An 8.1 should be a sufficient rating. And it also has a fair amount of voters. A movie needs more than 10.000 votes to become eligible, am I right? Yes, it might be an old movie, but it's quite iconic in it's own right, and not that obscure I suppose. So, what's the deal on this one?
I don't need a signature!
How about because it's a travesty on a brilliant book?
fg
A movie needs more than 25,000 votes to be eligible. This only has 22,000-some. And only votes from regular voters are counted.
http://www.imdb.com/chart/top?tt0068646&ref_=tt_awd
www.freerice.com
Julie Harris may kill it for some viewers... Way too old / miscast; great actress, but takes away from the youthful energy in this one... Also some soap opera-melodramatic moments that while dramatically powerful, don't ring true for modern viewing sensibilities...
shareWe just watched this last night and did not care for it at all. Julie Harris was way too old and even James Dean was too old.
His mugging and mumbling and shrugging and shrinking did not make him an appealing character but seemingly disfunctional to the point of being frightening character.
I read this book many years ago and remember more about the mother. Why did the movie not portray her business as the whore house it was rather than as a bar/gambling place? Why did they not even hint at her true evil? The movie made it seem as if her husband were the flawed one.
It surprises me that some wonderful movies get little recognition or rewards and IMHO questionable ones like this win Oscars. Can't see why Jo Van Fleet won either, the role was too limited and too narrow to show many acting chops!
First off, I just watched the movie but I never read the book. I agree with your analysis of the film and of Dean's character. I don't get people claiming this was a great movie. It wasn't even good. In many instances, it's poor.
You may or may not be familiar with the strict production codes during the time of this film. While the movie doesn't spell it out for us that Cal's mother is running a whorehouse, I think it should be clear to the viewer. It's implied more than once. When Cal refers to it as "a house," I think we should realize it's no ordinary house, and that much more than drinking and gambling is going on there.
Lastly: "East of Eden," like so many movies which are in the top 250, doesn't deserve to be there. The acting, plot, directing, and casting are all mediocre. Director Elia Kazan has done a few great movies, his greatest being "On the Waterfront." He has also done a slew of film which are mediocre or worse. In order to keep it brief, "East of Eden" lacked more than one of the components which would make it great, like "On the Waterfront": 1. A great leading man (James Dean is no Marlon Brando) 2. A great screenplay with powerful dialogue 3. A profound meaning 4. A meaningful character arc 5. High stakes.
Let's be realistic: The stakes in "East of Eden" simply are not that high. Two brothers fight for the love of a girl with mediocre looks and recognition from their Bible-thumping father. The best acting and directing in the world couldn't makes this a film worthy of being in the top 250. The story would have to be altered considerably and Cal would have to be more likable; although he grows more likable as the film progresses.
I agree - TERRIBLE movie. Julie Harris notwithstanding, I will NEVER understand why James Dean became a Hollywood icon. He WAS NOT a good actor in any way, shape, or form. Just a mumbling, bumbling, leather-jacketed nothing. If he had managed to live past his very misspent youth, his career would have plummeted big-time. He was honestly an absolute nothing when compared to the REAL Hollywood actors of his time. Just a brat.
shareI have to add my voice to this. I rate the movie 3.4 out of 10 so obviously nowhere near the top anything.
I count Steinbeck among my 5 favorite writers - (although East of Eden is one of my least favorite of his) - but whatever, this film is just a mess of heavy-handed, eye-rollable contrivances.
If I awarded points for unintentional comedy - like about 8 of Dean's scenes - particularly the crying-like-a-baby thing when his gift is rejected - the film could approach the top 250. The hilarity of the badness is strong with that one.
But no.
I have loved this movie my entire life. Come to think of it, you are probably lucky this movie does not touch you the way it has touched others. Your heart has obviously never been broken and you don't know the pain of love withheld by a parent or the destruction caused by a jealous sibling. In all the user reviews, the accolades lauded on James Dean are well deserved, I thought he was mezmerizing; but I love Elia Kazan - I have also always loved A Tree Grows in Brooklyn and Splendor in the Grass, they just don't make them like him anymore.
share