Very best movie i ever watch

This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Just what I expected

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Never have I ever seen a movie so aged and forgettable as Of Mice and Men. I've read the book and loved it, but book vs. movie aside. All this film has to offer is cheesy affection and overly aggressive acting. I may be biased due to my distaste for Sinise. All I think of when I watch this movie is The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, another decently great text turned into a bad movie by a Director/Main Actor. In that film being, Ben Stiller. Book to film adaptations need to stop being done by bland actors who are only supported by one or two huge roles (that may not even be that good).

Gorgeously filmed bit of Americana, although it's a rather dark vision American about of loneliness and the struggle to achieve the "American Dream." Director and star Gary Sinise, with screenwriter Horton Foote (who memorably adapted the 1962 film version of "To Kill a Mockingbird"), craft a faithful adaptation of the John Steinbeck novel about two depression era drifters, George and Lennie. I won't bother summarizing the plot, as I'll assume anyone reading this has already read the book in middle school (or maybe you're a middle schooler watching the film instead of reading the book?), but Sinise is perfect as George, but the seemingly miscast John Malkovich as Lennie is surprisingly good in his role as well. Malkovich has never been a physically imposing presences on screen, which is one way he seems wrong for playing the hulking Lennie, and Malkovich is typically cast in sharp-tongues verbose roles such as "Dangerous Liaisons" or the villain in "In the Line of Fire," but he does a wonderful job as the childlike Lennie. If I had to compare this performance to another of his, he did play a simple minded character in "Making Mr. Right" (along with a dual role as a more Malkovich-like of scientist). Ray Walston is the other standout in the cast as the old ranch hand Candy, who should have put down his own dog. Walston's role is a smaller one, but it's a particularly moving one from a veteran actor who's best remembered for his more comic of performances ("The Apartment," "The Sting," or "My Favorite Martian"), which really speaks to his talent. There really isn't a false note among any of the cast members, who include Casey Siemaszko, Sherilyn Fenn, John Terry, Alexis Arquette, Joe Morton, and Noble Willingham. These brilliant performances, elegant direction, and beautiful writing are complimented by one of composer Mark Isham's best scores (and that's saying something) and golden hued picturesque photography by Kenneth MacMillan. Overall, I'd rank Gary Sinise's "Of Mice and Men" among the best films of the 1990s and it's a crime the he hasn't directed a feature film since. FUN FACT! Walton's Candy is missing a hand and Walston is best known for playing Mr. Hand in "Fast Times at Ridgemount High."

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.