Of Mice and Men (1992) User Reviews

A Beautifully Rendered Mutilation of Curley's Wife

[MHeying777 · 8/10 · 27 December 2011]

Warning, I'm a Steinbeck purist.

I loved this film. I even arm-twisted my two pre-teen/teenaged daughters to go with me. For the closing scene I left my chair, went to the back and cried, even though I knew what was coming.

The acting, the sets/props, the cinematography were all outstanding, sometimes brilliant. The only problem was the script--Curley's wife was softened, made into a victim instead of Steinbeck's brilliantly conceived and rendered cruel, cynical female villain. All that work, the craft, sweat and tears it took for him to create her, mutilated for the sake of profit.

But this is nothing new. Every stage and screen interpretation of OMM has done the same thing. Why? Money, of course. Women make up the majority of moviegoers (and an even larger majority of movie-going decision-making). What producer has the courage to offend a predominately female audience?

Well, American BEAUTY didn't do so badly.

It is well known that Elaine Steinbeck lobbied John to allow the Curley's wife character to be softened. She was trained in theater. She wanted the stage and film versions to be a "success."

Well, just once I'd like to see Curley's wife depicted just as John created her. Especially the scene where she barges in to Crooks' room and calls him "N****" repeatedly and threatens him with lynching.

It's cultural self-deception to pretend that women can't be just as nasty as men. Are all you producers cowards or what?

(Kudos to Ken Wales and Jane Seymour for going the distance with EAST OF EDEN!)

...and a hutch full of rabbits

[dbdumonteil · 8/10 · 10 September 2004]

"Of mice and men" is one of these movies we definitely need in our times.Gary Sinise 's directing is classic in the noblest sense of the term.The cinematography recalls some of those Ford (who adapted "Grapes of wrath",another Steinbeck's novel for the screen) gems of the forties or fifties.It is heart-rending to see Malkovich and his portrayal of the half-wit is one of the finest you can see in a nineties movies and leaves,for instance Dustin Hoffman's "rain man" character far behind.It takes a lot of guts to play such demeaning parts !Gary Sinise should not be forgotten either,in a performance which offers all the subtleties of the heart.

What moves me in the movie is the loneliness which frightens the characters .Everyone is searching for someone to rely on.Not only the two heroes (I think that ,actually, George needs more Lennie than the other way about)but also the old man -the scene with the old dog is almost unbearable;it will have an equivalent in a terrifying way at the end recalling Horace MacCoy's "they shoot horses don't they?"- Curley's wife;only the black guy has resigned himself to solitude.The scene when Candy and the two pals are talking of their future house -which we know from the very start they'll never have- is really heartwarming.At least,for one precious and fleeting moment,they could dream of a home,a fireplace and a hutch full of rabbits.

Amazing movie adaptation of a great book

[JuguAbraham · 8/10 · 27 May 2005]

Often a movie is associated with its actors or its director. I would associate this film more with Horton Foote the brilliant scriptwriter, who sculpted the script from a great book by a formidable author, John Steinbeck.

When I read Steinbeck's book I was in awe of the author's powerful strokes of simplicity. Adapting the book into a screenplay can be formidable. Foote did it earlier with Harper Lee's novel "To kill a Mockingbird". He did it again in Beresford's "Tender Mercies". Some of the flashes of brilliance in the script are the opening sequence of the woman running scared into the camera, the opening and closing images of light falling on the dark insides of a train car, the empty bus ride that Steinbeck did not present. Director Gary Sinise and Foote made the adaptation of the novel on screen look easier by adding details just as scriptwriter Robert Bolt and director David Lean did the opposite by compressing the details with Pasternak's "Doctor Zhivago". Both "Dr Zhivago" and "Of Mice and Men" are great examples of adapting literary works for the screen.

This is not to discount the contribution of Gary Sinise. Director Sinise and Actor Sinise were admirable. The former brought out the finest in the latter. This is Sinise's finest performance.

Malkovich is a talented actor--he commands attention. Whether a more restrained performance was called for or not is debatable.

Equally stunning is the film's music by Mark Isham--the man who grabbed my attention in "Never Cry Wolf", "Mrs Soffel" and "A Midnight Clear". Sinise was wise using the music effectively when required and not overdoing it to evoke pathos. The music doesn't sooth you, it nudges you to reflect on life.

The film is a great essay on loneliness. Most importantly, it is a great example of how a literary work ought to be adapted without changing the author's vision. Remarkably, the film added more to Steinbeck's work with the train ride and the bus ride. That's Foote!

Beautifully done!

[tesscat · 10/10 · 30 November 1999]

How often are we forced to endure the uninsightful changes that are made to American classics in the process of turning them into feature films? The 1939 version of this movie is a prime example. It, very simply, was not the story that Steinbeck wrote. The changes that were made were too sweeping to be seen as anything other than some ego thinking that Steinbeck could be improved upon.

Now, anyone who is truly familiar with Steinbeck knows that this is just not true. Gary Sinise has proven this familiarity. I have rarely had the pleasure of watching a movie that stayed so completely true to the original text. Not only does this movie not add or subtract from the book, the characters themselves are almost exactly how I had pictured them when I read this story for the first time.

If you are looking for overblown sex and violence, for spectacular special effects, or for unbelievable demonstrations raw physical strength, move on. This movie will not interest you in the slightest. However, if you are looking for a story of true love and true courage, if you are looking for a movie whose beauty stems from a raw sense of humanity, then find yourself a quiet place, where you won't be interrupted and watch this. You won't be let down.

This one will touch you...

[joseph t · 21 January 2002]

This is a masterful and faithful portrayal of Steinbeck's classic novel. The screenplay brings to life the tragic yet uplifting story of loyalty and the kind of bond that can grow between men that we are often reluctant to acknowledge, much less show.

Aside from the story, the cast is what really makes this film. I have always held a soft spot for Gary Sinise after his role in Forrest Gump, wherein his character portrayed another facet of the bonding between men made brothers by cruel circumstance, yet can grow and flourish as the years and other circumstances come to pass. Here, as Lenny's friend and protector against a world that baffles and confuses him, he shows the kind of rough-edged tenderness and affection that both endears us to his plight, and fills us with the dread of what we know must come between the men. John Malkovich shows his depth as an actor by bringing to life the dull-witted but pure-hearted Lenny, in a way that will tug at your heartstrings. I found myself both laughing (in a sad way) at Lenny's ineptness in dealing with a world clearly more confusing than his limited wits can manage, and crying over his being targeted for taunting and abuse by cruel and crude men, and ultimately done in by his brute strength when it was lacking the direction and temper given by his friend George.

A pleasant surprise was Ray Walston as the aged but gentle and good-hearted ranch hand Candy, who has no one in life to love but his old sheepdog, who, like him, he knows, must ultimately be "put down" because of age and the wear and tear that a life of hard labor has worn down. The scene of his finally surrendering his faithful canine companion to be euthanized by a gunshot to the back of the head by another well-meaning field hand is very heartbreaking. Having grown up with the "Uncle Martin" of "My Favorite Martian" Walston, seeing his adept performance in a dramatic role gave me a new appreciation for his versatility as a character actor.

Those who watch this film should allow plenty of time alone to view it straight through with no interruptions. Swallow your pride and keep a box of tissues handy, and some time afterwards for quiet contemplation and "recovery".

Tell me about the rabbits, George...

[Junker-2 · 9/10 · 25 March 2000]

I put off watching this movie for many years. I figured, what was the point? I had read the book "Of Mice and Men", watched earlier movie versions and seen it performed on stage. Why sit through yet another version? Finally one day at the video rental store I decided to take a chance and rent it. I am very, very glad I did.

So why sit through another version? Because it is extremely well done. Gary Sinise and John Malkovich are powerful in the leads, Sherilyn Fenn has never been more appealing and Ray Walston will break your heart.

This is just plain good storytelling and good movie making. I guess like Lennie never getting tired of hearing George talk about the rabbits, I'll never get tired of seeing a good version of this classic story.

Worth watching. Once

[eyesour · 6/10 · 26 September 2011]

It must be at least 50 years since I read Steinbeck's novella, and it stays with one. But there is still something off-putting about it, and I don't think I ever re-read it. I don't think I'll be re-watching this movie, either. Yes, both story and movie are moving and touching. They are also highly depressing, and have a sort of ugly fascination about them, rather than being enjoyable or impressive.

This film adaptation is very faithful, if I remember the original rightly, although there may be a few adjustments here and there. Someone else has mentioned, however, that Malkovich doesn't seem quite right as the big lunk-head. He's too intelligent, and it's permanently distracting to watch him act dumb. This Lennie just isn't fully credible, and I kept catching myself distancing myself from the performance, watching it in a sort of bemused way. What was this man's mental age meant to be? I have a six year old grandson who is way brighter: Lennie seemed to have a mental age of about 2 and a half. At the same time it was all too obvious that Malkovich has an IQ well above average. He was just pretending, and that's not good acting. Also, I don't believe he's really that big and strong, and I kept asking myself how the visual appearance was being manipulated. I just knew he didn't have the strength not to know what it was. It was not convincing, though I can't think who would have been better. Primo Carnera would have been good, but he wasn't available. Same goes for the guy who played Moose Malloy to Mitchum's Philip Marlowe.

It is understandable that this effort was respected by critics, but I can't see it being recommended from one average viewer to another, and it's equally understandable that it bombed at the box-office. Now I feel just like George after he shot Lennie.

Should be shown in EVERY h.s. lit class

[pettyfog · 9/10 · 21 May 2000]

If ever a movie lived up to a standard of literature for the contemporary American art form, this is it. When you watch this you'll be stunned at how easy it should be to adapt a novel .. but it's seldom done right. You'll NEVER find a truer adaptation than this.. in fact you'll swear it's not "adapted" at all.

Everyone else in this group has already given the accolades. I second them.

Great except for Malkovich

[panicwatcher · 7/10 · 14 September 2003]

This movie has a good script, fine acting, and is beautifully photographed. Even though I had read the book and knew the plot, I was drawn into story and moved by the ending. Gary Sinise does a very good job of showing what a complicated and conflicted character George is. George seems to be a smart man, but he has not gotten far in life. He feels the need to watch out for his closest friend, Lenny. But, you sense that George sometimes thinks Lenny is a burden and George feels guilty about those thoughts. This might be Gary Sinise's best acting performance.

I was disappointed in John Malkovich's over-the-top portrayal of Lenny. In the book, I felt that Lenny was just very simple minded, but in the movie version, Lenny seems to be seriously retarded. The Malkovich Lenny has too many odd facial expressions and a speaking style that is like a cartoon parody Lenny. That performance was distracting and irritating and made Lenny less sympathetic. It also changed the relationship with George. It makes George more of a nursemaid to seriously ill Lenny, instead of a helpful friend who watches out for Lenny.

A brilliant vision

[oshram-3 · 10/10 · 13 August 2007]

Most of you are probably familiar with the plot from when this book was forced upon you in high school; George and Lenny are wandering laborers in the 20s/30s. George is a pretty sharp guy, but Lenny is mentally handicapped; a giant of a man, he is a phenomenal worker, but his mental and emotional shortcomings continually land the two men in hot water. When they end up at a particular ranch in Salinas, the men encounter trouble that no amount of running away will solve.

Steinbeck's book is particularly depressing (as I find the works of many early 20th century American authors to be), and the movie captures that exceptionally, without making it a depressing experience to view. Steinbeck's themes of loneliness, of the harshness of life, of how unfair things can be, are all carried over into the film adroitly; but Sinise manages to capture the beautiful California landscape, and in particular that golden sunlight, to at least add a veneer of beauty to the disheartening proceedings.

The acting is uniformly excellent here. Sinise's George is world-weary, cautious, and protective of Lenny; he understands his burden fully and as in the book curses his relationship with Lenny even while we know it is an obligation he will never willingly forsake. The bit parts are all fine as well, with Sherilyn Fenn playing Curley's Wife to perfection; Ray Walston is wonderfully low-key as the lonely, used-up Candy; and Joe Morton as Crook only gets one scene, but he runs the gamut from anger to fear to camaraderie and loneliness, shifting effortlessly in the space of a few minutes. But really, even with all the fine performances, the movie is Malkovitch's. I've never been a huge fan of his work, but he is perfect here as Lenny; he captures the man's childlike worldview, his instant joy in small things, his fear of being stranded by George, and even Lenny's anger just perfectly. Watching Malkovich in this movie is watching a master at the top of his craft; Lenny instantly catches the viewer's sympathy, and Malkovich makes it obvious why George is both irritated by and yet loves the big lunk.

The last scene (I won't spoil it, in case you have forgotten or never read it) is one of the classics of cinema, I feel. The emotion is so powerful, yet so subtly played by both actors; you know what must happen, what George must do, and yet, even as he steels himself to the task, we can see how difficult it is for him. At one point Senise bows his head, eyes screwed shut, on Malkovich's shoulder; this small gesture speaks volumes about the bond between the two men, about everything that Steinbeck was trying to say about love and friendship, and loneliness. It sums up the whole book, the whole film, in an instant. Simply put, this is a brilliant adaptation, well worth your time to investigate.

"There ain't many guys travel around together. I don't know why. Maybe everybody in the whole damn world's scared of each other."

[ackstasis · 7/10 · 14 February 2007]

John Steinbeck's novel 'Of Mice and Men' is, along with his fellow masterpiece 'The Grapes of Wrath,' a classic of twentieth century literature. Brilliantly evoking time and place, Steinbeck masterfully recounted the tragic tale of George and Lennie, two friends who travel together and look out for each other during the Great Depression.

Two-time director Gary Sinise (most popularly known for his memorable supporting role in 1994's 'Forrest Gump') has stated that 'Of Mice and Men' is his all-time favourite novel, and that he'd always wanted to adapt it to the screen. Sinise's respect for the work is clearly evident throughout the film, and screenwriter Horton Foote doesn't stray too far from the original story, nor does he overlook many vital plot points.

George Milton (Gary Sinise) is a small but quick-witted farm labourer. He'd be doing considerably well for himself, but for his self-appointed obligation to look after Lennie Small (John Malkovich), a slow-minded giant. Lennie is a fine worker, but his insatiable, child-like curiosity often gets him into trouble, especially when he underestimates him own strength. After Lennie unintentionally harasses a women (because he was compelled to feel her beautiful red dress), he and George escape persecution and strike out – yet again – for new employment.

Their search leads them to the Tyler Ranch, where they meet up with a whole new range of diverse characters, including the withered, one-handed old swamper named Candy (Ray Walston) and his equally withered dog, the kind-hearted Slim (John Terry), the crooked-backed African American stable boy, Crooks (Joe Morton), the easily-aggravated boss' son, Curley (Casey Siemaszko) and Curley's lonely and largely-ignored wife, who symbolically remains unnamed (Sherilyn Fenn). Each of these characters is well-acted by a strong supporting cast, and each of their qualities contribute significantly to the richness of the story.

George often speaks about how Lennie is holding him back, but we can see that he generally enjoys his company. On most nights, Lennie insists that George recite a well-rehearsed speech about how lucky they are to have each other, culminating in a brilliantly evocative description of the "little house and a couple of acres" they are to purchase, in which they "live off the fatta the land" and Lennie will "tend to the rabbits" by feeding them freshly-grown alfalfa.

"Guys like us that work on ranches are the loneliest guys in the world... They ain't got no family and they don't belong no place. They got nothing' to look ahead to... Well, we ain't like that. We got a future. We got somebody to talk to that gives a damn about us. If them other guys gets in jail they can rot for all anybody cares."

"But not us, George, because I... see, I got you look after me, but you got me look after you."

This is one of the most beautiful and touching friendships ever committed to screen, and we can almost see them succeeding in their goal, tending to their own farms as free men. Alas, John Steinbeck was not a writer known for his happy endings, and his heartbreaking conclusion has been translated well into the film. But perhaps the ending was slightly more optimistic than we initially think. They may not achieve their dream of living together on their own property, but neither of them have anything more to worry them. And that's all they really wanted.

The only movie I know that follows the book to a "T"

[bradencn · 10/10 · 3 December 2018]

If you are looking for a movie that has every scene, every character, and every part of the plot that is exactly accurate to the book, you have found it in this film. It was absolutely incredible to watch one of my favorite books come to life.

Well, well done.

Review of the film "Of Mice and Men"

[ikliuchivskaia · 7/10 · 8 December 2015]

The story "Of Mice and Men" is a story about people who dream for the future. The genre of the film is drama, because there are sad moments.The main characters are Lennie and George. The actors are John Malkovich , he played Lennie and Gary Sinuse who played George. In my opinion the film was not really successful because it was a little bit short compared to the book and not all details were included into the film.

All actors played very well, but Gary Sinuse did better job, because it is a quit hard to act like George. The best part of the film is when Curley realized what happened with his wife and who did it. The film very different to a novel, we imaged some characters differently and the story in a novel at the end a bit continue.

We did not image characters in a novel as they were different in the film.There was not boring moment at all in the film.The ending of the film should be done as the ending in the book , it is a little bit differently.

I liked the film, but I think it would be better if in the film will has some changing and would more similar to the novel.I think people from fourteen years old would interested watch "Of Mice and Men". This novel and the film show the relationship between friends. My total score for the film "Of Mice and Men" would be 3.8 out of 5.

Just a really poor film

[Paynebyname · 3/10 · 24 November 2020]

SPOILERS

For many years, there was something about this film that I wasn't sure about. I don't know if it was a trailer or a review but I'd always steered clear of it but after a solid recommendation, I gave it a go.

I should have trusted my gut, for it is an uncomfortable and unlikeable film. I've seen and enjoyed many films about people with mental health problems - Rain Man, Forrest Gump, Peanut Butter Falcon etc - but these all have something endearing and likeable about the characters. Yes, they've been dealt an unfair hand but they usually have some humanity within them that as an audience member you can relate to. That was not present in this film.

None of the characters are likeable. Lenny is unhinged, weird and dangerous. It's patently obvious from the beginning that he isn't a 'gentle giant' or a benign character. You don't feel compassion for him or his fate, you just feel fear and unease because you can sense what he is capable of.

And this isn't me being uncharitable as it is clearly a choice by the actor and director that whenever he sees a woman, Lenny start looking sheepish and grabbing his crotch area, exhibiting the kind of mannerisms that makes it patently obvious that there is an underlying sexual angle to his behaviour.

For this reason, the lack of compassion also extends to George. I'm sorry but knowing what Lenny is capable of means that George is responsible and culpable for Lenny's actions. Lenny is clearly a ticking time bomb and hence you have to charge a duty of care to the guy who knowingly leaves a time bomb unattended.

In Rain Man, Raymond slightly changes but it is Charlie that completely changes. There is character growth and Charlie grows because he learns to protect and love his brother. Although Raymond can be draining, his idiosyncrasies are endearing and Charlie gets something back from his developing relationship with Raymond.

Likewise in Peanut Butter Falcon, Shia's character doesn't know it but he is looking for someone to look after to replace how his brother looked after him. There is shared affection and each character gets something back from the other and in turn develops because of their connection to each other.

This doesn't exist in Of Mice and Men. George doesn't change, Lenny doesn't change and neither brings joy to the other person. Lenny isn't an anchor that despite the extra hardship still makes George happy, he is simply a dangerous volatile individual.

Likewise George isn't a protector. When Lenny is getting beaten up by the Ranch owner's son, George doesn't step in to break up the fight or start fighting himself, he actually eggs on Lenny. He knows that Lenny cannot control his emotions, his temper or his strength yet he grandstands over a situation that everyone can see is going to end badly.

And then finally with the frustrated wife, it seems that there is almost some kind of victim blaming going on. Yes, she was lonely and frustrated and would be all manner of bad news to any guy in that situation but come on, she didn't deserve to die. She goes from potentially flirting with Lenny to getting her neck snapped in another situation whose outcome was clear to see.

And once Curly's wife has been killed, what are the audience meant to feel? I don't feel sorry for Lenny because it wasn't an accident. She struggled to escape, he could feel her panic, we saw the anger on his face and whether overtly intentional or not, he crushed her. He knew what he was doing during the tussle and he knew what he had done when he ran off. It wasn't an accident, he didn't swing round a ladder and knock her off a fence - he killed her with his own hands.

Likewise I don't feel sorry for George. He effectively left a loaded shotgun in a nursery full of children and walked away to play hoops. Given Lenny's possible diminished responsibility, George's hands have the blood of the woman on them.

And hence by the time they get to the river bed, I don't feel sympathy for Lenny or for George. Lenny gets an escape via the bullet to the head but what about George's penance for the death of an innocent woman?

I have to say that this really belongs in that category of films that everyone tells you is great and a real classic and it truly isn't. Is it the fault of Gary Sinise or is the book just like this, either way it isn't special or a classic and if anything is a really, clumsily told and unsympathetically written tale. Lenny isn't the Gentle Giant that the write up would have you believe but a dangerous man-child that would generate nightmares rather than sympathy in most normal people. I have to say that Frank Darabont/Stephen King did far better with what is obviously an homage to Of Mice & Men with The Green Mile, than Steinbeck ever did. Very poor and wildly over-rated.

Better than I expected

[mikemahony · 9/10 · 29 January 2001]

I simply rented this movie to get a head start in my english class. I heard we are reading this book, so I rented the movie to have the edge over my classmates who know nothing of it yet. "HA HA HA" I thought now I will be smarter.

However, going into the film thinking this was going to be a dull boring movie was not what happened. This is a great movie from beginning to powerful end and I would recommend it to anyone who is willing to give drama movies a chance.

Gary Sinise directed John Stienbecks novel perfectly. The story is about two men, one not so bright, and their search for work in the depression. Simple but wonderful.

7.6 out of ten as an average seems too low for all the good comments about this movie.

A Must See 9/10

Wonderful

[jamie_71 · 10/10 · 20 April 2000]

It took me forever to get ahold of this movie. I had waited 2 weeks for it to be returned to the movie store. I waited four hours until the man brought it back to make sure I got it. Wow was it worth waiting for! I have not seen any movies lately that were so full of heart and love. Sinise and Malkovich BOTH play amazing roles in this film. I've seen it 5 times and everytime I cried at the dramatic ending. It shows how cruel and yet how loving people can be. This movie has a great mix of everything I think anyone could enjoy. I cannot believe I had never heard of this film before looking up info on Gary Sinise. This film should be a classic. The acting is superb and it holds your attention throughout the whole movie. I LOVE this movie incredibly!! Definitely a 10 out of 10!

What do you Suppose is Eatin them two guys?

[blee1134 · 17 March 2003]

(I know I didn't get the exact quote from the book) But thats my favorite line from the entire book, so I was upset to see the movie may have skipped over it.

I hate to read. I've never found a book I enjoyed, but Steinbecks "Of Mice and Men" was something I really couldn't find myself putting down. It was incredibly entertaining from cover to cover. I actually cared for George and Lennie. Now the movie...It really wasn't half bad. I usually only enjoy comedy films, so sitting through this one does say something. Sinise was very good at George. Malkovich was also very good as Lennie. Now, people in other comments complain about Malkovich. I really didn't like how Lennie was seen in the film, but Malkovich is not at fault for that. I really doubt he wasn't told to act like he had Downs or something like that, so when you consider how real it was seeing act as if he had downs, he really was great in this film. Anyways...I really thought of Lennie as a normal guy just very slow, not stuttering and childish sounding. Another gripe of the film I have was Curley's wife. I understand that they couldn't have the scene with Crooks and her saying she'd get him hanged because people nowadays would have a cow over it, but something could have been a substitute for that. I feel Steinbeck really didn't want readers to know if they should feel bad for Curley's wife or hate her guts, but in the movie there really wasn't anything to hate her for. I think the friendship of George and Lennie could have been shown more. Sure, they talk about George and Lennie being different having eachother and all, but it really was a big deal in those times to have someone by your side like they did, but the film kinda played it off into more of a 'George takes care of Lennie' type thing

All in all, I must say the movie wasn't half bad. If you read the book I think the movie is a must

Forced.

[depthconnection · 6/10 · 8 August 2021]

All the performances feel forced. It's a short Novel that didn't need to be adapted to screen. Malvovichs performance is awful.

A gentle hand makes a powerful punch.

[ellusion · 9/10 · 2 December 2001]

A gentle hand makes a powerful punch. And I'm not talking about Lenny, but Gary Sinise. I'm not quite sure why this one of the most powerful adaptations from a book. Perhaps the steps from book to play to screenplay gave it enough time to find it's pace and voice.

I would have loved to have seen it on the stage with the same cast. Absolutely wonderful. I even have a new found respect for Ms. Finn. The two leads are exceptional, but I expected that, it was the easy grace of all the characters becoming alive that moved me.

The book is a great book, but I always thought the other characters were just too shallow. Gary Sinise and the supporting cast breathe a life into these people. You've met them before. Been fishing with them. Fought with them. Just a Wonderful film. I hear a lot of talk about "chick flicks". Well, this very much may be a "dick flick" if they exist. Every real man should see this movie.

Fantastic.

Of men and pain

[paul2001sw-1 · 7/10 · 12 October 2005]

John Steinbeck's depression-era story of decent George and his dumb friend Lenny is one of those tales almost too heartbreaking to bear a re-telling: a tragedy, in retrospect, of utter inevitability. Neither of its heroes have a malicious bone in their bodies, nor does their nasty boss Curly have any hope of moral redemption. This adds to the force of the ending, but also reduces the subtlety of the journey to reach it. But this is a decent adaptation and Gary Sinise and John Malkovich as the two men both put in good performances. I particularly like the way the camera picks out the whites of Sinise's eyes, which seems to emphasise the fact that this is a man committed to permanent, though ultimately fruitless, vigilance. But overall, there's a little too much unremittable pain to make watching 'Of Mice and Men' an entirely entertaining experience; you'll probably enjoy it more if you don't already know the story.

Great from a cinematic standpoint, Not too shabby from a Literary

[bwianiscool13 · 8/10 · 15 September 2005]

First off, the acting in this movie is incredible. It's funny how someone as intellectual and bright as Malkovich can pull his role off so well. Gary Sinese was great too, effectively portraying George.

But if you really get into the book, the movie doesn't follow it too faithfully. Curely's wife is portrayed to be flirty, and a "tart," when in the book, she was just as lonely as everyone else on the ranch. She wasn't looking for sex, she was looking for companionship. The screenwriter didn't interpret the book quite as well as I had hoped.

Now I'm just nitpicking, but when when Lennie pulls the stunt by faking the puppy, it's just not like him. Lennie is not clever at all, and wouldn't think to do that.

But all in all, great movie, definitely great for comparing to the book in a lit. class or anywhere.

8/10

Competent Except For Malcovich

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 22 August 2002]

I`ve probably read OF MICE AND MEN more times than I`ve read any other novel , not because I like it but because for some reason the book is always used in O` grade ( That`s the elementary standard exam used in British schools and was replaced by the GCSE exam round about 1990 ) English learning . I read it many times at school and had to re read it again when I was a student several years later and so I very quickly learned to hate it , especially the over sentimental aspects .

The problem I have with this version is John Malkovich`s performance . There`s not much wrong with Malkovich as an actor and looking at his resume he`s undoubtedly Hollywood`s most eclectic actor appearing in prestigious productions like THE KILLING FIELDS and EMPIRE OF THE SUN , arthouse flicks like BEING JOHN MALKOVICH and THE SHELTERED SKY and typical Hollywood blockbusters like IN THE LINE OF FIRE and CON AIR , but his performance as Lenny Small is absolutely irritating . He plays the role as if Lenny`s a victim of down syndrome who`s overdosed while mainlining prozac rather than the pathetic idiot of the book . Why can`t actors protraying idiots be subtle ? Producer / actor / director Gary Sinise may be to blame for this but since the scenes not featuring Lenny are at the very least competent I`ll lay all the blame at Malkovich`s door .

Oh and before anyone gets confused I`ll point out the reason John Stienbeck`s novel OF MICE AND MEN is named thus is after a poem by Scottish bard Robert Burns : " The best laid plans of mice and men most often go astray " . It`s got nothing to do with the mouse Lenny holds in the start of the picture

Very emotional movie that gives you good insight on what living during great depression was like.

[carliemyers · 8/10 · 26 February 2019]

Of Mice and Men was written as a book then turned into a movie in 1992. It is set back in the 1930 during the Great Depression. With John Malkovich starring as Lennie a big disable man with a mindset of a child and Grey Sinise starring as George his best friend who watches after him. During the Great Depression it is hard to make money and even harder to have your own land. You do not usually see men working together from place to place, but George and Lennie are not like usual men. George and Lennie have to stick together to help each other out and keep Lennie away from homes for disable people and out of trouble. Lennie is about thirty five but has a mindset of a six year old. He keeps making mistakes and George has to pay the price, but the mistakes that Lennie make are not all his fault he can not help himself. The two both have to go through tough situations in which not all have a good out come. The film overall is good it gives you a vision of what it was like living in the great depression and with someone with a mental disability. It shows the roles of what certain people have. The only thing that I do not agree with is how George has to make a very difficult decision and the action he takes.

It's a good story about a bad story

[Randy-Dreammaker · 6/10 · 30 August 2019]

Having never read the book and seeing it for the first time almost twenty-eight years after its release, I can only approach this movie from the perspective of a filmmaker and audience participant.

Everything about 'of Mice and Men' from a film and production value is great, for the most part, the story and transitions are smooth but several bump points are really harsh.

I wasn't certain exactly sure how this story was going to unfold, and the fact that I am watching it in 2019, a time is US History where any use of the N-Word, historical or otherwise by anyone who isn't black, it seemed a little to close to the triggers of the political culture of this generation. At the same time, it did help set the historical time line that the story was supposed to have occurred in.

This film left me unsure of how to feel about it as a whole, and that is very rare. I like the story's focus on friendship and commitment to friendship which even plays out in its final act. At the same time there is a part of me that just didn't care by the time it wrapped up.

I think my ambivalence towards the conclusion was at least in part due to the lack of empathy and numbness of the character George towards the actions of his friend. The set-up that occurred with the dog that was put down earlier also seemed numb, unsympathetic, and callous.

This set-up for the resolution with the putting down of the old dog really seemed out of place, a harsh "bump point" of story transition, it seemed forced.

It isn't until the final scene and how it unfolds that I made the connection of this part of the story, in which, unlike the old man who allowed someone else to put down his old dog and then regretted it, George makes a similar decision.

These two parts of the story are its worst points for me, because they force a moral decision about life and death, the value of life, the influence of others choices on life and death and whether or not those with mental challenges should be accountable for their actions.

Ultimately, I came away simply not caring at all about this story, its attempt to force moral conclusions and outcomes and its sense of empathy.

The Are Movies and then...................

[csp46 · 2/10 · 16 November 2011]

There are few movies that explore companionship, loneliness and the need to have "someone" in your life as well as does "Of Mice and Men". I enjoy John Malkovich in many roles and he has quite a talent BUT, there are some films that have already been made and made about as well as they're gonna be. Of Mice and Men" falls into that category. As does "Stagecoach", "King Kong" to name a few others. Lewis Milestones' "Of Mice and Men" and Lon Chaney's characterization of Lennie remains for me the definitive film translation of that literary work. Other great performances are executed by Bob Steele as Curley and especially Roman Bohnen as Candy. Both are Oscar-worthy efforts. Then again, this movie came out in 1939 so........ Should one care to see a film version of Steinbecks wonderful novella, stick with the original. You should not be disappointed nor should you want to look further to see if someone did it better. They didn't and won't.