East of Eden (2026)

Its large cast never feels cumbersome or extraneous, each character crafted with care and dignity by Kazan's meticulous scripts. .... Its large cast never feels cumbersome or extraneous, each character crafted with care and dignity by Kazan's meticulous scripts.

In “East of Eden,” Zoe Kazan‘s aching, radiant adaptation of John Steinbeck’s 1952 classic, there is ample beauty, dreadful and otherwise.

Although it might feel like the story has sanded away some of its sharpest edges, East of Eden is less like the parable presented on the page and more about a family caught in a toxic cycle it desperately needs to break free of. It's a tragic and bittersweet series, but one that is worthy of praise by any Steinbeck enjoyer.

With clear reverence for the novel, and clear-sighted new ideas elevating Steinbeck’s original themes, this is an excellent and elegant adaption, with stirring performances — especially from Pugh and Lee.

Pugh is a magnetic actress and you will never tire of watching her here, even if she brings to mind current-era Madonna during Cathy’s brothel madam years.

[Cathy's] presence provides the drama with a pulpy propulsion that cuts through the self-seriousness of most of the male-centric plotlines. Cathy becomes the black sun around which the series rotates, in command of an irrepressible will to power that makes her a villain you can’t help but root for. .... Cathy’s gravitational pull is such that the further the miniseries veers from her, the more it tends to plod.

Does it work? Long story short, I’m sorry to say, I don’t think it does. .... The goings-on between these characters loses something significant when you start to pity Cathy, and even begin to cheer her on as a kind of misunderstood girlboss.

No film adaptation of John Steinbeck's "East of Eden" will likely ever do it justice. It's simply too large unless made into something like the 1983 18 hour miniseries "The Winds of War." This is a decent attempt at making a series out of a small portion of the story. If not compared to the novel, then like the 1955 version with James Dean then it's a decent, but, not great adaptation telling a portion of the story. This one changes where the emphasis is largely I believe due to the 1955 director Elia Kazan being male while the 2026 version's director is Elia's granddaughter Zoe Kazan and obviously female. For a different short version I would love to see someone not related to the Kazan family make a version focusing on one of the novel's most fascinating characters such as Lee (portrayed superbly in the 2026 version by Hoon Lee). Stick more to the novel though rather than making changes such as why he gave up on opening a bookstore. The 2026 version, as in several changes, seems to make alterations simply to inject the director's political views into the story. Despite the limited scope and the changes to the story the show is entertaining while showing how weak men can be such as Adam Trask can be and how evil people can be such as Cathy Ames. That doesn't appear to be Kazan's intention though as she actually seems to wish to ignore the idea there is good and evil in the show. Entertaining show as was the 1955 version. The great story is still to be found by reading the original John Steinbeck novel though.

This is not East of Eden. It is merely the background for a show that should be called "Cathy Ames, The Prosperities of Vice" (paraphrasing the Marquis de Sade's Juliette original title, look it up American friends, a 1799 novel that is more edifying about human instincts and more titillating than any porn out there). At a time when infanticidal mothers are almost elevated to sainthood, it is fitting that woke-debilitated Hollywood would portray psychopathic villains with a nefarious "will to power" such as Cathy Ames as a misunderstood "strong woman" while various male characters are portrayed as one-sided "tools" or, let's say, smurfs: Papa smurf, angry smurf, romantic smurf, jealous smurf, naïve smurf, wise oriental "Tintin and the Blue Lotus' Chang" smurf **** of course the New Yorker can't help to root for her! I am surprised that no "professional" critic couldn't point out thow Ms Kazan is manipulating, conning the naive plebeian viewership in the same way her main protagonist does away with the men that fall in her trap. Technically, it is well shot. Too bad the content is rotten at its core.