Of Mice and Men (1981 TV Movie) User Reviews (13)

Often neglected version

[healsrus · 7/10 · 13 November 2006]

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!

Loved it

[oldrk · 8/10 · 7 August 2008]

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.

A pretty good remake of the 1939 version of this movie.

[Menilek · 8/10 · 23 September 2008]

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).

Blake (and Quaid) Remarkable Performance (better than big screen)

[reply2-1 · 13 October 2004]

Blake again affirms his remarkable dramatic abilities in a performance not surpassed since his legendary "In Cold Blood" portrayal of the real life Perry Edward Smith. His often understated portrayal of the loser protagonist is disturbing and moving. Quaid is exceptional in his role as the simple-minded side-kick, and if you only remember him from the "Vacation" films, you'll be amazed at his his dramatic acting ability. This film captures the true essence of the Steinbeck spirit. It is a dramatic, touching story about hope, friendship, and it's ultimate cost. A true treasure, so much better than many of the feature films I've wasted $9.00 on at the movies lately. A must see.

Of Mice and Men

[hotwheelerd-52603 · 7/10 · 30 December 2023]

For a TV Version it was not that Bad. It was mad in 1981 the acting was OK. It was no Oscar winner but not that Bad. The BIG bully Man was kind of funny nobody gets to look at my wife or anything. But he gets to do whatever he wants to. Of course he little wimpy man goes after the Big man with no brains and picks a fight with him why. Because he wanted to look like a tough man. But awesome when he gets his hand crushed bye the mentally challenged man by him just crushing it. It was kind of cool how he kept forgetting everything you had to keep telling him the same thing over and over. My little sister was the same way she kept forgetting everything. Day after Day but remember of the odds and ends of stuff. Not a Bad TV Film.

Two ranch hands looking for work and sticking together through thick and thin.

[gleetroy · 9/10 · 19 July 2007]

This is the best version of my favorite novel. Robert Blake is amazing as George. The humanity and depth of feeling he exhibits for Lennie is evident but not overly done. Randy Quaid shows off his wonderful dramatic ability that first became apparent in the big time with "The Last Detail." Those folks who only remember him from the "Vacation" films are in for a surprise.

Greta film, great actors Just watch Whitman Mayo (better known as "Grady" from "Sanford and Son"), he is marvelous and he displays talents not often showcased in his career. Great film. Get a tape of if you can (I haven't seen one).

BEST VERSION

[snoweer · 10/10 · 2 March 2003]

This is the best version of this movie/book. Blake and Quaid both play their parts very well! I'd like to see this again on TV or available for rental. Both characters are tragic and made the more so by the excellent portrayals by these very well-known actors.

Excellent adaptation

[rvm-2 · 10/10 · 7 May 2001]

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.

Great film

[hahnstead · 9/10 · 5 December 2016]

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!

Steinbeck must be turning in his grave...

[royale_w_cheez44 · 1/10 · 29 August 2005]

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.

Blake (and Quaid) Remarkable Performance (better than big screen)

[reply2-1 · 13 October 2004]

Blake again affirms his remarkable dramatic abilities in a performance not surpassed since his legendary "In Cold Blood" portrayal of the real life Perry Edward Smith. His often understated portrayal of the loser protagonist is disturbing and moving. Quaid is exceptional in his role as the simple-minded side-kick, and if you only remember him from the "Vacation" films, you'll be amazed at his dramatic acting ability. This film captures the true essence of the Steinbeck spirit. It is a dramatic, touching story about hope, friendship, and it's ultimate cost. A true treasure, so much better than many of the feature films I've wasted $9.00 on at the movies lately. A must see.

Horrible Adaptation

[rjd9999 · 2/10 · 21 February 2006]

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

George and Lennie take a job bucking barley after fleeing Weed. Lennie gets into trouble and George has to quickly decide what to do.

[aaron-fawcett · 1/10 · 14 March 2008]

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.