Great Film overall

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

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

I think this remake and execution of the novel 'Of Mice and Men' is rather solid and possibly up there with some of my favourite movies of all time.When it comes to how it's written, it's pretty much like the novel. However, there were some things that were changed/extended and whilst that may seem unfaithful to the general audience, I don't think it's really a problem because it does give a different perspective of the novel and perhaps gives us a new insight of the novel.The performances are also spot on. They seem genuinely realistic and do portray the characters very well IMO. The way they portray both George and Lennie does make us feel about them and their relationship was it does seem rather genuine.I also think the characters are executed very well as they act just like how they are portrayed in the novels. They all have different emotions which makes them identifiable.It also portrays the atmosphere during The Great Depression very well and we get a good idea of how the world is views in the eyes of 'the bindlestiffs'.Overall, it's a brilliant movie and I would recommend checking it out if you have read the novel.

'Of Mice and Men' is about two guys who had just changed the ranch they worked at because Lennie caused trouble. It's genre is period drama. The main character are Lennie, the big baby, who is played by John Malkovich and George, the small guy, who is played by Gary Sinise. In my opinion the film is successful, because the act was very well done.I think the character that did the best was Lenie, because acting stupid is not an easy thing. The best part of the movie is when Lennie crushes Curley's hand because at first Lennie had to act frightened, what he did well, and then he had to act furious, in which he did again good job. The film starts and ends different from the novel. One particularly successful aspect of the film is that there weren't almost any special effects. The camera was always positioned on the right angle.I think the worst part from the movie was when Curley's wife came at the field where the boys were working and began asking questions about her husbands' hand (Curley). I think the portrayal of Curley's wife was incorrect because in the movie she is not as bad described as in the book. They could have made her look worse like in the book.My overall opinion is that the film is quite good, although there were some parts that were not good. I think the movie can be watched from any age groups. I would give the film 4 stars out of 5.

This movie is OK but its very different from the book in many ways. SPOILERS AHEAD: When Curleys wife dies in the book he is more sad than angry.Also at the end of the book when George is telling Lennie about there soon to be home it is more stretched out. I'm not saying this ruined the movie, it's just a lot more noticeable. I give this movie a 6.5 out of 10 due to it having a lack of emotion and some of the actors weren't the best choices. Sorry for people that disagree with me but I think they could have done a lot better with this movie. I give the book on the other hand 9 out of 10 because I get into the book a lot more than I do watching the movie. I recommend the book over the movie. Thank you for reading my review and I hope it helped you decide whether to watch this. Have fun watching film go-ers.