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.