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).

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.