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
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.
An uninhabited island in the Galápagos is paradise and hell at the same time for a trio of couples who settled there in 1929. At one of the remotest areas on earth there is a clash of personalities; philosophical, libertine, and practical. While one couple seeks solitude, another wants to build a luxury hotel, and the third desires a nourishing place for family. As bugs and boars bite hard, and food and water become as scarce as doctors, police, and dentists, each couple is in for a shock. Darwin would be pleased, for on the island that gave him his fame it is survival of fittest all over again.
In this true story it is intriguing to see the starkly different personalities battle it out like in a miniature world. Ron Howard who was present at this screening at the Toronto International Film Festival, was captivated by the zany stories of the characters, and the good and bad of each of them. If anything, he said, he had to dial the antics back. It is hard to choose a side. Jude Law and the other actors are capable and convincing. Hans Zimmer orchestrated the playlist. How many soundtracks can one person do? I wish there was a little more depth to the dialogue, but Eden is a pleasure to watch and contemplate.
In this true story it is intriguing to see the starkly different personalities battle it out like in a miniature world. Ron Howard who was present at this screening at the Toronto International Film Festival, was captivated by the zany stories of the characters, and the good and bad of each of them. If anything, he said, he had to dial the antics back. It is hard to choose a side. Jude Law and the other actors are capable and convincing. Hans Zimmer orchestrated the playlist. How many soundtracks can one person do? I wish there was a little more depth to the dialogue, but Eden is a pleasure to watch and contemplate.
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.
An extremely interesting story, based on true events, an accomplished director, a top cast, Hans Zimmer behind the score. A smash hit? At least not at the box office, the budget is not even close to being recouped. In terms of feeling, 'Eden' was not represented in the media at all, apparently these days there is a lack of the muse to be caught up in realistic darkness and human abysses. The only partially resolved 'Galapagos Affair' sheds light on the hopes and utopias of conquering a new land or escaping the old world in order to build an alternative civilisation there, and how human nature buries all dreams again. The supposed heaven turns into a hell of envy, jealousy, selfishness and vanity. Not forgetting the harsh reality of the supposed island paradise. All the supposed and proven events are almost unbelievable, which makes this survival trip all the more fascinating. A real true-crime story. The film adaptation does justice to this, the well-known cast performs excellently and there is little to criticise in terms of craftsmanship. The response does not do justice to the result, so I recommend it.
The entire island setup effectively mirrors human civilisation, albeit in a simplified and somewhat a naive miniature form, with three primary groups of individuals embodying personas we encounter in our daily lives.
Dr. Ritter and Dora represent the educated individuals with rebellious spirits, striving for peace and advocating for a new world order.
The Wittmer family signifies the typical household, who having escaped a tumultuous financial situation in their homeland and now seeking refuge on this beautiful yet isolating island.
Lastly, the Baroness and her associates who epitomise the greedy and manipulative faction; while they pursue ambitious plans for personal gain, they ultimately become the primary catalyst for the disarray and collapse of 'social order' within this small island.
I appreciate how these diverse dynamics intertwine and influence one another, much like they do in the real world. At its core, this narrative serves as a survival drama that adeptly illustrates how personal ambitions can overshadow mutual benefits, ultimately leading to moral degradation among its inhabitants.
As for the performances, Ana undeniably stands out as she embodies the cunning and nefarious self with remarkable skill. I must also commend Sydney, who, despite inheriting a limited role in the storyline, maintained her composure and delivered a nuanced performance that is both subtle and essential to the narrative; the same can be said for Vanessa too.
Conversely, the male characters lacked depth as they were mostly operating on one note; it would have been beneficial if the writing had provided them with more substantial material to capitalise on.
Dr. Ritter and Dora represent the educated individuals with rebellious spirits, striving for peace and advocating for a new world order.
The Wittmer family signifies the typical household, who having escaped a tumultuous financial situation in their homeland and now seeking refuge on this beautiful yet isolating island.
Lastly, the Baroness and her associates who epitomise the greedy and manipulative faction; while they pursue ambitious plans for personal gain, they ultimately become the primary catalyst for the disarray and collapse of 'social order' within this small island.
I appreciate how these diverse dynamics intertwine and influence one another, much like they do in the real world. At its core, this narrative serves as a survival drama that adeptly illustrates how personal ambitions can overshadow mutual benefits, ultimately leading to moral degradation among its inhabitants.
As for the performances, Ana undeniably stands out as she embodies the cunning and nefarious self with remarkable skill. I must also commend Sydney, who, despite inheriting a limited role in the storyline, maintained her composure and delivered a nuanced performance that is both subtle and essential to the narrative; the same can be said for Vanessa too.
Conversely, the male characters lacked depth as they were mostly operating on one note; it would have been beneficial if the writing had provided them with more substantial material to capitalise on.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesSet in the Galápagos Islands, but filmed in Australia.
- 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
- Durée2 heures 9 minutes
- Couleur
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant