User reviews

"In Dubious Battle" was one of the movies I wanted to see more than any other film from Hollywood in 2016. My original enthusiasm faded quickly only after 10 minutes into the film.

Let me explain: "In Dubious Battle" is one of the best Steinbeck novels, as important classic as its companion piece, the unforgettable "Grapes of Wrath", which not only happens during the same time period, also deals with the same issues of this era. "In Dubious Battle" hasn't been filmed before, for obvious reasons, as it has much more clear political message in it, as the main characters are members of the American Communist Party, who are sent on a mission to fight for fair wages among the apple pickers, who are mostly vagrant families and other victims in the downfall of the economic collapse, which lead to the Great Depression. Unlike "Grapes of Wrath", "In Dubious Battle" is mainly about how destructive and unfair the labour laws were during that time, which enabled rich land owners to exploit the destitute workers to the maximum, giving them basically wages which wouldn't have even covered the expenses of food and shelter.

However... I find it near inexcusable for what the writers and the director have actually done to this masterpiece of source material. Some of the most memorable scenes and events in the book, have been completely either written out or have been softened or edited into something completely different, which no longer does any justice to the original Steinbeck novel. This has lead to very visible and easily noticeable mistakes and clear errors in the production of the movie. There are totally unforgivable errors of fluid continuity via truly strange film editing, mainly in form of abrupt cutting, which even leave seriously weird time gaps: -As an example, one of the most memorable scenes in the book, is the first meeting between Al and the newly arrived Jim & Mac, has been butchered to a bare minimum, which fails to deliver any of the originally intended importance of this meeting. This is the first truly odd of really weird cuts throughout the film, which leaves in amateur like time-lapses. There should have been a complete scene, where Al prepares for them a free meal out of sympathy and after being flattered, a hamburger steak with mashed potatoes and thick brown gravy, which is described meticulously in detail by Steinbeck in the book, using almost two pages to underline both the hunger of Jim & Mac, and to establish the future important relationship between Al, his father and Jim & Mac.

I would see the main culprit for this travesty being mainly the director James Franco. His direction clearly shows he doesn't seem to have any emotional attachment for telling this important story, which is evident in how much has been actually left out from the original complete story. Franco hasn't done anything to cover the obvious and weird time gaps and missing events in this movie. It would be justified to say that Franco probably hasn't concentrated nearly as much as he should have. Could be out of interest or just lacking adequate motivation. In any case, I am not impressed with Franco's directorial work. He is still much better as an actor. As a director he has made silly mistakes and unforgivable editorial choices, which do effect the entire movie's atmosphere and how well the story is being delivered to the viewers. As it stands now, the movie lacks emotion, dynamic and empathy for the story or the characters.

The second fail point for this movie is its casting - Almost the entire cast of the main characters appear to be far from being motivated, and this has lead to a display of some of the most mediocre acting performances of 2016. The only exception to the rule is Vincent D'Onofrio, who is playing London, and even in his case, just barely. I find just about everything disappointing in this film, cinematography certainly isn't doing any justice to it either, and this could be possibly because the sets aren't in any way convincing that this is early 1930's, the camera angles are to put it mildly, unconventional, there are close shots, when the scene would have rather called for medium or even long shots and then there are long shots in place of close shots. In some places the seriously weird cutting disrupts even viewers ability to follow the story, as the cuts don't make any sense. The third low point is the soundtrack, which doesn't fit the movie, or the time-line, when the movie is supposedly happening.

Finally... Even with all the shortcomings in this movie, it is still watchable and even enjoyable (with strong reservations), but don't expect a clear and concise masterpiece. It works also much better for those people who haven't read Steinbeck's novel, but fails to convince most of the film scholars and academics, who will easily spot the many flaws in this production.

A powerful all-star cast, with varying degrees of screen time, in this film adaptation of a John Steinbeck book. It can drag at times and I felt it was overly long, but the message of the movie is quite important, in my opinion.

Set in 1933 (during the Great Depression), in the apple orchards of the Tongas Valley, in California, James Franco and Nat Wolff star as two radical organizers who infiltrate the apple pickers in that region to get them to fight back and band together against the landowners who are exploiting them.

The orchard owners will do anything to protect their interests and, as one would expect, the two groups will violently clash and chaos and bloodshed will ensue. I might note Vincent D'Onofrio gives a superlative performance here as London, a giant of a man elected to be the leader of the workers.

All in all, despite its flaws this movie serves as a good reminder of how bad things can get if the pendulum swings too far between the interests of business and their workers. In the seemingly rush of our Washington D.C. politicians to give free rein to corporations, perhaps this film can illustrate again that we're still fighting some of the same battles today some 80 years later.

The movie had an excellent cast ranging from some well known younger actors to some well known veteran ones. The acting was great from all sides and things like the visuals were astounding. I was engaged in first half of the film but then started losing interest fast. The movie is about 30 minutes to long and the action in the film is very minuscle. On top of it all the ending had be one of most abrupt I ever seen. Its not worst watch in the world but it fails to live up to expectations.

Liked this movie? read the book. didn't like this movie? read the book. the book is soooo good, and no matter how good (or bad) the adaption, the movie just can't capture it's essence.

read 'In Dubious Battle' by John Steinbeck.

Here we have a story that was told well - directing and writing was good, cinematography, editing and sound was great, but the pace was very slow and missing substance. It felt like someone monotonic was telling a story, but with no punch-line, or closing plot message. It wasn't a bad film, and the cast were all on point, but is was just missing that wow factor for me. It's a 6/10 from me.

I've seen that James Franco is in at least one movie in theaters every week.

For the most part he places himself in the movie so that the movie would get more promotion like a theatrical release (Or so I believe).

This time was different as he directed and stared in this playing a major role as a unionizer, or rather the processor to this in 1933, which seems to be a Cold-hearted con man who just wants to make all workers get a fair shake. Plus the movie has a pretty big name cast with Vincent D'Onofrio Robert Duvall Bryan Cranston with a small role and Selma Gomez of all people trying to put some substance on her resume.

Plus Franco did a good job at directing himself.

It's a small movie with a very big cast, about a great story that still registers with people today.

http://cinemagardens.com

Did you like As I Lay Dying and The Sound and the Fury? You'll want to check out In Dubious Battle, another classic story brought to the big screen by director and actor James Franco. During the Great Depression, migrant workers strike and fight for fairer wages, but since it's based off a John Steinbeck book, so you know it's going to be a touch more dramatic than Norma Rae.

Nat Wolff is the main character, but if you've only seen him in quirky movies and can't take him seriously yet, don't worry. He's surrounded by such heavyweights you'll have plenty of other people to focus on. Nat teams up with James Franco and Ahna O'Reilly to stir up activism within poor laborers, and they infiltrate a group of apple pickers headed by Vincent D'Onofrio. Since this is a Steinbeck story, you'll be on the lookout for the "old man with the dog" character: Ed Harris briefly graces the screen, albeit sans canine. Ladies, if you had a crush on the blue-eyed charmer in the '90s, you might want to skip this one.

Seeing so many familiar faces in the cast who have worked with Franco in previous films-Nat Wolff, Ahna O'Reilly, Ed Harris, Robert Duvall, Scott Haze, Bryan Cranston, Jack Kehler, Joel Marsh Garland, Selena Gomez, and Keegan Allen-is a big compliment. If someone is difficult or unpleasant to work with, actors generally won't flock to be a part of his next project. Having such a combination of stage and screen legends, including Sam Shepard, attaching their names to his film is a way of publicly declaring their respect for his talent.

If you're a Steinbeck fan, or if you haven't seen one a James Franco directed movie yet, pick this one up. It's a very thoughtful piece, and it's great to see so many classically trained actors pooling their talents together. Granted, those who have obviously studied acting and had stage experience constantly show up the younger folks, but that's to be expected.

"In Dubious Battle" is a very good film about unionizing during the rough and violent 1930s. Because there was the Depression, employers were paying even lower wages than usual because they knew the workers needed the jobs and would work at slave wages. In the example you see in the film, the workers are promised a paltry $3 a day...only to show up and learn that they would only be paid $1!

In the midst of this injustice, organizers from the IWW (The Industrial Workers of the World, or 'The Wobblies' as they were popularly called) arrive to organize the apple pickers and demand a reasonable salary. But the man in charge (Robert Duvall) is a real devil...and he's not above killing some of the workers to force the rest of them in line.

This film is an excellent example of labor exploitation and is pretty realistic. However, as a US History teacher, I also felt the film wasn't exactly balanced (though it was very well made). This is because the very radical platform of the Wobblies is never mentioned and they seem much like any other union of the day in the film. However, the I. W. W. Didn't just call for better wages and conditions (something all workers deserve) but the abolishment of property rights and communism--something you could understand since the economy was in crisis. But despite this BIG omission, the workers did need organizing and were being exploited...and the film got that part of the story dead right. Why they never mentioned the Wobblies' platform, I have no idea...perhaps it was ignorance, naivete or perhaps it was to make the story more 'black & white', so to speak. Either way, most of the unions of the day (such as the AFofL) were not in support of the I. W. W. And its radical plaform.

Because the acting was very good and the film was so well made, I can't give this a low score. I just wish the film had presented a more realistic image of the struggle...not to demonize the workers (heck, they had every right to be angry) but to tell a complete picture of the struggle. In fact, seeing a film about the I. W. W. Would be very interesting and worth seeing.

Perhaps one day a faithful adaptation of Steinbeck's novel will be produced. This movie has nothing in common with the book it supposedly bases itself on aside from some names of the characters -- there's nothing wrong with the choice of cast -- and the setting -- the locations could have set the scene for a wonderful film.

The speech in Steinbeck's novel is authentic and believable. The scriptwriter could have transplanted it directly and with a little imagination expanded on it.

What a terrible shame!

One of the best novels by Steinbeck is translated to a powerful film. The struggle of workers to gain labour rights and the birth of unions in the USA.

James Franco has the right credentials to become an amazing director. The film portrays brilliantly the kaleidoscope of feelings of a group of people asking nothing more than to be treated fairly from the people who own everything. This is something the book focuses on, and this adaptation doesn't just present a story, but it carries accurately what Steinbeck tried to portray: The initial fears and hesitations that hold people back from coming together, then the anger and hope that brings them together, the self-doubt as the fight reveals to be a protracted one, and the final push through the desperation and dread to overcome the obstacles.

It's time people remembered that in this life, unfortunately, nothing is given. It is earned with hard-fought battles and sacrifice.

This film is a real gem, not just because it's executed well, but more importantly because it has something important to say, something that all should stop, listen and give it some thought.

Bravo James Franco and everyone else involved in this. You have the guts to stand up and take on a beast that few film-makers ever try to wrestle with.

During the Great Depression of the 1930's, two members of a political activist party start work with apple-pickers at a fruit farm and rally the workers to demand better rights.

This was based on a John Steinbeck novel, which I have to admit to not having read. It seems to have been a pretty political work about the labour laws of the day which enabled employers to exploit their workforce by offering extremely low wages. The subject actually seems quite pertinent nowadays considering that we have just gone through another recession with employers being legally allowed to offer workers zero hours contracts. So, the film is a timely reminder that the workforce will unfortunately always have to fight for a fair deal. I thought the film itself was very good, if not necessarily emotionally strong. I didn't feel for the characters as much as I should, as they weren't sketched out quite enough. Having said that, I thought this worked just fine as a message movie. Its subject and time period are pretty unglamorous but it is brought to the screen with authenticity. The film not only looks at the unfairness of the system but also the doubts of those fighting against it. It shows their predicament and illustrated their dilemmas quite well I thought.

They threw all these big actors in with a dark morose vibe, an awkward love connection, some violence and a few villains and thought this would be big.

But instead...they got a messy plot, bad actors mixed with stupendous actors, no real sense of background for the characters, a messy story and a movie that badly represents the book and the actual worker's movement.

Who were these characters? What made them who they are? You have to give the viewer a chance to feel connected to the main characters...but I could've cared less who lived or died. You can't expect everyone to read a book made in the 30's before they watch the movie adaptation in order to have feelings for the characters.

Why were the bullies with guns so horribly bad at acting? Why were amazing actors put into such a clumsily made film?

With the way the world is today...99% of us against the 1%, this could've been a masterpiece to tell a tale of the empowerment of the radicals who fought for workers rights. To help inspire us to fight again.

But it fell so short of inspiration that even the dramatic ending was a snooze fest.

I feel like good movies just aren't made anymore if it's simply based on plot and not action movies with fancy CGI. Back when there weren't any fancy computer graphics, movies HAD to have a good plot because that's what made it. The passion of storytelling in movies is far too gone. You can no longer throw big names in a movie and expect people to just automatically like it. The art of screenplay writing seems to be a dying affair and this movie proves just that.

This film tells the story of a group of workers in an Apple farm in the early 1900's in the United States of America, who demand improved pay and working conditions. As they rise up against exploitation by the farm owner, they pay begin to pay a price they cannot imagine.

I had low expectations when I began watching it, as I have not enjoyed many films directed by James Franco. However, the story of "In Dubious Battle" is unexpectedly engaging, proving my preconceptions wrong. Neither side will budge from their positions, leading to an escalation of clash, ultimately leading to violence and death. It indeed is a dubious battle for both sides, as morality is eroded by desperation, greed and many other factors. It is also captivating to see how the roles of Vincent D'Onofrio and Nat Wolff change throughout the film. I find this film captivating, engaging and thought provoking.

James Franco is starting to come into his own as a director with this one. Everything about the film is at worst decent, expect the story itself.

A Steinbeck adaption makes you realize that every book does not a good film make.

A story about striking workers in Depression era times, is one that is an extremely important one, but that doesn't make it extremely exciting. And yet...

Some great performances are scattered throughout the film like so much seasoning over a well prepared and cooked meal. It's a bit overzealous at times, a bit longwinded but it's earnest.

Mostly it shows good potential from a director who has yet to make a GREAT film, but shows that he still might.

James Franco was in Danger of Over-Exposure During the Time of this Noble Attempt.

Here He Shines a Spot-Light on the Darkness of the Severe Oppression in the Depression by the Haves on the Have-Nots.

For Selfish, Arrogant, Control and to Shrink and Kill the Working-Class Revolt. And Bury Their Protests in Unmarked Graves.

Therefore be Forgotten by History and Cover-Up the Nefarious Deeds with Grave-Yard Dirt For Ever.

Like "Grapes of Wrath", this John Steinbeck Story is a Lesson for Humanity to Not Tolerate Inhumane Treatment and to Fight-Back with the Only Way They Can...

Collective Bargaining (Unions)...

a Lesson Willfully Forgotten or Ignored by President Ronald Regan as He Began the "Union Busting-Bashing" Trend. Still in Effect Today by the "Right Wing".

Replaced with a "Trickle-Down" Approach.

That Declares All will Prosper if the Oligarchs are Left Alone to Practice "Unfettered Capitalism", and are Free to Operate on Their Dictatorial Decisions Concerning Wages and Benefits.

40 Years Later, and the Struggling Lower and Middle Class are Still Waiting for the "Trickle-Down" to Start Trickling.

Back to James Franco. At a Certain Time He was in So Many Assembly Line Movies So Often that One had to Wonder How He Found the Time.

It was Good to See He Spent Some of that Time Directing and Starring in this Depression-Era Throw-Back to, Once Again,

Remind 21st Century Citizens that Eternal Vigilance is Needed.

For the Vast Majority to "Stand Up" for the Rights of the Average Folks in a Civilized Nation Undergoing the "Slings and Arrows" of the 1%.

This is Part of that Story, and with the Help of a Decent Production and a Willing, Believable, and Good Cast,

that Summons the Source Material to a Much Needed Resurrection and Breathes New Life for a Fact of Life, that even Former Presidents Sometimes Need Re-Schooling.

As a Reminder a Lesson Worth Revisiting and is Certainly...Worth a Watch.

The movie starts off nicely and the story develops around the main characters and adds characters as it goes. However the excellent cast within this movie cannot remove the fact that this movie stars around the 30-minute mark and never really regains momentum. You're waiting for something extraordinary to happen but it never does. Robert Duvall is only in the movie maybe four times of a total of 20 minutes perhaps, he however plays the villain masterfully. In fact all of the cast are excellent, the script on the other hand is a different story. Five stars from me.

Can anyone else make a decent Steinbeck movie? Grapes of Wrath (1940) was the best one, but that was 80 years ago! Of Mice and Men (1992) by Gary Sinise was all wrong in creating the story's mood and in its casting. As for this one, how could they miss the mark so badly? There are no decent filmmakers in Hollywood anymore. All they seem to have are remakes, franchises, gore, and CGI. The age of the big screen is over.

"If you don't make trouble then nothing's gonna change." Jim (Wolf) is growing up in the depression and is tired and angry at the way his family and those he knows are being treated. Wanting to do something about it he meets up with Mac (Franco). Together they start a worker revolt that leads to a strike, but soon things become more dangerous than they expected. This is a movie I went in expecting it to be slow and boring. I mean how can a movie about a fruit picking strike during the great depression be good? I don't know if it was my expectations that played a part but this movie was very good. The movie was tense and I was surprisingly on the edge for most of it. The acting is amazing, but with the cast it has that's not a surprise at all. This film is based off a novel by John Steinbeck and really felt true to his style. The movie plays out as a great companion to The Grapes Of Wrath, this one just had a little more action. Overall, a surprisingly tense and good movie that I do recommend. One of the better historical fiction movies I have seen. I give this a high B+.

I was not surprised to see that a bunch of wealthy privileged actors such as Nat Wolff, James Franco, Selena Gomez, Vincent D'Onofrio, Josh Hutcherson, John Savage and Ed Harris who were attempting to represent the homeless men and women during the depression era as underpaid fruit pickers failed so miserably and were so ineffective in being believed. The result was such a poorly finished film attempting to re-create the imagery and drama of such a classic Oscar winning film as Henry Fonda in the 1940 film The Grapes of Wrath.

I was surprised to see such reputable actors as Robert Duvall and Sam Shepard agreeing to partake in this film project. I would have thought they would have agreed to forfeit their salaries as well as pay out of their own pocket so as not to allow the release of this piece of crap.

Mrs. Shullivan and I were laughing hysterically at the attempt of Selena Gomez in the scene where she is supposedly having a difficult time giving birth until her two heroes show up as half a dozen of her dumbfounded family members stand around helplessly. James Franco steps in as her quasi doctor and catches the newborn popping out of Gomez's birth canal and Nat Wolff who looked simply amazingly stupid holding Selena's hand as she laughingly grunted and groaned through each contraction.

What were the editors thinking saying their film is now complete? I say it was complete as well. A complete piece of third rate junk, not worth releasing to the general public who were never privy to the real hardships faced by millions of homeless men and women trying to eke out a living picking apples before unions and federal laws were initiated and governed the land in the later years.

I give this film a 2 out of 10 rating

James Franco really did a great job by asking Selena to do the role her giving birth scene was really realistic and i felt her pain its like she already experience it wow . like i said the cast was great with talented people and very creative editing and the production is good too . i heard that James called Selena a secret weapon in an interview . So I'm still surprised by that acting its really nice to see young actresses and actors giving all they got to make the movie worth the watch . I'm just here to say that Selena Gomez deserve an Oscar for that scene .

"I'll let you do anything you want for a can of sardines."

Hahahaha!