Opiniones de usuarios

I don't think anybody who has read "Of Mice and Men" has ever forgotten it. John Steinbeck paints characters who are so rich, so sympathetic, so tragic. I went through a brief Steinbeck phase during my highschool years, and every single novel – "The Grapes of Wrath," "The Pearl," "The Winter of Out Discontent," "The Red Pony" - left me feeling emotionally gutted. His conclusions are tragic and sorrowful, and yet somehow necessary - the only possible conclusion.

I've seen Gary Sinise's 1992 film adaptation of "Of Mice and Men," and it's a very strong, faithful adaptation, but this one tops it, I think. Snappy, shrewd George is played by Burgess Meredith, and he has a wonderful rapport with Lennie (Lon Chaney, Jr.), a behemoth with more heart than brains.

The characterisations are poignant, and the dialogue strongly literary, often lifted straight from the pages of the source material. Steinbeck has a delicate way of giving his characters hope, and then sharply yanking it away for the conclusion. This goes against every rule of Hollywood storytelling (even John Ford's 'The Grapes of Wrath (1940)' compromised with a more optimistic ending), but here director Lewis Milestone sticks to the original story like it was gospel.

Steinbeck's classic story of 'my brother's keeper' brought to the silver screen in a reverent manner. Perhaps the biggest story in this film is the fact that Chaney jr. could REALLY act-he was undoubtedly cheated out of the Oscar for best actor. Merideth, best known to younger folks as Rocky's trainer does a fine job as the brains in this two man operation. Veteran cowboy star Bob Steele does a stand-out job as the heavy. The direction is steady and the script lifted literally from the novel(why improve perfection?) Remade several times, but never as effectively. Even if you've seen it 100 times, keep a hankie handy.

It's amazing that a film as good as this one came from a small studio like Hal Roach. Sure, they released many of their films through MGM but they were tiny and specialized in short comedies with the likes of Laurel & Hardy, Charley Chase and The Little Rascals--but they were not known for dramas. Well, starting in the late 1930s, the studio tried their hand at such fare and in some cases did some lovely films--and "Of Mice and Men" is the best example of these new dramas.

As far as the story goes, it's much like the book and play---but with a few changes to meet the tough Production Code. The language was toned down--with swearing removed. Also, the film made a few minor changes in the play--but not many. What you see is essentially the Steinbeck story--and the studio trusted the source material enough to stick with it. They also should be applauded for picking two relative unknowns to star in the film--Burgess Meredith and Lon Chaney, Jr..

Overall, the film is a smashing success. The acting is very good, the direction also nice and the film kept me on the edge of my seat. The only negative, and it's very, very, very minor, is that a few of the scenes looked very much like they were filmed on a set. Still, it's one of the best films of the year and had it not come out in 1939 (the same year as "Gone With The Wind", "The Wizard of Oz", "Goodby Mr. Chips", "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and many other great films), it might have taken home some Oscars. Well worth seeing and a great example of a film made very well on a relatively small budget.

The first comment given here shows an incredible lack of understanding of Steinbeck in his California period. Our Irish friend's acrid comments show he obviously doesn't like Steinbeck and that's his privilege. Now, having said that, I must say he's wrong. This film is excellent. Just that. The cast is wonderful and the story is a classic: the destruction of innocence by cruel reality (viz: the title of the story taken from a line from a Robert Burns's poem). And, while Steinbeck was not one to let a sentimental moment pass by, e.g, Lennie's Christ-like innocence, inappropriate super-human strength which inadvertently wreaks havoc resulting in his euthanasia with the same instrument as used for Curley's dog, these scenes are never maudlin. Too, for the serious Steinbeck fan, there's more, much more. This story, and the play, created at Steinbeck's most experimental period, is fraught with symbolism. There's the "big" guy, a victim of the "little" guy's vanity. Many are not aware that Steinbeck was small (5'3") and very self-conscious about his size. The cast is outstanding: Betty Field's careless and bored character, Mae contrasts with the mighty innocence of Chaney's Lennie. There are the solid characters of Bickford's Slim, Meredith's George and Bohnen's Candy; Steele was at his best as the vain, pugnacious Curley; Veteran character actor, Noah Berry Jr. as Whit adds another element of sympathy. This is one of our American classic films. We invented and developed this genre of art and this film must stand as one of its finest examples.

This movie has power. Some of todays movies are great extravaganzas but they have no power. The flawless performance given by Lon Chaney Jr. has never been surpassed. John Stienbeck wrote the story and is one of my favorite authors.

In this movie "Of Mice and Men" you can not help but be drawn into the story and feel every feeling that each character brings to the story. There are no big heroes here just people in a time of great tribulation. The director Lewis Milestone is superb in his making of this movie and also produced it.

I have seen all the remakes and there are none to compare. If you enjoy good movies don't miss this one and bring a box of Kleenex.

Casting directors rarely get any real credit for what they do but I think, for this film, we must make an exception. The actors, in Of Mice And Men, play thier parts as if they were born into them. Add to this cinematography that is both artistically and technically outstanding and you have a film that truly deserves the term Classic. I believe that this film is a must-see for anyone considering a career as a writer, actor, director or any other area of film making.

LON CHANEY, JR. creates sympathy for the role of the mentally retarded Lenny in John Steinbeck's OF MICE AND MEN, and BURGESS MEREDITH is excellent as his traveling companion who looks out for him. It's a Depression-era tale of itinerant farm workers who work for a sadistic boss and have to contend with some unfortunate series of circumstances.

BETTY FIELD throws herself into the role of the trampy, bored wife of the relentlessly jealous Curley played by TOM STEELE. The scene in the barn where she and Lenny share their dreams of a golden future that is never realized, is outstanding for the way it is played and written.

Unfortunately, there's a claustrophobic feeling to much of the story, based as it is on the stage play rather than the novel. Characters each have their monologues, sometimes overly sentimental, but among the supporting players it's ROMAN BOHNEN who does a superior job as Candy, the man whose devotion to an old sheep dog is crushed when he agrees to let someone put it down with a shotgun. Only 45 at the time, he submerges himself in the role of the unhappy old man.

Most of the scenes revolve around the friendship of Meredith and Chaney and they do excellent work here. Chaney's performance is not subtle but it is consistently believable and makes the ending almost unbearable to watch.

CHARLES BICKFORD is his usual stalwart self and stamps his role with authority, as does BOB STEELE as the jealous husband who gets more than he bargained for when he picks on Lenny.

Lewis Milestone directed it skillfully and gets the film off to a good pre-credit start with Lenny and George being chased out of town and hopping onto the nearest freight train to escape a posse of gun toting men. Aaron Copland's score is quietly effective but certainly does not rank among his most memorable works.

Just saw this again. It's been one of my five or six favorite films since I was a teenager, but I hadn't seen it in years.

Wow. It really holds up. And looking at it through the eyes of someone who's been acting for thirty-odd years rather than the eyes of a teenager really makes a difference. There's some really fine work in this movie. I've never quite believed Burgess Meredith did (or could do) a day of hard labor like bucking barley in his life, and it's very tempting to think of what someone else might have done with the part. (Lewis Milestone tried to borrow first James Cagney and then Humphrey Bogart for the part. Neither would have been terribly convincing as guys who grew up in the San Joaquin Valley, and I have a hard time thinking of Bogart in the role. Cagney would have been very interesting, even if not quite right.)

This time through, I paid close attention to the acting work of people I'd never given much thought to in that regard, as far as this movie goes. Charles Bickford is really good, and Betty Field is superb. The movie was nominated for four Oscars, including Best Picture (of 1939!!), but none of the actors was nominated. Of course it was a tough year, one of the toughest ever. But in another year, I suspect Lon Chaney Jr. would have been nominated for the performance of his career. His performance has been so imitated over the years that it might not seem so special nowadays, but I tried to find something to critique about it and I simply can't. He's believable and heartbreaking without seeming, to my eyes, the least bit forced. But the standouts are Leigh Whipper and particularly Roman Bohnen, who play Crooks and Candy, respectively. Whipper had played Crooks on Broadway and his experience with the role shows. Crooks's forthrightness about the burdens of being the only black man in a white community are a little startling for 1939, as is his disdain for the whites who enter his "sanctuary" uninvited. Bohnen is just remarkable, one of the most heart-wrenchingly touching performances I've ever seen. (Not surprisingly, he gave another such performance as Dana Andrews's father in THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES.)

Aaron Copland's music and scoring were both nominated for Oscars. Copland only composed six feature film scores (the others: OUR TOWN, THE NORTH STAR, THE RED PONY, THE HEIRESS, and SOMETHING WILD). OF MICE AND MEN was his first. Every score of his I've heard is a masterpiece, and it's hard to say which is "best." Suffice it to say that his first is a contender, and one of the best film scores ever written.

Although based on Steinbeck's novel, the film owes much to the play Steinbeck also wrote. Lewis Milestone manages to avoid any sense of being stage-bound, though his wide-open-spaces shots are quite limited. I was really impressed by his staging. There's one really nice shot of Meredith and Bickford talking in a barn. As Meredith leaves, the camera pulls back, keeping both actors in frame, until the entire interior of the barn is revealed and shown to be huge, much larger than it had felt. It's a simple shot made by a clear master.

I'm not a great fan of Gary Sinise's remake, particularly as to how the ending was handled. The one great advantage Sinise had was color. There are shots in the 1939 version where I could imagine the color and where I felt robbed by its absence. It's not a black-and-white film that particularly exults in its black-and-whiteness. Had it had a larger budget, perhaps it could have been made in color, which would have served it very well. But all in all, I'm thrilled that this favorite of mine for decades holds up and actually exceeds my fond memories.

Great characterizations by Lon Chaney Jr, and Burgess Meredith would not have been possible in this film without the great writing of John Steinbeck. The combination of the dull-witted, kind-hearted person and the guardian who is a bit sharper is a classic formulation. Lewis Milestone does a very nice job directing this drama, and the dialogue is crisply written for the screen. Enjoy this American masterpiece with your family for a solid hour or so of fine entertainment.

This screen adaptation of the John Steinbeck classic novel is a harsh, fantastic film that took the wind out of me with its frank and brutal depiction of desperation and longing. Movies about the Depression that were actually made at the time of the Depression by people who knew of what they spoke by necessity feel so much more authentic than later movies that treat the Depression as a historical event. The men in this film are quite literally living day to day, and the comparison of men to dogs that serves as a running motif throughout the film feels like more than just a poetic device. Like dogs, these men were faced with the scary prospect of some day being of no more use, and there was no system in place to take care of them when that day came. Being shot like a dog put out of its misery by its owner really was preferable to the alternatives awaiting them.

I was surprised about how candid this film was, and how bravely it tackled some of the thornier issues of Steinbeck's novel. The incident between Lenny and Mae is divested of some of its sexual overtones, but much is implied anyway. And a scene between Crooks, a black work hand, and some of the other workers, in which Crooks explains in blunt language what it means to be black, tackles race relations as honestly as many films today.

Moments of this film are almost unbearably sad and poignant, but never in that over-sentimental way common to Hollywood films of this time period. Burgess Meredith is terrific in the role of George; he expertly conveys--without ever directly addressing it--the bond he has with Lenny and the degree to which Lenny is as much George's savior as he is Lenny's. Charles Bickford is also excellent as a rough and world-weary worker. The cast's weak links are Betty Field--hopelessly overplaying her bored sex kitten--and Lon Chaney as Lenny, though both are very good in the pivotal scene that sets off the action of the film's finale.

John Ford's adaptation of "The Grapes of Wrath" from the following year gets all of the attention today, and one hardly ever hears of "Of Mice and Men." But much of what is great about Ford's film is also great about Lewis Milestone's, and he deserves credit for laying a fine blueprint for brining Steinbeck's beautiful and heartbreaking stories to the screen.

Grade: A

Based on the classic John Steinbeck novel and released in 1939, the story focuses on two traveling companions desperate for work in rural California during the Depression: George (Burgess Meredith) is of average stature and smart whereas Lennie (Lon Chaney Jr.) is big and mentally challenged. They get a gig at a big ranch while dreaming of owning their own one day when the opportunity suddenly presents itself. Unfortunately, the arrogant son of the owner, Curley (Bob Steele), and his flirtatious wife (Betty Field) complicate matters. Charles Bickford is on hand as Slim, Roman Bohnen plays Candy and Leigh Whipper plays Crooks.

I've been a fan of this potent Western drama/tragedy ever since I read the book as a teenager and both this version and the 1992 version are worthy film adaptions (I have yet to see the 1981 TV production with Robert Blake and Randy Quaid, which I've heard is good). It seems that you just cannot do a 'bad' "Of Mice and Men," as long as you have decent actors and filmmakers.

Some people scoff at the moral of the story, as if it all comes down to shooting your aged, useless dog yourself, but it's way more than this. It's a commentary on the nature of companionship and loneliness: Whereas George and Lennie compliment each other many of the other characters languish in isolation, like Candy, Curley's wife and Crooks, even Slim. Questions of strength, weakness, usefulness, reality and utopia are explored as the story leaves you scratching your head.

Comparing the two versions, I slightly prefer the newer rendition because it's in color and is just overall better made with a superior score and cast with the exception of Lon Chaney as Lennie. Malkovich is very effective in the more recent version, but Chaney's Lennie is just more likable. While I don't like the addition of cussing in the 1992 rendition, it's probably more realistic and it isn't so bad that it makes the movie unwatchable (for me anyway). In any case, Sherilyn Fenn is a vast improvement over the original's Betty Field, who's annoying and not desirable enough to pull off the part (but, then again, she might be desirable to male ranch hands with no other females within a dozen miles).

The film runs 106 minutes and was shot in California.

GRADE: B+

COMMENTARY ***SPOILER ALERT*** (Don't read further unless you know the story)

Curley's wife has only ever been valued for her sexuality, which she has learned to use to attract attention. Not only is she the only female character, she's also the only character not to be given a name in the book and the 1992 version, which emphasizes that she's a sexual plaything, currently owned by Curley. She was repressed by her mother and taken advantage of by men who made her empty promises. She prefers to believe that her mother stole her letters from the "Hollywood" man who used her, instead of accepting reality. She is married to a boor who places little value on her and so she seeks the only attention she can get from the men on the ranch as the only woman there: sexual attention. The contact with Lennie in the barn is as far as sexual as it gets. When she says "It feels good" to have her hair stroked, she isn't speaking sexually. She is enjoying the only nonsexual attention and affectionate touch she has had in a very long time, if ever. It is almost a meeting of children between this woman who long ago lost her sexual innocence but remains hopelessly naïve, and Lennie, who also longs for soft things in his life. It is a beautiful, tragic scene.

Someone argued that Curley's wife wanted to get Lennie on her side so that he would kill Curley and she would be free to leave. If Lennie killed him, no one would believe him if he ever said that she told him to do it; and since she didn't do the deed herself, she could easily leave and start her life over, hopefully as a movie star. While an interesting theory, the young woman doesn't come across this devious or cunning in the story where her actions are more natural and naïve. Similar to Lennie, she was a child in an adult body, albeit not mentally challenged. She was starving for companionship, but none of the other men would hang out with her due to Curley and the threat of losing their job. Lennie was alone in the barn and so she just took advantage of the occasion to converse with someone. Add to this the fact that Lennie was the only man on the ranch to humble (conquer) her arrogant SOB husband, whom she hated. Plus, she noticed earlier how Lennie appraised her with obvious awe. So there was a subconscious attraction and she wanted the gentle giant to touch her, stroke her hair; perhaps to "reward" him.

First, rent Gary Sinise' 1992 version.

Then read the book, then watch this version of the story. You probably wont make it all the way through. I read the book, first, as a kid... and not because I was assigned to read it but because I liked to read.

Then I saw this movie on late-night TV, you know when almost every local channel ran movies on the weekend.... and I thought it was poor.

In the years since, I've seen TV adaptations and TV broadcasts of stage play versions. None carried the full flavor and emotion of the book.

It is widely accepted that thirties cinema was the peak of the art. This film, whether the exception or the model, proves otherwise.

Gary Sinise did a far better and more faithful adaptation of the book. If you were to buy one version, I suspect it will be the 1992 film.

Excellent screen adaptation of the John Steinbeck classic about two drifters in the Depression who move from ranch to ranch in search of work. Perfect pairing of Meredith and Chaney (his finest screen performance) as George and Lennie. In a year of great classic movies, it should be no surprise that this film falls into that category as well. Oscar nominated for the Best Picture of 1939.

Of Mice And Men must have been a particular favorite of John Steinbeck and his work. It's not The Grapes Of Wrath and its exploration of great social issues. It's rather a human study, the kind of migrant workers whom the Joads joined are shown in a small setting at a California ranch.

The two main characters are the gentle and slow giant Lennie Small as played by Lon Chaney, Jr. and his friend and guardian George Milton played by Burgess Meredith. The Mutt&Jeff contrast between Lennie and George shows just how much Lennie is dependent on George for even the simplest of necessities. The old adage about not having enough sense to come out of the rain is literally true in his case.

The weakness of Lennie is that he is very slow to anger, but when he does you don't want to be in his way. Secondly, he really does not know his own strength and that leads to tragedy.

Of Mice And Men after the novel was adapted by Steinbeck into a play ran for 207 performances on Broadway in the 1936-37 season. It starred Wallace Ford as George and Broderick Crawford as Lennie. Crawford would have to wait another decade to get a big starring role in film with All The King's Men. Chaney however is a revelation. For most of his career he did supporting roles to various stars and horror films to capitalize on his father's name. This was his biggest role, I can't call it a career role because no career came from it for him. But he will move you in this part.

B movie cowboy Bob Steele plays the punk son of the ranch owner and Betty Field his tramp of a wife. Steele next to Chaney is the one to watch. He invests the part with a lot of hidden dimensions. This is a man who definitely has issues. Steele and Field are the cause of the tragedy that befalls the gentle giant.

The only actor carried over from Broadway is Leigh Whipper who plays one of the other ranch hands. His part is highly unusual for a black actor of the time. He's a bitter man not allowed to socialize with the other hands on the place and his bitterness permeates Meredith and Chaney. A very good job by Whipper.

Of Mice And Men got four Oscar nominations in that year of Gone With The Wind. Best Picture, Best Sound, and Best Music and Best Scoring of Music for Aaron Copland. Of course the budgets of Gone With The Wind and Of Mice And Men are from two different universes. That would include the publicity budget for Oscar time.

Still Of Mice And Men holds up every bit as good as its more expensive rival. A literary and a cinema classic, that can't be beat.

In high school I had to read "Of Mice and Men". It is one of my favorite books today. I loved reading it. It's one of the best stories I have ever read in my life. We also started watching the older version of "Of Mice and Men". But because the kids complained they wanted the newer one, we never finished the older version. So, I just rented the black and white version and I really enjoyed it. I thought the color version was great, but this one was more true to the story. Both movies are amazing. I'd actually recommend both if you enjoyed the book. The acting is wonderful and they stuck very well to the story. Go ahead and give the movie a chance. You might find yourself a treasure in this movie.

9/10

A lot of the central California vistas in this film cry out for color photography. But that might be distracting. I found this film a bit boring, which didn't surprise me, because I found the book a bit boring as well. But overcoming this were some truly masterful acting from Burgess Meredith and Lon Chaney, Jr. Acting credit should also go to the rest of the cast. Something I didn't recall from the book was one of the ranch hands going on and on about how "strange" it was for two fellows to spend so long traveling and working together, questioning George's compassionate care-taking of Lenny, so much so that he makes up a story about them being cousins. Was this a question about possible homosexuality? I don't know, but while watching, it made me wonder. (Not if there was any actual gayness going on, but if that's what the guy was hinting at)

this is another of John Steinbeck's novels brought to the screen.i thought it was well done.Burgess Meredith plays George,and Lon Chaney Jr.plays his travelling companion Lenny.Lenny is what you would call very slow and George has too look out for him and keep him out of trouble.he is a giant of man with the intellect of a child.the two men are forced to keep moving when George does get into trouble.they arrive at a ranch,and end up working.George has big dreams for the two of them.this movie is whimsical in tone at times,but also dark and tragic.Chaney is brilliant as Lenny.the dialogue is very good as is the direction.for me,Of Mice and Men is a 10/10

Two ranch-hand cousins--one small and brainy, the other a dim, childish giant with uncontrollable brawn--migrate from job to job, always leaving trouble in their wake. Satisfying treatment of John Steinbeck's novel, distilled first through the stage production by Sam H. Harris before Eugene Solow adapted that translation into a screenplay. This genesis of Steinbeck's classic tale might explain why each of these characters get their big moment in the spotlight to sound off or wax poetic, the monologues (in close-up) often resembling old screen tests. The stagy theatricality one gets probably wasn't inherent in Steinbeck's material, but it has been played up here for an uncomfortable effect, and the performances suffer as a result (the actors are too eager, too ready at the bit, to be completely convincing). Lon Chaney, Jr. has some marvelous moments in the showy part of Lennie, kicked in the head by a horse as a child, now a lover of tall tales and dreams about a house in the country; Burgess Meredith's tough, wiry George is equally good, though both roles have been conceived as show-stoppers, and one becomes too aware of the obvious need to make these guys into anti-heroes (even their bad deeds are coated with sentiment). Screenwriter Solow also puts a great deal of emphasis on the needling desire of the characters to manipulate and use one another for personal gain. This exploitation can be excruciatingly sad or tender (especially when dealing with one-handed dog-lover Roman Bohnen), yet much of it is painful to watch. Director Lewis Milestone begins the film with an unexplained chase that set a movie precedent for hypothetical action in the prologue; he also does a reverse tracking-shot inside of a barn which stuns with the vastness it encompasses. Although the picture is not as surprising--nor as eloquent or mysterious--as one might like, parts of it do pack a punch, and the finale is a guaranteed heart-breaker. **1/2 from ****

This version of Steinbeck's novel drew quite a lot of attention in its day, not because of its financial success (it was a box-office failure) but because it was considered very daring of Hollywood to film a story with such an uncompromising finale. If one sees the film nowadays, however,one glaring, seemingly unimportant compromise is obvious----the character "Curley's Wife", the only woman in the film---has been given a name...Mae. Steinbeck deliberately leaves her nameless, partly for symbolic value, but also to deliberately and permanently link her with her brutal, stupid, bullying husband. The approach to the story in this version is deliberately pseudopoetic and larger than life---while Aaron Copland's beautiful, folkloric,"typically Amercan" score plays in the background, we see shots of rabbits and squirrels scurrying about. (The music soars to a huge climax in the final scene---in other versions that scene is played without a note of music.) The acting is perhaps deliberately somewhat artificial, but in a few cases gets downright hammy. B-Western star Bob Steele plays Curley with a hilarious, permanent sneer and a skulking walk; he also delivers his lines like a typical villain in a melodrama. Instead of playing Curley's wife as the pathetic yet lonely and almost unconsciously sexy woman that Sherilynn Fenn made her in the 1992 film, Betty Field makes her obnoxiously slutty, whiny, loud and shrill, and we are annoyed and repelled at her instead of being made to empathize with her plight. Charles Bickford is excellent in his role. Burgess Meredith is quite good as George, at least for the most part, but either he or director Lewis Milestone miscalculated horribly in the scene in which he makes his ultimate tragic decision---his popeyed expression as he comes to this decision is unintentionally sidesplitting.

This does contain Lon Chaney, Jr's. best performance (as Lennie), but he falls short of John Malkovich's 1992 portrayal. Horrifying as it may sound today, Chaney's 1939 Lennie has been the subject of countless cartoon parodies--it's the inspiration for all those cartoons that feature a huge bear saying "I done a clever thing, George, duh, I done a clever thing", as well as Bugs Bunny's abominable snowman saying "I will hug him and pet him and squeeze him and hug him and pet him and squeeze him, and ", well.....you get the idea.

Still, this film is worth checking out as an example of how John Steinbeck's novel (and stage play) was performed in the 1930's.

This is wonderful film! I loved it! Why Lon Chaney Jr. did not win the oscar for his portrayel of Lenny, I'll never know. He was perfect in that role. One of my favorite scenes is when they have to kill Candy's dog. Just the emotion from everyone is.. just amazing. You have to cry everytime you see it. Wonderful movie that is probably the best one to come from a novel. John Steinbeck should be proud of this one. I know I'd be. 10/10.