Rob’s Retro Review: Of Mice and Men (1992)

Published by

on

My 10th graders have been reading John Steinbeck’s Of Mice & Men for the last week or so, I decided to play the 1992 version of the movie, which I had never before seen myself. Hence, this week’s retro review of the movie.

On his way to becoming the 1990s Hollywood Everyman, Gary Sinise pulls double duty, both directing and costarring as George in this most recent adaptation of the John Steinbeck novella. John Malkovich co-stars as Lennie, a developmentally-challenged man who is looked after by George. Both men work together, look after each other and chase the American Dream in Depression Era California.

As someone who has read this book 5 times from cover- to-cover in the last three weeks, I can tell you that this particular movie adaptation does the source material justice. As Mice… is technically a novella and clocks in at around 100 pages, it’s an ideal length for a feature-length film. To the best of my knowledge, no major plot points are dropped from the book. In fact, we see a bit of Lennie and George’s back story acted out in the films exposition – rather than explained in dialogue.

Sinise just looks like he came out of the 1930s. And of course, I’ll never say anything bad about John Malkovich. Seriously, he’s one of those rare actors whom I would gladly hand over $15 to watch him read a phone book for two hours. My only complaint about his performance as Lenny is that I always envisioned the character to be even bigger, more imposing. Doing a little research for this posting, I learned that John Malkovich is about 6 feet tall; where is Gary is 5’ 9”. I assumed that Sinise had to use some trick photography; shooting Malkovich at different angles to make him appear even larger than he really is. But Malkovich is as Malkovich does; and the actor Malkovitches the hell out of this performance; effectively filling Lennie’s large shoes.

Of course, 18-year-old Rob would never forgive me if I didn’t at least mention the irrepressible Sherlyn Fenn, as Curley’s ill-fated and unnamed wife. In all seriousness, Fenn does a good job of capturing the mystery of Curley‘s wife. Is she a Maneater? Is she the lonely prisoner of her terribly controlling husband? That’s left for the viewer to interpret.

FINAL TAKE: go ahead and watch it! If you’re a fan of the novella, this particular movie adaptation does it justice. If you’ve never read the book, and want the crash course on it, go ahead and spend two hours watching the movie.

Thanks for stopping by Rebuilding Rob. Be sure to like, 👍 comment and subscribe to my blog below. It’s greatly appreciated! Also, feel free to follow me on social media as well! Check out my most recent posts as well as some earlier, related posts

The article: “Rob’s Retro Review Of Mice & Men (1992)” first appeared on Rebuilding Rob.

Proudly powered by WordPress

7 responses to “Rob’s Retro Review: Of Mice and Men (1992)”

  1. Liz Avatar

    Yes. I watched this one after reading the book, as well as the 1939 film.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. rebuilding rob Avatar

      I haven’t seen the 1939 film yet, but I’m curious to check it out.

      Of course, since I streamed the movie, now it’s coming up on one of my “recommended views“

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Liz Avatar

        When I watched the 1939 film version, I thought I hadn’t seen it before. But it was familar. So I wonder if maybe when I was younger, it once came on tv when I was at an age of not really fully understanding what was going on and seen a bit of it while not fully paying attention.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. MyGenXerLife Avatar

    Malkovich is a great actor. I remember this film back in the day. Yeah, you’re right. I imagined Lenny to be huge all the way around.

    I’m not sure if you saw Rounders. Malkovich was pretty good in that one. I go back and watch the final poker scene all the time.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. rebuilding rob Avatar

      I loved l Rounders, and John Malkovich is awesome in that, as usual!

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Silk Cords Avatar

    Good adaptation indeed, but even as good as it is, it’s no substitute for the book. Malkovich is indeed a good actor too.

    Funny you mention the whole “bigger” thing though. It very much reminds me of Tom Cruise being cast as Jack Reacher in earlier movies. Hollywood went with star power instead of somebody who truly fit the part. Instead of looking like this imposing gorilla of a former MP who is also ship smart, he comes across as this skinny smartass know it all. Alan Ritchson is nailing the role on Amazon.

    A little off topic there though, lol. I’ll bring it back on track by saying just about any well written book will solidly beat it’s movie adaptation no matter how well done. Books require you to use more imagination, so they tend to draw you in deeper when properly written.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. rebuilding rob Avatar

      The ONLY time I can ever think of where a movie was better than the book was the movie version of Scott Turow’s “presumed innocent“.

      It’s a “who done it” but the novel tells you from the very beginning, who actually did it. On the other hand, you don’t find out who the real killer is in the movie until the last shot of the film.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a reply to MyGenXerLife Cancel reply