Lack of good storyline.

Better Late Then Never

Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

The story talks about two brothers living with there father, and their father is almost the perfect man that can you see, but his biggest problem is that he loves one of his sons more than the other, and that's because he never understand him. And that Affects Cal ( Dean ) very much because no matter what he did he just can't win his father love, he feels that he is the unwanted son.James Dean delivered one of his best performances ever to the big screen, and for me among his three films this was his finest and that's because of the brilliant guide by Elia Kazan, now don't get me wrong Dean was a great actor and had a great talent but when you have a great director like Kazan you will bring the best of you, take a quick look at Kazan movies you can see that any actor who worked with him took an Oscar nomination.Dean really gave us an unforgettable performance of a complicated guy that no one could performance it, he stole almost every scene he was in, and who could forget the way he is looking with eyes full of tears after his father refused to take his birthday present. and the unforgettable ending which is full of love and forgiveness.Alongside dean there was a great cast most best of them was the talented Julie Harris and i really can't think of this film without remembering Harris Character which had a very sad childhood just as Cal's life.

America and American Movies were No Doubt Feeling Their Cheerios in the 1950's. So Much So that Often Removing that 50's Patina was Difficult when Transitioning to Other Periods of Time. This Movie Reeks of the Decade that it was Made and 1917 is Present Only in Reserve.James Dean, a Quintessential Icon of the New Breed, the Post War Youth with Something to Say and a Anti-Establishment Way of Saying it. The Rather Calculated Movie Art of Their Father's Generation was Being Challenged and Broken Down with "Method" Acting and Improvisational Experiment.Dean's Mannerisms, Wardrobe, and Hair-Style were So Firmly Fastened to the Contemporary the WWI Years were Having a Difficult Time Breaking Through, and the Period Comes Off as Artificial and Distant. This Leaves Some of the Background of the Story Thin and Wispy.Julie Harris is Better and Dominates the Screen Despite Deans Dramatic Displays of Body Language that Draw Attention, and Not in a Good Way. The Rest of the Cast is Fine, Especially Jo Ann Fleet as the Mother.Not a Bad Film, but Hardly a Great One. It's Even Worse Today with a Dated Feel and it Has Lost its Appeal as Something Seething and Seems Overrated but Above Average. The Pulitzer Prize Winning Novel from John Steinbeck has Many Admirers and Most Seem Extremely Disappointed. But to be Fair, this is Film and Not Prose.Overall, Worth a Watch for its Place in Popular Culture, to See James Dean and Puzzle Over His God-Like Status, and for a Pretty Standard Studio Production that is Typical of Well Crafted Filmmaking from Ultra-Conservative Movie Studios that were Cautiously Concerned About New Trends and This was About as Daring as it Got in the Decade.

OK, the book is a masterpiece, very layered and beautifully and intelligently written with complex characters and plenty of emotional wallop. It is a very wordy and sometimes sprawling book as well as a long one, so when it comes to be adapted things will be missed out. The film may not the greatest of adaptations, it's not as complex, Kate and Aron are far more interesting in the book(Aron could be seen as the driving force and Kate is not a plot device) and there's the omission of Lee(the one that could be seen as the character who links everything together). Despite all that though, as a film on its own- which is a much fairer way to judge because book and film are two different mediums, there are plenty of films that are not good adaptations but are great films- East of Eden is still a great film and a powerful one too. With the only flaw for me being the occasionally heavy handed direction with an over-reliance of camera tilts, sure they are deliberate choices to show the character contrasts and how distorted the relationship with Cal and his father has become but there were parts where the technique technique wasn't needed like at the dinner table. Timothy Carey's voice not sounding like Timothy Carey is a touch jarring, but not enough to be a flaw. Kazan's direction is mostly fine though and East of Eden is a wonderfully-made film, sumptuous in colour and brilliantly shot(excepting a few of the tilted camera shots), especially in the poppy field which hasn't aged a jot and actually looks as though it was shot outdoors. Some of it is clever too like with Dean standing in the doorway, the shadow that you see very symbolic of how twisted and vengeful Cal is by this point. Leonard Rosenman's score is very lush-sounding with a very sophisticated vibe, enhancing the mood in every scene beautifully. East of Eden is very intelligently written if wordy like in the book and the story is still compelling and powerful, the ending and Cal giving his father the money and his father rejecting it are heart-breaking scenes. A lot of the details from the book may not be there but the spirit and the meaning of it are. The characters drive the film very well and are interesting, especially Cal who is a very tormented character who we do feel lots of empathy for. And the acting is great, Julie Harris may be too mature but her performance is still full of innocence and compassion, Burl Ives is a charming presence, Jo Van Fleet makes Kate very memorable and layered despite her quite short screen time, Raymond Massey is perfect as the at times controlling father and Richard Davalos' screen debut is a wonderful one, you hate him at first but in the climatic scene for instance you do feel empathy for him. But the best performance does come from James Dean who is superb and the emotional power of his performance really hit home with me. His role in Rebel Without a Cause may be more iconic(and for good reason) but his role as Cal is played with more depth I feel. Overall, as an adaptation East of Eden may not be great and will leave fans wanting but as a film it is truly excellent with a lot of powerful things. 9/10 Bethany Cox

From an entertainment basis, this move was successful, with captivating performances by all of the actors. But after reading John Steinbeck's novel, this movie hits miles below the mark he had intended. The first major flaw with the movie is the starting point, which takes place more than halfway through the book. This leaves audience members who have yet to read the book clueless to the Trask family history. Also, there is no mention of Lee in the movie. This serves to take away from the novel, since Lee was the first character to bring about the main theme of Timshell surrounding the novel. Without Lee, there is no Timshell, and without TImshell, there is no East of Eden. There are other flaws in the movie, such as the scene where Cal asks Kate for the loan, or when they only harassed the German man instead of burning down his shop. These and several other minor flaws, along with the major flaws previously mentioned, serve only to take away from the author's intended purpose of the novel. Overall, I believe that this movie did not meet the standards that John Steinbeck would have accepted in his writing of East of Eden.