Il suit un groupe de personnes animées d'un profond désir de changement. Pour tourner le dos à la société, elles abandonnent tout et se lancent dans le rude paysage des Galápagos.Il suit un groupe de personnes animées d'un profond désir de changement. Pour tourner le dos à la société, elles abandonnent tout et se lancent dans le rude paysage des Galápagos.Il suit un groupe de personnes animées d'un profond désir de changement. Pour tourner le dos à la société, elles abandonnent tout et se lancent dans le rude paysage des Galápagos.
Daniel Brühl
- Heinz
- (as Daniel Bruehl)
Benjamin Gorroño
- Governor's Translator
- (as Benjamin Gorrono)
Nicholas Burton
- Hancock Crew
- (non crédité)
Austin Hayden
- American Sailor
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
I went into this film completely blind, not knowing it was based on a true story.
By the end of it, I was underwhelmed. I feel like there were the makings of a pretty strong movie with its beautiful scenery, strong cast and realism due to the true story.
However, the themes of psychological isolation and social interaction were under developed. I feel like the movie never got into full stride exploring these themes effectively. There was too much waffle in between.
The makings of a psychological thriller were there but never reached the heights that we wanted. I strongly believe the film was too long and could've definitely benefited from a short run time thus making the better moments of the film feel more impactful.
Unfortunately, I believe Eden will fly under the radar despite its strong ensemble cast, decent cinematography and direction.
By the end of it, I was underwhelmed. I feel like there were the makings of a pretty strong movie with its beautiful scenery, strong cast and realism due to the true story.
However, the themes of psychological isolation and social interaction were under developed. I feel like the movie never got into full stride exploring these themes effectively. There was too much waffle in between.
The makings of a psychological thriller were there but never reached the heights that we wanted. I strongly believe the film was too long and could've definitely benefited from a short run time thus making the better moments of the film feel more impactful.
Unfortunately, I believe Eden will fly under the radar despite its strong ensemble cast, decent cinematography and direction.
There are a lot of things this movie does well. The acting is incredible from virtually every cast member. The cinematography is outstanding, complete with some stunning views of some gorgeous landscapes that are pretty obviously not the Galapagos. The dialogue is also usually good.
What fails miserably is every other aspect of the writing. The characters are all either over-the-top cliches or one-dimensional drones, none of which have any depth whatsoever. Most of them are written to be unlikable, and the writers are a little too successful in that regard. (The only slightly sympathetic character is the insufferable nihilist, who just wants to be left alone when a bunch of twats show up at his door) There's really no good reason for these people to go to an island just to get at each others throats, and the writers REALLY stretch to justify that progression. A lot of people doing irrationally bad things to each other for no particular reason, just to contrive tension. There is more than one point where the movie starts feeling (weirdly) like an episode of Survivor. You'll catch what I mean if you're reading this before watching.
I have a feeling the writers have never actually set foot in nature, but have taken everything they know from other movies. There's a lot about the island, animals, and plants that just doesn't make sense. From what I've read about the real-life events, I think the writers tried to include key points but didn't understand them enough to do so realistically. I'm pretty sure one of the characters was planting manure at one point. Not fertilizing with manure, digging a hole and putting a chunk of manure in it. Is that how people in Hollywood think farming is done? They don't seem to know how dogs (wild or otherwise) behave either, which is kind of baffling. There's a scene in which the dogs could have shot laser beams from their eyes, and it wouldn't have been much more absurd than what was actually on the screen.
This is supposed to be based on the true story but as with a lot of movies the key points are there, but the details are completely made up. And in this case, poorly. It's pretty bad when so little is known of the real story, and it still feels more realized than the dramatized version.
What fails miserably is every other aspect of the writing. The characters are all either over-the-top cliches or one-dimensional drones, none of which have any depth whatsoever. Most of them are written to be unlikable, and the writers are a little too successful in that regard. (The only slightly sympathetic character is the insufferable nihilist, who just wants to be left alone when a bunch of twats show up at his door) There's really no good reason for these people to go to an island just to get at each others throats, and the writers REALLY stretch to justify that progression. A lot of people doing irrationally bad things to each other for no particular reason, just to contrive tension. There is more than one point where the movie starts feeling (weirdly) like an episode of Survivor. You'll catch what I mean if you're reading this before watching.
I have a feeling the writers have never actually set foot in nature, but have taken everything they know from other movies. There's a lot about the island, animals, and plants that just doesn't make sense. From what I've read about the real-life events, I think the writers tried to include key points but didn't understand them enough to do so realistically. I'm pretty sure one of the characters was planting manure at one point. Not fertilizing with manure, digging a hole and putting a chunk of manure in it. Is that how people in Hollywood think farming is done? They don't seem to know how dogs (wild or otherwise) behave either, which is kind of baffling. There's a scene in which the dogs could have shot laser beams from their eyes, and it wouldn't have been much more absurd than what was actually on the screen.
This is supposed to be based on the true story but as with a lot of movies the key points are there, but the details are completely made up. And in this case, poorly. It's pretty bad when so little is known of the real story, and it still feels more realized than the dramatized version.
The film industry produces alot of films, and this is a good one. Everything about it was quality. Well cast (and nice to aee Jude Law again), beautiful dramatic filming of scenary as well as dialogue well filmed. Excellent pacing and not predictable. I felt the interactions between the well defined characters was fantastic such that it could easily be made into a stage play. To be honest I feel the whole team deserve to be congratulated on work well done.
Basis of story is a very private and intellectual doctor and his adoring wife go to the Galapagos and then a highly practical German couple arrive, followed by a very devious and morally dubious woman qnd her two lovers. What results is a character interaction which creates tension, drama and some twists.
Basis of story is a very private and intellectual doctor and his adoring wife go to the Galapagos and then a highly practical German couple arrive, followed by a very devious and morally dubious woman qnd her two lovers. What results is a character interaction which creates tension, drama and some twists.
I went to watch this film with expectations, as it won the Camera d'Or at Cannes 2024, however very quickly I realized what a mistake i've done. The main actor is very talented, however the story is getting awkward after about 30 mintutes, so there is nothing to do from that point on, but sitting bored and waiting for the film to be over. I won't make any spoilers here, but only urge you to use your time better than I did and go to watch something else. God, I even saw some people leaving before the end, but I have a motto never to do that, even if the film is boring and awful. And this film is.
7.5/10
I was surprisingly really drawn to the story, i found it fascinating and intriguing, and i thoroughly enjoyed it from start to finish, the storytelling was strong and kept me engaged the entire time, which is a big plus, and Ron Howard definitely has that good filmmaking quality aspect in the film that are shown.
The cast, on paper, is absolutely stacke, just looking at the names, it sounds like a dream lineup, while i don't have any issues with Jude Law and Vanessa Kirby, i felt that the other three main stars didn't quite deliver their best performances, i've seen Daniel Brühl, Ana De Armas, and Sydney Sweeney doing a really great job as a performer, but in this film, their acting didn't quite hit the mark.
The main issue, in my opinion, was the accents they had to use, acting with an accent is like acting on top of acting, it becomes a double task, you not only have to perform the role but also maintain an unnatural speech pattern, which can be distracting, in this case, i'd say they were decent at best, not terrible by any means, just not as compelling as i've seen them before, Sydney Sweeney, to her credit, did slightly better than the other two, but it's not bad, if it's bad then it's another case, decent is definitely more passable than bad.
The two male co-stars who accompanied Ana de Armas also had similar issues, just a little bit worse, but still fine, there are a few nitpicks here and there, but overall, Eden is a pretty well-made film with a compelling, engaging, and fascinating story, despite its flaws, i found it to be a genuinely interesting watch.
I was surprisingly really drawn to the story, i found it fascinating and intriguing, and i thoroughly enjoyed it from start to finish, the storytelling was strong and kept me engaged the entire time, which is a big plus, and Ron Howard definitely has that good filmmaking quality aspect in the film that are shown.
The cast, on paper, is absolutely stacke, just looking at the names, it sounds like a dream lineup, while i don't have any issues with Jude Law and Vanessa Kirby, i felt that the other three main stars didn't quite deliver their best performances, i've seen Daniel Brühl, Ana De Armas, and Sydney Sweeney doing a really great job as a performer, but in this film, their acting didn't quite hit the mark.
The main issue, in my opinion, was the accents they had to use, acting with an accent is like acting on top of acting, it becomes a double task, you not only have to perform the role but also maintain an unnatural speech pattern, which can be distracting, in this case, i'd say they were decent at best, not terrible by any means, just not as compelling as i've seen them before, Sydney Sweeney, to her credit, did slightly better than the other two, but it's not bad, if it's bad then it's another case, decent is definitely more passable than bad.
The two male co-stars who accompanied Ana de Armas also had similar issues, just a little bit worse, but still fine, there are a few nitpicks here and there, but overall, Eden is a pretty well-made film with a compelling, engaging, and fascinating story, despite its flaws, i found it to be a genuinely interesting watch.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesIn fact, it was not only Friedrich Ritter who had all his teeth extracted before Floreana, but also his partner Dore Strauch. They both shared the same stainless steel prosthesis for eating.
- GaffesIn a scene, Rudolph tells the truth about Baroness to Heinz and Margaret explaining how she is like a "Black Hole swallowing everything in her orbit". The theory which was first discovered only in 1958.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long will Eden be?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Montant brut mondial
- 825 041 $US
- Durée
- 2h 9min(129 min)
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant