There’s a cottage industry of Bigfoot films just waiting for us on Tubi.

Low budgets. Furry, oversized creatures. Wacky titles (“Bigfoot or Bust” may take the cake). It’s pure genre filmmaking, and no judgment here. “The Sasqualogist” is radically different.

Writer/director Joseph Granda’s wise and witty look at an obsessed “squatcher” may have a similar budget, but its ambitions and artistry make all the difference.

Granda stars as a former professor who spends his days searching for proof of Bigfoot’s existence. The opening sequence suggests he’s done just that, allowing Granda to establish his character’s quirks with sly efficiency.

“I don’t hate people. I just feel better when they’re not around,” he explains.

He chased his girlfriend away and made friends with locals who share his passion. He’s also gained the attention of a local teen (Brandon Swartz) who is fixated on the sasqualogist’s quest.

The two end up searching for the big, hairy beast, but what they find along the way proves more meaningful than any oversized footprint.

“The Sasqualogist” isn’t a traditional comedy, but the screenplay brims with gentle humor along with outright guffaws. Granda’s cranky timing proves perfect, as does his choice of comic foils. Yes, you can tell a Bigfoot story and include a ventriloquist’s dummy.

An extended sequence where the Sasqualogist takes tourists on a Bigfoot “expedition” is funnier than most mainstream comedies.

Our antihero is hard to warm up to at first, but Granda imbues him with a sadness that leavens his misanthropy. He’s happiest when he’s alone yet hungry for human connection. 

He gets the latter with Swartz’s character, a curious figure who looms large over the film.

Meet America’s top Bigfoot hunter – https://t.co/606fmdh0d9 #GoogleAlerts

— The Sasqualogist Movie 2025 (@TheSasqualogist) June 9, 2025

It’s best not to share too much about our antihero’s journey. Pleasures abound in the loping story twists, some of which dip into the supernatural.

Or do they?

Just know the screenplay teems with Bigfoot lore, sprinkled across the woods like so much bear scat. True? False? A smattering of each or just plain unknowable? No matter, since the details lend the film a richness that grounds the story.

Production values are remarkably strong despite the microbudget, from winning cinematography to solid supporting turns when they matter most. Even the original songs outkick the budget’s coverage.

Granda is in every scene, driving the story until its satisfying coda. It’s the kind of performance that shoves vanity to the side, revealing an original soul worth our attention. 

The third act takes some creative risks, some of which fail to live up to the rest of the story. It’s still a brisk, original spin on Bigfoot lore that takes the subject seriously. It also offers an empathetic look at what makes this community tick.

Here’s betting that gets left off-screen in “Bigfoot or Bust.”

NOTES: “The Sasqualogist” is set for a Fall 2025 release. For transparency’s sake, the filmmaker is a friend of this critic.

HiT or Miss: “The Sasqualogist” proves even a genre-friendly subject like Bigfoot can spawn something meaningful without insulting the Bigfoot community or audiences.

The post Is ‘The Sasqualogist’ the Ultimate Bigfoot Film? appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Barry Levinson’s “Sphere” (1998) is one of those big-budget box office disasters that elicits groans whenever I bring it up, but I’ve always been a fan of it.

That’s not the same thing as claiming it’s a misunderstood classic, which it isn’t.

What happened here is simple: Levinson, working with a colossal budget, a grade-A cast, a powerful writer/producer and on a commercial project that seemingly couldn’t miss, found his efforts undermined by a B-movie screenplay that would be hard to sell with a straight face in the 1950s.

The result is less a prestige project like “Contact” (1997) and more in line with the blissfully nutty “Stargate” (1994). It’s not great sci-fi, but “Sphere” is great fun.

Dustin Hoffman stars as Norman, a psychologist, who joins Harry (Samuel L. Jackson), a mathematician and Beth (Sharon Stone), a marine biologist, on an undersea voyage to investigate a sunken vessel. At least, that’s what they’re initially told until the commander of the top-secret operation (Peter Coyote) informs them that they’ve actually been assembled to get a look at an alien spacecraft underwater.

Based on Michael Crichton’s 1987 novel, the setup is very “Jurassic Park” (1993) goes underwater and gradually becomes a watered-down take on Andrei Tarkovsky’s “Solaris” (1972). The screenplay is full of snarky one-liners that counter the expected audience cynicism to the outrageous turns of the plot.

The dialog is sometimes funny on purpose, sometimes not at all. With exterior spectacle in short supply, it does best with tense confrontations and egg-headed discussions.

Levinson clearly intended this as a more intellectual exercise than the typical strut through “Alien” (1979) corridors, claustrophobia and creature attacks. Speaking of “Alien,” Elliot Goldenthal’s score is similar to his work on “Alien 3” (1992).

Crichton’s dialog is overly explanatory, great for his novels but not for his movies. Many scenes involve actors staring at a screen and talking to an intriguing, if limited, offscreen presence named “Jerry.” Talking to “Jerry” is an awful lot like what chat rooms were back when this movie was in theaters.

It’s a joy to watch three actors who are playing roles in contrast to their usual screen personas, as Hoffman, leading his second big Warner Brothers vehicle as the wise center (just as he did in “Outbreak”), Stone is playing a scientist who clearly isn’t over the last man who dated her and Jackson tosses out his one liners like the pro he always was, even this early in his career.

There’s genuine tension over whether Norman and Harry are gaslighting Beth, which is not something you’d expect from a $70 million sci-fi thriller “from the author of Jurassic Park.” It’s funny how the human interactions here are so much more compelling and developed than the aquatic encounters, which are well-staged but limited.

I recall an interview with Jackson where he might have accidentally (maybe) criticized this movie’s screenplay, where he stated, “I always have my lines memorized, whether it’s Shakespeare or ‘Sphere.’” I like how “Sphere” was on the other end of the Shakespeare comparison!

When “Sphere” tries to go head-to-head with “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968), it showcases its weaknesses as well as its lesser status as entertainment. There’s a shock reveal with a pile of paperback novels that, I think, is supposed to be intentionally funny.

Coming to 4K UHD Soon

Directed by Barry Levinson

Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Sharon Stone and Samuel L. Jackson

Sphere (1998) pic.twitter.com/DFa57dPWwL

— Buy Physical Media (@VHSDVDBLURAY4K) April 7, 2025

“Sphere” is like many of the late ’90s B-movies with A+ budgets but C+ smarts, though it’s on the bottom rung of the ladder that has “Event Horizon” (1997), “Mission to Mars” (2000) and “Solaris” (2002) near the top.
Huey Lewis and Queen Latifah appear in small roles – I love them both in their day jobs, but here, the movie could have used a lot less Lewis and a lot more Latifah.

As in his work for “Sleepers” (1996), where Levinson did his best to make a Scorsese-like neighborhood drama, he does a professional job here but is clearly striving for the kind of excitement and magic that Steven Spielberg could create with the flick of a wrist.

Despite the sometimes-heady dialog, it plays less like a companion piece to “Forbidden Planet” (1956) and more like “Leviathan” (1989) on a massive budget and far less gore and cheap thrills.

A key sequence from the novel involved a giant tentacle attacking the underwater base- the movie really needed it. Without that set piece, the money shots are a couple of aggressive sea snake attacks, an overdone jelly-fish infestation (which gets sillier every time someone brings it up) and a bunch of giant eggs being dumped to the ocean’s surface.

The reshot ending was reportedly a compromise, and it feels that way. I like the simple solution the surviving characters come to, but it’s as though Crichton ended “Jurassic Park” with, “How about we tempt them with dino treats and just coerce them into a giant cage?”

Bottom line is that James Cameron’s “The Abyss” (1989) did all of this better, with some major thrills, three similarly top-tier leads from three actors in their element and spectacle and even underwater chase scenes that are seat-clutching terrific. Still, as lesser Crichton films go, “Sphere” is in the good company with expensive Crichton B-movies like “Congo” and “The 13th Warrior.”

Just remember, to misquote one of my favorite actors, it’s not Shakespeare, it’s “Sphere.”

The post Why 1998’s ‘Sphere’ Didn’t Deserves So Much Hate appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

The original “Toxic Avenger” made do with a microscopic budget and stars who weren’t recognizable then … or now.

The inevitable remake boasts three top-flight actors and a similar sense of comic glee. Writer/director Macon Blair doesn’t take full advantage of the monumental gains made for indie filmmakers since the roarin’ ‘80s.

“The Toxic Avenger” remains a silly, splattery good time that’s both lightweight and a missed opportunity.

It’s not a “Toxic” film if those eeeevil corporations don’t take it on the chin. This time, it’s a mega company called BT Healthstyle that holds sway over society. Enter Winston (Peter Dinklage), a company janitor trying to be the best parent possible to his stepson Wade (Jacob Tremblay).

Winston struggles to bond with the lad, but that issue gets bumped to the back burner by a tragic diagnosis. Winston has a terminal illness, and a new medical procedure is his only hope.

His company’s insurance policies won’t pick up the tab, alas. It’s an obvious stab at our flawed healthcare system, but it packs some of the story’s better satirical punches. So does the sequence where Winston learns his fate.

Even the company’s leader (an over-the-top Kevin Bacon) can’t, or rather won’t help poor Winston. A twist of toxic fate turns this stepdad into a gloopy-faced creature with a nuclear-soaked mop.

Lookout, world. There’s a new superhero in town ready to take out the trash!

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by The Toxic Avenger Movie (@toxicavenger)

“New” is subjective, of course. This IS a remake and one that sat on someone’s shelf since 2023.

You don’t need to know anything else about the film save its dedication to gross-out gags and offensive kills. Except the film’s “offensive” nature is nothing of the kind. We’ve seen similar shlock for decades, rendering the remake as acceptable as a Hallmark Christmas movie for horror hounds.

That was less true in the ‘80s when Toxie first hit the scene.

FAST FACT: The “Toxic Avenger” franchise features three sequels: “The Toxic Avenger Part II” (1989), “The Toxic Avenger Part III: The Last Temptation of Toxie” (1989) and “Citizen Toxie: The Toxic Avenger IV” (2000).

Blair elevates the material by spotlighting Winston’s attempts to connect with young Wade, a subplot that proves surprisingly effective. Heck, Dinklage and Tremblay are terrific actors, and they balance the film’s genre shtick with real emotional beats.

And then there’s the relentless killing and carnage. That should satiate genre fans, but every time the film feels ready to step up to the horror-comedy plate, a new scene dampens our expectations.

It’s dumb for dumb’s sake, and a better screenplay could have taken advantage of the film’s IP cache. Imagine if Blair and co. took a few shots at the corporate Left, shaking up the franchise’s template?

Now, that would be outrageous.

The film’s delayed release suggests the finished product deserved to be buried. Not so. Still, “The Toxic Avenger” is best served as a streaming platform watch, not a theatrical event.

HiT or Miss: “The Toxic Avenger” is both an obvious upgrade over the source material and a predictable mashup of blood and social commentary.

The post ‘Toxic Avenger’ Doubles Down on Franchise’s Favorite Target appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

“The Roses” leaves the “War” part out on purpose.

Part of the glee associated with Danny DeVito’s coal-black “War of the Roses” was watching two beautiful people attack each other with everything in their arsenal.

It wasn’t pretty, but the 1989 film sure was memorable.

The quasi, sort-of remake, “The Roses,” can’t help but wallow in the marital mud. It’s more of an urbane affair, featuring two elite stars who know the deepest cuts come from insults, not flying dishes.

Casting Olivia Colman and Benedict Cumberbatch transforms a modest film into a keeper.

Cumberbatch and Colman have a meet cute moment early in the film, the kind that rom-coms invented for our amusement. It’s interspersed with a therapy session that lets us know this marriage eventually goes off the rails.

Still, Theo (Cumberbatch) and Ivy (Colman) have a terrific bond, two beautiful children and wealth that would make a Nora Ephron character blush. When a cartoonish disaster wipes out Theo’s architecture career, Ivy leans into her culinary skills.

Within moments, she’s created a popular seafood restaurant and is eager to expand. Meanwhile, Theo’s career takes a back seat, allowing him to inflict military-like discipline on their children.

It’s a funny running gag, but one that keeps the parenting part at arm’s length.

Soon, Theo begins resenting Ivy’s career and she pines for more quality time with the children. And we all know where this is going …

“The Roses” offers a witty script by Tony McNamara (“Poor Things”) that knows precisely how even stable marriages can go wobbly in short order. Said script has no clue what to do with the obligatory ensemble around our shining stars.

Yes, Andy Samberg and Kate McKinnon are first-class scene stealers, but their characters make no sense from the jump and get more absurd as the film progresses.

It’s like they were deposited here from a wacky Kate Hudson romcom and didn’t pick up the new tone.

McNamara’s script also threads plenty of progressive asides into the mix, tells that reflect the author’s sensibilities more than the main characters. Theo and Ivy are British transplants and may not be as well-versed in stateside wokeism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Collider (@collider)

The original “Roses” went deliciously over the top, allowing Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas to play against type. Here, the awkward fights feel more relatable, which makes the marriage’s rocky state compelling.

The rest is up to Colman and Cumberbatch. The pair makes every fight matter, from the smallest insults to more direct attack lines. A calamitous dinner scene finds them in full-throated rage, something their American friends find droll and delightful.

That cultural chasm could have elevated “The Roses” in powerful ways. Instead, it’s a cheap way to slip in a few obvious yuks.

Director Jay Roach (“Meet the Parents”) waits until the third act to uncork the nastiest bits. It’s a jarring transformation, one that likely felt necessary given the 1989 original but plays out as not fully formed.

Still, it’s hard to imagine “The Roses” without its sublime leads. Then again, if they had compelling supporting characters to bounce their crumbling marriage off of, the film could have come close to matching the original’s bleak charm.

“The Roses,” like the earlier film, is based on a book by Warren Adler. Both serve as near-perfect examples of movies that should never, ever be consumed on a first date.

HiT or Miss: “The Roses” lacks the gossipy snap of the 1989 film, but its leads dig deep into the heart of marital darkness.

The post Cumberbatch, Colman Make ‘The Roses’ Riveting appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Robert Zemeckis’ “What Lies Beneath” was made before he immersed himself deeply (perhaps too deeply) into CGI overload and was still making films about people faced with unfathomable personal obstacles.

I don’t mean that to sound like sour grapes, only that Zemeckis’ current work feels like an off period (more on that later), whereas movies he made decades ago are among the very best of the post- “Jaws” (1975) late-20th-century-through-today model of blockbuster filmmaking.

Norman (Harrison Ford) and Claire (Michelle Pfeiffer) find themselves empty nesters for the first time, as their daughter heads off to college and leaves them alone in their scenic, lakeside home. That allows them to rekindle their sex life and enjoy solitude, until Claire begins to suspect something questionable is going on with their neighbors (James Remar and Miranda Otto, both wonderful).

Claire’s mounting suspicion unsettles her husband, who fears she may be losing her mind. Even worse, Claire believes that her house is haunted.

Zemeckis kicked off the 21st century with two movies that were made in an unusual, dynamic fashion:

Zemeckis famously shut down production of “Cast Away” (also 2000) for a few months, in order for Tom Hanks to lose weight, grow a beard and become a plausible islander. During the hiatus, Zemeckis made “What Lies Beneath.”

I liked “Cast Away” (despite the non-island scenes seeming so unnecessary and routine in comparison with the quiet, tropical portion of the film), but I’ve always preferred the pulpy thrills of “What Lies Beneath” more.

While rarely mentioned in the same group of film artists who push f/x boundaries as James Cameron and Peter Jackson, Zemeckis deserves to be. His choices as a filmmaker involve material that is difficult to adapt to the screen and he creates the technology needed to make the impossible possible.

In addition to his gift for directing his f/x crew, Zemeckis has always had a strength for bringing out great, surprising work from actors and making even bubble gum films have an edge and playfulness in their design.

Twenty-five years since its release, I was surprised to see that the screenplay is by “Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” star Clark Gregg, and that the film not only holds up but is even darker, and richer than I remembered. Many will recall that the film’s studio was criticized for releasing a trailer that gave away far too much of the twisty, surprise-filled plot.

Since the film was a massive hit anyway, no one seemed to have cared about this oversight, as the too-much, too-soon approach to film marketing has hindered many films subsequently.

Here is the rare movie star vehicle that demands real acting, not mere star posing, from its leads. Pfeiffer is solid, making her potentially hysterical character sympathetic and layered, but it’s Ford’s movie. This is a side to the actor rarely tapped into, in a turn that is underrated and among his best.

Seeing the film more than once, there’s a depth and consistent darkness to his tortured character.

Clark’s screenplay is full of Alfred Hitchcock references, visually and thematically, as there’s lots of nods to “Psycho” (1960) and “Rear Window” (1954) though there’s also a little “Ghost Story” (1981), “The Shining” (1980) and “Diabolique” (both versions), too.

Zemeckis has created as meticulously designed a Hitchcock tribute as the best of De Palma. It’s also not without its flaws: at 130 minutes, it’s overlong and has an extended finale that it doesn’t need.

What Lies Beneath (2000) – Directed by Robert Zemeckis pic.twitter.com/7A7NPGZn1k

— Pasquale Marco Veltri (@PMVeltri) January 10, 2024

While the over-the-top climactic scenes don’t derail into CGI oblivion, like the remake of “The Haunting” (1999), they comes close. Alan Silvestri’s great score, unfortunately, has some heavy-handed nods to Bernard Herrmann, which seems pointless (as if we needed reminding that this is a homage to The Master of Suspense).

What unquestionably works is the bathtub sequence near the end, where a character finds their tub is no longer a place of tranquility. This masterful set piece, utilizing top-notch editing, sound and cleverly positioned camera angles, puts us in the same terrifying position as the protagonist.

“What Lies Beneath” (1981) may lack Wilson the Volleyball, but it serves up big scares and an unsettling theme of questioning everything you think you know about your spouse. This would make a devious double feature with “Gone Girl” (2014).

The last time Zemeckis made a film I loved this much, it was “Flight” (2012). I admittedly watch “The Polar Express” (2004) every December and dug the pulpy thrills of the 2007 “Beowulf” in IMAX 3-D (loved seeing it that way, haven’t seen it since), but I’ve been a grumpy fan since.

His last trio of movies that drowned bad screenplays with oodles of busy special effects were “The Witches” (2020), “Pinocchio” (2022) and “Here” (2024), all of which are so awful, they feel like self-parody.

The Zemeckis of my youth used special effects as a storytelling tool, whereas the Zemeckis of today seems a prisoner to the pixels he helped usher in. That sucks. I love most of his movies, but can’t help but wonder if he’s lost his way. I’m looking forward to a comeback that I suspect will arrive at some point.

For now, I turn to “What Lies Beneath” for the kind of lavish blockbuster that Hitchcock might have made and most certainly would have enjoyed.

The post ‘What Lies Beneath’ Would Make Alfred Hitchcock Proud appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

David Mackenzie’s “Relay” opens with a corporate worker being assured by a suit-and-tie executive that he will be safe and that, after an exchange of information and veiled threats, it will be, hopefully, the last time the two will ever see each other.

The middleman of this transaction, a “fixer” named Tom (Riz Ahmed), isn’t even present during the interaction. His influence and assistance in this tense, potentially dangerous one-on-one isn’t just essential, it’s his expertise.

Tom is the unseen but vital element that keeps whistleblowers and innocent victims safe when dealing with powerful corporations that can make any problem or troublemaker disappear.

When he allows himself to go out in broad daylight, Tom attends rehab and bonds with his sponsor. Otherwise, his work as a “fixer,” which he dreads but excels at, is always pulling him back.

His latest assignment: a worker named Sarah (Lily James) holds vital info and needs Tom’s protection while she takes on a corporation so powerful, they have sent a crew of hitmen (whose deadly leader is played by Sam Worthington) out to stop her at any cost.

Tom and Sarah communicate through a telephone relay service, where someone anonymous on one end of the phone allows them to communicate. Much of the film consists of phone calls through a relay service, visits to airports and especially the post office.

It’s as exciting as it sounds.

I enjoy John le Carre thrillers, particularly “The Russia House” (both the 1989 novel and the magnificent 1990 film adaptation) and don’t need cloak and dagger thrillers to be reliant on action sequences. However, “Relay” takes it in such a pared-down direction, it plays like a deconstructed cheeseburger, the kind that arrives on a glossy plate as a pink ground chuck rolled in a ball, next to a thin slice of cheese and Ritz crackers.

Does that sound unsatisfying? Exactly.

Riz Ahmed and Lily James raise the stakes in “the intense summer thriller we’ve been waiting for” (@thedailybeast) with RELAY. Now playing only in theaters! #RelayMovie pic.twitter.com/aO5LJjBAWK

— Bleecker Street (@bleeckerstfilms) August 21, 2025

Here’s another way to look at “Relay,” which avoids cranking up the volume until the last few minutes and simmers at the mildest level possible. Why energize your spy thriller with chases, shoot outs, car crashes, sex scenes and high stakes poker games?

Instead, how about depicting your hero having long typing sessions, sitting in an airport terminal, thinking to himself and going to UPS? In fact, there’s a scene where the villain asks a UPS worker how long it would take to get a package delivered, then asks to check if a package arrived and the worker helpfully informs her that, sorry, it hasn’t arrived yet.

I’m not kidding, this really happens in “Relay.”

James is very good and gives the best performance, while Ahmed’s considerable intensity isn’t entirely well-suited for a part that requires him to be a literal and figurative shut-in. Worthington’s similarly underwhelming “Man on a Ledge” (2012) suggests that, when he’s not in Pandora, the talented actor ought to find better scripts that are worth his time.

I’m reminded of a movie review I wrote decades ago for my college paper on “The Saint” (1997), which I found uneventful and disappointing, despite how dynamic Val Kilmer was in the lead. A friend of mine stated that I was obviously comparing the film to a 007 thriller and failed to appreciate that the lower-key spying of Simon Templer isn’t on the babes and mayhem level of a typical James Bond adventure.

A fair observation. However, the relatively reserved mayhem of “The Saint” plays like a “Fast and Furious” sequel when compared to “Relay’s” slow-going plot beats.

Mackenzie’s “Hell or High Water” (2016), his contemporary western starring Jeff Bridges and Chris Pine, is an awesome achievement and one of the best films of its year. The passion exuded from that movie, in front of and behind the camera, is nowhere to be found in his latest effort.

Very late in the going, “Relay” drops a big whammy of a plot twist but, instead of belatedly turbo-charging this, it undermines the one thing about the movie that really worked and made us care. The third act consists of subpar chase and shoot scenes, where no one can hit their targets with a bullet, despite being a few feet away.

The action isn’t just poorly staged, it’s devoid of suspense, excitement and strangely just as mediocre as everything else here.

“Relay” is the kind of movie you watch on a flight, appreciating the distraction it provides, only to forget it the moment you deboard the plane.

One and a Half stars

The post This ‘Relay’ Will Make You Snooze appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Ron Howard’s “Eden” is a morbidly fascinating depiction of a group of adventurous Europeans who traveled to the island of Floreana and created a home in the tropics.

We meet the acclaimed Dr. Ritter (Jude Law), whose manifesto on Floreana is why others gradually journey there. Dr. Ritter lives a bitter existence with his fed-up wife (Vanessa Kirby) and spends most of his time typing away at a purported game-changer of a new book.

Heinz (Daniel Bruhl) and Margaret (Sydney Sweeney) arrive on Floreana, in the midst of the Galapagos Islands, with their young boy and a lot of foolish optimism. The most intriguing of the newcomers is the Baroness Eloise (Ana de Armas), a real piece of work who brings along two servants and the intent of creating a massive resort.

The Baroness claims to be there to create an industry, but quickly establishes her need to control and manipulate everyone who opposes her.

This is a true story that took place in 1929.

One of the most intriguing elements is how early use of film captures the inhabitants – we see this moment recreated, then the actual footage plays over the end credits. I wonder if “Eden” would have been better as a documentary, which at least would have saved us from the freak show of watching actors I like yell and squabble with each other for two hours.

New Podcast! “Ron Howard, “Eden”” on @Spreaker https://t.co/s7chdz8Yzk

— Brad Gilmore (@bradgilmore) August 22, 2025

The cast demonstrates their willingness to sport German accents that are all over the place – only Bruhl is off the hook, while everyone else bravely chomps down on their rehearsed dialects, only to have it waver enough that we often hear their normal speaking voices slinking through.

Kirby is given one note to play, and Bruhl has a similar problem. Either their best scenes wound up lost in the edit, or they actually chose roles that required one single emotion and matching facial expression.

The work of de Armas is actually courageous, as she sinks her teeth into arguably the most despicable character. I admire the high-wire act she pulls off, as her work here is never timid or afraid of coming across as unflattering.

Late in the film, de Armas has a scene she shares with Richard Roxburgh that hits hard and is refreshingly straightforward in its assessment of human behavior.

Howard may have intended this to be a grown-up exploration of “Lord of the Flies” behavior and human weakness, but it winds up episodic and melodramatic enough to come across like a soap opera.
Imagine “The Beach” (2000) without Leonardo DiCaprio or the all-but-forgotten “At Play in the Fields of the Lord” (1992).

The color palette is muted, as though Howard was determined to deprive his audience of the visual beauty of the surroundings. “Eden” always appears as though filmed on a cloudy day. Likewise, Hans Zimmer’s score is devoid of the exciting themes and beauty we’ve come to expect from his work.

On a scene-to-scene basis, the film becomes a game of picking which character you hate the most and predicting which one will crack first. Watching “Survivor” was never this sadistic, nor were the most insufferable episodes of “Gilligan’s Island.”

Ron, why are you trying to hurt us with this movie?

Actually, Howard has been at this for a while – for every crowd pleaser, he’d sneak in something cold, ruthless and really mean. After Howard’s “The Paper” (1994), a roaring newsroom comedy, he gave us “Ransom” (1996). Following the Oscar-winning “A Beautiful Mind” (2001) came the bristling, no-mercy western, “The Missing” (2003).

It figures that the director of “Splash” (1984) would have a dark side – dark is one thing, punishing is another. Even Lars Von Trier knows when to step back and insert a little humor or fantasy interlude to give his audience a breath.

I’m not saying Howard can’t challenge himself and his audience. Yet, he’s unquestionably had better luck making movies about, to give a few examples, geriatrics who go to outer space and creating a mythic portrait of firefighters than the movies where his cast repeatedly screams at one another.

The preview night audience I saw this with reacted audibly during the graphic nude scenes, but hardly at all during moments of savage violence. It’s probably because the former was actually surprising, while the latter was inevitable.

That’s an overall problem with “Eden,” as a cluster of unlikable characters butt heads for two hours until their skulls eventually crack, which hardly makes for a movie, let alone a wrestling match. As good as Law and de Armas are here, everyone in the cast has been better elsewhere.

Two Stars

The post There’s No Escape from Ron Howard’s Screechy ‘Eden’ appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Hollywood has spent the last decade attacking Donald Trump from every possible angle.

Save one.

What if a dyed-in-the-wool liberal met a handsome MAGA man and, gasp, felt butterflies with every glance?

“The Elephant in the Room” dares to address that question, and it’s a minefield in more ways than one. Kudos to writer/director Erik Bork for not only navigating what could have been a calamitous premise but bringing balance to the story.

Not “The View’s” four Leftists versus one GOP RINO brand of balance, mind you.

And, yeah, it’s both charming and romantic. Now, will it change those unwilling to break bread with someone on the opposite side of the political fence?

Heck, it’s only a movie… but you never know.

Leah (a sparky Alyssa Limperis) is nursing a broken heart and trying to connect with her dour gay roommate Martin (Dominic Burgess).

We’re already in uncharted territory, given Martin’s unusual mien. Hollywood’s de facto stereotyping would have Martin cracking wise and dropping hot takes.

“I’m not sassy and I won’t call you ‘girlfriend,'” he warns her in his Eeyore drawl.

Her malaise lifts, courtesy of a Grub Hub-style delivery man.

Vincent (Sean Kleier) got her order wrong, but she has a hard time getting mad at him. He’s easy on the eyes, gracious and funny, and there’s instant chemistry at play.

They flirt via text and finally meet, but the story is set in early 2021, so politics can’t help but invade the date:

• Stolen election!
• Rigged voting booths!
• A planned Jan. 6 rally will install Trump as our forever president!

When Vincent admits he voted for Trump … twice, Leah is crestfallen. She’s a Rachel Maddow fan and can’t date a man who doesn’t click on every HuffPo update.

So why does she keep seeing him?

“Elephant” would feel heavy in almost any period save our current one. The issues in play are real, not imaginary, and Bork’s script treats them with the respect they deserve. 

If anything, Leah comes off as judgmental, but there’s a kindness to her that cuts through that pose. Credit a savvy script and Limperis’s winning performance. The character requires both to thrive.

Erik Bork Talks About his New Red vs Blue Rom-Com, ‘The Elephant in the Room’ – Interview #erikbork #romcom #redstate #bluestate #interview #fanboynationhttps://t.co/myEWw1Ss55

— FanboyNation (@FanboyNation) August 14, 2025

Movies that tackle political debates routinely short-change conservatives. The liberal will uncork a smart, well-organized defense while the Republican spits out stale talking points.

It’s rarely, if ever, a fair fight.

“The Elephant in the Room” is different. Vincent defends his positions well. He’s neither a conspiracy monger nor ill-informed. And, in a reflection of many Left/Right debates, he’s more liberal in the traditional sense when dealing with people who don’t hold his views.

The screenplay softens Vincent’s MAGA bona fides, a sop to audiences who wouldn’t accept an “election denier” as a leading man. That’s fine.

And, to be fair, Leah isn’t the kind to post a screechy TikTok selfie that gains traction on the Right. She’s still too smug by half, but no one’s perfect.

“Elephant” could be funnier, but it never strains for a laugh or sets the characters up for a cheap fall. It’s respectful, but not dull, and even the final moments avoid bow-tying conveniences.

Vincent’s Trumpy grandma (Sandra Ellis Lafferty) comes close to the crude MAGA stereotype we expect from a feature film. She’s granted some humanity and texture, and Lafferty plays the part with a delicate touch. Her bond with Vincent is natural and sweet, even during a subplot that could alienate some viewers.

Rom-coms have suffered in recent years, partly due to extreme artifice. “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days,” anyone?

“The Elephant in the Room” is real. Too real, to be honest, but sometimes that’s where the best love connections begin.

HiT or Miss: “The Elephant in the Room” is a minor miracle, a politically-charged rom-com with brains and balance.

The post ‘Elephant in the Room’ Is the Perfect Rom-Com for Trump Era appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Samuel Van Grinsven’s “Went Up the Hill” is a ghost story and psychological drama that meditates on grief.

It works best as the latter and hardly at all as the former.

In a gorgeous, remote location, full of mountains and vast, empty spaces (the stunning setting is in New Zealand), a funeral is taking place. We meet the deceased’s wife, Jill (Vicky Krieps) and Jack (Dacre Montgomery), the son who was left behind and shows up unexpectedly.

After the service, Jack and Jill learn how much they have in common, their lives defined by the one who died. Their relationship becomes emotionally and physically intimate, though with a bizarre step beyond that – whenever they sleep, the soul of the departed possesses them and they’re able to have conversations with the dead.

Van Grinsven gives us a brooding, quiet start that never lets up, giving us the kind of pin-drop chamber piece that feels like the works of Ingmar Bergman. Yet, Bergman pulled us in with character insights, shocking moments of physical/verbal violence and human connections, in addition to the dream-like atmosphere.

Here, the setting is the most compelling component.

Another likely inspiration is Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rebecca” (1940), but minus Hitchcock’s visual wit and verisimilitude as a film artist. To put it another way – here is another movie about grieving and struggling to reconcile who you are, your identity, while trying to comprehend someone who seems just as present after death.

As a meditation on grief, “Went Up a Hill” is sincere but not insightful or novel. Taken as a supernatural drama, it’s slow and obvious.

The exquisite cinematography is by Tyson Perkins, who captures otherworldly vistas and creates striking, beautiful compositions. There is a painterly precision to the filmmaking. The visual beauty is the film’s greatest asset, particularly during all the exterior shots.

On the other hand, Hanan Tonwnsend’s ambient soundtrack is the kind of score that sounds like either a death wail or whale songs. Far more effective is the sound design, with crackling ice under the surface sounds of the chilly wilderness.

Why Dacre Montgomery Returned to Acting 3 Years After Stranger Things: New Movie ‘Changed My Life’ (Exclusive) https://t.co/OUinQDC16a

— People (@people) August 13, 2025

“Went Up the Hill” is intended as an exploration of what death does to the living and those who feel left behind when the departed leaves us with agonizing, unresolved questions.

This is basically a two-hander, with two excellent performances carrying this morose, slow-building drama. The result is interesting to think about afterwards, but it never pulled me in. It’s the kind of film where I’d prefer to hear why the director made it more than sitting through it again.

Van Grinsven’s film leaves such a frosty impression, I couldn’t even connect with its very-belated attempts at uplift. The ending works better as a metaphor than a proper climax, though the film as a whole functions the same way.

For a story with the tenacity to portray the invisible presence of ghosts and their ability to possess the living, what I’ll remember most are scenes of mental anguish and surviving a frozen lake over anything else.

There is poetry in the visuals and an admirable attempt to explore the pain left behind by someone who is somehow more present in death. I admire how the film is a chamber piece, but despite those strong qualities, I was all too aware of the methodical approach, and never lost myself in the film or felt anything beyond mild fascination while watching it.

The film’s classy look and presentation are impressive, though they are ultimately stronger than the film’s goals of facing mortality by accepting who we are.

Actually, if this is what catharsis looks like, the movie is enough to sway anyone from ever attending a funeral again.

Two Stars

The post ‘Went Up the Hill’ Looks Death Square in the Eye appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Spike Lee has seen too many movies.

How else to explain “Highest 2 Lowest,” a farcical thriller where nearly every twist feels like it was cribbed from a lesser film. Shouldn’t Lee know better?

Even worse, he doesn’t know what to do with one of our greatest living actors. Yes, Lee and Denzel Washington made magic in the past, but the actor’s role here never makes sense.

Not in the beginning, middle or end of the film. That’s movie magic in reverse.

Washington stars as David King, a music mogul struggling through a professional crisis. Should he sell his company and cash out after some lean years? Or could he reinvest in Stackin’ Hits Records and prove he’s not a one-career wonder?

That decision gets shelved when his teenage son Trey (Aubrey Joseph) is kidnapped. The crooks want some of Daddy’s millions to set him free. A lot of his millions, to be precise.

David will do anything to save his son, but what happens when the kidnapping crisis changes, and it’s no longer his son who needs saving? The film’s moral compass starts to spin, and now the father in crisis is David’s chauffeur and longtime friend Paul (Jeffrey Wright). 

The screenplay, credited to Alan Fox but bearing all the hallmarks of Lee’s worldview, drops plenty of exposition in the first half hour. What it doesn’t offer is psychological depth, the kind a movie like this demands.

Washington makes David King both arrogant and conflicted, his mannerisms suggesting a rough and tumble past smoothed over by decades of extreme wealth. But who is this David King? The screenplay isn’t sure, leaving Washington to occasionally overact to sell the performance.

It’s one of his weaker efforts, full stop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by A24 (@a24)

“Highest 2 Lowest” is a Spike Lee Joint through and through. The film peddles black empowerment at a near-constant clip, from a fawning image of Kamala Harris prominently featured in one scene to lingering close-ups of black art decorating David’s home.

It doesn’t end there, and when Lee isn’t selling cultural cues, he’s admiring the Big Apple.

“Highest 2 Lowest” rivals peak Woody Allen in its adoration of all things New York City. Puerto Rican culture. Sparkling skyscrapers. Aaron Judge and the New York Yankees. It plays out as endlessly self-indulgent, more signs of Lee signaling his interests rather than building an airtight story.

(Personal aside: This critic was born in The Bronx, adores the Yankees and grew up on Long Island, and I found it suffocating)

Lee’s film, a loose update on Akira Kurosawa’s “High and Low,” attempts some crude social commentary in between kidnapping updates. Think fears of being “canceled” and brand protection in the digital age, along with a swipe at A.I. None of it is compelling or nuanced, nor does it raise the stakes of the key storylines.

The film’s third act is a mess, including a confrontation that’s as head-slapping dumb as any horror movie cliche. 

Spike Lee reflects on working with Denzel Washington and A$AP Rocky in “Highest 2 Lowest.” pic.twitter.com/ERTqnx7pIK

— E! News (@enews) August 12, 2025

A true bright spot is an extended appearance by rapper A$AP Rocky, playing a musician who admires David King’s rise to fame. Lee channels the rapper’s energy to perfection, giving the film an undeniable pulse. The cinematography is also a plus, including an opening montage of Manhattan visuals that is both obvious and exhilarating.

Lee also stages a key kidnapping sequence with the skills he’s sharpened over the years. What a shame that it makes little sense and is repeatedly interrupted by Lee’s New York fetishizing.

Love New York all you want, but make it organic to the story. Please.

The rest? “Highest 2 Lowest” feels artificial from start to finish, a movie made by someone disconnected from the real world. Fame can do that to an artist, even an Oscar winner like Lee. The proof stains every frame of “Highest 2 Lowest.”

HiT or Miss: Spike Lee movies are never dull. Sadly, they’re often not very good, either. “Highest 2 Lowest” falls into the latter category.

The post Not Even Denzel Can Save ‘Highest 2 Lowest’ appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Nobody needed a vacation more than Hutch Mansell.

The unlikely hero of 2021’s “Nobody” is back, and this time he’s taking his family to an old-school water park.

Except he can’t help doing a little “work” on the side.

“Nobody 2” understands why the first film defied expectations, even if it lacks that movie’s element of surprise. What’s left? More bone-crunching action, a ripe sense of humor and the feeling that this franchise could overlap the “John Wick” saga without anyone batting an eye.

Bob Odenkirk returns as Hutch, the assassin next door whose double life is an open secret on the home front. That means his frustrated wife Becca (Connie Nielsen) puts up with him being late for dinner – a lot – and his kids know that Daddy has a temper.

Hutch’s work-life balance is more brutal than most parents, so he shleps the family to the water park where he once spent some glorious days as a lad.

Let’s make memories, gang!

Too bad the town in question is under the thumb of a corrupt lawman (Colin Hanks, cast effectively against type) and a shadowy figure known as Lendina (Sharon Stone, gobbling scenery with elan). It doesn’t take long for Hutch to fall back on his pugilistic ways.

There will be blood, and much of it will be Hutch’s.

Can he save the town from Lendina’s clutches while making sure his family gets the vacation memories they deserve? Who knew Hutch had an inner Clark Griswold?

“Nobody 2” brings back Grandpa (the great Christopher Lloyd), though you’ll wish he appeared in more scenes than he does. We also reunite with Hutch’s adopted brother Harry (RZA), adding some context to the main character’s background.

Never mind the plot puzzle pieces. We’re here for tooth-loosening punches, delivered by an Everyman who doesn’t know the meaning of the word “quit,” let alone “stay down.” Odenkirk remains one of Hollywood’s most unlikely action heroes, but he once again pulls off those dual duties with aplomb.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Nobody 2 (@nobodymovie)

The story packs plenty of plot holes, but it retains a cartoon-like quality that makes them mostly forgivable. Mostly.

We’re meant to look past the fact that our lovable hero is a paid killer who can’t stop putting his family in harm’s way. And when Becca warns he’s setting a bad example for his teen son Brady (Gage Monroe), Grandpa lets Hutch off the hook far too easily.

Director Timo Tjahjanto takes over for Ilya Naishuller, capturing the latter’s organized sense of mayhem. The visuals pop, and Hutch’s knack for making a weapon out of anything within reach remains a treat.

Tjahjanto can’t match the giddy nihilism of the first film’s bus brawl, but he makes Hutch battle a group of hoodlums in an elevator for good measure.

Take a step back from the carnage.

This is formula storytelling at its most professional. The action sequences pop. The wink-wink lines land. Odenkirk delivers the kind of performance that unites the two films, suggesting more stories are in play, depending on box office receipts.

And audiences get a 90-minute romp devoid of pretension and gravitas. That’s a vacation many moviegoers can’t resist. Nor should they.

HiT or Miss: “Nobody 2” is a perfectly good sequel. It can’t measure up to the original, but it knows exactly why we rallied behind the first film.

The post Why ‘Nobody 2’ Is Guaranteed to Please Action Fans appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Robert Longo’s “Johnny Mnemonic” (1995) was considered an outright disaster upon its summer of 1995 release.

Now, it’s something of a cult favorite, not only because its new black and white version is preferred among its fanbase but because it has yet another Keanu Reeves performance that has aged far better than expected.

That’s not to say the movie is good, only that the entertainment value and an appreciation of Reeves’ most infamous scene (I’ll get to that shortly), have increased over time.

Reeves is so robotic as the title character, it comes as a surprise when we learn he isn’t playing a robot or android. Johnny is a high-tech courier in a futuristic world of 2021 where, rather than send something via e-mail on the internet (concepts the film seems aware of but doesn’t fully broach), he inserts information into his brain, which serves as a hard drive.

What happens to all the other memories he holds? Johnny helpfully explains to us, “I had to dump a large chunk of long-term memory … my childhood.”

When Johnny is given an especially valuable piece of information, hit men are sent to decapitate him. All of this is accompanied by a cool soundtrack by artists like Stabbing Westward, Bono and the Edge, Buckethead and Orbital, though the songs are better heard on the soundtrack than the barely-there way they float through the movie.

Longtime readers know how much I like Reeves, but his performance here isn’t great, to put it nicely. The film itself is a missed opportunity but a fascinating one. It’s a rare case of cyber-genius author William Gibson translating his vision to the big screen.

Despite Gibson authoring the screenplay (based on one of his stories), acclaimed artist Longo directing and sporting a most unusual cast, “Johnny Mnemonic” remains a fascinating, visually arresting and fatally goofy failure.

Reeves is often very funny as Johnny, occasionally on purpose, but mostly because his amusingly wooden acting and the silly dialog combine to make a perfect storm of an enjoyably bad performance.

In the 1995 film Johnny Mnemonic, the eponymous character (Keanu Reeves) was a data courier with a brain implant that could hold 80GB of data.

A few days back, I picked up this Lexar 512GB JumpDrive for $39.95 and didn’t have to sacrifice my childhood memories like Johnny did. pic.twitter.com/vkzu5LAA9l

— Clayton Hove (@adtothebone) February 18, 2024

The computer graphic imagery still looks cool, whether it’s Johnny conducting a hack with VR headgear and what looks like a Nintendo Power Glove, or the all-out, “TRON”-like finish. Even though this was made in the age of CD-ROMs, and “the net” was still in its infancy (but is referenced enough to suggest Gibson’s understanding of its potential), it’s fun to see the 1995 cyber punk idea of 2021 technology.

As if the camp value wasn’t already intact, there’s Dolph Lundgren’s performance as The Preacher, a long haired assassin who spouts religious-themed one-liners the way Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Mr. Freeze is full of “ice” puns in “Batman & Robin” (1997).

This came out the same year as “The Net” and “Hackers,” all of which paint a distinctly ’90s vision of computer hacking and techno awareness as dated as a dusty old copy of Wired Magazine. Gibson’s prophetic warnings of “information overload” are intriguing but don’t fully come across.

Takeshi Kitano has a supporting role as a charismatic assassin; Kitano’s part was much bigger in the film’s longer overseas release and is partially restored in the newer, preferred version. Even with a cast that includes Dina Meyer (who exhibits real movie star presence), Udo Kier, Ice-T (looking as silly here as he was in “Tank Girl” the same year) and Henry Rollins, this is less playfully quirky than conceptually messy.

Take away the star power and flashy effects, and it’s as grungy and under-lit as those 1980s Golan/Globus sci-fi productions from Cannon Films.

Longo clearly gets the value of textured art direction but aiming for Terry Gilliam visuals doesn’t work if there isn’t a human center at the core. The computer graphics are every bit as hyper-stylized and cool-looking as those in “The Lawnmower Man” (1992) and “Disclosure” (1994) and provide a temporary distraction from how bad the film is.

Yet, it’s hard to resist a movie with a mystical, hardwired dolphin, a literal “ghost in the machine” and Reeves’ immortal “I Want Room Service” monolog. The latter was reportedly due to Reeves having had just played Hamlet (in an acclaimed performance on the Canadian stage) and wanting a beefy bit of dialog.

I’m glad the Bard inspired Reeves, as his late-in-the-movie bit about wanting a “$10,000.00 a night hooker” is funnier than most of his performances in actual comedies.

An audacious cult favorite, JOHNNY MNEMONIC (1995)—starring Keanu Reeves—is a roller coaster of action and high-impact imagery.

As part of our AI collection, we’re presenting the Exclusive Streaming Premiere of a black-and-white version of the film. https://t.co/KbIup3Er45 pic.twitter.com/MOoULIJuxe

— Criterion Channel (@criterionchannl) July 3, 2023

Bad movies can be fun, as this one most definitely is. Reeves had no luck with this instant box office flop, nor playing another John (Jonathan Harker) in “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” (1992), where he was the weak link in an otherwise brilliant film.

Reeves’ performance as John Constantine in 2005 was, likewise, not widely loved until the film developed a better reputation a decade or so later. The actor hit upon a winner with “John Wick” (2014).

I’d also argue that his all-time best performance playing a “Johny” can be found in “Point Break” (1991), where he plays Johnny Utah. If this seems like a silly thing to ponder, just try watching “Johnny Mnemonic,” with its talking dolphin and Lundgren-gone-wild.

I have to hand it to Reeves – his best movies are genuinely terrific, while his bad ones, in hindsight, are proving to be more fun than expected.

The post ‘Johnny Mnemonic’ at 30: So Bad … It’s Good? appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Some kids crave the danger and excitement found in horror movies, but they’re too young for adult-level scares.

Even this 50-something critic wasn’t prepared for what the “Terrifier” series delivered.

Some movies offer a bridge to the genre, a chance for pre-teens to sample it with cinematic guardrails. The recent “Goosebumps” adaptations fall into that category. So did Jack Black’s “The House with a Clock in Its Walls.”

“Sketch” gets that quasi-horror blend mostly right.

It’s an engrossing tale of loss, grief and resilience. The scares are sharply defined, but there’s no gore or profanity to make parents squirm.

Best of all? Young and old will cheer the story’s beleaguered heroes. Be warned. Children under 10 may get some unwanted nightmares from this probing take on loss.

Young Amber (Bianca Belle) uses art to process her mother’s death. She draws wild, violent images that suggest a disturbed mindset.

Her school is worried about her state of mind. So is her father, Taylor (Tony Hale, terrific), but he’s busy juggling work and suppressing his sense of loss.

Amber’s drawings depict beasts attacking the school bully, among other would-be victims. Her brother Jack (Kue Lawrence) tries to be supportive, but he’s understandably confused by her drawings.

He’s even more baffled by a local pond that appears to have magical powers. It heals his phone’s cracked screen in a blink, for example, along with a broken dish.

When Amber’s drawing pad gets an accidental dunk in the pond, it brings some of her ghastliest creatures to life.

And boy, are they angry.

Writer/director Seth Worley gave himself an almost impossible task. Tell a harrowing adventure where children are in peril while showcasing a family processing profound grief.

Most directors might muddle up the tonal balance between those narratives, but Worley appears well suited to the challenging material. His young leads do their part, delivering nuanced turns that leave the cutesy theatrics behind.

So does Hale, best known as the man-child Buster from “Arrested Development.” He modulates his comic timing to be both grounded and, on occasion, paternal. He works well with his on-screen sibling, “The Good Place’s” D’Arcy Carden, a realtor trying to keep his brother’s life in order.

The film’s editing is sharp and inspired, giving Worley’s punchlines the chance to land as intended. The real marvels are the CGI beasts sprung from Amber’s imagination. They look like a children’s sketch come to life, complete with raggedy lines and an impish sense of danger.

The film offers even more comic relief in the form of Bowman (Kalon Cox), the aforementioned bully. Picture a scene-stealer from a ‘90s kid comedy and you get the gist.

Worley’s direction here less polished, but younger audiences may disagree. Strenuously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Cinemark Theatres (@cinemark)

The best children’s films work on dueling levels. They engage young minds while sharing something profound for adults. “Sketch” offers a meditation on grief and loss, using fantastical creatures to make its points.

And it can be quite scary.

A few lines of dialogue are on-the-nose, but they capture the real villain in play. It’s not a towering monster with one good eye but merely the cruelties of life.

“Sketch” leaves some unanswered questions, especially since the locals may have questions about the creatures rampaging across their neighborhood. Forget those distractions. This adventure has heart, hope and will keep audiences open to the healing power of family.

HiT or Miss: “Sketch” may be intense for younger viewers, but the rest of the family will marvel at the sweet performances and powerful life lessons.

The post ‘Sketch’ Delivers a (Very) Scary Good Time appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Maybe Sebastian Maniscalco should make a horror movie next.

We’ve already seen Jordan Peele pivot from Comedy Central to horror with “Get Out” and “Us.” Now, Zach Cregger follows his flawed but fascinating “Barbarian” with the year’s best shocker, “Weapons.”

Cregger got his start with The Whitest Kids U’ Know comedy troupe. Now, he’s part of the new wave of horror mavens, including Peele, Osgood Perkins and Mike Flanagan.

Yes, “Weapons” boasts laugh-out-loud moments, and not the kind that happen at the film’s expense. Don’t call it a horror-comedy. The laughs let us process the unbearable tension in this fresh, prickly original.

Buckle in.

It’s so good you’ll struggle to watch the next B-movie that flashes across your streaming menu. That’s the worst that can be said about Cregger’s instant classic. Other genre fare suddenly pales in comparison.

The story opens with a child narrator setting the horrific scene. Her tone is sober and crisp, which makes her message all the more alarming.

The students in teacher Justine Gandy’s third-grade class go missing one day – save one child, young Alex (Cary Christopher).

Julia Garner, great as always, plays the distraught teacher. She becomes the target of grieving parents like Archer Graff (Josh Brolin), who suspect she’s not telling all she knows about the mass disappearance.

Local officials are stumped. The town is in mourning. Justine fears for her safety. And “Weapons” is just warming up.

Cregger’s film deserves to be seen with as few spoilers as possible, so we’ll stop the plot description there. Just know the writer/director embraces a familiar storytelling tic to flesh out the narrative, but it’s done in ways that crank up the tension and flesh out the larger story.

What seems a distraction is suddenly a vital, necessary approach. And about that two-plus hours running time? Don’t give it a thought. This film moves.

At times, “Weapons” doesn’t resemble a horror film. It’s exquisitely crafted and raw, but extended scenes let us get to know the players without genre trappings. Some figures are obvious given their roles in the narrative. Others? Far less so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by ODEON Cinemas (@odeoncinemas)

Garner’s character is wildly imperfect, and her romantic entanglements spike the stakes. Brolin’s rage at his child’s disappearance finds him tilting at windmills, a nod to our conspiratorial age.

You can read plenty into “Weapons,” but Cregger isn’t foisting anything specific on us. Great films let us tease out themes where none may exist, a mark of crafty world-building.

An exception? One visual evokes AK-47 imagery, but the moment fades before it leaves any kind of mark.

This small town feels like one we’ve known all our lives. And let’s not dismiss Alden Ehrenreich. The “Solo” alum is quietly terrific as a cop juggling more than the mass disappearance.

Veteran actress Amy Madigan steals the movie, but the less said about her character, the better. Heck, we’ve said too much already.

“Barbarian” had its share of gonzo moments, but Cregger kept a firm hand on the material. His discipline is even better with “Weapons,” a sure sign of creative growth. Horror junkies will still see kills they’ll be praising for weeks.

Remember that “buckle in” warning?

Cregger packs plenty of style into “Weapons,” but it’s never flashy or distracting, nor is the haunting score (credited to Cregger and Ryan and Hays Holladay) anything but part of the excitement. The writer/director is fully in charge of his talent, creating a comfort of sorts for audiences.

You’re in good hands. Now, get to the edge of your seat … and stay there.

HiT or Miss: “Weapons” is a fiercely original shocker with strong performances, a sly structure and an ending that’s both creepy and cathartic.

The post ‘Weapons’ Confirms a New Horror Auteur Has Arrived appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Piere Perifel’s “The Bad Guys 2” is a nice surprise, an initially middle-of-the-road follow-up to 2022’s sleeper that hits the ground running in the late stretch and emerges a worthy, exhilarating sequel.

The Big Bad Mr. Wolf (voiced again by Sam Rockwell, essential to the film’s success) is now a respectable member of society, missing his days as a notorious villain and the head of a motley crew of thieves. Mr. Wolf and his teams fail at acquiring legitimate jobs, as none of them can pass a sample background check or come across as capable of taking on real work.

When a heist pulled off by the “Phantom Bandit” has law enforcement desperate for help, they turn to Mr. Wolf and his former “Bad Guys,” though the solution to the puzzle pits them against an entirely new crew of villains.

My daughter reads “The Bad Guys” books, and I always enjoy catching up to them as well. The wit is right there on the page.

The movies are an enjoyable goof on the Danny Ocean movies, with Rockwell obviously the George Clooney equivalent, the too-cool-for-the-room protagonist in charge of a team of ace criminals.

The animation in this franchise is wonderful, as the characters are angular, cartoonish but cool to look at. They’re in a landscape that is almost but not quite photorealistic.

After decades of Dreamworks Animation that mostly have the same round, bubbly, traditionally Disney-esque approaches to character and story design, it’s refreshing to see something this arresting catching on (although it must be said that the “Spider-Verse” movies are king at introducing a radical new animation approach for their storytelling).

The sequel ambles along agreeably from scene to scene, but it doesn’t have the laughs or freshness of the original. For most of the running time, I had a smile on my face but was ready to put this in the same category as close-but-not-quite animated sequels like “Shrek 2” and “Frozen 2.”

Once we get to the third act, the film takes a right turn and doesn’t just get better but coalesces into a great movie. There’s a bit where our heroes are tied up and suspended in the air. Not only must they try to escape but also prevent a file from being sent online.

Things don’t go the way we expect, and it propels us into the grand finale.

The sequence where our heroes must board a space shuttle while it’s launching is, I kid you not, one of the best action sequences of the summer. The complexity, elegance, and beauty, as well as chair-grabbing excitement generated, are unexpected.

So is how much fun the conclusion is, where the movie goes all in on becoming, of all things, “Moonraker” (1979). There’s also a smash edit that reveals if your heroes survived a catastrophic explosion that provides a giant laugh.

Even the final moments are sharp enough to welcome another entry.

“The Bad Guys 2” starts strong, coasting on goodwill for too long, then ends with what will be franchise highlights for a series that I hope goes on for a long time. According to my daughter, the final scenes are in line with where the books go in the long run.

I like how unabashedly nutty the whole thing is and where it apparently is headed. The Danny Ocean series feels like it has gone as far as it could go, but I’m down for more of this.

Like the original, “The Bad Guys 2” is brisk and stylish, but that final 30-minute stretch is when it becomes truly special.

Three Stars

The post ‘The Bad Guys 2’ Saves Very Best for Last appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.