Of Mice and Men (1981)

Great Film overall

Fantastic!

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

This is the best version of my favorite novel. Robert Blake is amazing as George. The humanity and depth of feeling he exhibits for Lennie is evident but not overly done. Randy Quaid shows off his wonderful dramatic ability that first became apparent in the big time with "The Last Detail." Those folks who only remember him from the "Vacation" films are in for a surprise.Greta film, great actors Just watch Whitman Mayo (better known as "Grady" from "Sanford and Son"), he is marvelous and he displays talents not often showcased in his career. Great film. Get a tape of if you can (I haven't seen one).

As someone who's taught Of Mice and Men for years, I have a real affection for this version. Robert Blake is an engaging George and Randy Quaid's Lennie utterly convincing. The conversation between George and Aunt Clara, although only alluded to in the text, is intriguing - and helpful to students. This version also retains the part (first used in the Burgess Meredith version) where George has Lennie lift the cart and then swings on the wheel: simple but effective -rather like Lennie, I suppose!I'm not sure when I became aware of the one element that came to irritate me - but it certainly wasn't on first viewing: the soundtrack music is, I feel, overly sentimental.The final scenes are inventively shot - as is Lennie! - and the audience is given a hint of George's lonely, empty future.I'm searching for a copy (UK) to encourage some debate with students who are familiar with text and with the 1992 Sinise/Malkovitch version. Help welcomed!

We had to watch this in my English class after we read the classic novel by John Steinbeck. Having enjoyed the novel, I was expecting the movie to be just as dramatically appealing. Oh, man, was I wrong. This adaptation never hit the right mood and suffered from crappy acting, crappy music, crappy directing, and a crappy setting.To start off, let's pick apart the acting, shall we? First is Robert Blake, playing George Milton. In the book, George was a huge jackass. He would constantly grow impatient with Lennie and everyone else, and he would treat Lennie like crap for much of the time. Not here. Blake's "George" is a nice guy, snapping at Lennie maybe only once. He never seems annoyed with Lennie, never even comes close to portraying a character who feels the burden of getting his friend outta scrapes. The supporting characters (Candy, Curley and Curley's Wife, mostly) over act to a point where it seems completely unrealistic.The music...ugh! I can't think of a more inappropriate musical score! The music is always the same song from the 30s and it RARELY fits the mood... especially at the end or events leading to the end. My God, when it was a serious moment, the music was way over dramatic and made the scene seem corny.The directing and overall adaptation of this movie was horrible. I think this film must have been made on about $20, because this film literally had no production value. From the fake bucking horse, to the fist in Candy's sleeve (where there should be a stub), to the ridiculous cast on Curley's hand when it gets broken, this film is funny in the most unintentional ways.How about that conclusion? Jeez, do you think they could have made it a little more dramatic or exciting? They were basically playing the Beverly Hillbillies theme throughout it, and there was no indication that a posse was coming after Lennie other than a whistle or two. And after Lennie does die, George just looks slightly shocked, and then it rolls immediately to credits. The way the book portrayed this scene was worlds more dramatic and moving.Another biggie: the setting. If I hadn't read the book, I would have had NO idea that this film took place in the great depression! Lennie and George just seemed like guys who were hitchhikers or something, not because the whole economy went down the poop chute, but because they were just flat lonely.You might think "Well at least they stuck to the book, right?" NO. The film left out gigantic issues, like racial conflict, Lennie having no family, etc. And what was with the censorship? George was a guy down on his luck who spurt off cuss words all the time, and so were many other characters, and there was probably one "hell" in the whole film. Pathetic.One more: Curley's Wife. Yes, I am aware that the teleplay writers gave her a name (Mae), but WHY?! Steinbeck gave Curley's wife that very title for a reason. She didn't have a known name, and she wasn't supposed to. End of story.Overall, if you want to waste 2 hours of your life, or if you want to butcher a classic book, see this crappy crappy made for TV movie. You honestly can't get a more poorly acted, over dramatic, lamely executed, or artistically bland picture.

I haven't seen this in a long time, but I recall that Blake was outstanding. His "George" became a reference point for all other versions. I should point out that I became a fan of Steinbeck's books after seeing this. I felt that Blake did great justice to the character. Blake is completely convincing as a guy who's been through a lot and carries the world on his shoulders, yet remains warm-hearted (probably because that's very much like the man himself). His ability to portray this type of character also probably accounts for his great success with his Baretta character, which I enjoyed when it first ran back in the 70s.