mrblickles Adapting a classic novel into a film is no easy feat and Of Mice and Men is no exception. The reason it is so difficult to adapt a novel into a film is that with a book, you get to interpret it in the way that best serves your interests but with a film you only get to see a single interpretation. However in my opinion the 1992 film adaptation is a faithful and, more importantly, enjoyable adaptation of the source material. The cast is what can make or break a film adaptation. In my opinion, the reason this adaptation works so much better than the 1939 version is that the 1992 version has a very strong and talented cast. Ray Walston does an exceptional job as Candy. In the beginning of the movie, I was not overly impressed but my mind was changed during the scene in which his dog is shot. His raw emotion made me have a sense of pity and sorrow for his character. After that point every scene he was in, I was continuously impressed with his performance.I thought Gary Sinise did an alright job of playing George. George did not come across the same way in this movie as he did in the book. While I did still enjoy his performance, I just did not think he truly captured the essence of his character. I do have to give him credit for two scenes I thought were done exceptionally well. The scene in the beginning where they camp out by the river did an excellent job of showing the relationship these two men had and I believe a large part of that is due to Sinise's performance. The other scene I was impressed with was the final scene where George kills Lennie. The scene itself was done perfectly (more on that later) and a large part of that is due to the portrayal of George.But I can say with absolute certainty that my favorite portrayal was John Malkovich as Lennie. Malkovich portrays the character almost flawlessly. He is able to capture Lennie's innocence but also convey his brute strength. Malkovich also does an excellent job of portraying a character with special needs. He shows the character has difficulty learning and adapting but is in no way dumb and he is never over the top about it which can be difficult when portraying a character with special needs.What I appreciated about this movie was that it kept the memorable and enjoyable parts of the book but was not afraid to stray away from the source material at points. Certain scenes of the movie seemed to be almost lifted straight from the book. The scene in which candies dog is killed was one of the scenes I thought seemed like it had been pulled directly from the book. The same emotions I felt while reading the book were mimicked almost exactly in the movie. But what made this movie so enjoyable to me was that it was not afraid to go in its own direction from time to time. I liked how the opening was changed to show what had happened before they got to the ranch. It gave a little more context it what is later revealed to be Lennie's doing. Lennie's death scene was done so brilliantly that I almost think it was better than it was in the book. Although it was very similar to the book, it made some changes that I believe improved it. George shooting Lennie was a lot more unexpected than it was in the book. Instead of building it up like the book, the movie chose to make it a bit more sudden and surprising which gave it a far stronger affect.The final scene of this film serves sort of as a metaphor to the movie as a whole. It was emotional, expertly done, and similar to the book but takes liberties when need be. Overall, this was an excellent movie. 9/10 stars

Nick Holland Of Mice and Men is directed by and stars Gary Sinise. Sinise plays George, a man living in California during the 1930's Great Depression. George is a homeless man that goes from job to job trying to earn any scrap of money to survive. However, George's situation is a little different than most; he travels with a close friend with a mental disorder named Lennie (John Malkovich). George and Lennie eventually come to work at a ranch, and that's where our story starts.I watched this film very soon after finishing the novel, and was pleasantly surprised. I was expecting for this movie to be awful, but it was actually pretty good. Most of the acting was nice, the direction was good, and the script was actually really great. Most of the lines in the script were either taken straight from the book, or were very close to it. Of Mice and Men was a pretty good movie, and I quite enjoyed it.The best thing about this film adaptation was the script, like mentioned above. The script was very faithful to the novel, and many lines were exact copies of what John Steinbeck, the author of the book, wrote. The book being only around 100 pages, the film knew it was going to have to lengthen itself, and it did so very well. The scenes added were pretty insignificant, and were mostly time fillers, as they should have been. The script did just about everything right, and I really liked that aspect of the film.Another pretty nice thing about Of Mice and Men was the acting. Gary Sinise was a perfect casting choice as George, and played the role nicely. All of the smaller actors, such as Ray Walston as Candy, were good as well. Most of the acting was really good all throughout the movie. Now, John Malkovich was good as Lennie, but played the role of a man with mental issues a bit too well. Although he wasn't bad by any means, he went a little overboard with his performance. When reading the novel, it was quite obvious that Lennie had issues, but he still seemed like he could at least hide his problems, as he does in the book. However, John Malkovich's performance showed him as a man beyond even recognition. His performance, while decent, went a bit farther than I feel that it should have.Gary Sinise, while great as George, also did great behind the camera as the director. All of the shots taken were pretty nice, and all of the camera angles were really good. Many of the takes were longer, and there were no quick cuts at all. However, I did have a complaint that was mostly with the direction, and that was the suspense build up. Although the direction was good, tension wasn't present very often. There were only two points throughout the film that I felt suspense, and that was because I had already read the book and knew what was about to happen. With my prior knowledge of the major plot points, I felt suspense. However, if I hadn't already have known the next big event in the story, then I don't think that I would've felt the tension almost at all.Of Mice and Men was overall a decent movie, and respected the novel. The script was great, the direction was fine, and most of the acting was good. I'd recommend Of Mice and Men to anyone who's read the book and enjoyed it.

RaspberryLucozade This film first came to my attention in 2006 when during an English class, we were to watch this film and then write an assessment on it. As a rebellious 15 year old, the film did not sound particularly appealing to me and I was convinced that within two minutes my concentration would start to drift elsewhere. However, to my surprise it turned to be a worthwhile and gripping venture, well served by its cast.Though not a fan of John Malkovich, or of Gary Sinise ( who also produced and directed the movie ), I liked the movie because of its heartwarming storyline, its thoughtful pace and grittiness.Based on the 1937 novel by John Steinbeck, this 1992 film adaption ( adapted by Horton Foote ) follows the lives of two men - George Milton and his mentally handicapped friend Lennie Small. The two have recently had to flee from their previous employment in California after Lennie was falsely accused of rape ( all he did was touch a woman's dress as he has a liking for stroking soft things ). Eventually, the two secure a job at Tyler ranch. Ranch hand Candy ( Ray Walston ) seems to take a shine to them, but Candy's son Curley ( Casey Siemaszko ) dislikes them on sight.The dislike soon turns to hatred when Lennie accidentally kills Curley's floozy of a wife ( Sherilyn Finn ) when whilst stroking her hair he accidentally grips too hard and ends up breaking her neck ( Lennie has no concept of how strong he is ). Angered by this, Curley rounds up a group of men with the intent on lynching Lennie. In a bid to spare Lennie from a slow, agonising death, George takes Lennie to a private spot in the countryside and distracts Lennie by talking to him about their dream of owning a ranch together before reluctantly shooting him in the back of the head.As the film ended, we had the boys of my class being too busy either sticking chewing gum under the chairs or engraving graffiti on the desks to take any notice of the film and we had the girls of my class crying their eyes out. I did not fall into either category. I sat there cool as a cucumber, feeling a strange sensation in the pit of my stomach ( it could have been indigestion from that day's school dinner ).The scene in which Candy's beloved but severely crippled sheep dog has to be anaesthetised, much to Candy's upset, I find a deeply affecting moment. It was about 14 years ago that my first dog ( who, if you can believe it, went by the name of Hannibal ) was put to sleep after losing his ability to see or walk. Even now, I still haven't entirely gotten over losing him so I know only too well the pain Candy must have been feeling.As another poster has said about this film, do not be afraid to show your emotions whilst watching it. Just sit with a box of tissues at the ready and let your emotions loose.

Brooke Nicholas The movie was good. The movie gave me a better understanding about what the book was about. I liked the story behind it. I liked the story of George and Lennie's friendship, and how they cared for each other, and protected each other. They always cared for each other, no matter what. Also, the actors and actresses did a realistic job at playing their roles. However, I did not like that not everything that was in the film was the same thing that happened in the book. Also, some of the characters were portrayed differently in the book than in the movie. They reacted differently to situations in the movie, than how they did in the book. In my opinion, this was confusing.