Great Film overall

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

I first saw this film when it was broadcast in 1981. I went to friend's house so he could record it on his VCR recorder for me to use in my HS Lit. class. Having seen the more recent version with Gary Sinise, I still prefer this adaptation. The character of Lennie is portrayed as too dark in the newer version. I'm now doing a long-term sub job for a local school and have just purchased a DVD copy of this film so that my HS juniors can watch it after they take their test. I will enjoy watching it as much as any of my students! Great performances from everyone and a very moving film. Kudos especially for Mr. Blake and Mr. Keach!

Any adaptation that features Aunt Clara alive and well--even though she looks like death--signals trouble from the start. This made-for-T.V. fiasco blundered its way through the entire film. The crowning achievement must have been when the brain trust decided that Steinbeck must have simply omitted giving Curley's wife a name. When Curley called her "Mae" I just about gagged. Sad. Not to mention that Robert Blake and Randy Quaid must not have been allowed to read the novel beforehand. I'm not sure I have anything good to say about this. Pathetic is the only thing close to a compliment I can come up with. It isn't very often that I feel compelled to sign up for an account just so I can comment on a film. There is one positive I can list: this film is such a departure from the novel that when my students wrote a comparison paper dealing with similarities and differences between the different versions we read and/or saw, this version was the easiest for them to use. Why? The filmmakers had to have been trying to make this film the worst piece of cinematic crap ever before created. Move over Ed Wood, you've got company.

While this movie could well deserve a 1 rating, I know that there are worse films out there. That faint praise, however, is more of a comment on how bad "Plan 9 From Outer Space" actually was compared to this film.My primary objections to this film aren't the wooden acting, though that would be sufficient to not recommend the film, but the script. Steinbeck wrote a novel that was designed to be staged. Each "act," it's hard to call them chapters, contains everything necessary to set the scene, place the actors on stage, feed them informative and insightful dialog, and interest the observer/reader. It was an admirable piece of writing that should, by design, be easily translated to stage or film.Yet, in the first 40 minutes of this film, the director chose to add scenes, such as one with Aunt Clara, one where George tries to abandon Lennie, one between Curley and his wife, and the one where Lennie lifts the back of a wagon. None of these scenes are supported by the text of the book. When staged, they succeed only in destroying the meaning of Steinbeck's awesome novel. If abusing a piece of literature were a capital crime, Solow and Badiyi would be the first against the wall.Now, the acting. At best, Blake is a mediocre actor. In this, which is arguably his worst work, he is wooden, condescending, and emotionally crippled. You are supposed to like George and sympathize with his ability to put up with the ever failing Lennie, but I found myself liking Curley almost as much.Quaid, on the other hand, tries, but fails, to bring life to the character of Lennie. Had they actually used the words Steinbeck wrote, it is possible he may have been successful. It was a game effort, but it failed miserably, nonetheless.Granted, this was a television adaptation and suffered from a lack of budget and time. All the more reason for the creators to not delve off into laughable visits with Aunt Clara or create other unnecessary, and unsupported, scenes. Steinbeck wrote a concise and accurate script which he designed to read like a play and, hence, brought to stage or screen. Somehow, those responsible for this train wreck failed to understand this, even though the ability to do this should be in their job description.Watch any other version of this movie, if you get the chance. While I have issues with all of them, they are all significantly better films and are closer to the original text of the book.Rick

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.