Reviews & Ratings for
The Grapes of Wrath More at IMDbPro »

Page 3 of 25:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
The stark reality of the 1930's brought to the screen by John Ford, 22 February 2013

Author: RogerCampbell from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If you have never seen John Ford's classic film The Grapes of Wrath it's highly recommended that you do so at least once in your lifetime. The Grapes of Wrath is more than just a good old fashioned movie; it's a lesson in American history. Many of us have probably heard a grandparent or older family member talk of "The Dust Bowl" days, "The Depression Era" and of banks foreclosing on farms during the 1930's. Director John Ford brilliantly captures all this in The Grapes of Wrath as it follows one Oklahoma family through all these hardships as they migrate from their foreclosed farm to California in hopes of finding work in a depressed economy. Superb acting by Henry Fonda, Jane Darwell and John Carradine bring raw emotion to a well written script based on the novel by John Steinbeck. Both the novel and the movie were extremely controversial during their initial period of release. The novel was actually banned in several states because of its true depiction of the life of strife that many families encountered while living in migrant worker camps in California. This is a great must see movie for the whole family.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
We all got little pieces of the one big soul that belongs to everybody ..., 13 November 2012

Author: ElMaruecan82 from France

Watching John Ford's 1940 masterpiece "The Grapes of Wrath" spares dozens of historical readings about the Great Depression. Through the absorbing realistically-handled journey of the Joad Family, sharecroppers from Oklahoma, the movie is a tacit homage to all the farmers who were kicked out of their own land after half a century, and by an enemy even more redoubtable because he was invisible. Call it corporations, banks, politics, it's impossible to point a finger on a responsible person, let alone a gun, all the 'Okies' are left with is a bitter resignation mixed with the hopes for brighter futures in California, the promised land.

Through its documentary value, "The Grapes of Wrath" works as the perfect contradiction to all the supporters of Capitalism as the core of American ideals. It's a film about the little people, those who had faith and lost it. The central character is Tom Joad, an ex-convict, released after four years. Joad was imprisoned for homicide but doesn't carry any regret, the 'victim' had it coming: he pulled a knife. Joad is the kind of more-or-less decent individual victim of unfortunate circumstances but learns to deal with them rather than whining. The second representative character is Casey, an ex-preacher played by John Carradine. The preacher lost the spirit, and it hardly surprises that it's Communism he embraces at the end.

An ex-convict, an ex-preacher, ex-farmers, the gallery consists of a bunch of people who 'used to be', and seem incapable to conjugate the life in the future. In a world where farmers are forced to leave the land they walked on and died on, what positive can ever be presaged? The fear ends up killing Grandpa Joad, and the grandmother doesn't outlive him for long. But one person doesn't fear future; it's Ma Joad, and Jane Darnell embodies the pioneer spirit, temerity despite exhaustion, with her droopy but magnificently scintillating eyes. When they live the farm, she doesn't give a last look for they're going to California, and she has no time to mourn the past. She's not braver than the others: the night before, she meditated on her own sadness, alone, but as the heart of the Joadses, it's her duty to exude the happiness the Family is looking forward.

The power of "The Grapes of Wrath" is to vehicle its powerful and inspirational message through characters rather than facts. Ma Joad, through her eyes, smiles and spirit, incarnates the ferocious and so womanly attachment to practical stuff like eating, living, being clean, she's the unwounded soul of that crisis-stricken America. On the other hand, men are more inclined to think, to translate the facts into abstract notions, and ultimately to fight. Tom Joad is no more eager to become an agitator than anyone else, but the odyssey of the road 66, opened his eyes on the new face of America. Either facing the disdain or the support of fellow citizens, he understands that the salvation cannot come from the individual but from solidarity. His "We all got little pieces of the one big soul that belongs to everybody" almost sounds like a spiritual protest slogan.

It's even ironic that a right-wing conservative directed "The Grapes of Wrath", but the whole socialist and communist undertones were less taboo at that time. The film was adapted from the Pullitzer-prize winning novel of John Steinbeck, released in 1939, at the dawn of a worldwide conflict that put the Red Scare into perspective. Naturally, the farmer's contribution to the war efforts leaded them to a more prosperous state, from which their descendants benefited. But as a slice of the American life during the 30's, the film encapsulates all the desperation, the fears and the hopes of a population that stopped to believe in its own ideals. And now that the world is stricken by another crisis, with the financial system, and the most pervert side of Capitalism as responsible, it's time to look at "The Grapes of Wrath" with a new eye for the film is still relevant today, maybe more than when it was praised as one of the greatest American films of all-time.

And cinematically speaking, it's also a gripping adaptation that conveys the oppressive feeling of this era through a very powerful black-and-cinematography. There's indeed a magnificent contrast between the shadowy photography of the earlier scenes and the sunnier ones when they arrive in the campground in California. At one part, Casey makes a poignant preach implying that he found a new faith, his face hides in the shadow while his eyes are clearly seen, as to suggest a new lucidity, as if the use of lights allowed him to shine within his own words. The same goes for Henry Fonda during his memorable "I'll be there" speech, although the lines seem less spontaneous or more cinematic. And this is not to blame on the script but rather on Fonda who magnificently played a character full of anger and hopes, always distant but never unnoticeable, that's Fonda's charisma, subtle but irreplaceable, Fonda who should have won the Oscar for Best Actor.

The film was nominated for several other Oscars, it lost the Best Picture to Alfred Hitchcock's "Rebecca" but won a Best Supporting Actress for Jane Darnell and Best Director for John Ford. The two awards are much deserved for Darnell is the heart of the film, and fittingly concludes it with her immortal "We're the people", you sure are, Ma … and John Ford who works each shot with an admirable craftsmanship. Many of them show all the Joadses in one frame as to continually sustain the idea of their unshakable unity, which is the kind of values that the film stands for: unity and solidarity.

Quite odd from an American film to celebrate these ideals, but this is what makes it such an endearing, timeless, and universal classic.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Tom Joad will be there and so will this movie for you, 17 October 2012

Author: ironhorse_iv from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'm will be there—to review John Steinbeck and his great American novel, The Grapes of Wrath, about the westward migration of people during the dust bowl in the Depression of the 1930's. It was a huge hit in 1940, and soon it was turn into a movie directed by John Ford. The film stars Henry Fonda as Tom Joads, the incredible Jane Darwell as his mother. The film stands today as one of the finest examples of sensitive American cinema. It is an incredible combination of gut-wrenching scenes threaded through feel-good scenes that make you laugh and then sob. The movie is about The Joads family. They were destitute by faceless, corporative banks that seized their lands just when Tom Joad (Henry Fonda) got out of prison. Forced out of their farm, the Joads are heading from the dust towns of Oklahoma to California for hope of a job. As aggressively coaxing is needed to acquire Grandpa Joad (Charley Grapewin) from leaving his abode, while the family meek existence is depended on the nurturing of Ma Joad (Jane Darwell) who's strong upbringing sturdily holds them together. When the family arrives upon destination, they harbor terrible living conditions and given low wages in the migrant-worker camps. Hot tempered Tom Joad eventually collides with the wrong side of the law, as he is cornered to leave his family behind. A documented-style production in which seasoned pioneer John Ford received an Academy Award for his appraised directing. The Joads suffers much, and struggle in times of adversity. The visuals of the film, was outstanding. The desolation of the land and the desperation of the people were depicted very well. It does have an uplifting message despite its gloom. A black and white cinematography that would inspire Ansel Adams. Tom Joad's speech is very powerful, and makes you appreciate every meal you have. The idea of the interpretation of the film is that despite being in hard times, the Joads gave to others. Letting others stay with them, helping out others, giving away their food. The faults of the film are these… it's really heavy, slow tempo, long, and the Okie accent and dialect is hard to understand. Some harsh language in the book that wouldn't have been allowed in mainstream movies of that time is left out from the movie. The production codes did not allow for the shocking scene of a woman breast feeding a starving man that ends the book. In the book more detail is given about Tom Joad's older brother Noah. In the movie he's hardly featured at all, and in fact completely disappears from the latter part of the film with no explanation given as to where he went. The big difference between the movie and the novel is that the movie goes uphill while the novel goes entirely downhill. This makes all the difference. The uphill fashion of the film version fails to provide closure. For example, it lacks the powerful ending of the book, which I will not spoil. Anyways, this film and book should be read and view in EVERY school to show how lucky we are today and don't appreciated it with our many luxuries our money buys today. It doesn't belong 2 a particular era or country. It's the story of the struggles of humanity.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Just a taste of Steinbeck - flawed, but great enough, 21 August 2012

Author: Artimidor Federkiel from Austria

John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" undoubtedly ranks among the greatest works of American realist literature. It stands as a testament of the Great Depression era where tenant farmers of the dust bowls suffer under drought, then are brutally dispossessed and driven from their Oklahoma homes, forced to find their luck elsewhere. In the end all they have is themselves, as the trip to find the blessed land California demands a heavy toll, is accompanied by tragedies and setbacks and the outlook is bleak in the face of the greed that exploits honest workers to make a buck. John Ford tries the impossible - to go for an authentic rendition of the multilayered, detail packed, all around magnificently written Steinbeck material, and definitely succeeds in delivering an indispensable heart-wrenching film portraying the never ending struggle of the Joads. Any direct comparison between book and film however is moot, enjoy both for what they are. On board in this road movie of the existential kind are Henry Fonda as an ex-convict, John Carradine as a disillusioned preacher and the Oscar winning Jane Darwell as Ma Joad, all first-rate acting with strong support of an array of bit players who help the crude reality take shape. Highly recommendable! There are downsides, though. For one the two hours of screen time can barely correspond to the epic proportions of the novel. However, the entry is still much more complete than Kazan's adaption of Steinbeck's other epic drama "East of Eden", starring Jimmy Dean, which only shows a fraction of the story. The one real liability however is the diluted ending which was tucked on as a concession to the mass audience while Steinbeck's epic hits you with full force. Well, if you want the real thing, read the book. With the film you get a pretty good taste of it.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
The people who live., 4 July 2012

Author: Al_The_Strange from United States

Maybe not the most thrilling movie ever made, but it's hard not to get caught up in it. You just can't help but to feel for the plight of the main characters, and follow them intently as they continuously journey onward searching for hope and prosperity. In a rather grim fashion, the characters are forced to confront disappointment, and ultimately persecution and hardship at every turn.

This classic John Steinbeck story is perhaps as relevant now as it was back in the 30s; it serves to criticize the ideals of the American dream, and it proves quite effective as it documents the migration of displaced farmers and workers across the nation. The story is a journey that pushes the characters to extremes, and provides a fairly hellish view of the dustbowl in general. It's driven by a constant pattern, in which the characters come close to finding what they're looking for, and then having it snatched away from them. It's pretty bleak, but the characters remain endearing, especially with their endless conviction and motivation.

On film, the story is immortalized with excellent photography and editing. The acting is swell: Henry Fonda, John Carradine, and heck, just about everybody inhabit their characters quite well. The writing is superb. This production is loaded with good, real-looking sets, props, costumes, and locales. The music used is fitting.

Recommended! 4.5/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Perfect | Film: Very Good)

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
The movie that takes every viewer back in time to the great depression, 7 June 2012

Author: Koundinya from India

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'm flummoxed as to which among the two is the better than the other- John Steinbeck's literature masterpiece or John Ford's motion picture masterpiece. A panache indeed.

There hasn't been and will not be a better representation of the lives of the people at the time of The Great Depression than this piece of literature adapted as a movie. Only a genius can add life to the characters, make them walk, talk, cry and pray, and bring to the screen what pain and struggle in the throes of poverty really would be.

Tom Joad is out from a penitentiary on a parole. He heads back home only to find no one there. With the help of a former priest who is an now an apostate, go to his uncle John's place just to catch his family members when there about to leave to California. They realize en route that the pamphlets regarding requirement of workers in orchards had been circulating for an awful long time and that the wages weren't as exaggerated as they were in the pamphlets. They lose their ailing grandfather and after the obsequies, they finally reach California. They find tens of thousands of immigrants and somehow manage to get employment and accommodation in an orchard. Meanwhile, Tom kills a man who opens fire on the former priest and kills him. Tom flees the place when all his family members except his mom are asleep. He promises his mom that he would return. The Joads leave the town the next morning to find a better place to habitat.

Jane Darwell is the quintessential mother and matriarch of the Joads. She was rightly awarded the 'Best Actress in a Supporting Role' Oscar.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Truly an American Classic!, 5 June 2012

Author: matthewcoulombe from United States

John Ford's 1940 classic, based on the novel of the same name by John Steinbeck, is a great story showing the hardships farmers went through during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, heading for the promise land of California, but not without some trouble along the way.

I really enjoyed the performances (especially Henry Fonda's role as Tod, making him one of my favorite actors), the music was helpful in setting the mood, and the gritty cinematography made it look almost like a horror film since it dealt with human hardships. I'm glad that Mr. Ford won the Best Director Oscar, as well as the actress Jane Darwell, who played Mrs. Joed (she was the bird woman from Disney's Mary Poppins), receiving an Oscar too.

This film truly is a masterpiece, and one of the best films of the 1940s; give it a watch, and you won't be disappointed at all.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
The Grapes of Wrath, 19 March 2012

Author: Jackson Booth-Millard from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

From Oscar winning director John Ford (My Darling Clementine, The Quiet Man, Mister Roberts, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), based on the book by John Steinbeck, this was a film from the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die that I was really going to try and focus on. Basically Tom Joad (Oscar nominated Henry Fonda) has returned home after serving four years in prison for killing a man, and he is joined on his journey by faithless former preacher Casy (John Carradine), and together they find the farm deserted. Tom finds his family who tell him that they were evicted, and the extended family of eight have to pack their things and set on the road to California, and there they hope to find work. The Grandpa (Charley Grapewin) dies from a stroke along the way on Route 66, and they have no choice but to bury his body on a roadside, and after being warned about the lack of jobs at their destination, Grandma (Zeffie Tilbury) dies also before they reach the border. They soon find a travelling camp populated by children, and a man and the sheriff do come offering the family members work, but with no indication of what the salary is, this man with the sheriff is trouble apparently. The sheriff killed the man, and Tom knocked out the sheriff before getting away, and the rest of the family keep travelling until the find a farm that needs workers, but it is suspicious for being surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards. They earn very little money when they accept a job picking pears, and Tom walking around comes across Casy again who is planning a strike with fellow labourers, but then thugs kill Casy and gash Tom. The family move on again and find a US government camp which has much better living conditions, such as toilets and showers, but they are wary of thugs coming and need the sheriff to take control. Tom must go away because the sheriff is looking for him, and he leaves his mother, Ma Joad (Oscar winning Jane Darwell), thinking that she won't see him again, but she is hopeful about the future heading for work in the north. Also starring Dorris Bowdon as Rose-of-Sharon 'Rosasharn' Rivers, Russell Simpson as Pa Joad, O.Z. Whitehead as Al and John Qualen as Muley. Fonda is alright as the one who almost leads the family, and Darwell is indeed intriguing as the mother of the family who is tries to keep spirits up. I will be honest, I didn't really pay enough attention to or understand the plot, and I didn't really understand the leading character's heroism, I'd probably only see it the once, but there are some good moments, costumes and landscapes to just about keep you watching, a reasonably worthwhile classic period drama. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Picture, Best Film Editing, Best Sound and Best Writing, Screenplay. Tom Joad was number 12 on 100 Years, 100 Heroes & Villains, the film was number 21 on 100 Years, 100 Movies, and it was number 7 on 100 Years, 100 Cheers. Very good!

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Wrath indeed, 12 March 2012

Author: Connor from Toronto, Canada

IMDb Top 250: 156

I can't think of too many films that show the hardships of the Depression off the top of my head, but surely The Grapes of Wrath (what an intriguing title) weighs equally to the entirety of all others. Based on a novel I haven't read, 'Grapes' follows the Joad family leaving to find work in California with their recently returned son and finding misery. This is a heavy film, a depression in a Depression.

I was excited by the prospect of seeing a John Ford film, because I associate him with two major things: beautiful cinematography and 'full' films, filled with themes and symbolism. I got the first one: dark, black and white photography, with breathtaking long shots and silhouettes, and faces appearing in darkness. The second was still there, but not as plentifully as his later films. However this is an adaptation, and thus Ford's leeway was quite constricted, plot and theme wise.

A film this bleak, with such a feeling of desperation (the wind sounds are chilling) needs desperate performances, and 'Grapes' delivers. Fantastic acting. Henry Fonda is just- wow. I recently saw The Philadelphia Story, and I can say Fonda's performance is far more deserving than Stewart's Oscar winning role. Tom Joad is hot-tempered yet caring: walking the fine line between cool and volatile. Fonda perfects the role and elevates the entire film with his honest performance. He is backed up by solid support, like Ma Joad and Casy. The Joad family is large, and we don't get to really meet most of them. I'm sure the book fleshes the characters out more, but I can only remember the names of Tom, Ma, Pa, and Roseasharon (?) Joad.

Like All Quiet on the Western Front, 'Grapes' teaches a solid history lesson. We see the 'Okies' plight in the Dustbowl, their trip across the country with everything in one truck, and their subsequent hardships faced in California by people who don't want them stealing jobs they need too. This story is told with good flow and a strong pace- no scene feels rushed, and no scene feels overdone.

Mood is another of The Grapes of Wrath's strength. There's a very post- apocalyptic feeling about it- the scramble to ensure their families survival against everyone else. We see a form of society breakdown, where people can only fend for themselves. The major conflict is hard to describe, as everything goes wrong for the Joads. Nature, other people (but no singular antagonist) and it would even seem God wants the Joads to fail. So when the dance scene comes, it's one of the biggest sighs of relief I've experienced watching films.

The Grapes of Wrath is a really bleak film with a really strong lead. It's a remarkably important film, in league with Gone With the Wind, and should be seen for that reason alone- something numbers cannot tell you. It's a story about the injustices done by the rich fat cats at the expense of the poor, and more personally a story of human resilience: that we can overcome lots, but not everything. It's certainly humbling- things can get better but they can also get worse. 8.3/10

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Who do we point the rifle at?, 31 January 2012

Author: simon-psykolog from Denmark

I got my orders, it ain't up to me, I didn't set the price, take it or leave it. We are confronted with an economic system that suppresses downwards; nobody is held responsible. It even seems that "nobody" doesn't even exist.

This is a story about how ordinary citizens, mainly farmers, gets affected by the big depression. We follow the Joad family who out of desperation tries to find a job in California. When they arrive at "the promised land" they quickly find out that life is hard to maintain. The jobs are difficult to find and when they find one the wages are an insult. Throughout the movie there is a constant battle to sustain the basic needs such as food and shelter. Despite this fight and the competition for the jobs the workers shows solidarity with each other but cannot use this to get proper organized even though a few tries (the story could be seen as a predecessor to "In Dubious battle" where the struggle to get the workers organized continuous).

The Joad family are very poor given the circumstances but nonetheless they are looked down upon and stigmatized; being poor equals being subhuman; An Okie. If they ask questions or making a statement in front of a policeman or guard they are threatened to loose their job or getting the label "agitator".

Only in one place do they find themselves at home; in the government camp. It is a society in its own that is a safe heaven. It is built on democratic principles and is looked upon as a threat by the big corporations who actively tries to destroy such. Democracy with it laws that regulates employer/employee relationship is a threat to maximum profit.

The movie is shot in Black and white, the men are lean and the dialogue is very direct and without polite manners. You sense that the farmers doesn't talk this way because of hostility but simply because it is part of their cultural identity. The dialogue is in many cases taken right out of the book. That doesn't make it a lesser movie; it is hard if not to say impossible to compete with Steinbecks sharp pen. It may be a challenge to sense the affection in the Joad family but is there although it is not expressed overtly.

In comparison the movie adaptation has a stronger focus than the more than 500 pages book had and therefore some of the characters didn't unfold enough to be understood properly. The ending is different but I think I understand the choice to let the movie finish off in a more bearable way.

The part of the story where the Joads arrive at a farm full of guards, to harvest peaches scared the hell out of me in the book but not so much in the movie. It felt like the Joads where held in a combined prison/zoo and the choice they had to leave wasn't a real choice; it was a choice between annihilation or accept gruesome and absurd life conditions.

The movie didn't dwell so much. It didn't stay so much with the important details that showed the reason to be desperate. How much can I get for a nickel? How much do I earn when I harvest a basket full of peaches? How much food can I buy for a day's work? Can I save money for the rainy days? Seems like boring details but to me these kind of never ceasing thoughts must have been a large part of being affected by the depression.

Steinbeck writes the story with anger. You sense that he is furious; this is a piece of fiction that was needed, that had to come and thank goodness Steinbeck took it upon himself to put into words what was going on during the depression.

The farmers are the 99% who tries to do what is expected of them. There is a growing sense of who the 1% are – and of course you can draw a parallel to the depression of today and the need to organize and criticize the financial system via the "occupy wall street" movement.

Regards Simon

Page 3 of 25:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

Add another review

Related Links