Load of rubbish!!

Admirable film.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Although some of his other books receive more acclaim and readership ("The Grapes of Wrath," "Of Mice and Men," "The Winter of Our Discontent"), John Steinbeck said that "East of Eden" was the novel that he lived to write. Indeed, the moralism of his writing reached broader and deeper in Eden than in any of his other works. The story here is set mainly in Steinbeck's beloved Salinas Valley and Monterey County.Warner Brothers did a commendable job in bringing the story to life on the silver screen. It condensed a 600-page novel into a two–hour film, yet kept all of the main elements of the drama. The title for the story comes from the Bible. Genesis 4:16 reads, "Cain then left the Lord's presence and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden." The plot of the story is a modern Cain and Abel tale, and it is repeated within succeeding generations. In the Bible, Cain brought "some of the fruits of the soil" to offer the Lord. Abel brought "the best of the firstlings," or "some of the firstlings and their fat portions." The latter were more pleasing to God. So, Cain did so-so, average, but Abel went out of his way to give the best to the Lord. God didn't love Cain any less -- he was just most pleased with Abel's offering. Yet Cain succumbed to pride, greed, envy, anger and lust. Most know the story of "East of Eden" or will find other reviews that discuss the plot. So, my remarks here are brief and cover some things not mentioned. Seeing this film again after many years, on a DVD, I had the advantage of extras that included some deleted scenes. I think one inclusion would have made the film perfect – the scene of Cal and Aron in their room after they had argued outside and Cal said that Aron was "the one he wanted" referring to his father's favoritism, as he saw it. Without that sequence, we see Cal suddenly perking up, pitching in and being Mr. good-guy helping his father. But, there's no real explanation or background to let us know why he would change. I don't know why they deleted that scene – it made the perfect fit and segue with Aron and Cal talking and Aron explaining in a way that Cal could understand. I don't think that would have made the movie too long in itself. James Dean had the largest role, as Cal, and was the male lead. And, yes, he was a new young and hot star of the time. All of the acting is excellent, including Dean's. But, I think the very best performances in this movie were by Julie Harris as Abra, Jo Van Fleet as Kate, and Raymond Massey as Adam. Richard Davalos, as Aron, wasn't far behind; and Van Fleet's performance was most deserving of the Oscar she won. James Dean made one more film after this – "Giant," which came out in October 1956. He wasn't alive to see it, because he was killed in a highway accident on Sept. 30, 1955. He had just finished filming for "Giant." That was just five months after "East of Eden" hit theaters. It's interesting to note that the site of Dean's accident was a few miles east of Paso Robles, California. That's at the southern end of the Salinas Valley of Steinbeck's "East of Eden."Those interested in Steinbeck should enjoy a visit to the National Steinbeck Center. It's a marvelous museum in downtown Salinas, CA.

Good adaptation by Elia Kazan of John Steinbeck's classic novel. Lavish production and decent story, though initially struggles to get going. Plot does drift from time to time, and there are some discontinuities between scenes.I have always thought that James Dean was vastly over-rated, and this confirmed that suspicion. He is responsible for the movie starting badly, with an irritating performance in the opening few scenes. He gets better, but it always appears that he is over-acting: the performance doesn't feel entirely natural and isn't 100% convincing. Remaining performances are OK. Jo van Fleet won the 1956 Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her performance as Kate.

"East of Eden" from 1955 is based on the John Steinbeck novel of the same name, beautifully realized on the screen by Elia Kazan, with James Dean as the perfect Cal.It is the modern story of Cain and Abel, with the brothers Cal and Aron in California around the time of World War I. The film covers the last third of the book, and it ends a little differently.The story in both book and film centers around choice; in the book, the subject comes up with a discussion of the correct translation of the Hebrew word "timshel" which means "may." God blesses Cain with free will, leaving the choice to him ("Thou mayest rule over him")This is not only a heart-wrenching story and script, but the acting is across the board superb.Kazan was struck by how much Dean was like Cal and actually observed his uneasy relationship with his father, so he gave him free rein with the role.He is magnificent as a young man jealous of his brother (Richard Davalos) and wanting his father's (Raymond Massey) love desperately, seeking to be understood. The only one who does is his brother's girlfriend, Abra (Julie Harris). Harris, one of the great Broadway actresses of her time, is lovely as the empathic young woman, who finds herself torn as she realizes she is in love with Cal and not Aaron. Richard Davalos, the handsome "good" boy Aron, does a marvelous job, and he has great chemistry with Dean. Their interactions are intense.Elia Kazan was always sorry he hired Raymond Massey, feeling he did not have the range the director wanted, but as the stern, principled, religious father, he is excellent. He absolutely hated James Dean, who deliberately provoked him -- Dean was big into the Method -- and complained that one had to "stand around and wait for him to act." Kazan used the dislike to the character's advantage too.This was Jo Van Fleet's film debut, though she had done television and had won a Tony award for "A Trip to Bountiful." For her role as a bordello madam in East of Eden, she won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar. Kazan used her again in Wild River, another brilliant performance. And the cast is great right down to the smaller roles, played by Lois Smith, Burl Ives, and Albert Dekker. Of the cast, only Smith and Davalos are still alive as of this writing. Someone reviewing it on this board said your feelings about the film change with age, as one loses one's parents, etc. I have to agree. It grows richer.East of Eden the book was a seminal for me, and I feel as deeply about the film. A true masterpiece.

The film was a poorly directed and disappointing rendition of the novel and its moral.To be fair, one can only fit so much of such an extensive story into a movie, providing the director reasonable excuse to start so late into the novel, but also making him even more responsible for the fragment of the story he chose to recreate. The film in its entirety felt much like a roller coaster, having many interesting/exciting parts but lacking any real direction or focus. In relation to the novel, the film barely managed to show a connection, which was only achieved by loosely portraying major events and the characters themselves. The cast themselves, despite their valiant effort, either underacted or overacted, taking whatever moral or lesson the story might have possibly been connected to, and beating it even more, until it was barely recognizably, if existent at all. Throughout the film, the number of loose ends and spontaneous changes of depth in meaning was overwhelming, to the point of sight nausea. Significant scenes holding any philosophical value were also few and far between. To be fair, the film, when observed independent of its literary counterpart (if that relationship can even be established!) did maintain some level of intrigue, managing to keep me fairly interested and somewhat entertained. The actors also managed to retain some portion of the intensity and urgency ever so abundant in the novel, as well as maintain the personality of their personae.To conclude, the film missed the standard set by the novel so intricately written by Stienbeck. The bulk of my disappointment, which was immense to say the least, was the utter failure of the film to accurately portray the novel it was named after. Though decent as a film itself, it is sure to disappoint those who have rad the novel and enjoyed it in its entirety.