I can't even imagine all of the emotions that George was feeling. Love. Sadness. Guilt. And a feeling of a weight being lifted off of his shoulders. Rain that will soon turn into sunshine.
I think the opposite might be true : he killed his friend, almost some kind of his brother or even son ?, George will never again see sunshine… of course, he did it out of pure love and humanity, but he still killed him…
I see a lot of comments saying the 92' version was too quick. However I see it as George wanted to get it over with. Imagine having to shoot your best friend. Someone you have know for ages. For me the 92' version will always be the best
In the 92 version, I feel like George felt that if he hesitated for even a second, he wouldn't be able to shoot him. George knew what needed to be done and had to finish it before he loses the strength to kill him.
92 version by far. The emotional intensity is far greater. You can feel the both the characters pain within the scene. The 1939 version just didn't have the same feel. Gary Sinise is a brilliant actor and director
when I read the book I pictured George hesitating more to shoot Lennie like in the 1939 movie but in the 92 movie it seems too quick and sudden, the 92 movie is still better none the less
Did anyone make a movie that really captured the final happiness of Lennie AND the intense regret of George that was conveyed in the book? I felt no feels after watching both of these, but reading it in the book broke my heart.
For the '92 one, I didn't cry at this scene, but the one right after where George is remembering their friendship and as they're walking away, Lennie reaches out and grabs George's shirt, as a comfort, because it was soft. I was bawling after that scene.
You have summed it up perfectly. No movie can match Steinbeck's words. I was a freshman in high school when I first read it and I cried. I have read it close to 100 times in the ensuing years. Tears each time.
In books things are quite literally, spelled out for you. Film can't convey the message that way or characters would be literally announcing how they feel. Books are about telling. Films are about showing. However human emotions are expressed differently depending on the person. Not everyone deals with grief the same way. Some people break down and cry, others shut down, some feel numb for awhile before the actual grieving kicks in.
i mean lennie's death was spoiled for me so I didn't really get the full experience (still mad about that) but I read that scene first before watching it and honestly I feel the complete opposite. I mean nowhere in the novel did it say lennie was screaming ab the rabbits at the top of his lungs nor nothing ab george's guilt. He just seemed to not fully comprehend what just happened--like I cried more watching the movie than I did the novel, but either way we all imagine things differently
I always cry at the end of the 1939 movie. The 1992 doesnt make me cry. And for that, I say the 1939 movie was better. Also I really like both actors, Burgess Meredith and Lon Chaney Jr.
I prefer Burgess Meredith. I felt that Gary asinine didn’t seem that into the role. There are quite a few moment in the film where he talks in a really bored sounding voice, even when the scene didn’t fit it
@@gftyhify You can tell Sinise's George was harsh, even seeming to hate Lennie....Burgess Meredith's George really cares about Lennie and actually likes him. Gary did a vanity project.
@@Me_AV the one part of Gary Sinise’s performance that I didn’t like was when Lennie was drinking from the river and George says ‘Lennie don’t drink so much’ but he says it in a very i ain’t bothered sort of voice and he simply nudges Lennie with his foot. In the original Burgess Meredith shouts to not drink so much and even tries to pull Lennie away like he was generally concerned that Lennie might be sick from drinking unsafe water
I have a preference for the 1992 version, but the shot definitely came too soon. The music of the 39 version almost seems happy. It is Lenny who is supposed to die happy, but those who remain (the audience and George) are supposed to better understand the sadness of that scene while thinking back to Candy's remark about how he should've killed his dog rather than leaving it to a stranger. The music of the 39 version just doesn't fit the mood. The 39 version just seems comical in general, what with the stereotypical appearances of the mob reminding me of Yosemite Sam, and the slightly too emphatically happy Lenny. My only real gripe with the 92 version is that the shot comes too soon. There's just not enough buildup for the shot to convey its full emotional impact on the viewer. Oh, and Lenny didn't really seem happy at the point that he was shot. He seemed more...enthusiastic. I think a better emotion to strive for at the moment of the shot would've been content.
Well the reason for the music is that your supposed to expect a happy getaway, that's what most people expected as it was typical for movies to change the ending like with count of monte cirsto or the most dangerous game, in which they do change the ending to a happy one. Then Bam! he's dead. Basically everybody knew back them what that kind of music meant, a happy ending or the ending of the film, but instead it ends as the audience is supposed to feel shock from what is shown. That was the point that movie going audiences were meant to hope for a better ending or they didn't know what happened in the book. As well the actors do extremely well as George think about the situation, when he first George faced with the idea of what he's about to do, then he smiles because of the memories of the ideas of whats to come, then a face of panic comes to his eyes as he tries to keep it straight around him telling the story ( shown by him talking a little wispy) as he tries to get the gun ready while dealing with him moving about like you'd expect a person like lennie to do. Then he fires as the reality of the action sweeps over him as he thinks of what he's done. The 92 version played it more straight and real as he does face what's he about to do, he's looking around trying to think about how can he fix this, then he faces him as he asks him to change. Then the quick shot was the point, to hit the audience like the bullet as grief comes over him, as he knew he had to do it and the silence of the scene sets.
Vash Stampede Re-watching it with that perspective in mind, I can see what you mean. I like the 39 version a lot better now, but now the travesty music after the shot feels like it came too soon. I think that it would have benefitted with a longer silence at that point and less travesty more sadness. The travesty just starts too high and too loud. I'm just nitpicking now. Thank you for the advice. I'm going to have to disagree with you about the 92 version, though. No matter what perspective I try to watch it from it just doesn't work.
I love how everyone has commented on the new version being too quick....they spent years together, you don't think for one second after decades of bonding he wouldn't want to do it as fast as possible? why would he linger on killing his best friend knowing what would happen to him? he had a brief moment and did the deed ... only one of them sufferered after
the '39 Lennie looks and displays to be like a comedian or just a humorous funny man whereas with the '92 Lennie you can intensely see his weakness and disability, his character stands out more and hence feel more sympathetic towards him
It feels like the Lennie in the book was supposed to be a lumbering idiot; too kind for his own good and too stupid and naive to understand what was happening. It feels more like the '92 Lennie was actually mentally retarded compared to how he felt in the books and with a speech impediment that rivals that of Adam Sandler. The book describes Lennie as a big guy, strong enough to huck 3-4 times more than a normal guy; I can't imagine the '92 Lennie being strong enough to do that.
@@Jakjer Hey, it implied that he has a mental disability, which none of the characters ever stated that he does in the book or in the two adaptations. When I first started reading the book back in my freshman year in high school, I never knew why Lennie was talking like that until I looked it up and saw why.
I think some of these comments are completely backwards. The original is terrible, the emotion is just not there and the performances are almost comical. The score completely takes you out of it as well, especially after Lenny gets shot. There is no comparison, the 92' version is far superior.
When the original version inspires things like this: /watch?v=2JlVqfC8-UI And this: /watch?v=OogLnq0tkOI ...It's hard not to agree. It was certainly comical.
+Hannah Scalisi It's a lot more realistic that it was abrupt. He had to do it quick or risk overthinking it and being unable to, which would doom Lenny to an even worse fate. It would be so hard a thing to do that under such circumstance I think a rational person would have to force themselves to do it very quickly and without too much thought, to avoid convincing themselves that they couldn't.
I prefer Original 1939 version. Original version focuses deeply on the victims of unfortunate circumstances especially Lennie, Curly's wife, Candy, Candy's dog, and finally George. We symphathize with Lon Chaney Jr.'s Lennie which also adds depth to the shattered state of George in the end. Burgess Meredith was also excellent as George. The presence of Slim (Charles Bickford) symphathizing George at the end with Aaron Copeland's score makes Original version the best.
39 version gave the moment more intensity and urgency with the hunters getting closer. Burgess Meredith's small stature and physical demeaner also gave a greater sense of helplessness and pain to George and thus making the scene more tragic. I think the abruptness of the 92 vesion took away from the moment when George shoots.
Oh people....Lon Chaney Jr. rocks this role! Burgess Meredith is amazing!! I've seen both movies and 1939 Of Mice and Men...for the win! 👍😎 Did anyone ever see the tv movie version with Robert Blake and Randy Quaid? Yeah, it exists.
Neither of them do the ending of the book justice in my opinion. The 1992 version is very good but completely lets itself down in 2 segment: when george shoots Lennie really suddenly when it should be thought provoking and emotional and the scene where Curley and his wife meet in the barn which never happens in the book which symbolises their relationship.
You kids are in your 20's and don't know real acting if you tripped over it. I'm 67, the new one ( and I only saw the ending )where he blows Lennie's brains out after a 10-second talk. No emotion. No tense buildup. 1939 was the best. These news guys were like hekel and jeckel.
I will agree the score is a bit to much in the 39 version ,but the fact they don't show Lennie's actual death and just show Burgess Meredith's reaction , it just breaks my heart every time and is just more powerful in my mind .92 on the other hand....With how abrupt the killing is,it made me burst out in laughter ,which is the exact wrong reaction I should have.The original hit me like a punch in the stomach.39 wins .
I prefer the 92 version. Gary did a phenomenal job giving emotion to the scene and really made it an emotional moment. While the 39 version wasn't by any means a bad movie the acting lacks in the same emotion and George's actor (idk what his name was) seems to be hold back a smile XD
I literally watch this at school today, and I really didn’t expect this to happen. I knew something would happen because George told him to turn around, but I didn’t expect George to shoot him.
I like the 1939 version more. The closing menace of the lynch mob is mostly absent from the 1992 version, and 1939 Lenny "seeing" the future farm at the moment of his death makes the mercy-killing more poignant, while the 1992 version is comparatively anticlimactic. The weakness of the 1939 version is that the musical score becomes intrusive, almost overpowering the dialog.
1939's ending was so much more powerful. 1992 on the other hand was just way too sudden. Very little to no buildup. But overall the 1992 version is the better film
Screw John Malkovich for being such a good actor. I hope he never gets work again, he made me feel so sad watching this movie and others. Damn you John.
I suppose that Curley and his friends would have killed Lenny but if they hadn't then he would have gone to prison. Can you imagine if he had, how he would have been treated in prison. Either way George show mercy to Lennie when he killed him. I felt for both of them. Especially George.
the 1992 version seems almost comedic with the timing of the gunshot. Which is weird, because I remembered it being just as sad as the book. Meanwhile, the music for the 1939 scene is all wrong. The book is the clear winner here.
For my exam on this I wrote how the novel has a snowball effect, where first Lennie was accused of raping the woman in weed, then he killed the mice, then the Puppy and then Curley's wife. I also mentioned how Candy's dogs death forshadowed lennies death - the dog was seen as a hindrance so they got rid of it, Lennie was seen as a hindrance so they got rid of him.
Two friends worked together on a farm; George looked after Lenny to keep him from harm; Lenny did not know his own strength; A young lady he accidently killed at length; George executed his friend in alarm.
i was 17 when i saw both of these films for the first time back to back starting with the 1939 one first. i liked thr first one, but i literally teared up a during TWO scenes in the 1992 version, where Lennie fights Curly and almost loses control and this one. the 1939 one had an innocent feel to it, but it wasnt "touching" like this one was. Acting was different in 1939 and i understand that, its why i agree its a great movie....but the 1992 one just takes the cake, it feels more real and hits closer to home.
The 1939 Version was done in B&W, the same year "Gone with the Wind" and "Wizard of Oz" were shown in 3 strip Technicolor. Modern audiences are almost always going to pick the Color Version because; try and get a Kid to watch a B&W Movie, no matter how good the film; is like pulling teeth. I like both Films but I didn't see the 39 version until the 50's and when I saw Lon Chaney Jr playing Lenny, it didn't seem right as I was use to seeing him as the Wolfman and other Universal Horror Flicks from the 40's. Meredith and Sinise both played George Well and Malkovich was a more realistic Lenny character. Comparing Film Making from the 30's & 40's to the 90's is not really comparable. different code of Movie making regarding Morals, Language, etc. I know traditionlist hate seeing B&W films colorized but if it will make a new generation at least watch these old classics, then I'm all for it. Otherwise they just stay in film vaults (now Digital Video)
steve matz i know this comment is old but i disagree ... as a freshman we watched Schindler's List with liam neeson and i think it's one of my favorite movies i've ever seen and freshman are still pretty immature. But for these two movies, i prefer the 92 version.
I honestly fell like people who like the orignal like it for nostalgic reasons, the 92' version is clearly better, i can feel the regret when George killed lennie, and how happy it makes lennie when he hears the story about tending the rabbits, the orignal was to comical and we don't even see the shot, which adds on to the comical vibe i got
They are both good for different reasons. Meredith's and Chaney's version has more suspense. Sinise's and Malkovich's is less drawn out, more to the point. The first is played for suspense, the second for pathos.
Both Versions are Great Acting. But my Favorite version of this Classic Movie,? Is with Robert Blake & Randy Quaid,? Made in 1981.? Though Hard to find on DVD.?
Curly's wife was the saddest beezy in the ranch that she didn't even deserve to even been given a name although this lot 🦎 was often referred as jailbait or tart by candy and as candy said in the movie "I should not let no stranger shoot my dog 🐶 " George did the smartest thing any man could have done
some people said the original was terrible. Well you got to expect that it was made in the 1930's so yes that acting was kinda cheesy but what do you expect though.
Just like they did with Pride and Prejudice, they should remake Of Mice and Men with zombies. Of Mice and Men and Zombies! Lennie comes back to life with a vengeance and just FUCKS everyone's day up.
I feel like no one really noticed/payed attention to George after he killed Lennie. In the 1992 version, after Lennies body falls to the ground, there is such a heartache you can see and feel in George. At first, he is expressionless and then it hits him that his best friend, the one person that truly gave a damn about him is gone. Then you see the rapid/deep breaths and the eye squints like he's sick. He's sick because Lennie is dead, and he killed him. And for that reason, 1992 version is so much better.
@@octaviusnottage5107 Because Lennie accidentally killed Curley's (the boss's son) wife, so Curley and the other ranch workers were going to find Lennie and kill him. George didn't want that to happen, so he decided to take matters into his own hands, as he thought that it was the best way to go. He basically set him free from the inevitable pain that Lennie would have suffered before his death had Curley and the other guys found him.
@@octaviusnottage5107 He technically did protect him. Lennie would have died a much slower and painful death had they got their hands on him. Yes, Curley's wife may have contributed a little to her own death, but overall, it was Lennie's fault, since he does not know his own strength.
+Collin Glover I guess it comes down to taste. See, I really liked the old version because it was a lot more theatrical. There was much more dramatic tension and build up before the shot rang out. George's reaction hit harder for me. I felt like the timing of the shot in the newer version was off.
Michael Morgan Same, it was more 'complete' and 'proper' in 1939 version. If that's what you call theatrical, then so be it. I will use say that now too.
I like the 92 version best, because I feel like in 39 they didn't understand mental disabilities in the way that people still have feelings and they aren't clowns, they are still people. The 92 Lennie actor wa amazing a bring across the realistic-ness of his illness!
panicman10 yes I realize this but rape was definitely not his intention, if you’ve read the book or seen the movie you’d notice how it’s said Lennie has a tendency to get carried away with soft things and in the moment he was invested with a soft thing being her hair he was just feeling the hair not tryna rape a girl
If we could take the best from each film it would be the emotion of the 92 version and the build up of the original. Cut the soundtrack of the original and add the emotion of the 92 version and you have the perfect Of Mice And Men film
You ever see death up close and personal ? Somehow I doubt it. In my time from age 9 and up, I saw much death of Children age 5 to Adults 70 and up regularly enough to have a few sets of funeral suits, and in my time on ambulances 🚑 and Hospital etc.... After a while, you learn to shutdown your emotions in order to keep your mind and sanity.
I agree. Both movies and the book mak me cry. But neither of the movies really totally equal the intensity of the book. At some point there's still room for an even better movie ! Maby someday.
@@carminemurray6624 Thats one take. I to have seen and delt with many deaths. I totally get your reasoning. Thats where the book takes up the theater of the minds ability to leave the reader with their own interpretation. I always felt George would have shown more emotion and sadness leading up to the end and after shooting Lenny
The 1992 version is better. Far better camera direction. The musical score is terrible in the original and as the recent version shows not necessary. Gary Sinuses performance shines throughout.
I like in the 39 version that George struggles more to pull the trigger and he hesitates more and I like the way the death is built up rather that it being instant. Also in the 92 version you can see George trying not to cry and when Lennie dies you can feel how much George cares about him.
After all this time, I actually didn’t know about the original movie. Back in high school, we watched the ‘92 version. I never cared in that phase of my teens to analyze it, nor did I know there was discourse about which version was better, but now 15+ years later, I can say I like the fact that the ‘92 version relieved Lenny on the the line: _” and I get to tend the rabbits!”_ because it truly is what he wanted. There was no need to let him think anything else further, just die on the thought that elated him so much.
All you pseudo movie buffs and hardly a mention of the great Burgess Meredith as George who was a great actor for many years. He played Penguin in the original Batman TV series and often guested on the Twilight Zone. The equally great John Malkovich brings more dimension to the character of Lenny but his lack of physical stature makes it a stretch of the imagination compared to the hulking Lon Chaney Jr. in the role. For my money, Lenny gets capped way too quickly, likes it's a mafia hit in the final scene. In the 1939 version the viewer is confident that Lenny can see paradise on the other side of the river.
As much as I love the 92 movie, the 39 one is better. The death of Lennie should be built up so you see George's struggle with having to kill his best friend. The 92 movie did it quick for shock value.
I like both, but I can also see it working in the 92 way since it *is* so hard. Has to just tear that band-aid off. Do it fast so it doesn't hurt as much. I see it working both ways.
@@hotrodjmanofficial448 same. besides why do people not realise in the 39 version he was struggling because lennie turned around, not hesitating ab pulling the trigger like in the novel. like it wasn't accurate either way but personally, i think the emotions displayed in the 92 film just compensates for that
I vote for the color version because of the camera angles, sound and acting but the story is great! I read it as a kid and when I saw the movie I stopped it before the end because i didn't want my son to see me cry.
The first one, the classic was definitely better hands down... More emotional, more realistic, you shed buckets of tears for the real George because having to kill your best friend is never easy.. the one with Gary sinise, he killed Lennie like he was a nuisance. Plus Lennie is supposed to be a monster and brutally strong and powerful. Lon Chaney having an athletic background and huge build easily played the giant brute. I think John Malkovich being a city boy is too skinny to play Lennie. There were scenes in the old of mice and men where lon chaney Jr. shook Burgess Meredith like a rag doll and dish rag. John Malkovich is too skinny to be a convincing Lennie. If I was to cast a Lennie today I would pick former world's strongest man Brian Shaw. He has the brute strength and look to pull of a Lennie today.
The 1939 version is way better. Lon Chaney Jr does a great job and makes you feel sorry for him. Burgess Meredith's George acts like he really cares about Lennie. Sinise is too harsh and he acts like he hates Lennie and the direction is more focused on himself (like a vanity project). There is just more feeling and emotion and build up in the 1939 version. The way George shoots Lennie in the 1992 version is too harsh and quick. It's like if Scorsese directed it or something. imo
The 1939 version is superior to me because of the powerful emotional buildup. Brings a tear to my eye in a way the 1992 version does not. Burgess Meredith is a masterful actor, and really gives it his all playing George. And I much prefer Lon Chaney's take on Lenny, as he is so much more sympathetic. John Malkovitch's performance left me cold, feeling like Lenny was jut a mindless monster who couldn't control himself and deserved to die, whereas when Chaney played him, I actually felt sad for him.
Yes, Original version is the best. We symphathize with Lon Chaney Jr.'s Lennie which also adds depth to the shattered state of George in the end. Burgess Meredith was also excellent as George. The presence of Slim (Charles Bickford) symphathizing George at the end with Aaron Copeland's score makes Original version the best.
I have to say that neither of the two movies totally depicted the intensity of Lennie's death as is portrayed in the book. When I saw the cast of the1992's flix I grew great expectations which were unfulfilled, mainly by the incongruences with the book and the lack of similarity with the characters. I did expect more from Malkovick in Lennie's character. I have to say that the 1939's version grasped better the essence of Steinbeck's view. Even though the acting seemed extremely corny, that was the common style in the 30's movies. For that reason I choose 1939.
@@catintheformalattire4274 plus the 39 movie is literally an insult to people with disabilities lol that's not how lennie's character was described at all
No comparison...the original 1939 version was the best. From the acting to the score by the great Aaron Copland. I would have to admit Gary Sinise was pretty good as George in the 92 version, as was Burgess Meredith's portrayla....but John Malkovich was pretty awful.. especially in comparison to Lon Chaney "jr" portrayal of Lennie.
I prefer the 39' version. While I felt the score was a huge glaring problem within the scene, it was the only big issue. Everyone says that Lennie is portrayed comically in the '39 version, but I find his portrayal is less serious in the recent one. Lennie's 39' actor really portrays a childlike innocence, while I found that the 92' version seemed more basic and dumb (although I did think both were good actors.) George's actor was better in the 92' version as well, but what nailed the 39' scene for me was the dialogue. The scene where George shoots Lennie is agonizing, built up, and heart wrenching. It is more emotional than the recent movie, which does nothing but deliver a shock. In the older movie, we get to hear George describing heaven to Lennie, talking himself into doing the deed in the hope that he's doing right by Lennie. We see Lennie's eyes light up, and we are crushed when George finally brings himself to shoot. In the recent film, it is abrupt and emotionless.
The '92 version is amazing, instead of hesitating he is guilty and sad as you can tell by his body language through the whole scene, he wanted to get it over and done with instead of trying to savor the death of Lennie like nothing
I can't even imagine all of the emotions that George was feeling. Love. Sadness. Guilt. And a feeling of a weight being lifted off of his shoulders. Rain that will soon turn into sunshine.
By any chance are you my English teacher?
@@themeaningoflife5406 don't know why he's on the internet he's got work to do
Monique Johnson:
That was quite profound.
I think the opposite might be true : he killed his friend, almost some kind of his brother or even son ?, George will never again see sunshine… of course, he did it out of pure love and humanity, but he still killed him…
@@Crottedenez1000 agreed, ain’t no sunshine when Lennie’s gone 💔
I see a lot of comments saying the 92' version was too quick. However I see it as George wanted to get it over with. Imagine having to shoot your best friend. Someone you have know for ages. For me the 92' version will always be the best
In the 92 version, I feel like George felt that if he hesitated for even a second, he wouldn't be able to shoot him. George knew what needed to be done and had to finish it before he loses the strength to kill him.
This book went from “I can’t let a stranger shoot my dog” to “I can’t let a stranger shoot my dawg”😔
Underrated comment
Bruh lmao
92 version by far. The emotional intensity is far greater. You can feel the both the characters pain within the scene. The 1939 version just didn't have the same feel. Gary Sinise is a brilliant actor and director
book version is better though
John Malkovich too!
Alfredo Cordero Yes, The book goes into much greater detail.
I just liked lennies voice in the 1939
The 1992 one felt bland. The was more emotion and better acting in the 1939 one and it made me emotional, unlike the other one.
when I read the book I pictured George hesitating more to shoot Lennie like in the 1939 movie but in the 92 movie it seems too quick and sudden, the 92 movie is still better none the less
EXACTLY
Imagine Lennie seeing Curlys wife in heaven...awkward lol
Yep o.o
Yeah. He didn't want to do it. He had to
Agreed.
Did anyone make a movie that really captured the final happiness of Lennie AND the intense regret of George that was conveyed in the book? I felt no feels after watching both of these, but reading it in the book broke my heart.
For the '92 one, I didn't cry at this scene, but the one right after where George is remembering their friendship and as they're walking away, Lennie reaches out and grabs George's shirt, as a comfort, because it was soft. I was bawling after that scene.
You have summed it up perfectly. No movie can match Steinbeck's words. I was a freshman in high school when I first read it and I cried. I have read it close to 100 times in the ensuing years. Tears each time.
In books things are quite literally, spelled out for you. Film can't convey the message that way or characters would be literally announcing how they feel.
Books are about telling.
Films are about showing.
However human emotions are expressed differently depending on the person. Not everyone deals with grief the same way. Some people break down and cry, others shut down, some feel numb for awhile before the actual grieving kicks in.
i mean lennie's death was spoiled for me so I didn't really get the full experience (still mad about that) but I read that scene first before watching it and honestly I feel the complete opposite. I mean nowhere in the novel did it say lennie was screaming ab the rabbits at the top of his lungs nor nothing ab george's guilt. He just seemed to not fully comprehend what just happened--like I cried more watching the movie than I did the novel, but either way we all imagine things differently
I always cry at the end of the 1939 movie. The 1992 doesnt make me cry. And for that, I say the 1939 movie was better. Also I really like both actors, Burgess Meredith and Lon Chaney Jr.
Gary Sinise was the perfect George
He even was the director of that movie
I prefer Burgess Meredith. I felt that Gary asinine didn’t seem that into the role. There are quite a few moment in the film where he talks in a really bored sounding voice, even when the scene didn’t fit it
@@gftyhify You can tell Sinise's George was harsh, even seeming to hate Lennie....Burgess Meredith's George really cares about Lennie and actually likes him. Gary did a vanity project.
@@Me_AV the one part of Gary Sinise’s performance that I didn’t like was when Lennie was drinking from the river and George says ‘Lennie don’t drink so much’ but he says it in a very i ain’t bothered sort of voice and he simply nudges Lennie with his foot. In the original Burgess Meredith shouts to not drink so much and even tries to pull Lennie away like he was generally concerned that Lennie might be sick from drinking unsafe water
The '92 version is better in my opinion. They at least had enough sense to keep the background music down for the death scene.
I have a preference for the 1992 version, but the shot definitely came too soon.
The music of the 39 version almost seems happy. It is Lenny who is supposed to die happy, but those who remain (the audience and George) are supposed to better understand the sadness of that scene while thinking back to Candy's remark about how he should've killed his dog rather than leaving it to a stranger. The music of the 39 version just doesn't fit the mood. The 39 version just seems comical in general, what with the stereotypical appearances of the mob reminding me of Yosemite Sam, and the slightly too emphatically happy Lenny.
My only real gripe with the 92 version is that the shot comes too soon. There's just not enough buildup for the shot to convey its full emotional impact on the viewer. Oh, and Lenny didn't really seem happy at the point that he was shot. He seemed more...enthusiastic. I think a better emotion to strive for at the moment of the shot would've been content.
**Lennie**
Well the reason for the music is that your supposed to expect a happy getaway, that's what most people expected as it was typical for movies to change the ending like with count of monte cirsto or the most dangerous game, in which they do change the ending to a happy one. Then Bam! he's dead. Basically everybody knew back them what that kind of music meant, a happy ending or the ending of the film, but instead it ends as the audience is supposed to feel shock from what is shown. That was the point that movie going audiences were meant to hope for a better ending or they didn't know what happened in the book. As well the actors do extremely well as George think about the situation, when he first George faced with the idea of what he's about to do, then he smiles because of the memories of the ideas of whats to come, then a face of panic comes to his eyes as he tries to keep it straight around him telling the story ( shown by him talking a little wispy) as he tries to get the gun ready while dealing with him moving about like you'd expect a person like lennie to do. Then he fires as the reality of the action sweeps over him as he thinks of what he's done. The 92 version played it more straight and real as he does face what's he about to do, he's looking around trying to think about how can he fix this, then he faces him as he asks him to change. Then the quick shot was the point, to hit the audience like the bullet as grief comes over him, as he knew he had to do it and the silence of the scene sets.
Vash Stampede Re-watching it with that perspective in mind, I can see what you mean. I like the 39 version a lot better now, but now the travesty music after the shot feels like it came too soon. I think that it would have benefitted with a longer silence at that point and less travesty more sadness. The travesty just starts too high and too loud. I'm just nitpicking now. Thank you for the advice.
I'm going to have to disagree with you about the 92 version, though. No matter what perspective I try to watch it from it just doesn't work.
Phoenix Fire I understand I'm the same way with a few moments.
lennie
its lennie
I love how everyone has commented on the new version being too quick....they spent years together, you don't think for one second after decades of bonding he wouldn't want to do it as fast as possible? why would he linger on killing his best friend knowing what would happen to him? he had a brief moment and did the deed ... only one of them sufferered after
the '39 Lennie looks and displays to be like a comedian or just a humorous funny man whereas with the '92 Lennie you can intensely see his weakness and disability, his character stands out more and hence feel more sympathetic towards him
It feels like the Lennie in the book was supposed to be a lumbering idiot; too kind for his own good and too stupid and naive to understand what was happening.
It feels more like the '92 Lennie was actually mentally retarded compared to how he felt in the books and with a speech impediment that rivals that of Adam Sandler.
The book describes Lennie as a big guy, strong enough to huck 3-4 times more than a normal guy; I can't imagine the '92 Lennie being strong enough to do that.
@@Jakjer Hey, it implied that he has a mental disability, which none of the characters ever stated that he does in the book or in the two adaptations. When I first started reading the book back in my freshman year in high school, I never knew why Lennie was talking like that until I looked it up and saw why.
I think some of these comments are completely backwards. The original is terrible, the emotion is just not there and the performances are almost comical. The score completely takes you out of it as well, especially after Lenny gets shot. There is no comparison, the 92' version is far superior.
+Evan Ware absolutley couldn't have said it better
When the original version inspires things like this:
/watch?v=2JlVqfC8-UI
And this:
/watch?v=OogLnq0tkOI
...It's hard not to agree. It was certainly comical.
+Hannah Scalisi
It's a lot more realistic that it was abrupt. He had to do it quick or risk overthinking it and being unable to, which would doom Lenny to an even worse fate. It would be so hard a thing to do that under such circumstance I think a rational person would have to force themselves to do it very quickly and without too much thought, to avoid convincing themselves that they couldn't.
Guys wtf it's spelled Lennie*
But yeah I totally agree I was about to say that the 1992 is way better and the 1939 sucked.
Evan Ware You know it's bad when, in the 1939 version, the squirrel steals the scene at the very end of the movie.
I prefer Original 1939 version. Original version focuses deeply on the victims of unfortunate circumstances especially Lennie, Curly's wife, Candy, Candy's dog, and finally George.
We symphathize with Lon Chaney Jr.'s Lennie which also adds depth to the shattered state of George in the end. Burgess Meredith was also excellent as George. The presence of Slim (Charles Bickford) symphathizing George at the end with Aaron Copeland's score makes Original version the best.
1992 is better. Much more emotional and can evoke the symbolism of the American Dream dying.
Dan look at the comments the 92 version is better your 2 if you think that 1930s version was the better
J. Malkovich was born for this role.
39 version gave the moment more intensity and urgency with the hunters getting closer. Burgess Meredith's small stature and physical demeaner also gave a greater sense of helplessness and pain to George and thus making the scene more tragic. I think the abruptness of the 92 vesion took away from the moment when George shoots.
You are spot on! I can't believe anyone would think the 92 version is better.
Oh people....Lon Chaney Jr. rocks this role! Burgess Meredith is amazing!! I've seen both movies and 1939 Of Mice and Men...for the win! 👍😎 Did anyone ever see the tv movie version with Robert Blake and Randy Quaid? Yeah, it exists.
I agree completely, when you see the other movies Lon Chaney Jr did you really see how much heart ❤ he had in his portrayals.
Never saw the 1981 portrayal
Neither of them do the ending of the book justice in my opinion.
The 1992 version is very good but completely lets itself down in 2 segment: when george shoots Lennie really suddenly when it should be thought provoking and emotional and the scene where Curley and his wife meet in the barn which never happens in the book which symbolises their relationship.
You kids are in your 20's and don't know real acting if you tripped over it. I'm 67, the new one ( and I only saw the ending )where he blows Lennie's brains out after a 10-second talk. No emotion. No tense buildup. 1939 was the best. These news guys were like hekel and jeckel.
I will agree the score is a bit to much in the 39 version ,but the fact they don't show Lennie's actual death and just show Burgess Meredith's reaction , it just breaks my heart every time and is just more powerful in my mind .92 on the other hand....With how abrupt the killing is,it made me burst out in laughter ,which is the exact wrong reaction I should have.The original hit me like a punch in the stomach.39 wins .
**too**
Matthew Brown Finally someone who agrees
We watched it in class and everyone burst out laughing at that moment.
I watched it today and I cried (I read the book before)
I've always said that if it were possible to put Gary Sinise with Lon Chaney, and Burgess Meredith with John Malkovich, then that would be something!!
Lon Chaney absolutely killed that roll. How he didn’t win an Oscar is a travesty
Book says he uses a luger though, 39 version superior confirmed
Raxius amen.
I prefer the 92 version. Gary did a phenomenal job giving emotion to the scene and really made it an emotional moment. While the 39 version wasn't by any means a bad movie the acting lacks in the same emotion and George's actor (idk what his name was) seems to be hold back a smile XD
I literally watch this at school today, and I really didn’t expect this to happen. I knew something would happen because George told him to turn around, but I didn’t expect George to shoot him.
Did you not read the book?
I like the 1939 version more. The closing menace of the lynch mob is mostly absent from the 1992 version, and 1939 Lenny "seeing" the future farm at the moment of his death makes the mercy-killing more poignant, while the 1992 version is comparatively anticlimactic. The weakness of the 1939 version is that the musical score becomes intrusive, almost overpowering the dialog.
was this for some 10th grade English class?
9th grade
UnheardCloth 8th
11th grade
UnheardCloth yes :[
UnheardCloth 9th
1939's ending was so much more powerful. 1992 on the other hand was just way too sudden. Very little to no buildup. But overall the 1992 version is the better film
This makes me cry so much seeing it happen. So so sad...-_-
Screw John Malkovich for being such a good actor. I hope he never gets work again, he made me feel so sad watching this movie and others. Damn you John.
Easily one of the top gut wrenching scenes in movie history.
Top notch acting, directing and production.. a film doesn't get much better than this.
92 was clearly the best.
The 1939 version is so much better with copland's memorable score, especially in the tragic ending scene.
I suppose that Curley and his friends would have killed Lenny but if they hadn't then he would have gone to prison. Can you imagine if he had, how he would have been treated in prison. Either way George show mercy to Lennie when he killed him. I felt for both of them. Especially George.
I find 92 version better because the no music makes it more intense, because anybody who read the books knows exactly what's about to happen.
the 1992 version seems almost comedic with the timing of the gunshot. Which is weird, because I remembered it being just as sad as the book. Meanwhile, the music for the 1939 scene is all wrong.
The book is the clear winner here.
This made me cry like a baby
For my exam on this I wrote how the novel has a snowball effect, where first Lennie was accused of raping the woman in weed, then he killed the mice, then the Puppy and then Curley's wife. I also mentioned how Candy's dogs death forshadowed lennies death - the dog was seen as a hindrance so they got rid of it, Lennie was seen as a hindrance so they got rid of him.
*george shoots lennie* Mysterious Voice: FATALITY
I think they both were powerful and I felt the same emotions watching both
There are other versions, specifically two TV movies, one from the late 60s and one from the early 80s.
Two friends worked together on a farm; George looked after Lenny to keep him from harm; Lenny did not know his own strength; A young lady he accidently killed at length; George executed his friend in alarm.
i was 17 when i saw both of these films for the first time back to back starting with the 1939 one first. i liked thr first one, but i literally teared up a during TWO scenes in the 1992 version, where Lennie fights Curly and almost loses control and this one. the 1939 one had an innocent feel to it, but it wasnt "touching" like this one was. Acting was different in 1939 and i understand that, its why i agree its a great movie....but the 1992 one just takes the cake, it feels more real and hits closer to home.
The BBC Radio play 1992 is great .
link please
The 1939 Version was done in B&W, the same year "Gone with the Wind" and "Wizard of Oz" were shown in 3 strip Technicolor. Modern audiences are almost always going to pick the Color Version because; try and get a Kid to watch a B&W Movie, no matter how good the film; is like pulling teeth. I like both Films but I didn't see the 39 version until the 50's and when I saw Lon Chaney Jr playing Lenny, it didn't seem right as I was use to seeing him as the Wolfman and other Universal Horror Flicks from the 40's. Meredith and Sinise both played George Well and Malkovich was a more realistic Lenny character. Comparing Film Making from the 30's & 40's to the 90's is not really comparable. different code of Movie making regarding Morals, Language, etc. I know traditionlist hate seeing B&W films colorized but if it will make a new generation at least watch these old classics, then I'm all for it. Otherwise they just stay in film vaults (now Digital Video)
steve matz i know this comment is old but i disagree ... as a freshman we watched Schindler's List with liam neeson and i think it's one of my favorite movies i've ever seen and freshman are still pretty immature. But for these two movies, i prefer the 92 version.
That bullet wouldn't of phased Lenny.
**Lennie**
I honestly fell like people who like the orignal like it for nostalgic reasons, the 92' version is clearly better, i can feel the regret when George killed lennie, and how happy it makes lennie when he hears the story about tending the rabbits, the orignal was to comical and we don't even see the shot, which adds on to the comical vibe i got
You are jaded, which is why you like the `92 version.
Six degrees of separation: Wolfman, Mickey (and the Penguin), Lt. Dan and Cyrus the Virus are all connected by Of Mice and Men
92 was better, it was emotional. The acting was amazing, the 39 version didn't really show much of emotion
Lon Chaney Jr. and Burgess Meredith, (Penguin in Batman and Robin), as George and Lennie.
They are both good for different reasons. Meredith's and Chaney's version has more suspense. Sinise's and Malkovich's is less drawn out, more to the point. The first is played for suspense, the second for pathos.
I think the 92 Lennie sounded a bit too forced, his voice is just mocking
I can't believe Lieutenant Dan did Forrest like that
Both Versions are Great Acting. But my Favorite version of this Classic Movie,? Is with Robert Blake & Randy Quaid,? Made in 1981.? Though Hard to find on DVD.?
It's my favorite version too
Is anyone else here because of school
In the books George was quick about it, just like the second version.
Except in the book he fell onto the ground face down.
92 version
I have to watch this in school and I’m going to cry
You guys should see the 1981 version. I recommend it.
+MyJoker82 the 1981 version is better than the others, im still tryin to find it on dvd.
is it the one that looks almost like the cover of the book
yeah but the movie from 1981 the actors are Robert Blake and randy quaid. Randy quaid does a magnificent job playing lenny
yeah but the movie from 1981 the actors are Robert Blake and randy quaid. Randy quaid does a magnificent job playing Lenny
yeah but the movie from 1981 the actors are Robert Blake and randy quaid. Randy quaid does a magnificent job playing Lenny
I wish it didnt end like that
How you do expect it to end instead?
The musical score was not right for the 1939 version. Totally off base.
Does anyone know that beginning music name is?
I wonder if candy ever got his deposit back....?
Curly's wife was the saddest beezy in the ranch that she didn't even deserve to even been given a name although this lot 🦎 was often referred as jailbait or tart by candy and as candy said in the movie "I should not let no stranger shoot my dog 🐶 " George did the smartest thing any man could have done
Her name is Mae in the 1939 film. She had no name in the novel.
Friendship is magic
some people said the original was terrible. Well you got to expect that it was made in the 1930's so yes that acting was kinda cheesy but what do you expect though.
The first Lennie is so wooden
Peppermint Snowdrift likeable but not as good as John what's his face
Just like they did with Pride and Prejudice, they should remake Of Mice and Men with zombies. Of Mice and Men and Zombies! Lennie comes back to life with a vengeance and just FUCKS everyone's day up.
The actor in the second version did a magnificent job portraying Lennie.
+Connor Pretzinger his name is John Malkovitch and I think he did a better job portraying Lennie too.
I think both Lennies were good.
He was in Bird Box the bald guy
Sirus the virus
Lifesloser that’s con air not bird box
"I oughtn't have let someone else shoot my dog"-Candy
That's just it, the dog being shot was all foreshadowing to this event of George shooting Lennie
In my class we’re only at the part where Candy joins in on the deal AND OH MY GOSH WOW
I THOUGHT OF THAT TOO!!!
I feel like no one really noticed/payed attention to George after he killed Lennie. In the 1992 version, after Lennies body falls to the ground, there is such a heartache you can see and feel in George. At first, he is expressionless and then it hits him that his best friend, the one person that truly gave a damn about him is gone. Then you see the rapid/deep breaths and the eye squints like he's sick. He's sick because Lennie is dead, and he killed him. And for that reason, 1992 version is so much better.
Why he killed Lennie for
@@octaviusnottage5107 Because Lennie accidentally killed Curley's (the boss's son) wife, so Curley and the other ranch workers were going to find Lennie and kill him. George didn't want that to happen, so he decided to take matters into his own hands, as he thought that it was the best way to go. He basically set him free from the inevitable pain that Lennie would have suffered before his death had Curley and the other guys found him.
@@matadeverdoemden he should have protected Lenny from them and kill them curly wife cause that on her own self
@@octaviusnottage5107 He technically did protect him. Lennie would have died a much slower and painful death had they got their hands on him. Yes, Curley's wife may have contributed a little to her own death, but overall, it was Lennie's fault, since he does not know his own strength.
@@matadeverdoemdenyou're right about that
92 version was way better. Lennie in the old movie was pretty much just a comical idiot when in the 1992 version his disability really stands out.
+Collin Glover
I guess it comes down to taste.
See, I really liked the old version because it was a lot more theatrical. There was much more dramatic tension and build up before the shot rang out. George's reaction hit harder for me. I felt like the timing of the shot in the newer version was off.
Michael Morgan
Same, it was more 'complete' and 'proper' in 1939 version. If that's what you call theatrical, then so be it. I will use say that now too.
Collin Glover Yeah, another point I didn't think about. Thank you!
Agreed. The 1939 version was absolutely terrible.
Collin Glover i mean the 39 version is more accurate when you comepare them to the book
In my opinion the death of Lennie or Candys dog were really symbolic
I agree 100 percent
HISSSSSSSSSSSS
FACT
+BSHORTALL how the fuck did some one from leafys channel get all the way to this I thought I would the most mature comments ever tbh
+BSHORTALL hello fellow reptilian
I like the 92 version best, because I feel like in 39 they didn't understand mental disabilities in the way that people still have feelings and they aren't clowns, they are still people. The 92 Lennie actor wa amazing a bring across the realistic-ness of his illness!
Breaks my heart when Lennie gets shot. :( He was so sweet and loving.
panicman10 well he didn’t really rape anyone, he just didn’t understand what was going on he was just tryna avoid trouble from George
panicman10 he doesn’t know his strength that’s the thing and since when is touching hair rape
panicman10 yes I realize this but rape was definitely not his intention, if you’ve read the book or seen the movie you’d notice how it’s said Lennie has a tendency to get carried away with soft things and in the moment he was invested with a soft thing being her hair he was just feeling the hair not tryna rape a girl
panicman10 hellllo? Why did you go silent? Did you realize I was right???
panicman10 Wait since when did George have a lover?
If we could take the best from each film it would be the emotion of the 92 version and the build up of the original. Cut the soundtrack of the original and add the emotion of the 92 version and you have the perfect Of Mice And Men film
You ever see death up close and personal ?
Somehow I doubt it.
In my time from age 9 and up, I saw much death of Children age 5 to Adults 70 and up regularly enough to have a few sets of funeral suits, and in my time on ambulances 🚑 and Hospital etc....
After a while, you learn to shutdown your emotions in order to keep your mind and sanity.
I agree. Both movies and the book mak me cry. But neither of the movies really totally equal the intensity of the book. At some point there's still room for an even better movie ! Maby someday.
@@carminemurray6624 Thats one take. I to have seen and delt with many deaths. I totally get your reasoning. Thats where the book takes up the theater of the minds ability to leave the reader with their own interpretation. I always felt George would have shown more emotion and sadness leading up to the end and after shooting Lenny
The 1992 version is better. Far better camera direction. The musical score is terrible in the original and as the recent version shows not necessary. Gary Sinuses performance shines throughout.
rye catcher I found him to be bland.
Sinuses? It's actually Sinese.
I loved the score of the 1939 version. That's what's missing from movies today.
@@crazycats535 BINGO!
@@davidg1612 Sinise*
I like in the 39 version that George struggles more to pull the trigger and he hesitates more and I like the way the death is built up rather that it being instant. Also in the 92 version you can see George trying not to cry and when Lennie dies you can feel how much George cares about him.
92 is better preformance, but 39 is more real to the book.
After all this time, I actually didn’t know about the original movie. Back in high school, we watched the ‘92 version. I never cared in that phase of my teens to analyze it, nor did I know there was discourse about which version was better, but now 15+ years later, I can say I like the fact that the ‘92 version relieved Lenny on the the line: _” and I get to tend the rabbits!”_ because it truly is what he wanted. There was no need to let him think anything else further, just die on the thought that elated him so much.
All you pseudo movie buffs and hardly a mention of the great Burgess Meredith as George who was a great actor for many years. He played Penguin in the original Batman TV series and often guested on the Twilight Zone. The equally great John Malkovich brings more dimension to the character of Lenny but his lack of physical stature makes it a stretch of the imagination compared to the hulking Lon Chaney Jr. in the role. For my money, Lenny gets capped way too quickly, likes it's a mafia hit in the final scene. In the 1939 version the viewer is confident that Lenny can see paradise on the other side of the river.
I prefer the 92 version honestly
As much as I love the 92 movie, the 39 one is better. The death of Lennie should be built up so you see George's struggle with having to kill his best friend. The 92 movie did it quick for shock value.
Trevdawg Productions in the '39 I actually love the choreography when he hides the gun when Lennie turns to look at him
I like both, but I can also see it working in the 92 way since it *is* so hard. Has to just tear that band-aid off. Do it fast so it doesn't hurt as much. I see it working both ways.
i think the 92 also uses that he doesnt turn around to show how much that lennie trusts and listens to george 100%
@@hotrodjmanofficial448 same. besides why do people not realise in the 39 version he was struggling because lennie turned around, not hesitating ab pulling the trigger like in the novel. like it wasn't accurate either way but personally, i think the emotions displayed in the 92 film just compensates for that
Anyone else wondering what Curlys wife name is?😂
Paula Kostova lets call her sherley after the 1992 actress's name
Paula Kostova it is meant to be like that though so that you get a sense if Unknown of her as a person
Paula Kostova she looks like a Beth.....
dream girl I don't know... she looks like Katherine to me
Paula Kostova that works too
Her name should be like fancy but not that fancy but also not too common.... ya know? My class called her Beth 😂
Burgess Meredith and Gary Sinise both did a great job playing George
Agreed.
It's interesting how in the 1992 version, you cannot see the gun until the moment it fires. Until then it is perfectly concealed behind Lennie.
Gary and John are brilliant actors, but for me the 1939 original with Burgess and Lon is the superior version.
I remember reading this my freshman year and crying in class at Lenny’s death. It struck me so hard that I had to leave class
I vote for the color version because of the camera angles, sound and acting but the story is great! I read it as a kid and when I saw the movie I stopped it before the end because i didn't want my son to see me cry.
Too bad, it would have been great for him to see that his father is a real man.
I think the acting in the 1939 was better.
Watched the '92 one in school and I crIED HAH still not over it :(
Christina Berenguer
People at my school laughed.....
I seriously hate my school.
dream girl omg what the heck is wrong with them ):
I watched the ‘92 version in schoo, today , before the christmas break , i didn’t cry but it was just - QmQ
The first one, the classic was definitely better hands down... More emotional, more realistic, you shed buckets of tears for the real George because having to kill your best friend is never easy.. the one with Gary sinise, he killed Lennie like he was a nuisance. Plus Lennie is supposed to be a monster and brutally strong and powerful. Lon Chaney having an athletic background and huge build easily played the giant brute. I think John Malkovich being a city boy is too skinny to play Lennie. There were scenes in the old of mice and men where lon chaney Jr. shook Burgess Meredith like a rag doll and dish rag. John Malkovich is too skinny to be a convincing Lennie. If I was to cast a Lennie today I would pick former world's strongest man Brian Shaw. He has the brute strength and look to pull of a Lennie today.
The 1939 version is way better. Lon Chaney Jr does a great job and makes you feel sorry for him. Burgess Meredith's George acts like he really cares about Lennie. Sinise is too harsh and he acts like he hates Lennie and the direction is more focused on himself (like a vanity project).
There is just more feeling and emotion and build up in the 1939 version.
The way George shoots Lennie in the 1992 version is too harsh and quick. It's like if Scorsese directed it or something. imo
The 1939 version is superior to me because of the powerful emotional buildup. Brings a tear to my eye in a way the 1992 version does not. Burgess Meredith is a masterful actor, and really gives it his all playing George. And I much prefer Lon Chaney's take on Lenny, as he is so much more sympathetic. John Malkovitch's performance left me cold, feeling like Lenny was jut a mindless monster who couldn't control himself and deserved to die, whereas when Chaney played him, I actually felt sad for him.
Yes, Original version is the best. We symphathize with Lon Chaney Jr.'s Lennie which also adds depth to the shattered state of George in the end. Burgess Meredith was also excellent as George. The presence of Slim (Charles Bickford) symphathizing George at the end with Aaron Copeland's score makes Original version the best.
I have to say that neither of the two movies totally depicted the intensity of Lennie's death as is portrayed in the book. When I saw the cast of the1992's flix I grew great expectations which were unfulfilled, mainly by the incongruences with the book and the lack of similarity with the characters. I did expect more from Malkovick in Lennie's character. I have to say that the 1939's version grasped better the essence of Steinbeck's view. Even though the acting seemed extremely corny, that was the common style in the 30's movies. For that reason I choose 1939.
the book wasn't confined to 2 hours of time to flesh out everything so yeah.
@@catintheformalattire4274 plus the 39 movie is literally an insult to people with disabilities lol that's not how lennie's character was described at all
@@jana8977 Lennie is never confirmed to have a disability. Look at Steinbeck's interviews and his son's recent comment about this issue.
Lennie noooooooooooo
Erennnnnnn
Its so sad, lennie is so cute, and to see him dead is so sad.
No comparison...the original 1939 version was the best. From the acting to the score by the great Aaron Copland. I would have to admit Gary Sinise was pretty good as George in the 92 version, as was Burgess Meredith's portrayla....but John Malkovich was pretty awful.. especially in comparison to Lon Chaney "jr" portrayal of Lennie.
I prefer the 39' version. While I felt the score was a huge glaring problem within the scene, it was the only big issue. Everyone says that Lennie is portrayed comically in the '39 version, but I find his portrayal is less serious in the recent one. Lennie's 39' actor really portrays a childlike innocence, while I found that the 92' version seemed more basic and dumb (although I did think both were good actors.) George's actor was better in the 92' version as well, but what nailed the 39' scene for me was the dialogue. The scene where George shoots Lennie is agonizing, built up, and heart wrenching. It is more emotional than the recent movie, which does nothing but deliver a shock. In the older movie, we get to hear George describing heaven to Lennie, talking himself into doing the deed in the hope that he's doing right by Lennie. We see Lennie's eyes light up, and we are crushed when George finally brings himself to shoot. In the recent film, it is abrupt and emotionless.
92’ Lennie was a much more realistic depiction of something with a mental disability in my opinion. Both were good regardless though
The '92 version is amazing, instead of hesitating he is guilty and sad as you can tell by his body language through the whole scene, he wanted to get it over and done with instead of trying to savor the death of Lennie like nothing