What an unusual name, you might wonder. After all, how easy is it for a movie to get named something like ‘The usual suspects’ ? Well, if you have seen Casablanca, then you should stop wondering. In the end, when the policeman wants to save the resistance fighter (Humphrey Bogart), he instead tells his men to round up ‘the usual suspects’ (actually the name of the movie is based on a column in Spy magazine called ‘The Usual Suspects’). Besides the unusual name, the movie is also regarded as a neo-noir film. To add to the myth around this movie, it was shot on a $6 million budget and released in 1995 in a few theatres, but gained publicity through word of mouth and good reviews, and was then released in a much wider way. The movie also picked up 2 academy awards, further adding to the fame of the movie. As always while making of such iconic movies, the making of the movie went through many twists and turns in terms of getting the budget, getting the actors, and so on. But it did get made, and turned out to earn $24 million.

The movie was nominated for 2 Oscars, and won both. The awards were:
* Best Actor in a Supporting Role - Kevin Spacey
* Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen - Christopher McQuarrie
It was nominated and won other awards such as BAFTA. Get the list here.
The movie had a good line up, with the following line-up:
* Kevin Pollak (played Todd Hockney)
* Kevin Spacey (Roger ‘Verbal’ Kint) - An award winning role
* Benicio Del Toro (Fred Fenster)
* Gabriel Byrne (Dean Keaton)
* Stephen Baldwin (Michael McManus)
These were the 5 members of the gang, seemingly being manipulated behind the scenes by a mega-criminal, a ruthless man. But is the truth what it seems like ? The movie works at different levels, with story being told in flashes; with so many twists and turns. You start with a story, being told cleverly, but are never very sure about what is true or not. Miss parts of the movie, and you may not be able to identify what is going on in the movie when you get back ! The Usual Suspects is a gripping story, very cleverly told (although you will find critics who are dismissive of a movie that seems too clever). There is a good chance that you will start reading every gesture, every glance, and the dialogues to figure out where the story is going. And then the ending. What a story !
The central theme of the movie is one of detection: Who is the criminal mastermind Kyser Söze ? This is the character who is the mover behind the scenes, who manipulates a group of criminals like puppets on a chain, and about whom nobody really knows as to who he is.
Imagine a squad of policemen who reach a boat on a pier, and find a mini-battle has happened, with 27 people dead and a massive amount of heroin found. The only 2 wounded survivors are a Hungarian who fears a mass-killing master criminal known as “Keyser Söze”, who was in the boat killing people. And the other survivor is Verbal Kint (Kevin Spacey), who agrees to cooperate with the police in return for immunity. And this is the guts of the movie !
Kint and 4 others were earlier arrested and taken to a police line-up (with ‘the usual suspects’ being arrested); incensed over this arrest, they decide to strike back and plan a major robbery that will also implicate the corrupt police officers in the NYPD. The reluctant members are convinced, and the robbery happens without a hitch, and they travel to California to peddle the goods to a fence called Redfoot.
There, they are persuaded to commit another robbery that goes wrong, and they are forced to kill Saul Berg, a purported jewel smuggler and his bodyguards. And what do they end up with ? Not the reported cash and jewelery, instead heroin. When they confront Redfoot, they realize that the orders came from a lawyer called Kobayashi (Postlethwaite), who is in turn working for “Keyser Söze”, something that scares them because of his background and supposed ruthless nature.
The lawyer has proof of their activities, and blackmails them into doing another job for Keyser Söze, the destruction of cargo of a rival coming into the port. And then Kint starts to explain to the police who exactly Keyser Söze is (as explained to him by his fellow criminals); a superman of the criminal world, a man so ruthless that when his family is threatened, he first kills his family and then carries on a vicious vendetta against his rivals and all their known people; this done, he vanishes and now only works through henchmen. They try to fight back after one of their own is killed, but back down when facing the ruthless nature of the lawyer and his apparent boss.
The criminals attack the boat of Keyser’s rivals, and a major battle starts; Kint is held back to be able to escape and report in case the others do not survive; but things start to go haywire. There is no cocaine on the boat, people are killed who the criminals have not yet attacked, and then the remaining gang members are seemingly killed by Keyser Söze. The police seem to believe that Keaton was actually Keyser Söze, and Kint supports this theory. He gets bail, leaves; leaving behind policemen who slowly start to discover that the story that they have been told is actually bull. The police sketch of Keyser Söze is very close to Kint, but it is too late. He has disappeared in front of their eyes.

In this book, Bill Bryson attempts to recreate the travel itinerary of his youth some seventeen years earlier when he backpacked across Europe with one of his high school friend; He is alone this time with rucksack and notebook. This book a mixture of his lively anecdotes, sharp observations, and flashbacks to his earlier tour.

The book covers Norway (Hammerfest, Oslo), France (Paris), Belgium (Brussels, Bruges, Spa, Durbuy), Germany (Aachen, Cologne, Hamburg), Holland (Amsterdam), Denmark (Copenhagen), Sweden (Gothenburg, Stockholm), Italy (Rome, Naples, Sorrento, Capri, Florence, Milan, Como), Switzerland (Brig, Geneva, Bern), Liechtenstein, Austria (Innsbruck, Salzburg, Vienna), Yugoslavia (Split, Sarajevo, Belgrade), Bulgaria (Sofia), and Turkey (Istanbul).

The book is pure entertainment (provided you must not fail to catch the humor there). He is quite honest about what he liked or what he did not liked. And he was prompt is downgrading his rating for a “well-known” place once he reached there and did not found it up to the mark. He also diligently lavishes praises on lesser known places. He surely avoids the usual travel writer obligation to adore every place (read famous places) they visit.

I know that some of you may find this book rather strangely funny - or, even absurd at times. But only if you’re obsessed with political correctness, he may offend you, but he is democratic in his targets. He has some quite interesting observations to make. Although most of the observations are now out of the date (he wrote the book in 1990) but they are funny and a refreshing change from the breathless romanticism of so many guidebooks and travel brochures. He also shows that Europe and Britain aren’t as perfect as they look from the windows of a tour bus.

Most of us must have heard following opening lines of a poem by Samuel Taylor Coleridge:

In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree:
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.

The poem references Mongol and Chinese emperor Kublai Khan of the Yuan dynasty and his summer capital Xanadu or Shangdu (as popularly known). Xanadu has a significant place in western history as well because it was the destination of the most famous Marco Polo’s trip from Jerusalem to China (which he called Cathay) carrying oil from Holy Sepulcher & presents from Pope Gregory X for Kublai Khan between 1271 & 1274.

In his book by name of ‘In Xanadu - A Quest’, William Dalrymple retraces the epic journey of Marco Polo from Jerusalem to Xanadu, the ruins of the palace of Kubla Khan, north of Peking carrying oil from Holy Sepulcher, in the summer of 1986. He calls this book as a quest - not a vacation - just because it involves hardship and suffering not accompanied by a vacation. An intrepid traveler, and entertaining writer, Dalrymple offers an anecdotal history of the people and places he encounters en route through Israel, Cyprus, Turkey, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and the breadth of China. An overland passage through these closed countries is an incredible travel feat in itself.

Although I did not found this book to be as engrossing or interesting as some of the other ones by William Dalrymple. But still, this is not a great book; it is an interesting book. Much of the book is the usual stuff of travel: difficulties in getting official clearance; locals speaking funny (read faulty) English; stomach upsets due to eating strange food at various roadside eateries; staying at inns which are sometimes as dirty as roads outside; and so on. However, in some sections he writes about more interesting things like how dull Polo’s own account really is, developments in Islamic architecture, the history of some of the places, recognizing Marco’s Polo description of a place and mapping it into current state of affairs. In totality, an interesting enough book by a 22 year old (remember this was his first book).

Read this book if:
1. You love reading travel books which are not like essays.
2. You are on a vacation which has turned wrong - in this book you will find that it could have been worse

What happens when a writer, known so far for travel books and about history, and who tickles the funny bones in your body, decides to write about science. Writing books about science and making them interesting have broken many authors, so when I first picked up this book, I was a bit worried. Well, when I finished the book, I let out a sigh of relief. While imparting a fair amount of education about science (although not about explaining the complicated algebra and geometry), the book does convey a great deal and did so in a very entertaining way.
Of course, if you are a scientist, you would take away almost nothing from this book, since it hardly claims to propound a new version of the string theory; one thing anyone can learn from such a book is how to write books like this that will explain a large number of concepts while keeping the overall subject light; and at the same time, making things more life-like by explaining details about the scientists that hardly ever makes it out.

Typically when you read about a scientist, you will learn about the great inventions that the scientist did, and how great it was and how beneficial it was. Typically such inventors are treated in a very god-like manner, and way above reality. Bill Bryson explains a lot more about such scientists, including their failing and weaknesses, and make them seem more life-like.
You will get to feel about what the situation and surrounding environment was like for such great scientists such as Charles Darwin, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and many others. And this is exactly the reason why this massive 500 page plus book was written. Like all of us, Bill Bryson learnt all the facts about science, but again like us, in a very dull manner. He wanted to understand the reasons as to why something was discovered, the motivation of the scientists, the environment around them, and so on; all these help in understanding the development of science in a much more understandable way. This works great - you learn as to how Newton was also an egoist and also responsible for sending many counterfeiters to the gallows in an official role; or how the great Cavendish was such a recluse that he would even communicate with his housekeeper through letters.
In addition to the part about scientists, you also learn about sizes in this universe, from the size of our planet to the size of galaxies, about the development of Homo Sapiens (us) and what separates us from our biological cousins (the chimpanzees) to whom we are more than 98% genetically similar. You learn a lot about such varied subjects such as fields of cosmology, astronomy, paleontology, geology, chemistry, physics and so on.
For writing this book, Bryson spent over 3 years, talking to various scientists and understanding things from them; as a result of his not being a scientist himself, there have been errors that have been pointed out in the book; but overall, I stick to my thought that this was a wonderful book that tried to explain how scientists and science learn about everything (and something that you never read about).

For those of you who have not read books by Bill Bryson before, be prepared for a blast. These books are non-fiction, but are incredibly funny. There has been many a time when I have had to go back and read a section that I just read since it made me laugh (and I wanted to laugh again). Some of the other great books of Bill Bryson that you should read are a ‘A Lost continent’, ‘A walk in the woods’, ‘A short history of nearly everything’, ‘Down Under’, and so on (you get the picture - I have yet to read a Bill Bryson book that did not appeal).
This book is about the development of English language down the ages, so you will find a lot of detail about how words came to be added to the English used in the United States, such as derived from the American Indians who were living there when the settlers first went in, from various languages (or rather from the immigrants of various countries such Germany, French, Irish, British, and so on,) and from whom many words of the language came to be derived, though many times these were twisted and turned in a way that the original speaker would not have realized.

But is this just a scholarly exposition of the development of the English language used in the United States ? That would be downright boring. To everyone’s relief, such is not the case. The book delves into the history of the United States and presents a great many facts while reliving the story, at the same time, debunking many myths that we have. The book is a great read for anyone who wants to read about the history of the United states through its culture, not through politics or war. From the starting, the book is a wonder of facts and learning:
- Giving a lot more detail about the original settlers and whether there were people before them
- About the way that the original settlers almost got wiped out, but survived due to the help of the native Indians nearby
- About the nature of the apparently frigid puritans and the easy prevalence of sex before marriage as a way to measure compatibility and how many marriage were formalized after a baby had been conceived
- A great many myths around the American revolution including heroic words and actions ascribed to people who apparently did no such thing
- The womanizing nature of Benjamin Franklin
- The great debates and concerns around having the different time zones and even more so, the concept of daylight savings time
- A lot of description of the many inventions and the different nature of the investors (their human traits as compared to the noble myths around them)
and so on
Too many to tell, it is better read from the book which is a very enthralling reading.

In this time and age, the events described in this thriller by Frederick Forsyth seem as from another age. And in fact, that was another age. In 1979, when this novel was published, the Soviet Union was the worldwide great power representing communism, with the Eastern half of Europe in its clutches. In addition to the client states such as East Germany, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc that were also communists, and some of whom had seen the might of the Soviet army when they had tried to move towards democracy, there were the states that were part of the Soviet Union besides Russia. In all, there were 15 former states that made up the Soviet Union, and it would only have been a visionary / fool who would have dared to claim that these countries will be separate countries within 12 years.
And this is one of the main stories of this thriller. The second largest constituent state of the Soviet Union was the Ukraine, and since it was the second largest, and had known independence before, it was ruthlessly sought to be made like Russia, and any elements of Ukrainian culture stubbed out; after all, if the people are as Russian as the Russians, then where will there be a need to start a separatist front. The Russians (the largest majority of the Soviet Union) used a combination of the Red Army and the feared KGB (formerly the NKVD) to sniff out and break any level of Ukrainian separatism, such that it never reached any dangerous point.

Frederich Forsyth also takes the opportunity to explain several aspects that form the basis of the thriller, namely:
1. The workings of the Soviet Politburo and the politics between the different members, especially about how the various members come to reach the peak of political life in the Soviet Union (politburo)
2. Some details about the concept of a super-tanker and the colossal damage that a super-tanker can do
3. The use of spies and their information in deciding what Governments that are in conflict with each other do, and how policies are made based on this information
4. And a very advanced topic for that age, involving the use of spy satellites to gather information about what is happening in the territory of another country
5. A lot of details about the spy-craft, about how to spy and control agents in hostile territory
6. And for me, something that was very interesting for me, namely details about what the SR-71 (the Blackbird) can do

The novel starts with the escape of a Ukrainian separatist (under attack from the KGB) from the Soviet Union. He meets a Ukrainian sympathizer who is fanatically in favor of Ukrainian independence and against the Soviet Union and the KGB. He takes this opportunity to go to the Soviet Union.
At the same time, the US and British discover that vast tracts of the Russian grain harvest is spoiled, and then you go to the Russian side and discover that a series of freak incidents cause the spoilage of vast chunks of the Soviet wheat harvest, causing a famine of immense proportions. And once the Americans and Western powers get to know about this, they would demand concessions on a large scale before providing the grain. The Soviet Union cannot afford to undergo a famine of this level since that may cause the one thing that any Soviet politburo dreads, the rise of the long suffering population at a level that the use of force cannot control. One option is to use the vast Red Army to attack Western Europe to get over this scarcity, and this becomes a issue about control of the Politburo.
At such a time, the new British SIS (MI6) head in Moscow meets and old flame; she is also in a position to be able to supply information about the workings of the Politburo, something that the Americans and British find very valuable. As things escalate, this information is of vital information in helping fine-tune the policies of the West.
As things move ahead, things threaten to spiral out of control. If the politburo source is used too much, she could get exposed; if it gets out that Ukrainian separatists have assassinated the head of the KGB, things could spiral out of control and risk giving the faction in the politburo the majority to go to war; and if the Ukrainian separatists use the vast super-tanker Freya that they now control and let the oil go into the ocean, it would be an environmental tragedy of the highest order.
At such times, what can happen. And this is the Devil’s alternative, anything you do has a consequence, and will lead to a loss of life. And for politicians and leaders, taking the easiest path is the way to go. Coldness is an essential attribute of state-craft.
The concluding lines of the book are what would shake you when you read them - ‘Ukraine will be free again’; and this is precisely what happened in 1991 when Boris Yeltsin took Russia away from the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union vanished into history.

Roman Holiday was a movie that brought a major star to American attention. Audrey Hepburn was an almost unknown to the American public at that time; she had appeared on American television in 1952 - a CBS Television Workshop production of Rainy Day in Paradise Junction. However, she was still an unknown, and then here comes this Oscar winning role introducing this great beauty in a role that gave her plenty of screen time. To a large extent, the role is written to allow an actress plenty of freedom, and Audrey Hepburn utilized this role to the maximum possible.
A lot of people know the concept of Cinderella, where a commoner can become like royalty for the night, but then has to get back to being a commoner after a few hours. There is also the reverse story, where royalty wants to get away from it all, and be able to enjoy life like a commoner. Popular imagination has it that being a royal means a life away from stress, but this movie presents a very rigid and structured life as royalty, enough to get people to revolt against this stiff life and want to break free.

The movie was produced and directed by a famous director, William Wyler. Wyler is known for directing a number of movies such as Dodsworth (1936), Jezebel (1938), Wuthering Heights (1939), The Letter (1940), Mrs. Miniver (1942), The Best Years of Our Lives (1946), The Heiress (1949), Friendly Persuasion (1956), Ben-Hur (1959) and Funny Girl (1968). Seeing this list, you can get an idea of the variety of movies directed by Wyler.
The combination of royalty, and a light-hearted romance that does not end in the usual marriage, but results in a bond that is not destined to progress beyond each other’s heart managed to get a total of 10 Academy Award nominations, out of which it won 3 of these awards.
Won:
1. Best Actress Oscar (Audrey Hepburn)
2. Best Original Story (Ian McLellan Hunter, later in 1982 given to the earlier black-listed Dalton Trumbo)
3. Best B/W Costume Design (Edith Head)
Nominated but did not win:
4. Best Picture
5. Best Supporting Actor (Eddie Albert)
6. Best Director
7. Best Screenplay (Ian McClellan Hunter and John Dighton)
8. Best B/W Cinematography
9. Best B/W Art Direction/Set Decoration
10. Best Film Editing

The movie is essentially about 2 characters, with Audrey Hepburn playing the royal princess of an European country, and Gregory Peck plays a reporter out for a good story, and willing to do what it takes to get the story of the real person behind the process. They meet coincidentally, and slowly fall for each other.
Princess Ann is on a European tour, generating goodwill for her country, meeting people of different countries in Europe, attending different functions, and overall getting very bored with all this. She is hemmed in by officials and her chaperone, not able to do what she wants, being guided on the right things to do. She is chafing at these restrictions, and wants to escape to see what things are really like outside the life that she is forced to live.
She manages to escape her embassy in Rome, and sets out to see the city. However, since she seemed hysterical in the embassy, she is getting drowsy and soon goes off to sleep on a park bench. She is found by reporter Joe Bradley (Gregory Peck), who like most reporters will do anything for a story. When he sees a girl sleeping on a bench, he takes her to this apartment, where she promptly sleeps on his bed, leaving him the couch. The next day he discovers from his office that he she is a princess who he was supposed to be covering, and he can visualize a great story where the real interests and feelings of a princess can be uncovered. Towards that end, he arranges to have a cameraman follow them discreetly.
He takes her for a trip around Rome, in a way that she would never have seen. She gets a different haircut, see the fountain, drive on a Vespa and have a lot of fun, including some serious discussions on life. They slowly start falling for each other, even though he still has a cameraman recording her movements. After they are tracked by the agents of her Government and manage to escape, she realizes that her time on the loose is up and she will have to back to her responsibilities.
Joe, his love overcoming his inclination to get the story, resists his editors commands to make a story, and the next day, in her press conference, presents her all the photos on the sly. And then she leaves his life forever, leaving him to wonder at what could have been, but would never happen.

I am not a great reader of biographies (or that too from Jacobean or Elizabethan literature) but I just finished a new book by Bill Bryson (and you say - but Bill Bryson is not about bioraphies). Yes, you are true - but this book is about a prominent figure from that era. The book surprisingly is not a travel book (oh thank god, I would not have to laugh-holding-my-stomach-till-I-cry a lot like I do while reading this travel books) but a biography of Shakespeare.

It is a very clean book - it actually does not gives its own theories about many mysterious facts of Shakespeare’s life; but just tries to be itself. It is author’s attempt to decode more of what Shakespeare was as a human being not as a writer. He traces William Shakespeare journey from Startford-upon-Avon to London (in Lord Chamberlain’s Men) and then back to Startford-upon-Avon, where he died in 1616.

Bill Bryson highlights the major feature of Shakespeare’s life (or whatever we know of him) - scant facts as we know. For example, it is rather strange to know that for nearly eight years of his life - nobody knows where Shakespeare was - before he actually surfaced as one of the most prominent play writer in London. Or, that there are hardly a dozen writings of Shakespeare in his own hand writing - and half of them are his signatures - each one different from another. And there is not a single painting of William Shakespeare in which we can say for sure how did he looked like - or even if the guy in the painting is indeed Shakespeare. Few records of Shakespeare’s life survive, and there has been considerable speculation about matters such as his sexuality (just because he wrote a rather risque poem dedicated to an Earl & some sonnets of intense friendship), religious beliefs (just because it was so confusion out there at that time in general) and whether the works attributed to him were written by someone else (this is height of… !!). Bryson documents the efforts of different scholars (some bizarre and others more bizarre) - where each one tried to prove a point about Shakespeare’s life. Consider this, an eccentric Delia Bacon, who developed a firm but ‘unconvincing’ (read “no proof”) conviction that, Francis Bacon, was the true author of Shakespeare’s plays.

Emulating the style of his famous travelogues, Bryson records episodes in his research, including a visit to a bunker like room in Washington, D.C., where the world’s largest collection of First Folios is housed. Bryson celebrates the great era of English literature & London play circuits with facts rather then defining them on speculations. Bryson also points out that we know so little about Shakespeare because till hundred years after his death there was no serious attempt to write about his life - was it because he was not so popular at that time?

Overall, a nice read if
1. You love to read about history.
2. You love to read Bill Bryson, which I do.
3. You can imagine Jacobean or Elizabethan era and its descriptions.

It is in the last 1-2 decades that animation movies have come into their own. And Pixar has had a great deal to do with making them more life-like, more enjoyable, and able to appeal to an adult audience as well. Finding Nemo was made by Pixar and released by Walt Disney Pictures and Buena Vista Distribution in 2003; it was the fifth such combined effort by Pixar and Disney, and was incredibly successful. The movie, surprisingly for an animation movie, has been voted in many of the top 100 films, and been incredibly successful financially. Even though the movie cost in the range of around $95 million to make, it made over $860 worldwide, and is probably the most sold DVD, selling more than 40 million copies.

Finding Nemo was nominated for 4 awards, and won 1.
* Best Animated Film - Won
* Best Original Score - Thomas Newman (Nominated)
* Best Sound Editing (Nominated)
* Best Screenplay - Original - Andrew Stanton, Bob Peterson & David Reynolds (Nominated)
The movie was rated as not just a children’s movie, but a movie that appealed to teens as well as adults. For a start, Finding Nemo has some great animation. It has been pretty hard to make an animation that shows water naturally, and imagine a movie that was all about water; yet the effects were well applauded and the water, whether it be in the water of the Australian Great Barrier Reef or the smallness of a aquarium, always seemed realistic.
The movie also impresses in terms of its story. The elements of an over-protective father, a rebellious son, and the tensions surrounding such a relationship all are a basic part of life, and the movie presented this in a very warm, appealing way. The movie is also very funny, and you can be pretty sure to be laughing at many points of the movie. Also, for parents who watch Finding Nemo, the concept of losing a child, and the desperate effort to find the lost child is something that all parents can identify with.
What makes the movie even more special are the characters, all of whom have their own character, with many of them fighting their own personal battles. Some of the actors who have lent their voices and made the characters so more lovable are Albert Brooks, Ellen DeGeneres, Alexander Gould, Willem Dafoe, Brad Garrett, Allison Janney, Austin Pendleton, Stephen Root and Geoffrey Rush.
The movie, about the clownfish, Marlin, is about him losing his wife and children (save one) to a barracuda. Marlin promises that the one safe child will always be safe. And hence, as Nemo starts to grow up, Marlin tries to live upto that promise and becomes an over-protective father, to the extent that Nemo is embarrassed by Marlin. When Marlin warns Nemo against the dangers of the open ocean, Nemo in defiance, goes to the ocean to demonstrate that there are no dangers against him; and thus starts the adventure. Nemo is captured by a scuba-diving dentist. Marlin soon loses the boat of the dentist, but picks up a blue tang named Dory who offers to help him search for his son (and is also a hindrance many times). They soon are able to figure out that Nemo has been taken to Sydney.
Nemo is now in a fish tank, waiting to be given as a birthday present to a young girl named Darla. The other fish in the fish tank are all enthusiastic about trying to escape, and a fish named Gil suggests jamming the filter (so that the dentist will take the fish out while cleaning the tank).
Marlin and Dory meet a number of creatures on the way, such as the shark who wants to love fish and not be seen as a fish-eating machine, a very old sea turtle totally young at heart, and then a pelican named Nigel who offers some incredible help by taking them to the dentist’s office. Nemo in the meantime pretends to be dead, and is sent down the toilet to reach the ocean. In between Nemo meets up with Marlin and Dory, and then Dory is caught in a net. In order to save Dory, Marlin has to allow Nemo to go back on his own while Marlin saves Dory.

Based on a famous book by John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath was an incredible movie. The novel was published in 1939, and was made into the movie in 1940 by the famous director John Ford (who was the only Director to win 4 best Director Oscars, including one for The Grapes of Wrath). John Ford also made a number of westerns, many of them starring John Wayne, but is also very famous for movie such as The Grapes of Wrath and How Green is my Valley). Interestingly, the USA is a land very much against Communist ideologies, so The Grapes of Wrath could have faced trouble due to its leftist ideology; it however did not because of the power of the story.
The movie is now counted as a classic, seen as among the 25 best films ever made. The images portrayed by the ex-preacher and by Connie bring out the desperation of the times. The acting of Henry Fonda, portraying the lead role of Tom Joad is seen as embodying the resilience of the human spirit, the way that he keeps on going inspite of the problems and struggles that he has to go through. Further, the movie provides a strong canvas on which the struggles of people in the dust bowl is painted with broad strokes. These people were poor and not owning the land on which they till, and facing increasing mechanization; with the dual effect forcing them off their land.

The Grapes of Wrath was nominated for 7 Academy Awards, and won 2 of them.
Academy Awards nominations (1941)
* Best Actor in a Leading Role, Henry Fonda
* Best Film Editing, Robert L. Simpson.
* Best Picture, Darryl F. Zanuck and Nunnally Johnson.
* Best Sound Recording, Edmund H. Hansen.
* Best Writing Adapted Screenplay, Nunnally Johnson.
Academy Awards wins (1941)
* Best Supporting Actress, Jane Darwell.
* Academy Award for Directing, John Ford.

The movie, set in the Depression era, takes the plight of farmers in the Dust Bowl who are forcibly dispossessed from their land and left destitute. They did not own the land, and when crops failed, banks took over the land and started bringing in the age of mechanization by bringing in huge machines to work the land. These farmers, then, left with no option, get attracted by the promise of a much better life in California, working in farms and fruit orchards, with good pay. However, the trip there is painful across the desert, and when they eventually reach, they find that they have been brought to California on a dream which is false. Farmers are out to exploit them and pay them rock-bottom wages, betting on so many families arriving there that people are desperate for work.
This is captured in the story of one family, the Joad family. Tom Joad (Henry Fonda), released early (4 years out of a 7 year sentence) makes it to his family farm to find it empty (in between meeting an old and crusty ex-preacher Casy). He soon learns that his family farm had been repossessed by the bank, and after a bit of discussion with a neighbor Muley Graves (who is deranged after his own farm has been foreclosed), he learns that his family is now at this Uncle John’s farm (which will also be foreclosed the next day). The family decides to make a move to California with the promise of getting into better times.
After making the difficult decision of deciding what to take and what to leave, the family sets off, packing the family jalopy full. Along the way, the trip starts taking its toll, with both Grampa an Grandma dying. The family also struggles past suspicious state troops across each state border that they cross. During the course of the journey, they struggle to maintain their pride, and yet they are getting into worse things. Then starts the struggle with the migrant camps (taking up half of the movie).
In the camps, they get into more trouble. Tom is on parole, so he has to avoid trouble, and yet he is not one to take bad behaviour from others lightly, fighting back when he can. Once Casy takes the rap for one such fight and gets run out of town. They finally find work at a ranch, but soon Tom realizes (after a discussion with Casy) that there is a strike ongoing against bad conditions and low pay, and once the strike is broken, the wages will get much lower, and that is eventually what happens. In another fight, Casy is killed, and Tom fights back, killing the attacker (but gets wounded in the face).
This mark on the face is enough to identify him as the person who fought back, and Tom realizes that he will have to leave his family. They manage to leave the camp and for the first time, move into a decent camp run by the Department of Agriculture; which is in much better condition and not subject to intimidation by Sheriff’s deputies. However, Tom soon realizes that even this place is not safe for him and he has to move on, and he finally leaves, after a great scene between him and Ma. Tom wants to continue doing what Casy was doing, but is not clear as to what that will mean; he then makes his final departure, leaving Ma. And Ma makes her own statements, show-casing the power of the human will, no matter what the struggles that they go through, she will not be afraid, and will continue to hold the family together. The movie ends on an optimistic note, as opposed to the book that ended on a far more negative note.