Movies-TV

Of Mice & Men

I have not read the book, but a couple of years ago, I rented the movie. After watching it, I decided that this is a "must have" for the collection. I watch it every once in awhile and I truely enjoy it each time, just like I did the first time I saw it.

The acting between Malkovich and Sinise is excellent. The scenery is beautiful and such a wonderful story about life and dreams.

The dreams of owning a place of their own, having a garden, tending rabbits and living off of the fat of the land was truely an American dream for many many people of a bygone era.


It remains one of my favorite movies in my collection.

Not Good

I enjoyed the book Of Mice and Men very much, however this film does not live up to any of the drama and emotion of the book. The screenplay is weak and the acting is terrible. The accent given to Lennie in the movie does not match at all with how it is written by Steinbeck. Gary Sinise's role as George was not believable, and Curley's Wife was some of the worst acting I have ever seen on film. The film was poorly thought out and poorly directed. Its lack of change in camera shots and the extremely slow and boring screenplay did not interest me at all. Lennie's voice was enough to make me want to shoot him in the first scene. It was so annoying, unlike the possibly lovable voice that Steinbeck gives to him in the book. Although it follows the book's plot closely, it is just a bad movie.

Phenomenal adaptation of a classic novel

I am notoriously disappointed by film adaptations of classic works. That being said, I was pleasantly surprised by the casting, directing, and content of this movie. The story held true to John Steinbeck's original work down to much of the dialog. The film elicited the same emotions I felt when I first read the book as a child.John Malkovich's portrayal of Lenny was at times seemingly forced, but it worked well even if it was not consistent with the novel. I also envisioned Lenny as a much larger individual, given his enormous strength. However, Malcovich's acting abilities trumped these minor shortcomings and the integrity of the film was not at all jeopardized.

Why doesn't Sinise direct anymore??

This film is nearly ten years old now - and every time I watch it, one question springs to my mind: "Why doesn't Gary Sinise direct anymore?"

This is quite simply one of the most fantastic movie adaptations of a classic novel ever made. True to the content and spirit of the book, Sinise is a big fan of Steinbeck, and it shows. This is lovingly crafted and packs all the emotional punch of the beautiful novel.

The script, by Oscar-winning screen writer Horton Foote, is just esquisite, and as always, it will ultimately break your heart.

John Malkovich as Lenny, the brain-damaged lumbering farm-hand with more strength than he knows how to control, puts in one of the finest performances of his career, and it's been a pretty impressive career.

Gary Sinise - in a performance which brought him the attention he always deserved but Malkovich got - is faultless. He is a powerhouse performer, and a cinematic treasure. As a director, he has a clear vision of Depression era America which be evokes vividly and tells this powerful tale simply and elegantly.
All in all, if you haven't seen this movie, you should. If you like good story-telling and the retro-feel of a movie like The Shawshank Redemption, then see this. It's pure and simple, and simply terrific.

It was the best I have ever seen!

This was a great movie. I was reading the book by John Steinbeck in my english class, when the teacher told me about a movie, based on this novel. I had not finished the book, when I saw the movie, but I thought it was the best. I also did not think that George was going to kill Lennie, but as it turns out, he did.

One change (for the better) from the novel

It's true that the film follows the novel very faithfully, with the exception of a few details at the end. For me, the slightly revised ending is even more powerful than Steinbeck's original.Steinbeck wrote both novel and stage-play versions of OF MICE AND MEN at about the same time (ca. 1937), and it always seemed to me that the ending, in which the posse shows up after George shoots Lennie ("You hadda, George, you hadda"), was a device to get George off the stage at the end of the show. In Sinise's film, the posse never shows. Instead, the scene of George expressing his anguish over what he has just done dissolves into a shot of him riding the train. It's a more effective way of underscoring how alone in the world George is now.As a side note, it's a shame this film wasn't more popular when released in '92. Although the entire cast was superb, Ray Walston deserved an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor. He might not have won against the likes of Hackman, Nicholson, and Pacino (three names you'd not expect to find in the supporting-actor category in the same year), but he deserved a nomination at the very least.

Of Mice and Men

Although Gary Sinise sometimes puts a little too much into the character, this movie is a 5-star for drama fans. John Malkovich's performance is brilliant and riveting. He seems the genuine article.

Great movie version of the classic novel

I had to read Of Mice and Men in high school and I liked the book so I figured I would watch the movie one day. Very few movies even come close to being as good as the book, but Of Mice and Men is an exception. Gary Sinise and John Malkovich play great roles as Lenny and George in the movie as do the ones that play Slim, Candy, and Curley.

Gary Sinise couldn't have done a much better job directing the movie to be just like the book. Of Mice and Men is one of the best novel to movie translations ever. If you liked the book and even if you haven't ever read it, this is one movie worth getting anytime.

Tell me about the rabbits, George...

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.

Of Mice and Men book revfiew

"Of Mice and Men" is a novel that tells about two men and their experience working on a ranch. George is the smaller but smart one of the two. Lennie is the large one that suffers from mental retardation. Lennie is always getting into trouble but doesn't mean to. He always seems to mess things up for George. In the end Lennie does something really terrible that has only one solution for George.

one of the best ever

I think this movie is one of the best movies that ever has been made. Gary Sinise and John Malkovich are both great in this movie. When you have seen this movie you just think about it all day.I´ll give it 8 of 10.

Of Mice and Men

Gary Sinese' 1992 version of "Of Mice and Men" written for the screen by Horton Foote is the closest to the original Steinbeck classic to date capturing the very essence of the Steinbeck characters in exactly the same way I remember them when I first read the book.

Must See

Of Mice and Men, a book by John Steinbeck, was good, but the film, directed by Gary Sinise, was better. George was played by Gary Sinise while Lennie was performed by John Malkovich. Both of these actors did a wonderful job. Another character that was portrayed well was Candy. His part was brought to life by Ray Walston. Gary Sinise makes the scene with Candy's dog one of the most memorable scenes in the movies. The long pause after convincing Candy to have the dog shot and Carlson firing the gun allows the emotions that the characters are feeling sink in. The compassion for Lennie that George feels is strongly seen in the movie. Of Mice and Men shows how strong the bonds of a true friendship should be. This story makes you want to be a better friend and person, even though it has a sad ending. Steinbeck's ending to this moving story is unsettling but you still understand why George had to do what he did.

Of Mice and Men

Based on some book and directed by one of the stars himself, this is a not too bad story about two best friends who find work on a farm near a ranch house. The two main characters, John Malkovich as the big tall child like Lennie Small and Gary Sinise (also director) as the small quite intelligent George Milton are the two men, on the run from something, and they want some work so they can have enough money to get a new life. By the way, Lennie's child like because he was kicked by a horse as a kid. Lennie has a love for animals and soft things, and sometimes it ends up him accidentally breaking or killing the person or animal with his uncontrollable strength. Also starring Ray Walston as Candy, Casey Siemaszko as Curley, Sherilyn Fenn as Curley's Wife, Lost's John Terry as Slim and Terminator 2's Joe Morton as Crooks. It is quite a sad moment at the end, and the villain is pretty nasty, but it is still quite good. Good!

This is the best movie I've ever seen.

Though I've seen many tear-jerking movies, this one touched me most of all. The outcome totally shocked me. Every time I think of Lenny and the rabbits, I start to cry. It seemed so real.

amazing

the book was nothing compared to this movie, this movie can be watched from beginning to end without leaving the chair

of mice and men

of mice and men is a great movie and book. its about two guys george and lenny how is locking for a jobb, but lenny is a retard he mess things up all the time.they want to earn money so they can buy a litle place.candy how is a old guy he will help them to buy the place.but lenny killed curlys wife and he ran away in to the wood, george find him first and killed lenny...i think that it was best that george killed him insted of curly because lenny dident now that george killed him, if curly had found him first he would now that he was going to be shoot.....
this story about friendship

blasphemy!

sex sells, my friends, but sometimes it's more important to get something right than to get someone hot.we read the book in english class, and to top off the unit, we watched the movie. quite frankly, i severely disliked it. they added scenes(such as george and curly's wife in the barn) and also subtracted scenes(such as the whole mouse thing with lennie). if you're looking for a mediocre movie, here it is, but if you're looking for something true to the text, steer clear.

incredibly moving

I had read the book not more than 2 months ago for class and this was the first book I have ever read that actually made me glad to have read it. So I thought to myself, i just have to see this movie. So I watched the movie about a month and a half ago and I can say that the adaptation is nearly flawless and had rekindled my love for the book. This was also the first and only movie that has ever made me cry. Even though I knew exactly what was going to happen, I couldn't help it. This movie has touched me (and I think many others) in ways that I thought were never possible.

Faithful but flawed adaptation

Sinise's performance as an actor in the film is excellent but his direction although faithful and competent is pretty uninspired. If that was all that was wrong, this would still be a great movie, but the major flaw in it is rather more obvious almost from the start. Great actor though he is, John Malkovich is hopelessly mis-cast as Lennie. He tries hard, but in the main his performance is more repulsive than child-like and occasionally his lines are close to unintelligable just when they need to be understood. This may be a faithful and accurate attempt by Malkovich at portraying a real person with disabilities, but Lennie really has to be much more lovable for the story to work. The only time Malkovich comes close to this is when he isn't speaking - for example when he's smuggling the puppy into the bunk-house. The film is very faithful to the novel but Steinbecks book wouldn't be a classic if it was as flat as this film. I'd have loved to see what John Huston might have done with it if he'd been given the chance to direct it in the 1940's