the Justice League trailer was what sold Affleck as Batman to me, and I love it when it’s repeated.

As I said, a really solid script. But none of that would be worth a shot glass of monkey glass (what the fuck?) if the performers weren’t up to it. Why isn’t Wyatt Russell a bigger deal? Seriously, if you showed someone a photo of him, or one of his performances, they would assume he’s a big deal, someone who producers and directors have to fight to get to lead their movies because they know he’ll make them a success. He just FEELS like a star. I mean, he’s still highly regarded, but it genuinely baffles me how no studio has worked out a way to make him a household name. Florence Pugh is great, and her accent barely wavers, same with David Harbour, but he’s let down by a few moments where his character showcases the worst of Marvel screenwriting; badly timed quips. I will always love seeing Julia Louis-Dreyfus on screen, same with Geraldine Viswanathan. The two of them have weirdly good chemistry for two performers who I don’t think have worked together before; they could easily lead a sitcom or road trip comedy together.

In summary, one of the strongest MCU films in a while, and sets up enough dominoes for future movies to knock down.

The Accountant 2 (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Forensic accountant Christian Wolff teams up with his estranged but highly lethal brother to track down mysterious assassins.

I watched the first movie in the cinema when it came out. Now here’s everything I can remember from it:

  1. Ben Affleck played an autistic person who shot people.
  2. He had a brother.
  3. It was called The Accountant.

That’s it. I don’t remember particularly disliking it, but nothing stood out. It’s why I was so confused when a sequel was announced. Was anybody really asking for a 2025 sequel to a forgotten 2016 film? More importantly, how lost will I be if I can’t remember anything?

Turns out, not that lost. It doesn’t feel like a continuation of the first one as much as a different story. There’s an incident referred to many times, which I assume was the end of the first movie, but it’s otherwise relatively standalone. I’m assuming this is better than the first, because I thoroughly enjoyed this. I had one MAJOR issue, which I’ll go into later. But otherwise, it was a lot of fun. Affleck and Bernthal have great chemistry. There are so many small moments between the two which help add to their relationship. I’m not sure whether they were in the script or whether it was due to the performers themselves, but during the action scenes towards the end, they wordlessly communicate. Not the way you’d expect, which is normally hand gestures to indicate direction. Instead, there are subtle “I’m here” brushes on the back as they pass each other in battle.

There are other cast members, but they’re all definite supporting artists in the double-act of Affleck and Bernthal. Some return from the first movie (not that I remember them), and some are new. They’re fine, but none of them would be missed if they weren’t in the third one, with one exception. She’s not in it much, but I adored Allison Robertson as Justine. She has no spoken dialogue (unless the synthesised voice is hers), but her character is wonderful, and since she’s not a secret like the first one, we get to see more of her this time. She’s joined by (there’s no other way of putting this) an army of autistic tech genius kids. I loved that whole section. Not only because the kids were fun and operated as a group effectively and believably, but also because it actually backs up Affleck’s character, you can tell he would have loved to have had a community like that growing up, so he’s doing everything he can to help them.

Now onto my main issue: the plot. There’s no polite way of saying this, it’s a mess. It makes sense, there are no massive plot holes, and it’s not confusing. It’s just incredibly superfluous. I’ve seen games on the SNES with a better plot. A lot of times, you don’t really get a feel for what’s driving the narrative forward, nothing seems important, and until the final section, the stakes seem low. It never feels like the narrative is what’s driving the characters and plot, and it’s really hard to get invested.

Somehow it still works. The characters are likeable enough that you can look past the plot that’s thinner than my patience. It’s difficult to be bored when you’re as entertained as you are here. There’s no “best scenes ever”, but there are a lot of very cute and wonderful moments. Whether it’s the line dancing scene (which is actually a really good character piece for a wordless dance scene), the speed-dating opener where Affleck’s character attracts a long queue of women and then slowly annoys every single one of them, or the pay-off to the cat comment. It’s a likeable, charming film, and one which you’ll be hard-pressed to not enjoy.

Warfare (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: A surveillance mission goes wrong for a platoon of American Navy SEALs in insurgent territory in Iraq.

I’m still not entirely sure how I felt about Warfare (the movie, not the general concept). On the one hand, it is a superbly crafted experience, one that puts you in the shoes of those who were there, a real treat for those who are interested in modern warfare. On the other hand, it’s incredibly dull at times, and is so focused on being realistic and well-researched, it seems to forget that not everybody knows military terms.

I will praise Warfare (again, the movie, not the general concept, I’m not about to “big up” genocide, I’m not a politician) for how research permeates through the screen. People react realistically, and I will praise it for showing how even well-trained professionals still find it difficult to cope. This is the kind of masculinity that should be taught; the strength to know when you’re too fucked up and broken to be at your best, and how during those times you should relinquish leadership roles. They also have no qualms about screaming in agony and crying. Yes, this is natural when you’ve lost your legs. But think of how many films have shown people suffer severe physical damage, and don’t seem to emotionally respond to it. Warfare shows fear, and it shows pain. It’s disappointing that something so simple should be praised, but it should.

Sadly, that realism also means it can be difficult for people to “buy in” to the narrative. Army speak is kind of a code at times, people are referred to almost entirely by what type of soldier they are, and those names sometimes don’t give you a lot of clues as to what they actually do. Because everybody knows what they’re doing, they don’t explain it. So you often have someone say something like “okay, meet the Yorkshire Puddings at 06 to coordinate a Flipped Fletcher, and don’t forget your oily shepherd, you never know when you might meet a sleeping zebra”, but not give any clues what those terms mean (obviously not those ones, I invented them).

One of the most frustrating aspects is that it’s a war film without purpose. There are no moral quandaries or discussions. Which is odd considering they break into someone’s house and force the families who live there to let them stay there, pointing guns at their faces if they even look like objecting. Near the end, once the soldiers leave, the families are traumatised, and you know that there’s no chance the US army will compensate them for destroying their house, and they’re now targets for the Iraqis because they may be seen as helping the invasion. Despite this, we’re still supposed to support the main characters, because they’re the main characters. But outside of that, it’s difficult to feel more for them. They’re not given enough chance to show any personality, and most are interchangeable. Movies like this depend on personal connection to the characters, but Warfare is so insistent on telling its truth, it forgets to adhere to basic storytelling devices, which would allow us to care.

As a concept? This is fascinating. As an art project? Worthwhile. As a narrative feature-length movie to sit in a cinema and watch? Unfortunately, it’s difficult to recommend. Yes, it’s real, but there’s a reason most films don’t feature scenes highlighting a character pissing in a bottle.

A Minecraft Movie (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: A mysterious portal pulls four misfits into the Overworld, a bizarre, cubic wonderland that thrives on imagination. To get back home, they’ll have to master the terrain while embarking on a magical quest with an unexpected crafter named Steve.

I will preface this review by pointing out that I’ve never played Minecraft. Plus, despite spending a lot of my time online, I don’t really integrate myself with online culture; I’m not really someone who pays attention to trends and memes, etc. I’m not actively opposed to them, I just don’t really give a shit. Essentially, I view most TikTok trends not with disdain, but with boredom. That’s pretty much how I viewed A Minecraft Movie (AMM, pronounced aaaaaaaaaaaaarm for no reason whatsoever except that I want to pronounce it that way). I get what they were going for, but it didn’t appeal to me.

Part of it may be that I’m getting slightly bored of Jack Blacks shtick now. Dear Santa and Borderlands, I have pushed him out of the good graces portion of my brain, and I’m beginning to realise how similar all of his performances have been lately, like he’s coasting. It doesn’t help that I couldn’t get past the notion that it might have made more sense if he and Momoa swapped roles. You have two characters; one is a former video game champion with no prospects and tries to coast on his charm, reliving his glory days through video games and metal music. Doesn’t it seem like Jack Black should play him? As it is, he plays the other adult character, but plays him exactly the same way he plays every character, which would have suited the aforementioned character better.

I was also puzzled by the opening. It establishes that Steve was a child who wanted to mine, a child who grew older and bored with life, then, as an adult, felt the yearning again and went back into the mine, finding himself transported to the Overworld. While there, he becomes a master baiter, expertly baiting a wolf to become his friend. More importantly, he builds a lot of cool shit, and pisses off the gold-obssesed leader of another dimension. Now, what became of the life of real-world Steve? Nobody cares. No mention of his workplace, wondering where his child went, no town legends about someone going missing. There’s not even much of a mention of how long he’s been gone. I’m going to do this a lot in this review (possibly), but compare it to Jumaji. Where he went missing as a child (which makes a lot more sense), this allowed the film a justification for him being so well-versed in the world. Jumanji also showed how that disappearance haunted the people left behind, which never happens here with Steve. I know there’s a possibility that this happened like that because “that’s how it happened in the game”, but it still feels odd, very first draft.

Generally, I was left feeling with a sense of boredom throughout, no more than at the end, where they do the traditional music montage with text showing what happened to everybody. Big issue: the song is kind of dull. It “rocks” with a small R, in much the same way Bryan Adams does. Actually, that’s unfair to Bryan Adams; it “rocks” in the same way as Sting does. Not asking for a piece of musical greatness that would echo through the ages, but at least make it so I can remember.

All of this hurts more because it is generally a likeable movie. Momoa is clearly having fun, Emma Myers is fine but not notable, and Jennifer Coolidge continues to be incredibly reliable, the type of performer you can give 5 minutes to, and they’ll be some of the most entertaining 5 minutes you’ll see. The visuals are fun, and the action scenes have a sense of logic to them that’s missing in a lot of similar films. Plus, there are some funny jokes and moments in there (a lot of them provided by Danielle Brooks, who’s one of the few people who seem suitably freaked out).

It really should be better, though. It’s ironic that a film about the importance of creativity should be so pedestrian and uninspiring. THAT’S my issue. The concept has potential, and the film never comes within eyesight of it.

Sinners (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: From Dusk Till Dawn, but as a 30’s gangster movie with a black cast.

I went into this after seeing the trailer, but forgot what the trailer was like. I saw a post on Facebook saying it was a vampire horror movie. For about 40 minutes, I wondered if I had seen a post about a different movie. It wasn’t a horror movie, it wasn’t a vampire movie, it was a gangster flick about two brothers using money stolen from Chicago mobs to start up a bar. It had interesting character work, a lot of subtle references to the brothers’ past misdeeds, and how they acquired the money. It asked a lot of questions that the audience will want answered; the main one being what led to the opening scene, where Sammie (played by Miles Caton in his screen debut) stumbles into his father’s church, battered and bloody, desperate for comfort, only to see his father use him as an example in a sermon. Just when I began to doubt my own memory, the vampires made their first appearance. It’s a great genre switch, reminded me of From Dusk Till Dawn, only with less scenes of the writer sucking on an actresses toes to fulfil their own fetish.

I think I preferred this to Dusk; it’s much slower, and that glacial pace will be divisive, putting off a lot of people. It’s also not as bloody, but it does do something that the aforementioned Dawn never manages; it wowed me. There’s a scene in Sinners where Sammie plays his song at the bar. The song is so powerful that it connects across space and time, with spirits of the past and future joining in; electric guitars played Hendrix style join in with music from hundreds of years ago, and dances from different cultures, showing how music connects everybody. I’ve already written its nomination for best scene in the end-of-year awards. From a storytelling perspective, from a technical perspective (it’s a LOOOONG mostly unbroken shot), from a musical perspective, it’s all brilliant. I hate people who talk at the cinema, but I couldn’t help let out a gasp of “that was fucking cinema” when I saw it. I’m so glad it’s not just me. I’ve seen a lot of people online mention how much they loved that moment, and if you see it, it’s easy to see why. The mass sing-along to “Rocky Road Of Dublin” (which I always assumed Dropkick Murphys wrote, obviously not) is a few steps below it in terms of quality, but is just as powerful, and MUCH more terrifying.

Scenes like that, which show not only the power of music, but also the shared experiences between black and Irish immigrants (albeit, at two VASTLY different levels for most of American history) show just how smart Sinners is. The characters are just as smart. When a friend-turned-vampire starts asking for permission to enter the bar, the characters question why they suddenly need to ask permission. When they’re not sure who’s been bitten, they gather round and each eat a clove of garlic (in a scene very reminiscent of The Thing). The characters don’t die due to their own stupidity; they die because they’re overpowered, overmanned, and don’t know everything. Except for the klan members at the end, they die because they realised their blood can help the grass grow, and by dying they can actually provide some use for once in their pathetic fucking lives. I know, I’m anti-KKK, so controversial.

Sinners is not a perfect movie, but you have to be very picky to find those faults. It’s probably the best film I’ve seen this year. It’s not my favourite, but it is undoubtedly the most impressive, and the one closest to perfection. Cooglar is fantastic and cannot receive enough praise for the work he’s done, not just here, but throughout his whole career. Long may it continue.

The Amateur (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Charlie is a CIA cryptographer whose wife is brutally killed. He’s somewhat pissed about this, so decides to enact vengeance.

I never thought I’d say this, but sometimes big movie studios do know what they’re doing. Whether it’s editing Donnie Darko to make it coherent, making Woody more sympathetic in Toy Story, or changing the ending of Clerks, sometimes they do the right thing. I say that because it’s relevant here. The trailer for The Amateur featured a weird swimming pool death, with an explanation of what’s happening. Ordinarily, that would annoy me because it would feel like they’re giving away a key action setpiece in the trailer, but I actually liked it a lot. Mainly because in the movie itself, it was fascinating to watch it arrive. The build-up is superb, it’s like a horror movie, where you see the death coming, but the interesting part is seeing the tension build up beforehand. I guess now would be a good time to point out that this review is based entirely on this version. I have not seen the 1981 version, nor have I read the book. So I won’t make any complaints about stuff they’ve changed, and I won’t be able to talk about how it improved on certain aspects. I will be evaluating it based entirely on its own merits.

Out of the films I’ve seen directed by James Hawes, this is the most impressive from a technical standpoint, mainly because it has more of a visual style. I like the way he shot this; everything looks real and slick. It’s helped by some gorgeous locations, which actually feel like you’re travelling the world rather than just watching someone act in front of a green screen. The action sequences are unique; they’re not over-the-top fun like John Wick, they’re toned down, restrained. If this were a boxing match, it wouldn’t be a relentless series of punches to the face; it’s more like standing there, waiting patiently for the perfect time to make a singular knockout punch. I love that, as it means that the scenes that are supposed to have an impact hit HARD because they feel realistic, mostly. The realism is a big part of why I enjoyed The Amateur. Let’s face it, “a faceless cryptographer manages to outsmart the entire CIA” is a ridiculous premise when you think about it, but The Amateur makes you believe it.

Now, onto the downside, the background characters feel bland. They have enough foundations to be interesting, but a lot of those foundations are never built upon. Most of them don’t feel real; they just feel like machinations to help or hinder the lead character. My other issue is a bit harder to explain; I feel it wastes Rami Malek. I’m not saying he’s above films like this, but I do get the impression that the role isn’t showing him at his best. This wouldn’t be an issue, but there are a few scenes which could have allowed him to display his talents if the script were different. There’s one in particular near the end where he delivers a single line, and it’s a line full of emotion and pathos. But it’s also a line, and a scene, which you could easily imagine being extended, giving him a chance for a monologue that will truly break your heart.

Those are small issues, though. The Amateur is an easy film to enjoy. Unless it happens to be on TV as I’m trapped under a cat, I’m not sure I can imagine a situation where I will ever want to see it again. But that’s more to do with my lack of love for the spy genre as a whole rather than a comment on the film itself. It’s certainly not something I would ever discourage anybody from watching.

Drop (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: A widow goes on a date with a man she met online. A date that gets ruined by her trauma and anxiety, plus she keeps getting phone messages that threaten to kill her son if she doesn’t poison her date.

I am a slight fan of Landon, but mainly when he works a distinct style; kickass female leads in genre-bending weirdness (Happy Death Day and its sequel, Freaky, etc). When he steps away from that? Well then, you get Paranormal Activity 5 and Scouts Guide To The Zombie Apocalypse. Drop could easily fall into either of the two; yes, it has a strong female lead, but it isn’t playing off a genre, so it was difficult to figure out which side of the Landon fence it would fall.

I’ll get this out of the way; it’s much closer in quality to Happy Death Day than it is to Scouts Guide. From a technical standpoint, it’s his best film yet. There are some incredible shots here, this is the most impressed I can remember being with his camera work; sometimes when it didn’t even need to be. He doesn’t NEED to transition between the bar and the table with a tracking shot; a simple cut between the two would have worked. But he DOES make the choice to use the more difficult shot, and it’s beautiful. The set design also allows some visuals that are stunning, but not in an overly showy way.

Sadly, that doesn’t make Drop his best film. You can tell a lot of effort has been put into closing off any potential loopholes or answering any questions you may have about the logic. Drop REALLY doesn’t want you to question its core premise, but it doesn’t do enough to get you to care about anything outside of that. It has the essence of a political thriller, but it feels kind of underdeveloped. The villain’s main motivation comes off a little weak, especially since he seems to have picked the worst possible method to fix his problem. It’s written by the pair who wrote Fantasy Island and Truth Or Dare, which I still count as two of the worst horror movies I’ve had the misfortune of watching. Drop is nowhere near as bad as those two films, but the issues I had with them do linger here, too. The ambition is beyond its talent, trying so hard to be clever that it comes off as kind of stupid, and some character choices aren’t logical. There’s nothing inherently terrible about Drop. Nothing that will annoy you or offend you, but there are a lot of small issues with it, and eventually, they do build up.

Thankfully, Drop has something wonderful in its box of tricks: the cast. Meghann Fahy and Brandon Sklenar make incredible leads. Separately, they’re very good performers. But it’s when they share the screen that magic happens. You really buy them as a nervous couple on a date; they could lead a rom-com together easily. The background cast is fun too (especially Violett Beane), never overshadowing the leads, but providing enough uniqueness that you do notice them, so if they were revealed as the mastermind behind the scheme, you wouldn’t be sitting there like “Who’s that?”. I’d have liked to have seen more work done on the writing of those characters, more motivational possibilities for some of them, and more doubt placed in our heads about some of them.

So, the reveal itself? It’s good, not great. If you ignore the “That’s literally the worst way you could have done this” questions, then it does make sense, and it’s easy to see how it was pulled off. However, there’s something deeply unsatisfying about how the reveal is set up. Just an offhand comment that no professional serving staff would make, followed by a lucky guess. It’s nowhere near as bad as the last Scream movie, but it’s also not one that makes you want to see the film again and watch it again with that reveal in mind.

In summary, it’s a very cute relationship movie that then breaks out into a thriller, and it does 75% of that VERY well.

The Second Act aka Le Deuxième Acte (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: It genuinely doesn’t f*cking matter, seriously.

It’s weird how a trailer can win you over by not showing a single second of what’s in the film. It may seem counter-productive to not include anything from the movie in the trailer, but sometimes it’s not needed. Sometimes, all you need is a way to tell people “This is the tone and style”. The Second Act (TSA, pronounced Tizz-ah, but not like the drink) trailer did that brilliantly and is probably the best trailer I’ve seen in a while. It tells you everything while showing you nothing. The complete opposite of most Marvel trailers.

Now, the film itself. It’s meta and weird. Near the start, a character says something mildly transphobic and then is told “You can’t say that we’re being filmed” Then the character tries to rephrase it differently. He doesn’t say that as the character, he says it as the actor playing the character, if that makes sense? It’s a weird moment, the first of many, and how you react to that scene will let you know whether its worth continuing with the rest of the movie. Personally, I found it funny. But I will admit that it does highlight a small issue I had with this; it is occasionally too meta. As much as I do love the opening scene and how meta it is, there is still a small part of you that thinks “Get on with it”. I’m not saying be less meta, I never say that, but spread it out more among the story. As it is, TSA will stop the story for 5 minutes to focus on meta-commentary, then pick up the story again. In a film that’s less than 90 minutes long, that’s a lot of waiting around. There should have been a more seamless way of threading the meta-ness through the narrative without pausing. I typed that after 10 minutes. Really I should delete it because this film wouldn’t exist without the meta. All it has is “we’re actors making a film” and fourth wall breaks upon fourth wall breaks (16 walls?).

That kind of stuff is to be expected from fans of Quentin Dupieux, those who watched and enjoyed the *checks notes* sentient tire that kills people with psychokinetic powers movie Rubber, will enjoy this. It’s very similar, you have to go into it expecting it to break the very notion of narrative and cinema, you’re not watching it for the plot, you’re just watching it for the experience of watching it. If you are expecting some form of sense, you’re going to be deeply disappointed.

I’m quickly falling in love with Lea Seydoux, she was phenomenal in The Beast, and continues to impress throughout TSA. She’s charming, friendly, and seems believable as a slightly frustrated actress. The others are all fine, but Seydoux is the best of a very good bunch.

From a technical standpoint, this is a marvel (and not just because it stops the plot to make jokes), not in terms of special effects or even outstanding beauty, but because of the tracking shots. Oh my science, the tracking shots. They’re so prevalent that the pre-credits scene makes a point of showcasing just how long the tracks were to make them happen.

Really the only thing to take from TSA? Films are silly. Making them is silly. Writing them is silly. So what not make it so watching them is silly too? It’s not for everybody, and I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t a slightly frustrating watch at times, but it’s also one that’s not entirely without merits.