Drop is one of those movies that the second the trailer starts you know it's going to be stupid. The very premise of this movie was stupid and quite honestly not sure how it was pitched that made a bunch of executives go “Oh we have to make this”, but that is my long winded way of saying that I expect absolutely nothing from this movie. If it is anything more than a shit show then it's gonna get a high score. I am anticipating a 2/10, but let’s see.
Everything about this movie is painfully awkward. Even the way that it's shot feels weird. Apparently the woman that we are focused on is widowed because her husband kind of snapped, held her at gunpoint and then killed himself. I think the obvious twist is that the man fucking with her is her date, the other obvious choice is the man that she bumped into on the way into the restaurant.
The edit is SO BAD. The words floating on screen really felt like it was just for the trailer. But they really committed to this shitty bit. It's like they were going for a Soderberg type thing but it's like watching the Walmart version.
This feels like a film school project and I mean that in the most derogatory way.
There is so little to this movie I really can’t even say anything to critique it. Literally this whole getting threatening air drops thing is going on for so long. They think they are building tension but really it's been one note the entire time. Nothing is building, there is no story to move forward. The acting is also…questionable at best.
This waiter is insufferable. Also they keep using the same generic tension music and it is driving me crazy. It's not until an hour and 10 minutes into the movie that we get any answers whatsoever. I really don’t understand how screenwriters can structure films so horribly. It's really not difficult guys. It's actually so easy, I don’t get it.
The only interesting part of this movie is the last 20 minutes which is a truly terrible way to write a film. Normally this is where I suggest ways to make this shitty film better but seriously this film isn’t worth saving. The only concept I think they could have run with is bringing in the date and his involvement with the government way sooner. And maybe having her figure out who was stalking her sooner so that the game of cat and mouse was a little more compelling.
Okay the sheer lack of physics and common sense in the back half of this movie is unforgivable. We all overlook the ignoring of science in movies that are good and entertaining. But in a film that sucks ass and has been slow as shit for an hour and a half I simply can not forgive the fact that this man seemed immune to poison for way too long. Also the fact that he got sucked out the window like they were in an airplane. Really, violently terrible.
This woman carries so much urgency with her while she’s driving home and then is just slow as shit when she finally gets to her house. It's ridiculous.
I say this a lot. Stop stabbing bad guys and leaving the knife, not only is it slowing the bleeding but you just left your only weapon. Pull it out, stab again, rinse, repeat.
Overall the movie was exactly what I predicted it was going to be, a complete shitshow. 2/10 was correct. This has been another episode of “I can figure out a film's quality by its trailer”. There seems to be an influx of scary/thriller movies this year at the beginning of the year. Which is a little unusual because normally the wave of horror movies comes way later in the year.
About the Creator
Alexandrea Callaghan
Certified nerd, super geek and very proud fangirl.
Keep reading
More stories from Alexandrea Callaghan and writers in Geeks and other communities.
Novacaine
Jack Quaid is starting off 2025 with a bang, this man was in 2 films released earlier this year. Companion, and Novacaine. I was not super impressed with Companion but Novacaine looked quite funny so I am hopeful I like this man in something this year. The final season of the Boys is still kind of far off so this is the closest we are going to get to Huey for a while.
By Alexandrea Callaghan8 months ago in Geeks
Trump’s Attacks on Iran
Tensions between the United States and Iran have once again drawn global attention, fueled by renewed political rhetoric from former U.S. President Donald Trump and an increasingly fragile Middle East landscape. While Trump is no longer in office, his influence on American foreign policy discourse remains strong, especially regarding Iran. His recent statements and past actions continue to shape how the situation is discussed, both domestically and internationally. The ongoing Iran situation cannot be understood without revisiting Trump’s long-standing approach to Tehran—one defined by pressure, confrontation, and a belief that economic and political force could reshape Iran’s behavior. As events unfold in the region, Trump’s attacks on Iran, primarily through rhetoric and policy advocacy, have reentered the conversation at a time when stability is already uncertain. A History of Confrontation During his presidency, Donald Trump positioned Iran as one of the primary adversaries of U.S. foreign policy. His decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, marked a turning point. Trump argued that the agreement was flawed, claiming it failed to permanently prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and did not address Iran’s regional influence or missile program. Following the withdrawal, the U.S. imposed sweeping economic sanctions under what the administration called a “maximum pressure” campaign. These measures significantly affected Iran’s economy, targeting oil exports, banking systems, and international trade relationships. Trump consistently framed these actions as necessary to protect U.S. interests and global security. That confrontational posture remains central to Trump’s public messaging today. Rhetoric That Resonates Trump’s attacks on Iran in recent speeches and interviews have focused less on diplomacy and more on strength. He often portrays Iran as a destabilizing force in the Middle East, accusing its leadership of funding proxy conflicts, threatening U.S. allies, and undermining regional peace. This language resonates with segments of the American public who favor a hardline approach to foreign policy. At the same time, critics argue that such rhetoric escalates tensions rather than easing them. Words from influential political figures carry weight, especially when they echo previous policies that brought the two nations close to direct confrontation. Even without immediate military action, strong language can affect markets, diplomatic relations, and public perception across the region. The Current Iran Situation Iran today faces a complex set of challenges. Economic pressure from sanctions continues to strain daily life for many citizens, while internal political dynamics remain tense. Regionally, Iran is involved in multiple theaters through alliances and influence, making it a central player in broader Middle Eastern conflicts. Against this backdrop, Trump’s renewed focus on Iran adds another layer of uncertainty. While the current U.S. administration may pursue different strategies, Trump’s voice amplifies debates about whether negotiation or force is the more effective path forward. Supporters of Trump argue that his tough stance kept Iran in check, claiming that pressure limited its resources and influence. Opponents counter that the approach isolated the U.S. from allies and reduced opportunities for diplomatic solutions, leaving the region more volatile. Global Reactions and Diplomatic Concerns International responses to Trump’s attacks on Iran have been mixed. Some U.S. allies in the Middle East view his rhetoric favorably, seeing Iran as a shared threat. Others, particularly in Europe, remain cautious, emphasizing the importance of dialogue and multilateral agreements. Diplomats warn that escalating language can undermine ongoing efforts to stabilize the region. Even symbolic threats or aggressive statements may provoke responses that spiral beyond control. In a region already marked by conflict, restraint is often seen as a necessary component of effective diplomacy. Political Strategy at Home Trump’s focus on Iran is also tied to domestic politics. Foreign policy strength has long been a cornerstone of his political identity. By highlighting Iran as an adversary, Trump reinforces his image as a leader unwilling to compromise with perceived threats. This strategy plays well among voters who believe the U.S. should project power globally. However, it also raises questions about long-term consequences. Critics argue that consistent confrontation without clear diplomatic off-ramps risks entrenching hostility rather than resolving underlying issues. What Comes Next? The future of U.S.-Iran relations remains uncertain. While Trump’s attacks on Iran currently take the form of rhetoric and policy advocacy rather than direct action, their impact should not be underestimated. Political language can shape expectations, influence decision-makers, and affect the behavior of nations. For Iran, continued pressure may harden positions within its leadership, reducing incentives for compromise. For the United States, balancing strength with diplomacy remains a delicate challenge—one that will define its role in the Middle East for years to come. Conclusion Trump’s attacks on Iran reflect a broader debate about how powerful nations should handle long-standing adversaries. Is pressure the path to peace, or does it deepen divisions? As the Iran situation continues to evolve, the consequences of words spoken today may shape realities tomorrow. In a world already facing uncertainty, the need for measured dialogue, strategic thinking, and global cooperation has never been greater. Whether confrontation or communication ultimately prevails will depend not just on leaders, but on the choices they make in moments of tension.
By Saboor Brohi a day ago in Geeks
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.