Menilek As many of you may know, this is a remake. The 1939 version starred Lon Chaney as Lenny Small and Burgess Meredith as George Milton. The 1939 version was a little better, but this 1981 version did do it justice. I say that having only known this version first and then 6 months later I saw the 1939 version, both on the America One TV Network (only available on DTV and C-Band). They show a lot of great oldies and many of them are westerns. Both versions of this movie are just the tip of the iceberg of what golden oldie films they show. But also, the two versions are very similar. Almost no revision and THAT is one reason why the 1981 version is so great. The writers had the good sense to not improve on John Steinbecks classic. With that much good sense it makes me think maybe they weren't union writers, as the guild is full of bad writers who are full of themselves and couldn't write a good script to save their lives, but union or not, this is a great classic. I give this an 8 and the original 1939 version gets a 9 (out of 10). The whole cast in both did an excellent job. WHY don't them make movies this good anymore? Why can't we have good actors like Meredith, Chaney and Blake, instead of using special effects to make up for the poor talent of lamers like Will Smith, Tomb Cruise and John Revolta! Really! I have never seen the 1992 version or the 1968 version of this movie. It is one of the most remade movies in the business, yet all the limp-wristed cuckoo nut-jobs (better known as "movie critics"), always have nothing but negative reviews for this screenplay. What do they know from good movies! They are always contrary to the people! Somebody needs to be fired, and since you can't fire the people, then fire these uber-lame critics!Whitman Mayo did the best job of playing the part of "Crooks" in the 1981 version, but the funny thing is that in his most famous role as Grady on Sanford And Son, the son of Grady was played by actor Joe Morton, who landed the role of "Crooks" in the 1992 version of this movie. Now was that on purpose or what?Post Script: Some of you may even remember a silly parody of this movie done by Warner Brothers as at least 3 cartoons, with Bugs Bunny thrust in the part of George in one and Foghorn Leghorn's farm dog as George in the other cartoon and with the same huge retarded dog in both cartoons as a rather insulting caricature of Lenny, always telling his friend "Which way did he go, George?" which makes it painfully obvious that both were directly based on Chaney's version of the Lenny Small character. So in case you ever wondered where WB got the idea for either cartoon, they were a parody of the movie "Of Mice And Men" (1939). Don't believe me? In fact, the Foghorn Leghorn episode was entitled "Of Rice And Hens" (1953). I couldn't find the title of the Bugs Bunny episode and the third one was a Tex Avery cartoon entitled "Of Fox And Hounds" (1940), produced by the infamous Leon Schlesinger Studios (which produced many cartoons containing bigotry).

oldrk A few points about the movie. First, it was a cheap TV movie.No doubt not a huge budget so keep that in mind. Second, I have never read the book so I cant tear the movie apart by nit picking each and every part.I would say that calling this a "loosely based version" would be a good way to look at it.And lastly, I feel this brought a lot of people to the works of a master in Stenbeck. I would love to have it on DVD if available. I do have it on VHS.If anyone knows where there is a DVD version let me know.

healsrus 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!

rjd9999 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