tylergee005 I went into this film last night with high hopes, leading only to disappointment. This is my first film I've seen with James Dean, and I think this was the first disappointment. I've always been confused about the significance of "method acting", because every time I see it, it's too obvious. I see exactly what they're doing, and it's really not convincing. It's more melodramatic and campy regardless, and it really showed with Dean in this picture. The over the top acting took me out of the picture, and I felt that I never really got back in. I felt like everyone was a stranger to me, and that we never got to know them.Also, the story had many points of interest, that went no where, or was wrapped up too quickly to be satisfying. For instance, I liked the dynamic of the beans market, and Cal trying to get this investment going, but, it sort of just... happened. Also there's a scene where the other brother is clearly against the war, and thinks it's immoral, but there's no real reason or explanation as to why. I guess it's just supposed to be accepted since he's a good kid? But then later he's upset, and decides to just join the military anyways, so he just gets upset, and is okay with killing now? This movie suffered from both sides of the story. I felt it was too short for the story that could have been better fleshed out, but too long for the one it told. It felt constantly dragged out, which could have been resolved with a longer runtime. Overall the story isn't as interesting as I'd hoped, and the acting from Dean was too obvious and campy. Perhaps it's worth watching if you like seeing James or if it's been on your list for a while, otherwise, there are better movies to waste time with.

SnoopyStyle In 1917, Monterey is a rough and tumble place. Cal Trask (James Dean)lives in the quiet neighboring farming community in the Salinas Valley. He doesn't get along with his father Adam (Raymond Massey). His brother Aron is the more liked especially by their father. He found out that his mother isn't dead but just left their family. He finds out that his mother is Kate (Jo Van Fleet) who runs a brothel in Monterey. He's a tortured soul who hates both his mother and his father but he's constantly trying to impress his father. Aron's girlfriend Abra (Julie Harris) grows more and more attracted to him. His father loses a lot of money when he tried to ship lettuce with ice on the train. He aims to recover the lost by growing beans for the war but he needs $5k which he borrows from a reluctant Kate.It's a massive performance from James Dean. He's all emotions and no reservation. He's throwing everything into his character. There is an undirected energy about him as he flail away for his father's approval. I try and can only envision a bland unremakeable film without James Dean. He makes this movie unique and he's not overpowered by the scale of this Steinbeck novel.

dougdoepke Clearly, Dean was one of the defining actors of the youthful 1950's. Rebel without a Cause (1955) may have registered more strongly with the cool cats of the time. Nonetheless, in my little book, this is the film that represents the actor's enduring triumph. Here Cal's (Dean) yawning emotional needs are on raw display, the tics, grimaces, writhings. All are excruciatingly expressive. At times it's over the top, but few can doubt the sincerity. In fact, it appears to be the real Dean on screen, and not an actor. Then too, Dean was lucky. He got one of the best young actresses of that day or any day in Julie Harris. Her lack of glamor is a real plus. That way her rather plain looks don't get in the way of a growing emotional bond with a needy Cal (Dean). I count the beanfield and ferris wheel scenes as two of the best boy-girl on record. Catch how naturally they're drawn to each other, only to shrink away at the last moment. It's like they're fearful of some kind of forbidden attraction. Still, before emotions can straighten out, the confused Cal must straighten himself out. That means getting straight with his imperious father (Massey). Then too, Abra (Harris) needs to trust her emotions rather than lifeless convention with Aaron (Davalos). Now if Dad could just stop seeing his detested ex-wife in Cal, he might bend a little. After all, having principles is not enough. They should first be the right principles, and excluding a son because of one of them is not right. Thus, it's really Dad who needs to straighten out. Then Cal would have a chance.And who better to play the emotionally constricted patriarch than the commanding Ray Massey. His scenes with Dean represent not only a clash of personalities but also a clash of acting styles. I gather the two actors didn't much like each other, which is not surprising. Anyway, the supporting parts are also well done. I especially like the often overlooked Lois Smith as the fearful, fluttery servant girl. She's really Cal's emotional counterpart, even though in a small role. I've long sympathized with Dick Davalos in the thankless role of the prissy Aaron. That, plus being overshadowed by the most compelling young actor of the day, was surely a misfortune. As a side note, filming in the Salinas Valley was a real plus, lending a large canvas to the intense drama.Despite the sometimes sprawling screenplay, the movie remains an emotional powerhouse, thanks to Dean, Harris, and director Kazan. In fact, casting the untried Dean in the role of Cal remains one of moviedom's most memorable moments. While in terms of a meteoric body of work, the young actor checked out at about the right time.

Nphill2011 While the movie East of Eden had the benefit of an outstanding cast, the overall movie was crippled by drastic deviation from the book along with poor writing. The cast in East of Eden is first class. The actors take the script (as poor as it was) and brought it to life. Scenes of emotion were quite well conveyed, actors wailing and celebrating as the script required of them. For the most part the characters are portrayed authentically and true to the book. The Actors themselves did everything that was humanly possible to make this film a success. However, while the actors were striving to create something watchable It would seem the director was not. While it did seem that he went to the book for the movies overall design, he did not to the book for details. He left out some of the most important characters and themes. He completely omitted the entirety of the message of the book, Timshel the thought that man has a choice, in favor of something along the lines of a basic allusion to Cain and Abel. The movie did not feature Lee, who in my opinion was one of the best and most telling characters in the book. Also not featured among those portrayed was Samuel Hamilton, a key player in Steinbeck's original message. Aside from lacking characters the movie was completely void of the primary message Steinbeck relayed to his audience, Timshel. Lastly, the movie was crippled by an absolutely terrible script. The dialogue was consistently strange if not totally incoherent, not to mention one instance where the character seemed to spout pure and unfettered gibberish. Not word was uttered about Timshel or even the conflict of good and evil. The script for this movie was cluttered with irrelevant statements that left the audience either laughing or wondering why it was included in the first place. All in all the movie East Of Eden was crippled by its lack of correlation to the book and its poorly written script, despite having an outstanding cast.