Reviews (339)

A true masterpiece! A 5 star winner and a true classic!
The Wizard of Oz has got to be one of the greatest movies in classical and musical cinema history. For sixty years this movie has been the perfect choice for childeren and adults to watch and enjoy. The story is about Dorthy Gale who lives in Kansas with her aunt and uncle. When Dorthy decides to run away from home because of her feelings being empty a tornado hits and she and her house are taken to another world, the Land of Oz. A place where she finds friends like she never imagined like Glinda the good witch of the north, the beautiful witch who gives her the rubey slippers which posses power like any unknown. The scarecrow, a friendly man of clothing and straw who wants a brian, the tin woodsman, a sweet man made of tin who wants a heart, the lion, a kind and cowardly forest animal who wants courage and the wicked witch of the west, a evil witch who wants the rubey slippers and revenge on Dorthy for accidently killing her sister, the wicked witch of the east. As Dorthy and her friends follow the yellow brick to the emerald city, the place where the great and powerful and mysterious Wizard of Oz lives the magic of this film can tell the rest.

A true masterpiece! Excellent polt, characters, music and more. It holds an emotional presents that will touch everyone's heart and wish they were in the Land of Oz! See it and live through the magic of this timeless classical film of wonders.

An OZ-some DVD Experience
Like most baby boomers, I've watched this film dozens of times in the past on broadcast TV, then VHS tape, then LaserDisc ... but I had never actually SEEN "The Wizard of Oz" until this newly restored DVD came out. It's an amazing transfer. The sepia-tone Kansas sequences are startlingly sharp and clear, and the Technicolored world "Over the Rainbow" is truly dazzling. I found myself fascinated by details I had never noticed before: the glittering corn stalks in the Scarecrow's field; the mirror-like floors of the Emerald City; the polished buttons on the guardsmen's uniforms. Incredibly, even the individual grains of red sand in the Witch's hourglass stood out and glistened! All these minor-but-sumptuous visual details served to heighten the magical spell that the film has always woven, enhancing the performances, the story, and the music.

The DVD extras are a mind-boggling embarrassment of riches. The "Making Of" documentary hosted by the incomparable Angela Lansbury is worth the price of the DVD alone, but there's so much more: an international poster gallery, interviews with cast members, deleted scenes, production stills, radio clips, etc, etc. There's enough material to keep even the most casual viewer fascinated for hours, and a true Oz buff will be occupied for days!

If you only bought a DVD player to watch this one disc, it would well be worth the expense. Treat yourself, and fall in love with this classic film again ... for the first time.

The Wonderful Movie of Oz
I have been enchanted as I now watch the movie as an adult. It is not just a story about a girl from Kansas trying to get back home - actually, that was added into the movie: "There's no place like home" wasn't in the book even. I think it was a story of things that we want, and that we imagine these things may be granted by the Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The scarecrow wants a brain, the tinman a heart, and the lion courage. On their journey off to see the wizard, they encounter the wicked witch of the west - who is determined to get the ruby slippers off of Dorothy's feet. Now, the thing I am puzzled by is at the beginning, Glinda is the one who reminds the wicked witch about the shoes. Then she is the one who places them on Dorothy's feet: "There they are and there they'll stay." Had she not had the shoes, her journey to the wizard would not have been so troublesome. Not to mention that the "good witch" sent Dorothy on a journey to a phony wizard. I wonder now if there was some kind of irony in that - since she was also the one who in the end tells Dorothy that all she has to do is click her heels together and say "there 's no place like home." While the movie is totally a classic I love and will watch over and over again, I am wondering about the book: Were the "ruby slippers" (which were silver in the novel) as magical - and - if there was no "no place like home" in the novel then I am wondering how Dorothy got back to Kansas. I think that because each time I watch this film I realize something new, it will always remain one of my favorite movies ever.

The Wizard of Oz is wonderful
The classic film! The Wizard of Oz is wonderful. Judy Garland's breakthrough performance. Beautiful.

Growing Up, Growing On
I knew every line of this as a kid. I loved the books. I even loved the sequel that everyone else hated because I love OZ. I tried to be "over" this movie for a long time as an adult. But every time I see it I re-remember why I couldn't get enough before. The quintessential fairy tale. All kids and all adults should watch it again to remind them that a movie can work without sex, violence or graphic anything really. It's scary -- touching -- and completely engrossing -- more so each year I grow older. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Not much jazz spoken in this 1980 version of the Jolson classic, directed by Richard Fleischer(The Vikings) and starring a very tentative Neil Diamond as a cantor's son who would rather sing commercially than in a synagogue. The soundtrack is tedious, the portrait of L.A.'s music industry preposterous, and Diamond (despite his talents as a singer-songwriter in the real world) can't help but look like a speck on the wall in the presence of Laurence Olivier, who plays his father. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (45)

Diamond's Music, Olivier's Presence, OH MAMMY!
This review refers to the VHS(1989 paramount) edition of this film....
At the 1927-1928 (First) Academy Awards Presentation "The Jazz Singer" starring Al Jolsen picked up a special award for pioneering the "Talkies". Obviously sound has come alooooong way since then and this 1980 modern day remake makes good use of it.
Jess Robinovitch(Neil Diamond)is a 5th generation Jewish cantor,tied to his role in the temple in the lower east side of New York. . His voice is phenominal(of course),he writes his own music, ballads mostly and has a chance to strike out on his own in Los Angeles.
He leaves for L.A. against the wishes of father, the 4th generation cantor(Laurence Olivier), and his wife, who likes things just the way they are.
It will take a while to achieve super stardom(at least a month!), but with the help of his new manager Molly(Lucie Arnaz),it is accomplished!The problem is his family is unhappy with the situation, his wife liked life when it was just them, his father is torn up about his son going against tradtion.Jess is having trouble coming to terms with the downfall of his relationship with his father. Molly feels responsible for the rift. Get your Kleenex ready as they work this out.
Diamond's soundtrack is wonderful. It includes "Love on the Rocks" and "Hello Again".Sir Olivier has not lost his touch, He is still the master. The British legend plays the Jewish cantor steeped in tradtion like he was born to the part, his performance alone is worth the watch.
The VHS is in hi-fi stereo, Dolby Surround, which enhances this musical.
Need a nice cry? This is the one!.......Laurie

For Diamond Music Fans Only
If you are a fan of Neil Diamond's music, then you will no doubt enjoy this movie.

Purely as a movie, however, this isn't very good. Cliched and schmaltzy, most of the scenes seem strung together as an excuse to fill time between musical numbers. The story, as borrowed from the original Jolson film: son of a cantor wants to sing popular music instead of following in his father's footsteps.

Neither Diamond nor Arnaz are going to win Oscars anytime soon -- in fact, Diamond demonstrates that, as an actor, he's a heck of a singer. The only shining performance in this movie is that of the incomparable Olivier, who proves that he can play any role given to him impeccably, no matter how dopey the surroundings.

If you are expecting any meat or substance to this movie, forget it. The music IS good enough to sit through once, which is why it gets two stars from me, but the only reason I own it is because my wife simply adores Diamond's music.

Buy the soundtrack, if you like it, but I would avoid the film itself. The DVD, meanwhile, is nothing special; the print is average at best, and there are no extra features worth discussing.

Luci Arnaz- remove this from your resume
Ugh. Poor plot development and cardboard characters. For example, he loves his wife sooooo much and discards her sooooo easily? Not likely. Lucie Arnaz, a wonderful personality and normally "good" actress is a cartoon character. Who could fall in love with Neil Diamond with all his angst and schmaltzy whining? Not I, that's for sure.

a bad movie with great music
This is not a great adaptation of the Jazz singer,the acting is mediocre,the progress of the plot is unrealistic,but Neil Diamond`s great music makes it worth watching.I used to have the soundtrack to this movie,i enjoyed it a great deal.

WONDERFUL!
I can't understand why this movie was so poorly accepted. It was a well acted, well directed film. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Light on story, this 1966 spectacle directed by John Frankenheimer was shot in 70 millimeter, with a cinematically enthralling emphasis on unique, visceral new ways of capturing the sensations of a car race. James Garner, Eva Marie Saint, Yves Montand, and Toshiro Mifune are part of the stellar, international cast whose characters plod through assorted relationship and business conflicts. But the film's real hook is the thrilling and inventive means by which Frankenheimer (The Manchurian Candidate) brings an urgency to the drama happening on the racetrack. A true master of the plastic techniques of obtaining and cutting kinetic footage, Frankenheimer offers more than a joyride to viewers: he makes action part of the compelling language of stories. Cameras are strapped to vehicles as they round the track, shots are taken from a helicopter, the screen is split between angles for maximum impact--even if Grand Prix doesn't rank among the director's best character-driven stories, it is certainly driven on its own terms. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (53)

a classic and a must for race fans
John Frankenheimer broke new ground when he filmed "Grand Prix", putting cameras on single-seater cars and thus creating some of the most amazing footage ever shot of cars from that era. The movie is on the light side as far as the story development goes, and while James Garner is very convincing as an American grand prix ace, one has a harder time buying this sort of act from Yves Montand who plays the aging Ferrari driver. Eva Marie Saint is cast as a magazine journalist following the grand prix circus around Europe, trying to get a story - a storyline that was recently successfully resurrected in "Driven". Her lovestory with Montand is not exactly hot, but the highly dramatic race action in Monte Carlo, Spa, and Monza (they still used the famous banking of the autodromo in those days!)more than makes up for that. The film features cameo appearances of some of the era's greatest drivers like Graham Hill. Letter-boxed on a larger screen is the only decent way to completely enjoy the breath-taking cinematography of this classic.

Grand Prix starring James Garner
Grand Prix, the film, is an amazing documentary portraying grand prix racing in the late 1960's. James Garner plays an outstanding role as American driver Pete Aaron. With little dialogue and plenty of authentic race footage, Grand Prix can eaisly be quoted to be the best racing movie ever produced. John Frankenheimer took the racing fans image of early grand prix racing to it's greatest extreme and and made it into one of the first auto racing films ever to be produced. A production of this quality will never be recreated because of the manner in which it was made. The footage is real racing, not acting. Helicopters were flown down the straightways 15-20 feet above the cars during races. The FIA these days wouldn't let an aircraft within miles of the circuit, making a film with the action of Grand Prix impossible to duplicate.

Grand Prix
Having recently rediscovered Formula 1 racing on the Speed Channel, I went looking for the finest movie ever made concerning the Grand Prix, the movie of the same name. I was fortunate to have seen it in Cinemascope in a theater especially designed for just such movies - humongous curved screen, as fine a sound system as then available. I've watched the movie several times on the little box but it's never duplicated the original experience. I CANNOT BELIVE it is not yet available on DVD. If ever a movie deserved the DVD treatment this is it. The very finest movie of its kind - it accurately captures the essence of Formula 1 racing and is every bit as timely and viable a viewing experience as it was 38 years ago. If we pull together it will soon be available - I have no doubt.

Grand Prix, Grand indeed!
It has been said that this is the best racing movie ever made. It is.

No movie before or since has been able to capture the feeling and essence of racing in the 60's or any other era.

What director Frankenheimer does in this movie is still exciting even by today's standards.

Even though I am a huge Steve McQueen fan, Le Mans definitely takes second place to Grand Prix.

I was really excited to see the movie Driven with Stallone, until I saw it. All I kept saying to myself was "This is not even close to Grand Prix". Grand Prix has not only raised the bar, but has set it as well.

Do yourself a favor, don't rent, but rather buy this film and get ready for an education on how great movies were made and should be made.

Beware: Pan and Scan
Be aware that this is a Pan and Scan version of the film, a fact that is omitted in the product description. As a result, many scenes that were thrilling in Cinemascope and awkward here. Nonetheless, I fully concur with other reviewers - this is a must have film for car buffs and racing fans. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

David O. Selznick wanted Gone with the Wind to be somehow more than a movie, a film that would broaden the very idea of what a film could be and do and look like. In many respects he got what he worked so hard to achieve in this 1939 epic (and all-time box-office champ in terms of tickets sold), and in some respects he fell far short of the goal. While the first half of this Civil War drama is taut and suspenseful and nostalgic, the second is ramshackle and arbitrary. But there's no question that the film is an enormous achievement in terms of its every resource--art direction, color, sound, cinematography--being pushed to new limits for the greater glory of telling an American story as fully as possible. Vivien Leigh is still magnificently narcissistic, Olivia de Havilland angelic and lovely, Leslie Howard reckless and aristocratic. As for Clark Gable: we're talking one of the most vital, masculine performances ever committed to film.--Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (481)

One of the Most Overrated Films Ever
Gone With the Wind is remember as a great movie because of it's epic scope and excellent production values. But 60 years later when the big budget no longer thrills us, we are left with a decent film but nothing special.

To begin with the entire film is very campy and melodramatic. The whole film is very heavy-handed and over-done. Scenes like where Scarlet crys "I'll never be hungry again" are just plain ackward. Someone should have tatooed the word "subtlty" on Selznick's head.

The script is fairly weak too. It presents a very narrow, one dimensional view of the Civil War. Worse, the Civil War ends half way through the movie and the rest of the film lacks the first half's energy.

Another major flaw is that the characters lack any real depth. Scarlet is cold and nasty through the whole movie. She never changes untill the last two minutes of the movie. There is simply no development. Ashley is noble and his wife is so nice and sweat that it makes me sick. These characters simply aren't human and don't feal real. Probably the only character in the whole movie who actually developes at all is Ret. Sadly, Clark Gable's strong performance isn't enough to carry the rest of the cast.

It should also be noted that Gone With the Wind is very racist at some points. The scene where all the slaves are going off to fight the "evil yankees" is enough to turns one's stomache. Most of the black characters are portrayed as child-like and stupid. The only exception to this is Mimi who does an excellent job and deserved her Oscar.

Gone With the Wind is still an example of fine production values but when you strip away all the lavish sets and money spent on the film, you're left with a rather hollow experiance. While there is no denying that it is a very pretty movie, even today, and it does have it's moments, Gone With the Wind is simply an over-done and campy movie. This film does not deserve to be ranked up there with the likes of Citizen Kane or the Godfather. It's just not that good.

After more than 400 reviews...
...you can't say much else!! A spectacle to end all spectacles; the epitomy of costume, art direction, and cinemagraphic grandeur (Technicolor film was still rare in the 1930's, and the industry was already engulfed in production of at least one *other* color movie that same year). I wasn't enthralled with this film when I first saw it years ago but I have come to appreciate its epic presentation and gothic, almost soapy, storytelling. And the cast is entirely first-rate, from the leading lady (whose historical casting was a mini-series in itself) to the supporting roles (Hattie McDaniel, Thomas Mitchell, Ona Munson, Laura Crews, Ann Rutherford, Harry Davenport, Oscar Polk, 'Superman's' George Reeves, et al) to the hundreds (thousands?) of extras who populated the pre-and-postwar South (the tracking shot of the Twelve Oaks mansion at the start of the barbecue and the sprawling, widening shot of Scarlett walking amidst all the wounded soldiers come to mind). It is a great script ("Waste always makes me angry;" "Do you ever shy away from marrying men you don't love?") and great direction (Victor Fleming, George Cukor, and Sam Wood- anyone else?). It is a record-holder of sorts among Oscar nominated (or Oscars won) films, but it came out in an extraodrinary year of films. 1939 also saw the releases of, among others, GOODBYE MR. CHIPS, DARK VICTORY, THE OLD MAID, GUNGA DIN, ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL, JUAREZ, ON BORROWED TIME, THE WOMEN, GULLIVER'S TRAVELS, AT THE CIRCUS, BABES IN ARMS, THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, LOVE AFFAIR, MADE FOR EACH OTHER, and THE WIZARD OF OZ.

Lesley Howard is brilliant and a strong character
In his role of Scarlett O'Hara's (initially) true secret love. I had been a fan of Mr. Howard's for many years. His performance here is among his finest. Also check him out in The Petrified Forrest. As for the rest of the film. When he's not in it it's a little strong on the romantic side.

Worth Another Look for this Fan of Classic Film
Gone with the Wind creates many strong opinions, but I daresay many of them by people who haven't seen the film, or at least not in many years. It is sort of an amalgamation of both Margaret Mitchell's book and a reworking of DW Griffith's even more controversial silent blockbuster Birth of a Nation.

I had written this off as a silly commercialized Hollywood fairly tale but recently decided to give it another look. Basically, I think the claims of racism are far overblown, especially compared to other films of this era. It seems to me that Selznick and company went to great pains to stamp out the more overtly racist themes of Griffith's famous 1915 film. For instance, Scarlett's attempted rapists were all white; real black actors have menial but still important roles; those black actors are treated with dignity and respect; and finally the "n" word probably more frequent in southern parlance of the day was replaced with the more delicate term of "darky", and never used in a scornful fashion. And while establishment opinion in the North still clings to belief that the Civil War was a most noble and unselfish effort, the truth was something much less certain. Surely slaves in the prewar South were not all treated as gingerly as in this film; but just as certainly they were also brutally repressed in the North as well (just watch Gangs of New York for a history lesson on Northern feelings towards African Americans). All wars have a side people would rather forget, and this one was certainly no different. Also on the positive side, the film does a good job of capturing this broad historic period with smart scenes amidst well designed sets. It's really quite a grand production, in color no less, with a marvelous historical and cinematic scope.

On the less positive side, the heralded performances I think are a bit overrated. Clark Gable's presence helps considerably, but he is certainly not nearly as natural or comfortable as he was in It Happened One Night. And Mitchell's sappy, soap operaesque story frequently slips nearly into the preposterous, especially in latter scenes of the film when the historic takes a back seat to the dramatic. But maybe that's what gave the film its broad appeal, as it has a little of something for everyone. I think another factor may have really launched its success: released during the cold winter of 1939, its four-hour sitting time gave depression-weary Americans a warm night on the town for a cheap price that they could all afford.

Regarding the standard edition DVD, its very serviceable but the extras are appallingly poor for a film of this esteemed history. Also, Spanish subtitles would have been nice (only has English and French).

The Best of the Best
A total classic...everyone should own this film. ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Relatively Early, Excellent John Ford Movie
Relatively early, I say, because I think Ford really hit his stride in the 1940s once he started his John Wayne cavalry pictures.

"Drums Along the Mohawk" is a wonderful treatment of an era curiously left alone by most American movie studios, the Revolutionary War. Henry Fonda is a farmer on the Mohawk River in upstate NY, who brings home a "city" bride, Claudette Colbert. Much of the early part of the film is her adaptation to this backwoods life, so different from her father's home. Colbert's character is emblematic of the original settlers of the American continent, who left familiar ways behind them and set off into an adventure undreamed of. Bit by bit, her citified ways have to be jettisoned if she is to be a good wife to her honest and plain-speaking husband. Gradually their smaller domestic drama is engulfed in community concerns as the Revolutionary War whips up the warpath of the Indians surrounding the colonists, and they must fight for their very existence as that new concept, Americans.

There are some really pricless episodes in "Drums Along the Mohawk", such as when Fonda holds his newborn baby for the first time, Colbert goes into hysterics at her first encounter with an Indian, Edna May Oliver confronts Indian braves invading the sanctity of her home, and someone has to get word out of the beseiged fort to the soldiers for relief.

You'll be very glad to see "Drums Along the Mohawk", I assure you.

A Revolutionary War classic
Drums Along the Mohawk is a very good movie about a period in American history that not many movies have been made about. Set during the Revolutionary War, the story is about two newlyweds and their new life in the Mohawk Valley. The couple is trying to establish themselves with a home and farm of their own, but are interrupted when the British and the Mohawk Indian tribe begin to raid all along the valley. The settlers must deal with the raiding Indians while also trying to survive. There is plenty here for fans of Henry Fonda also. The action scenes are excellent, especially the attack on the fort. However, it is also very effective when the characters talk about a battle and how horrible it was rather than the viewer actually seeing it. An enjoyable film that is still very good!

Henry Fonda and Claudette Colbert play Gil and Lana Martin, the newlywed couple struggling to survive. Both are very good and believable as husband and wife. This was a good period for Fonda when he made The Grapes of Wrath around this time. There is an excellent supporting cast, most notably Ward Bond as Adam, Gil's friend and neighbor, Edna Mae Oliver as the widow Mrs. McLenard, who puts up Gil and Lana when their house is destroyed. She has some incredibly funny scenes especially when some marauding Indians invade her house, but she refuses to leave even as they drag her out on her bed. This is an excellent movie with a great cast and excellent story. Do not miss this Revolutionary War classic!

Still the best movie about the American Revolution ever made
There are relatively few movies about the American Revolution. I think this is due to the fact that the American side lost most of the battles of that war. The battle at Saratoga, the surprise attack at Trenton, and the siege of Yorktown are part of the short list of American victories, and except for the occasion television movie or mini-series, they are rarely touched upon. Consequently, "Drums Along the Mohawk" remains the best of American movie about the revolution even though it was made before World War I and even though the redcoats are not really involved in the fight.

"Drums Along the Mohawk" does not start off as a movie about the American Revolution. Instead it begins as a movie about settling the frontier, which, at that point, was upstate New York. The focus is on a pioneer couple, newlyweds, Gilbert (Henry Fonda) and Magdalena (Claudette Colbert), called Lana. Martin is a farmer who brings his bride to the Mohawk Valley where their home is burned out by Indians allied with the British. The couple are taken in by neighbors after that happens and Martin joins the militia, but the settlers are going to need more men than that to fight the Indians and save the fort from attack.

Based on a novel by Walter D. Edmonds the screenplay for "Drums Along the Mohawk" is by Sonya Levien and Lamar Trotti, although William Faulkner worked on it without receiving credit as well. Edmonds' history novels were all set in upstate New York and "Drums Along the Mohawk" is about the warfare between the settlers and the Six Nations of the Iroquois allied with the British. The Battle of Oriskany in 1777, fought in a forest, was a American victory although their commander General Nicholas Herkimer (Ralph Imhof) died of his wounds in one of the moving scenes of the film.

This was the third film that John Ford made in 1939, following "Stagecoach" with John Wayne and "Young Mr. Lincoln" with Fonda; his next film would be "The Grapes of Wrath." Colbert and Fonda are the stars, but they are upstaged by several members of the supporting case, such as Edna May Oliver as Mrs. McKlennar and Arthur Shields as the Reverend Rosenkrantz. The old lady has such an iron will that she can make Indians take her bed out, with her in it, while they are burning down her home, and the reverend has a memorable scene in which he eases the suffering of a tortured settler. Fonda is young and earnest, while Colbert comes to terms with what it means to be living on the American frontier in troubled times.

More than anything else "Drums Along the Mohwawk" is about people coming to the realization that they are Americans, an interpretation more than amply justified by the film's final scene. These are not the Sons of Liberty living in Boston and dealing with the King's troops and all those burdensome taxes. These are small families living out on the frontier for whom the idea of the United States of America was as odd as a flag with thirteen red and white stripes with a circle of white stars on a blue field. Perhaps it is because it takes place off the main stage that "Drums Along the Mohawk" manages to hit the right notes.

five star films
Put it out on DVD and I will definitely buy it! How much longer do we have to wait to see some of Miss Colbert's other great work, especially those wonderful comedies like The Egg and I and No Time For Love, made available and on DVD?

Lavish colour production from Hollywood's Golden Age
"Drums Along the Mohawk" was one of many lavish classic productions released in 1939 and marked the first real venture by Director John Ford into classic movie status. This production is lavish in all departments from the lush colour photography which even in 1939 was still only employed on a handful of productions, to the beautiful on location photography utilised throughout the story, to the many exciting action filled sequences employed around which the storyline is structured.

"Drums Along the Mohawk" tells the rather simple story of Mohawk Valley farmer Gilbert Martin who courts and marries refined city bred Lana Magdalena (Claudette Colbert)and brings her back to the valley to begin a new life as a farmer's wife in the untamed American wilderness. What ensures is a story of hardship in the face of the unpredictable environment, attacks from Indians, the revolutinary war, and in carving out a new world and new way of life. Much of the story focuses on Claudette's characters efforts to adjust to this strange and foreign new environment and to make a home for her new husband and she succeeds admirably in the task. It has often been stated by critics that Claudette was far more suited to sophisticated urban comedies and always looked far too modern a screen personality to fit into period productions. While she certainly had no peer in that area she is highly effective in historical roles as witnessed by her great work in "Cleopatra" and "The Sign of the Cross". In "Mohawk" she displays all the fear and uncertainity of moving to a new land and leaving behind her all that is familiar. While her makeup and pristine outfits throughout tells us this is indeed a Hollywood production I believe it is one of her more appealing performances combining equal measures of doubt about what she has done moving to the wilderness, to a longing to build a happy life with her husband. Henry Fonda an actor who I normally find fairly bland and unexciting on screen performs very well in this production playing the role of Gilbert who works like ten men to clear his property, often under very trying circumstances, and set up a workable farm with which to support his family.

Claudette Colbert by 1939 was at the peak of her popularity and success and that same year turned out what I feel was her greatest film performance in the classic "Midnight". At the time of release of this film Henry Fonda was also enjoying a triumph in "Jesse James" with Tyrone Power so it was easy to see why this film was also a great success upon release. As with most Epic productions of this type the supporting cast adds greatly to the overraul impact of a film and "Drums Along the Mohawk" had two of the best in Edna May Oliver and John Carradine. Oliver a superb character actress had the important role of Mrs. McKlennar and the character embodies all the standard qualities that she always brought to her film roles, a no nonsense flinty character with a deep down heart of Gold. Her big scene where her home is invaded by rampaging Indians is a delight to witness as she almost bosses them out of destroying her home! John Carradine a regular performer in these Fox productions is also effective in the devious role of Caldwell who is out to further his own ends no matter what it takes.

The beautifully staged action sequences of this film are terrific and really add to the excitement of the piece. The attack on the fort and the destruction of the farmers properties are two of the highlights and are staged to the maximum effect that only John Ford could bring to such things.

Overraul "Drums Along the Mohawk" is an engrossing piece of cinema both from its more personal representations of settlers moving into a hostile land and making a new life, to the standard excitement of the action western type of film complete with Indians, besieged forts and spectacular scenery. In all these respects "Drums Along the Mohawk will not fail to both impress and entertain. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Although scarcely seen in its original 3-D, and entirely out of sight for a decade and a half after its producer-star died, Hondo has maintained a high rep among John Wayne fans--and it wasn't even directed by Howard Hawks or John Ford. (Actually, Ford did shoot some second-unit stuff while visiting Wayne on location.) Half-breed Hondo, companioned only by an antisocial dog, tends to be more sympathetic toward the Apaches than toward the white society he occasionally scouts for. He falls into uneasy friendship with a New Mexico farmwoman (Geraldine Page) whose husband deserts her for long stretches, and whose son (Lee Aaker) is blood brother to the local Apache chieftain. A good, spare frontier tale--Louis L'Amour via James Edward (Angel and the Badman) Grant--in which danger and solace come in unexpected ways. John Farrow, who did direct, brings it in at a lean 84 minutes. Page was Oscar^®-nominated for this first film role. --Richard T. Jameson ... Read more

Reviews (24)

Even John Wayne can't save this movie
Hondo has all the makings of a fine movie....great actors and an interesting story line. Unfortunately, it falls short. John Wayne gives a good performance as Hondo Lane, a half-breed Apache turned gunfighter turned Army dispatch rider. However, director John Farrow should have been tortured by the Apaches for turning what could have been a great film into little more than a typical western movie matinee. The scenes are choppy and a couple leave you wondering why they weren't left on the editing floor. Also typical western movie flaws -- John Wayne carrying a 94 Winchester lever action more than twenty years before it was introduced, people setting up horse and cattle ranches on land that could barely support a few goats, Indians patiently waiting for the settlers to circle their wagons and then riding around them like targets at a shooting gallery, and the inside of Geraldine Page's cabin looking like a photo spread from Ladies Home Journal. And speaking of neatness (as one other reader's review accurately pointed out), everything looks too clean. Only actor Ward Bond as Buffalo Baker looked the part. Comments on accuracy aside, this movie gets only two stars for three reasons - bad direction, bad direction, bad direction!

An effective western.
Based on a Louis L'Armour novel this movie contains a pretty standard western plot: a frontier scout risks his life during an Indian uprising. It is notable for the fact this is one of those John Wayne films that is rarely shown on TV, and only became available on video four or five years ago. It also is a western that marks the development of a more sympathetic attitude towards the American Indians by Hollywood. Make no mistake the Duke and the cavalry are presented as the good guys; but their opponents, the Apaches, fight because the whites broke the treaty. The Apache leader,Victorio, mourns the loss of his sons killed by whites, and even Duke's Hondo remarks that the Apache way is a "good way of life."

I have to agree with an earlier review that the direction is a little spotty. The screen sometimes blacks out between scenes which gives the impression that the film is about to go into a commericial break! However, the action scenes are fantastic especially the Duke's barroom brawl, the blood-right duel, and the thrilling chase from the Apaches. The ending, though, is cliched with the settlers circling their wagons and the Apaches obligingly riding around them just begging to be shot. Overall, this is a very entertaining, and fast-paced western.

John Wayne's forgotten western classic
This exciting and colorful 3D film was released over 50 years ago and remains an enjoyable action adventure today. With its distinctive peppermint-striped titles, "Hondo" is John Wayne's film and he is the title character who rides out of the desert to come to the aid of a young woman and her boy at their isolated ranch against the backdrop of Apache smoke signals and war drums. Hondo Lane is drawn to the plain yet steely Angie Lowe who is also interested in the dusty stranger but refuses to leave her ranch, instead choosing to wait for her ne'er-do-well husband who has abandoned them to their fate in Apache land. The film has a matter-of-fact approach in the relationship between Lane and Angie, and although there is tension between them in the beginning, Angie is convinced of the stranger's sincerity and is keenly aware that Johnny enjoys the man's presence on their ranch. Johnny's character is a key part of the film's plot as both Lane and Apache leader Vittorio seek to guide him towards manhood with the values of their very different social mores. The Apaches are presented as a fierce but proud people, as personified by Vittorio, who adopts Johnny as a blood brother because of the bravery and courage he displays in protecting his mother from the menacing sub-chief Silva. The battle scenes are exciting and colorful, with the blue and yellow cavalry colors contrasting with the dusty, brown-skinned calico-shirted warriors mounted on all manner of striking ponies against bright blue skies and thick, fluffy clouds. The sound effects during the battles, of whistling bullets and whizzing arrows striking their targets, are realistic and superb. The movie was filmed in Camargo, Mexico, an arid desert country studded with isolated, cone-shaped mesas, and the music score has a heroic quality that smoothly underscores the action sequences.

Hondo Rules
As the great Al Bundy said "Your life is meaningless compared to Hondo"

Great flick...but this is a flat print of a 3-D movie
HONDO is an excellent western, featuring terrific performances by Wayne and Geraldine Page. The VHS release in welcome, but the film is compromised a bit here since it is robbed of the original stereoscopic 3-D presentation. It is one of the better 3-D movies (in fact, the only one to win an Oscar (G.Page).

Don't confuse the awful red/blue 3-D TV showings in the early 90's with the original polarized (clear glasses) 3-D...it isn't the same thing at all and the TV version looked nothing like the original 3-D did.

Try to catch this one at a 3-D revival sometime, to experience the movie as intended. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

The satirical sensibilities of writer Peter Shaffer and director Milos Forman (One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest) were ideally matched in this Oscar-winning movie adaptation of Shaffer's hit play about the rivalry between two composers in the court of Austrian Emperor Joseph II--official royal composer Antonio Salieri (F. Murray Abraham), and the younger but superior prodigy Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Tom Hulce). The conceit is absolutely delicious: Salieri secretly loathes Mozart's crude and bratty personality, but is astounded by the beauty of his music. That's the heart of Salieri's torment--although he's in a unique position to recognize and cultivate both Mozart's talent and career, he's also consumed with envy and insecurity in the face of such genius. That such magnificent music should come from such a vulgar little creature strikes Salieri as one of God's cruelest jokes, and it drives him insane. Amadeus creates peculiar and delightful contrasts between the impeccably re-created details of its lavish period setting and the jarring (but humorously refreshing and unstuffy) modern tone of its dialogue and performances--all of which serve to remind us that these were people before they became enshrined in historical and artistic legend. Jeffrey Jones, best-known as Ferris Bueller's principal, is particularly wonderful as the bumbling emperor (with the voice of a modern midlevel businessman). The film's eight Oscars include statuettes for Best Director Forman, Best Actor Abraham (Hulce was also nominated), Best Screenplay, and Best Picture. --Jim Emerson ... Read more

Reviews (363)

Rock Me Amadeus
Milos Forman's Amadeus is a hugely entertaining adaptation of Peter Shaffer's play. The movie is told in flashback style from the memory of Antonio Salieri. Salieri was a successful and popular composer who was a rival of Mozart's. History has speculated on the death of Mozart and some people are of the opinion that Salieri had a hand in his death (possibly even murdered him). The film explores this angle of the legend. Salieri is consumed by his jealousy and hatred of the infantile Mozart. Mozart is a musical genius, but a wild spending and is always looking for the next good time. His operas are utterly brilliant, but are unsuccessful. He is in constant debt. Salieri concocts a plan for Mozart to compose a requiem. This work is actually planned as Mozart's own requiem. Mozart is shown as slowly going mad and at the end of the film, Salieri helps him by writing the musical score down for a very weak Mozart. The morning after Mozart and Salieri work together, Mozart is found dead and we are left speculating whether he died through natural causes or if Salieri did something to him. F. Murray Abrham is absolutely amazing as Salieri. He brings across the jealousy and hatred, but doesn't make Salieri a fiend. He has major respect for Mozart's musical talents, but doesn't understand why God would give them to such an obvious heathen. Tom Hulce is equally as good as Mozart. He plays him with a reckless abandon and in an over the top fashion that is perfectly suited for the role. The film took home the 1984 Best Picture Oscar, Mr. Forman won Best Director and Mr. Abrham beat out Mr. Hulce for Best Actor. This was a case where a tie would have been more than appropriate. The new director's cut adds 20 minutes of footage, but the real standout is the remastered sound. The Dolby 5.1 version brings alive the sounds of Mozart in brilliant detail.

Memorable cinematic achievement gets a new look
I was way too young to have seen AMADEUS in its original cinematic release (unfortunately), but it's not hard to see why it not only took home the Best Picture Oscar, but caused a rebirth of "Mozart mania". The story, although fictionalized, is an intriguing one. Salieri, the pious man who prayed to God to be given sublime musical talent, has to face the fact that God has given it to Mozart, who is exuberant, childish, and bawdy. Salieri's subsequent jealousy drives the entire movie. You can see his character becoming more and more consumed by his extremely negative feelings. The character of Mozart, on the other hand, is fun, even though the real Mozart wasn't really that over-the-top. I might add, however, that the distinguishing giggle is actually historically accurate. Listen to the commentary on the DVD and Peter Shaffer himself even mentions something to that effect. Although it was delightful to see the film in its entirety, I could see why some of the scenes were deleted. They simply weren't that strong or they distracted the viewer from the main focus. The only real complaint I had was that there weren't more extras. It does have the commentary, the original trailer, and the short featurette which consists of various people looking back at making the film, but I would have liked to have seen an actual "making of" documentary from around the time the film was being made. Overall, though, a worthy addition to any movie collection.

a mythical, fabulous portrait of genius
Peter Shaffer wrote the "Amadeus" screenplay based on his play, which is a quirky, fanciful vision of Mozart and Salieri, and how God gave Mozart the gift of musical genius despite his character flaws, but bypassed Salieri, who tried to strike a deal with the Almighty, vowing pious devotion, if He would only grant him brilliance and fame.
F. Murray Abraham is marvelous portraying Salieri's pride and envy, and having to suffer the indignity of mediocrity; the part garnered him a Best Actor Oscar and a Golden Globe, among other awards, and as Mozart, Tom Hulce is stupendous, with his high pitched raucous giggle, fluffy wigs, and energetic appeal.
Others in the cast of note are Elizabeth Berridge, excellent as Mozart's wife Constanza, and Roy Dotrice as his stern father Leopold.

The biggest star of the film however, is the music...the glorious sounds of Mozart's operas, and his magnificent Requiem. Many of my favorite scenes are depicted, from the ballet music from "The Marriage of Figaro", to "Don Giovanni a cenar teco", as well as portions of "The Marriage of Figaro", "The Magic Flute", and much more.
Some of the great voices heard are Samuel Ramey (Figaro), Richard Stilwell (Count Almaviva / Don Giovanni), June Anderson (Queen of the Night), Brian Kay (Papageno) and Gillian Fisher (Papagena), though the parts on screen are played by actors, and not those singing.

Twyla Tharp's choreography is fresh and exhilarating, Miroslav Ondricek's cinematography is exquisite, and Milos Forman's direction imaginative and well paced.
As well as Best Actor, the Academy bestowed Oscars for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction/Set Decoration, Best Costume Design, Best Makeup, Best Sound, all well deserved.
Total running time is 160 minutes.

As close to "perfect' as a movie can get
When I saw this movie in its original release in 1984, it was only due to the fact that I was dragged to the theatre. (A movie about Mozart -- BORING!!) I have never been so quick to change my mind. From the opening moments, hearing F. Murray Abraham shout out the word "MOZART" I was hooked, and my eyes never waivered from the screen. I anxiously awaited the release of this Director's Cut, due primarly to the extras that were purported to be included. The extras more than deliver on their promise.

Not only did I get the joy of watching once again one of the best movies to have ever been released -- to remember how enthralled I was by the performances of Tom Hulce, F. Murray Abraham and Elizabeth Berridge (unfortunately, most reviewers tend to exclude her contribution to this movie, but her performance as Constanza, Mozart's wife, is as powerful as the others) -- but the extras (behind the scenes, the commentaries) added to my delight.

I truly find it hard to put into words how wonderful this movie is. I have spent the last 20 years telling people "Trust me, just watch it, and you will understand what I am talking about." It is more than just a grand journey through the worlds of these two men (yes, granted, told from a "movie" point-of-view). The entire package, from the scenery, the costumes, the story and THE MUSIC, THE MUSIC, THE MUSIC!!! shows you how a movie should and can be produced. Even if you can't stand classical music, you will adore the wonder that is Mozart.

Please -- I'm begging you -- WATCH THIS MOVIE. You will NOT be disappointed!!!

Love it, warts and all
I loved "Amadeus" the first time I saw it and every time thereafter, on tape, DVD and now in this DVD package. It is a very great film, exceptionally worthy of its Oscars, and the role of a lifetime for Tom Hulse. The operatic and musical scenes in this film succeed on a scale never seen before. The finale of "Don Giovanni" is better in this movie than in the two live performances I've seen and the performance Herbert von Karajan led that was shown on PBS in 1990. The direction, acting, script and locations are all sumptuous. It apparently does not follow the play on which it is based, but artistic difference is the basis of enjoyment. Having said all this, I would caution viewers not to judge the real-life Mozart by the portrayal of Hulse in this film. The real Mozart, I have read, was a prudish workaholic that would never go out drinking with his buddies. He also played by the rules of the day and adored Salieri, respecting his role as the musical director in Vienna. Still, it's fair to set history aside in a work of art this fine. Anyone that likes great music or great movies will enjoy this. ... Read more

Reviews (17)

"IF YOU SAW THEM, THEY WEREN'T APACHE,"
is arguably one of The Duke's best lines (Michael Herr referenced it in his Vietnam War best seller DISPATCHES, making it a prophecy). John Ford's cavalry trilogy is a great body of American film, all three works have their individual moments that distingush their own lasting perfection. FORT APACHE has the classic Ford/Wayne elements: action, dialogue, a great supporting cast both Ford and Wayne knew how to play (Ward Bond, Victor McLaglen). Henry Fonda is brilliant as the pompous, ego maniacal Colonel Thursday and Victor McLaglen's drunken buffonery is classic. FORT APACHE is a ride into film greatness.

A great American film
Director John Ford's first entry in his "cavalry trilogy" is this excellent film about life on a military outpost far from the glamorous theaters of the Indian Wars in the American west. The film is about character development of the officers and enlisted men on the post, family relationships and the class distinctions among the military social order. Henry Fonda dominates this film with a wonderful interpretation of a bitter, unhappy colonel who feels he has been shunted aside by an ungrateful military hierarchy to an isolated desert outpost to fight Apaches, an assignment he considers beneath him. John Wayne's Capt. Kirby York gives the film just the right balance between the two men who have very different viewpoints about fighting Apaches and respect for their fierce adversaries. The concerns of the wives of officers and enlisted men are also explored in the daily routine at Fort Apache and their fears are touchingly portrayed as their men march at dawn one morning to do battle with Cochise's warriors in an attempt to force the venerable chief to return to a reservation that is run by a corrupt, morally bankrupt Indian agent. The original black and white print is superb and is much better than the colorized version available on video. Richard Hageman's music is reflective and melancholy.

This Ford still works.
I'm out of my element with this film. I normally don't review black-and-white classics, because I'm too cynical to view the big studio releases of yesteryear with an open mind. All of them are contrived and somewhat sappy; I watch them and envision a cherubic Mickey Rooney looking on while eating chocolate chip cookies and drinking milk. "That's a swell show, Dad!"

But I like John Ford films. And I really like FORT APACHE, despite the movie being a stereotypical product of its time. Why, you ask (or mutter indifferently)? Because this film actually depicts some range for Henry Fonda and the Duke himself. Fonda plays a very unsympathetic role, while John Wayne steps out of character (for him) to play a compassionate second fiddle. And Ford's experiment works: the two actors pull off exceptional performances; their on-screen chemistry is riveting.

Tension--that's the motor that drives FORT APACHE. A new disciplined, disgruntled, by-the-book colonel (Fonda) arrives at a remote Arizona outpost; immediately, he is at odds with the fort's seasoned and weathered captain (Wayne). The captain, who possesses a deep respect for a band of Apache that has left the reservation, has the loyalty and affection of his men; the colonel is looked upon as an unwelcome intruder and resented as a martinet. The two officers wage a battle of wills that ultimately has Fonda using an unsuspecting Wayne as a ploy to draw the Apache back for a surprise attack--a strategy that produces deadly consequences.

This is good stuff, further enhanced by some outstanding supporting roles, including Ward Bond, Pedro Armendariz, and Victor McLaglen. We're even treated to a grown-up--yet still annoying--Shirley Temple. Kudos to John Ford for creating a good-looking film that successfully had Fonda and Wayne step outside their respective boxes. FORT APACHE, despite its "Aw, shucks" big studio smarm, is solid entertainment.
--D. Mikels

Four and a half stars, actually...
A truly excellent western, one of the all-time greats; the only reason it's not a full 5 stars is there are a few which are marginally better, such as "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" and "Shane".
Both Henry Fonda and John Wayne are cast against type here, and both prove what great actors they are. Fonda plays a stubborn, excessively proud army commander (loosely based on General George Armstrong Custer) furious at being sent to an outpost in Arizona to fight the Apache, complaining they're not even the "tough" Indians. Wayne is a looser, kinder man more adjusted to living in the middle of nowhere, beloved by his men, and holding much more respect for the Apache since he's dealt with them many times. Fonda insists on using the Apache's trust of Wayne against them, luring them into a trap to force them back onto the reservation. Wayne does his best to stop it, but the forces are already at work and there's little he can do. The ensuing massacre (remember, this tale is based on the exploits of Custer) leaves Wayne with the dilemma: tell the truth about Fonda, or go along with the typical "national-hero" myth that has developed around his death?
This is not your typical western. The cavalry aren't the bad guys (as they would be portrayed 40 years later in "Dances With Wolves"), but the Indians aren't exactly the bad guys, either. Their treatment on the reservation at the hands of a corrupt American government, providing them with scant food to survive but plenty of rotgut whiskey to demoralize and destroy them, is clearly presented. The Indians (portrayed here mostly by Mexican actors) are justifiably angry as their trust in "the great white father" is betrayed over and over. They are presented as intelligent strategists; they offer Fonda a legitimate chance to sit down and talk, but when they're betrayed yet again they go on the offense and, incredibly, they don't lose the fight. This was a western far ahead of its time, and since it was directed by the great John Ford it isn't just a moral tract: it's a beautifully-photographed and expertly-acted drama that pulls you in and teaches you something at the same time. Great stuff.

A wonderful movie
This was the greatest movie! Anyone would like it~! I would tell anyone/everyone to see it! You should add this great one to your westerns! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Ranking No. 21 on the American Film Institute's list of the 100 greatest American films, this 1940 classic is a bit dated in its noble sentimentality, but it remains a luminous example of Hollywood classicism from the peerless director of mythic Americana, John Ford. Adapted by Nunnally Johnson from John Steinbeck's classic novel, the film tells a simple story about Oklahoma farmers leaving the depression-era dustbowl for the promised land of California, but it's the story's emotional resonance and theme of human perseverance that makes the movie so richly and timelessly rewarding. It's all about the humble Joad family's cross-country trek to escape the economic devastation of their ruined farmland, beginning when Tom Joad (Henry Fonda) returns from a four-year prison term to discover that his family home is empty. He's reunited with his family just as they're setting out for the westbound journey, and thus begins an odyssey of saddening losses and strengthening hopes. As Ma Joad, Oscar-winner Jane Darwell is the embodiment of one of America's greatest social tragedies and the "Okie" spirit of pressing forward against all odds (as she says, "because we're the people"). A documentary-styled production for which Ford and cinematographer Gregg Toland demanded painstaking authenticity, The Grapes of Wrath is much more than a classy, old-fashioned history lesson. With dialogue and scenes that rank among the most moving and memorable ever filmed, it's a classic among classics--simply put, one of the finest films ever made. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (45)

Ford and Fonda do justice to Steinbeck
Take John Steinbeck's Pulitzer-Prize-Winning Novel. Turn it into a movie and let John Ford direct it, and get Henry Fonda to star. In 1940 you could hardly find a more certain recipe for a cinema classic.

As good as the film is, it really should be a companion-piece to Steinbeck's original masterpiece, and if you haven't read it I recommend setting aside enough time to read one of the greatest pieces of American literature ever written.

That being said, the medium of the cinema allows for a visual impact that can't be matched with the written word.

The Grapes of Wrath follows the Joad family during the great depression. That period of economic hardship hit the farmers in Oklahoma a little harder than the rest of the world, at the time of the dust bowl the "Okies" were at the end of their ropes, financially speaking.

Thousands of Okies packed up the house after being foreclosed and moved out to California - many winding up around Bakersfield, at the California end of old US Route 66. (Merle Haggard's family did so and the "Okie from Muscogee" wrote about it in songs like "California Cottonfields".)

Anyway, this is the historical context of the movie. The theme of the movie, and of Steinbeck's book, is the ability of the human spirit to remain intact in these worst of times. The Joads suffer terrible humiliations, one after another, most of them because of their desperate financial status. But as the story proceeds we see that they are fundamentally decent, hard-working people, and every time life knocks them down they get back up, brush the dirt off themselves, and keep moving forward. As a national characteristic, this was an important trait because this was the generation that produced the hard-working, high-minded individuals who did important things like win World War II, followed by America's greatest financial flourishing and the Baby Boom. Tom Brokaw called them "America's Greatest Generation".

The cast is picture-perfect, with Henry Fonda as the spirited Tom Joad and John Carradine as the former preacher with a new social consciousness. Jane Darwell won a well-deserved Best Supporting Actress Award as Ma Joad, and the remainder of the cast is in every way equal to the story and the film.

An American Classic
This is a great movie based on a great novel, and I am surprised by how honestly the film captures the raw humanity of the book. Steinbeck weaved social commentary into the story, and the movie makes many points about the human condition and spirit without being heavy-handed. The story of the Joads and their fight for survival rings very true, thanks to the realistic performances and the atmosphere created by director John Ford. Henry Fonda gives one of the best performances I have ever seen him give, and his "I'll be there" speech is one of the great movie moments. Jane Darwell is also very impressive, and her direct, down-to-earth style of acting makes the quiet strength and the suffering of Ma Joad seem very real. The Grapes of Wrath is an American classic, both as a novel and as a film.

"I'll be all aroun' in the dark."
"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loos'd the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword, His truth is marching on." - Battle Hymn of the Republic.

In 1936, John Steinbeck wrote a series of articles about the migrant workers driven to California from the Midwestern states after losing their homes in the throes of the depression: inclement weather, failed crops, land mortgaged to the hilt and finally taken over by banks and large corporations when credit lines ran dry. Lured by promises of work aplenty, the Midwesterners packed their belongings and trekked westward to the Golden State, only to find themselves facing hunger, inhumane conditions, contempt and exploitation instead. "Dignity is all gone, and spirit has turned to sullen anger before it dies," Steinbeck described the result in one of his 1936 articles, collectively published as "The Harvest Gypsies;" and in another piece ("Starvation Under the Orange Trees," 1938) he asked: "Must the hunger become anger and the anger fury before anything will be done?"

By the time he wrote the latter article, Steinbeck had already published one novel addressing the agricultural laborers' struggle against corporate power ("In Dubious Battle," 1936). Shortly thereafter he began to work on "The Grapes of Wrath," which was published roughly a year later. Although the book would win the Pulitzer Prize (1940) and become a cornerstone foundation of Steinbeck's Literature Nobel Prize (1962), it was sharply criticized upon its release - nowhere more so than in the Midwest - and still counts among the 35 books most frequently banned from American school curricula: A raw, brutally direct, yet incredibly poetic masterpiece of fiction, it continues to touch nerves deeply rooted in modern society's fabric; including and particularly in California, where yesterday's Okies are today's undocumented Mexicans - Chicano labor leader Cesar Chavez especially pointed out how well he could empathize with the Joad family, because he and his fellow workers were now living the same life they once had.

Having fought hard with his publisher to maintain the novel's uncompromising approach throughout, Steinbeck was weary to give the film rights to 20th Century Fox, headed by powerful mogul and, more importantly, known conservative Daryl F. Zanuck. Yet, Zanuck and director John Ford largely stayed true to the novel: There is that sense of desperation in farmer Muley's (John Qualen's) expression as he tells Tom and ex-preacher Casy (Henry Fonda and John Carradine) how the "cats" came and bulldozed down everybody's homes, on behalf of a corporate entity too intangible to truly hold accountable. There is Grandpa Joad (Charley Grapewin), literally clinging to his earth and dying of a stroke (or, more likely, a broken heart) when he is made to leave against his will. There is everybody's brief joy upon first seeing Bakersfield's rich plantations - everybody's except Ma Joad's (Jane Darwell's), that is, who alone knows that Grandma (Zeffie Tilbury) died in her arms before they even started to cross the Californian desert the previous night. There is the privately-run labor camps' utter desolation, complete with violent guards, exploitative wages, lack of food and unsanitary conditions; contrasted with the relative security and more humane conditions of the camps run by the State. And there is Tom's crucial development from a man acting alone to one seeing the benefit of joining efforts in a group, following Casy's example, and his parting promise to Ma that she'll find him everywhere she looks - wherever there is injustice, struggle, and people's joint success. In an overall outstanding cast, which also includes Dorris Bowdon (Rose of Sharon), Eddie Quillan (Rose's boyfriend Connie), Frank Darien (Uncle John) and a brief appearance by Ward Bond as a friendly policeman, Henry Fonda truly shines as Tom; despite his smashing good looks fully metamorphosized into Steinbeck's quick-tempered, lanky, reluctant hero.

Yet, in all its starkness the movie has a more optimistic slant than the novel; due to a structural change which has the Joads moving from bad to acceptable living conditions (instead of vice versa), the toning down of Steinbeck's political references - most importantly, the elimination of a monologue using a land owner's description of "reds" as anybody "that wants thirty cents and hour when we're payin' twenty-five" to show that under the prevalent conditions that definition applies to virtually *every* migrant laborer - and a greater emphasis on Ma Joad's pragmatic, forward-looking way of dealing with their fate; culminating in her closing "we's the people" speech (whose direction, interestingly, Ford, who would have preferred to end the movie with the image of Tom walking up a hill alone in the distance, left to Zanuck himself). Jane Darwell won a much-deserved Academy-Award for her portrayal as Ma; besides John Ford's Best Director award the movie's only winner on Oscar night - none of its other five nominations scored, unfortunately including those in the Best Picture and Best Leading Actor categories, which went to Hitchcock's "Rebecca" and James Stewart ("The Philadelphia Story") instead. Still, despite its critical success - also expressed in a "Best Picture" National Board of Review award - and its marginally optimistic outlook, the movie engendered almost as much controversy as did Steinbeck's book. After the witch hunt setting in not even a decade later, today it stands as one of the last, greatest examples of a movie pulling no punches in the portrayal of society's ailments; a type of film regrettably rare in recent years.

"Ev'rybody might be just one big soul - well it looks that-a way to me. ... Wherever men are fightin' for their rights, that's where I'm gonna be, ma. That's where I'm gonna be." - Woody Guthrie, "The Ballad of Tom Joad."

"The highway is alive tonight, but nobody's kiddin' nobody about where it goes. I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light, with the ghost of old Tom Joad." - Bruce Springsteen, "The Ghost of Tom Joad."

The Grapes--and Apples and Oranges--of Wrath
It's striking how many reviewers here base their comments on a simplisitic comparison between the film version of "The Grapes of Wrath" and the Steinbeck novel on which it was based. For many such a comparison seems to function simply as an excuse to proclaim the inherent superiority of the Steinbeck original--and, by extension, the superiority of their own literary taste values-- when all it really does is highlight the patent silliness of trying to pit different artforms into some sort of evaluative competition. Literature and cinema are two vastly different modes of representation each with their own strengths and limitations, so the framing question shouldn't be which version of "The Grapes of Wrath" is "better"--as if there were a universal yardstick with which to measure such things--but rather how do they perform in terms of their respective mediums? On that count, I think we are extraordinarily fortunate with both the Steinbeck and Ford versions of "The Grapes of Wrath" to have two masterworks that operate consummately at the peak of their respective artforms. What each does well, it does brilliantly. As a verbal medium that unfolds slowly, literature is good at offering rich, layered descriptions of person and place and mapping complicated narrative links and Steinbeck makes the most of this in his novel. Cinema, by contrast, is an expressive medium that works best through registers of visual and aural metaphor, allegory and performance...and it's on this ground that I think the film version of "The Grapes of Wrath" more than merits its classic status. It is a magnificently "cinematic" film that uses the expressive capacities of the medium to produce a richly layered experience that is truly moving and that lingers long afterward, sometimes for years or even a whole lifetime. I first saw "The Grapes of Wrath" on TV one rainy afternoon in my childhood and it left indelible impressions that have impelled me to go back to the film time and again: The haunted eyes of Jane Darwell's Ma Joad as she sits in the truck cabin, lit from beneath, driving into an uncertain future, the winds of history howling oustside; the terrifying collision montage as the monstrous "cats" move in to destroy the Okies' homes; the soulless gas station attendants, standing together in uniforms like corporatized automata, muttering that the Joads are too miserable to be human. It's a film dense with iconic richness and an enduring testament both to the artistry of the many workers that created it, and to the democratic spirit of popular cinema at its very best.

As good a restoration as possible
This DVD restoration is probably as good as possible given that the original camera negative was lost. This is the one to get.

By the way, there is NO widescreen version of "The Grapes of Wrath." This DVD release exhibits the full frame aspect ratio of the original (1.33 to 1 ratio). Essentially, films made between 1917 and 1952 were filmed with a full frame aspect ratio. Standard televisions were proportioned 4:3 to copy the standard cinema ratio. Widescreen (Cinemascope, etc) was a gimmick introduced by Hollywood in the 1950s to compete with television. So if a film was made between 1917 and 1952 don't go looking for a widescreen version of it because there isn't any! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

A sensitive yet humorous adaptation of the stage play, this 1970 film directed by William Friedkin (The French Connection, The Exorcist) is one of the first films to openly address gay issues in a matter-of-fact style that largely avoids stereotyping. Shot on one set and featuring a birthday party as the festive setting, a group of friends assemble to celebrate, reminisce, and discuss their lives and the travails of being gay, even as one friend insists he's straight. The night turns from a light celebration to a sometimes-vindictive ordeal of revelation and betrayal, as each man in turn must confess his true feelings. Performed by the original cast of the stage production, the film may feel dated to some, but it still manages to be truthful and entertaining as it explores a subject that to this day is not often addressed. --Robert Lane ... Read more

Reviews (42)

'I don't understand any of it... I never did' ... Michael
Mart Crowley's 'The Boys in the Band' is a minor masterpiece of American cinema that was also instrumental in thrusting gay life and issues into the American mainstream.

Based upon the 1968 Off-Broadway play, this 1970 film adaption by William Friedkin retains all of the stage cast and most of the dialogue. The story is simple enough, Michael Connelly is throwing a party for his friend Harold when an old college roommate, who is presumably straight, arrives and throws the party into turmoil. Michael, who clearly has had a drinking problem, hits the bottle again as a result of the conflict. Kenneth Nelson gives a brilliant performance as Michael who is quickly unravelling with every drink and who begins to tear down his friends one by one. The party climaxes in a 'truth' game which proves oddly cathartic to everyone but Michael.

Many issues have arisen over the years with 'The Boys in the Band'. Were these men mostly stereotypes? Is this work still relevant to gay life? What does it say about where we are in light of where we've been?

Your answers to these questions may well depend on your age. For myself, when first viewing this as a 22 year old in 1987, I found it amusing but ultimately sad and upsetting. A dozen years later of being out in gay life, I have come to learn how masterful this work is and that while times have changed in many ways for the better, many of the issues that the 'boys' were dealing with back then are still being dealt with today. Issues of religious and societal intolerance and the attempt to forge a positive gay identity in an often hostile world are still very much with us today.

I believe the reason 'The Boys in the Band' is so humorous is that the camp humor of that time was largely a coping mechanism of sorts. This is black humor at its best, showing us the brutal honesty of a situation while exposing the many absurdities in it at the same time.

In the end Michael states 'I don't understand any of it, I never did.'... food for thought...

Also: Pick up a copy of '3 Plays by Mart Crowley'. The story of Michael Connelly pre and post "Boys in the Band" is powerfully explored in these two additional plays. (Read the forward 1st!)

A "Must" for all Gay Men
As a friend once put it, the first time you see it (usually in college or freshly minted out-of-the-closet) you're horrified because it is full of self-loathing queens. The second time, in your twenties or after a bit moving in the stream of gay life, you're into it because it's campy and fun. The third time, once you've been around a block more times than you can remember, you love it because it's TRUE! While certainly not to be included in any catalogue of PRIDE-ful moments (and as such was the source of great controversy in the 1970s), this is a film that touches on crucial aspects of gay identity that have remained fairly constant in the post-Stonewall period, a series of questions: sexual and emotional fidelity, pride, self-hatred, fraternal destruction, and gay friendship. Or, another way to put it and to borrow Adrienne Rich's phraseology, "lies, secrets, and silence." The telephone game is the dramatic high point of the film (don't try this at home kids, unless you're three sheets to the wind and have an old rotary phone in the garage!), underscoring the complicated histories gay men bring to their desires. For others, this is the low point of self-loathing, but I find the actors rescue the scene with tenderness and emotive power. For me, the saving grace of the film and its central message is the denouement of Harold's committment to his friendship with the hideous lush Michael, who, after suffering a night of Michael's Gin and Ton witticisms honed to a razor sharp edge while languidly flipping through "The Films of Joan Crawford" (a nice touch), and after reading him within an inch of his life, tells Michael, with real feeling, "Call you tomorrow." And who can't appreciate friendship like that? With this, the film brings to the fore the essence of gay survival, which is friendship, and for that is worthy of viewing and LOVE (and a DVD).

What I am Michael...
Exquisite movie--beautifully directed and smart acting by the cast. It's as if not more timely now than it was then.

Leading 20th Century Work
I think "Boys in the Band" is one of the best plays of the 20th century. It's far, far more than a bunch of self-hating queens camping it up. For one thing, look at how succinctly the playwright develops his characters with just one line: "Cheese it. Here comes the socialite nun!"

A better way to think about th