User reviews

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!)

"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.

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!

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 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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As someone who taught this book several times in a couple of different schools, I have to say I was pretty disappointed with the Gary Sinise version of the story.

Ironically, Sinise himself is perfect. He really captures George's resentment, his growing frustration, the sense that he'd just as soon be rid of Lennie. Sinise makes you feel that it's not just talk when he talks about getting rid of Lennie.

The problem is, John Malkovich tries too hard to be cute. He tries too hard to be likeable. And he's nowhere near big enough, menacing enough, or brutal enough, for the tragic ending to be believable.

Sherilyn Fenn is lovely and has a great wistful sadness as Curley's wife. That's a credit to her acting. But it totally subverts the meaning of the book. Steinbeck hates women. He blames them for wanting sex. And he blames them for everything that takes men away from each other. He writes this character to be utterly hateful from start to finish. But Sherilyn Fenn makes her appealing and Gary Sinise lets her. Probably they both sensed that a modern audience simply wouldn't handle all the woman-hatred that the book truly embodies.

It's like they had to put Steinbeck down for his own good!

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

(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

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

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

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

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.