Of Mice and Men

And the mostly stage-trained Sinise - who draws double duty here as director and co-star - distinguishes himself with an especially sympathetic performance and a lean, sensitive, almost delicate directorial debut that mark him as an industry force to be reckoned with.

Happily, director/star/co-producer Gary Sinise has approached it not with the awe of an English professor, but with the practical eye of a craftsman: Here are solid characters, a taut and emotional story, a beginning, a middle and a wrenching end. Read full review

But the biggest surprise is that Sinise steals scene after scene from Malkovich who has the flashier role. His work also has a quiet power, a tribute to the minimalist acting style that knows the camera can function as an X-ray if the characterization is true. [2 Oct 1992, p.C]

Sinise's direction is outstanding. The pacing is well-nigh perfect, and even though the story is familiar, it often seems new, and Malkovich obviously thrives on his direction. On second thought, Sinise thrives on it, too. [16 Oct 1992, p.3F]

Worthy of this and future adaptations, Of Mice and Men is blessed by timeless quality. [16 Oct 1992, p.22]

The story is as pure and lean as the original fable which formed in Steinbeck's mind. And because they don't try to do anything fancy -- don't try to make it anything other than exactly what it is -- they have a quiet triumph. Read full review

Lyrical, stirring, and beautifully acted — a seamless adaptation of a novel many will recall with almost too much familiarity. Read full review

By refining both the plot and the theme, the film redeems the clunkier aspects of the book. The blatant foreshadowing (doomed mice and rabbits and puppy dogs everywhere), the unadulterated villainy (that nasty Curley, the boss's son), the calculated repetition and the oh-so-pat parallels - it's all here, but less obtrusively than in most adaptations. Sinise is intent on not allowing the mediocre poetry to get in the way of a great parable, and the climax is a testament to how well he succeeds. Because, there, the poetry is genuine. You know exactly what's coming and it still hits you hard, simultaneously laid low and buoyed up - felled by the certainty that none can prevail and cheered by the knowledge that some will endure. [2 Oct 1992]

They all help Malkovich to do his thing, and a remarkable thing it is. That terrific performance of his just might be a selling point, after all. [16 Oct 1992, p.17]

Well-mounted and very traditional, Of Mice and Men honorably serves John Steinbeck’s classic story of two Depression-era drifters without bringing anything new to it. Fine performances down the line and sensitive handling justify this attempt to introduce a new generation to the small tragedy of George and Lennie, although lack of any edge or fresh motivation to tell the tale will keep enthusiasm, and B.O. results, at a moderate level. Read full review

Malkovich and Sinise, who worked together in Chicago's Steppenwolf Theatre (which Sinise co-founded), are touching and pleasurable together. Malkovich's portrayal of big, simple naif Lennie will attract the most attention, yet he is remarkably restrained, skirting the dangerous fence between verisimilitude and sheer ham. But Sinise, in the quieter, caretaking role, achieves at least as much. Read full review

There's nothing wrong with remaking a classic, of course. But the movies aren't theater, where the relative economies of scale can mean countless versions of one good play. The movies are more rare -- so much money, so few chances. Sinise and Malkovich used this chance to remind us how good the story is, and in the process showed us how good they can be. I'm not sure we needed the reminder in the first case, and the second is hardly a revelation. [16 Oct 1992, p.G5]

Yet for all its evident talent, Of Mice and Men is not very exciting. It could be that looking back at Lennie and George with the perspective of time robs them of their urgency. There's no surprise left. Read full review

Overall this is an effective reminder of a minor literary masterpiece, but most folk would be better off reading the novel or checking out the 1939 movie version. Read full review

When combined with Sinise's solid work in front of the camera (as George) and behind it, this Of Mice and Men makes for an unassuming but well-made movie which, unlike so many adaptations of literary works, does not go awry. Read full review

Overall, though, the movie commands mild respect. Cinematographer Kenneth MacMillan, who also shot Rush, has an ability to keep squalid surroundings from turning into eyesores without polishing them too much. Casey Siemaszko puts his own spin on Curly, the sadistic malcontent who'd like George and Lenny fired from his father's ranch. And however futilely, Sinise and scripter Horton Foote even try to make Curly's doomed Mrs. (Sherilyn Fenn ) more than the one-dimensional sexpot she often is. Bottom line: More mouse than man - but occasionally, a mighty mouse. [2 Oct 1992, p.4D]

This handsome remake has distinction, but isn't as wrenching, urgent or keeningly lyrical as that 1939 original. [16 Oct 1992, p.33]

Is there enough reason for Gary Sinise to have remade Of Mice and Men? You can respond to Steinbeck’s qualities of feeling in the movie, but Sinise, who directed as well as stars as the itinerant ranch hand George opposite John Malkovich’s hulking, feeble-minded Lennie, doesn’t really make the material his own. It’s a “distinguished” piece of filmmaking in that somewhat lifeless, classical tradition where all the actors seem a bit too posed to be believable and all the colors seem too bright and varnished. Read full review

If anything, this new film version is cornier and more conventional than the first screen adaption of the novel. [2 Oct 1992, p.C]

Seems doomed to remain a period piece. Read full review