As good as it is, Just makes me want to read the book again

Rating: 9/10 (3 April 2006)

This is one of the most watchable old films I've ever seen, right up with "Citizen Kane" and "12 Angry Men." Direction, Photography, and acting all shine. The story is a little weak, as there's simply no way to provide all the rich characterization and settings that Steinbeck does in his novel. Because of that, the movie felt a little jumpy to me, but all in all it is one of the best adaptations I have seen. Of course, the ending is inadvisedly changed, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect a Hollywood film from the 40s to end with a stillborn baby and a woman breastfeeding a grown man, no matter how symbolic the imagery is meant to be.
I have two complaints relating to discrepancies between the book and the movie. The first, as other reviewers have mentioned, is the total lack of explanation involving the disappearance of brother Noah. This left me very confused: in one scene, he is bathing with them in the river, and 2 scenes later they are down to "4 men." This strikes me as either an editing or scriptwriting problem, and one of the only flaws I noticed in the film. The other problem I had, which is strictly personal of course, is that Fonda's "Tom Joad" came across as more confrontational than he seemed in the book. This is evident in the first scene with the trucker, and later on the porch at the $.50 campsite. My vision of Tom Joad after reading the book was a more softspoken man, not as likely to confront someone directly but certainly not willing to back down once disrespected. Let me be clear in saying that I still think his performance was fantastic.
All in all, I would have liked to have seen maybe 20-30 minutes more of character development or plot points (from the novel) added, but that is just coming from someone who was blown away by the book, so take it for what it's worth.
I would also like to address those who object to the movie on political grounds, saying it's pro-communism, or that it's an exaggerated account of the Dust Bowl. It's well-known that Steinbeck was a Socialist bordering on Communist for at least this period of his life, so it makes sense that he would write a book lambasting unfettered capitalism and progress. Whether you are socialist or capitalist is really beside the point on an IMDb forum. I wouldn't even be surprised if he exaggerated events to further his point. But I maintain that none of these facts, if true, detracts from his theme of disadvantaged people maintaining hope and preserving their dignity in the face of injustice.