I always heard great things about this. It was on an oldies channel tonight so I decided to watch it. OMG, I can barely keep my head up it's so slow and boring. Nothing happens. It's 45 minutes into this thing, and there's been no plot development. Is this movie actually about anything? The whole movie is just endless conversations with bad southern accents. And those kid actors must be some of the most unappealing child actors ever to appear on screen. Why the hell is this so praised?
"To Kill A Mockingbird" is such a snoozefest.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||02/10/2013|
Only racists find TKAM boring.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||02/09/2013|
OP, how old are you?
I think it's a fine film, but at a recent screening I attended, those who were older and had been alive when it was originally released were sobbing buckets at the end.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||02/09/2013|
Did you read the book before watching the film?
OP perhaps you're better suited for classic films such as Dumb and Dumber. I'm pretty sure it's your kind of film.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||02/09/2013|
This should be moved to here:
|by Anonymous||reply 4||02/09/2013|
OP, I agree. I was so shocked at how poor it was.
It appeals to whites who have a misplaced guilt over the ill treatment of blacks.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||02/10/2013|
Philip Alford grew up into a gorgeous young man. See him in "Shenandoah."
|by Anonymous||reply 7||02/10/2013|
There is almost no accounting for the idiocy on DL.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||02/10/2013|
The boy who played Dill died of AIDS. Harper Lee's one time close friend was Truman Capote and Dill was the incarnation of a young Capote.
I thought the kids, especially Alford, did an excellent job. Child actors today are too polished that they lose that natural innocence they possess. Alford and Mary Badham eased into their roles by just playing kids trying to understand the complex world of adults. Badham was nominated for Best Supporting Actress. I didn't think she was as good as Alford though.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||02/10/2013|
R5, give it a rest, gramps.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||02/10/2013|
Has the book ever been dramatized for TV? The movie is good but far too short to capture the entire novel. It seems like a natural for a 6 to 8-hour mini-series.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||02/10/2013|
TKaM had a groundbreaking title sequence.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||02/10/2013|
It was given a certain amount of praise due to the time and circumstances in which it was made. Gregory Peck lent a measure of prestige to any film in which he appeared by that time. I read the book as part of summer reading when I was in junior high school some 45 years ago; I related most to the funnier parts of the book before the trial but was baffled by the parts about the trial as I didn't understand it at the time. The movie was OK, I guess, but the book was better as is usually the case with noted books made into movies. I don't like the way movies try to coerce you into a certain emotion--books allow you, usually, to draw your own conclusions.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||02/10/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 14||02/10/2013|
I find it boring, but I imagine it has historical perspective. I mean it's from a time that is so obsolete it's hard to imagine. Like when people had player pianos and got disease other than AIDS.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||02/10/2013|
We had this as one of our set books in highschool and I don't even live in the US. What a fucking snoozefest. I get the point of the story but my god it's boring as hell.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||02/10/2013|
Really? I think it's a classic.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||02/10/2013|
R1 is full of crap (and I'm sure white).
I'm with R6 on this.
To me it's a liberal guilt fest for insular white suburbanites.
I was underwhelmed with the book when I read it for HS.
And I saw the film version a few years later and was equally underwhelmed.
A few years ago I saw it for the second time, when it was on TCM - and found it slow going and obvious.
Good intentions don't always translate into good storytelling or filmmaking.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||02/10/2013|
He's a Cunningham, ma'm
|by Anonymous||reply 19||02/10/2013|
It's fabulously beige.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||02/10/2013|
This thread demonstrates why the country is going to hell. If it doesn't have sparkles or lightning bolts or blatant sex scenes then it is a waste.
Oh, and OP, I'll bet you got/get Cs and Ds in English.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||02/10/2013|
Everything in the film and book--everything--is explained and tied up in Scout's final narration as an adult. If these lines don't move you, make you feel anything at all for these characters, then I sincerely feel sorry for you.
[italic]Neighbors bring food with death... and flowers with sickness... and little things in between. Boo was our neighbor. He gave us two soap dolls, a broken watch and chain, a knife... and our lives. One time Atticus said... you never really knew a man until you stood in his shoes and walked around in them. Just standing on the Radley porch was enough. The summer that had begun so long ago had ended, and another summer had taken its place. And a fall. And Boo Radley had come out. I was to think of these days many times, of Jem and Dill... and Boo Radley and Tom Robinson. And Atticus. He would be in Jem's room all night, and he would be there when Jem waked up in the morning. [/italic]
|by Anonymous||reply 22||02/10/2013|
Most depressing thread ever.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||02/10/2013|
[quote]I read the book as part of summer reading when I was in junior high school some 45 years ago; I related most to the funnier parts of the book before the trial but was baffled by the parts about the trial as I didn't understand it at the time.
What didn't you understand about the trial, R13?
|by Anonymous||reply 24||02/10/2013|
I did not read the book in school, so I readit as an adult a few years ago. I was initially underwhelmed and thought the characters were underdeveloped. However, as you hear more of Scout's stories the characters evolve.
I think partially because you get additional elements of their personality with each story, but also, the initial stories are memories from a 5 year old and the later stories she is probably 8 or 9. When you think of memories of your parents when you are 4 or 5, they are a lot simpler than memories of when you are even a few years later.
The book also does not go for the neat easy outcome for either the trial or Boo Radley.
My only complaint of the movie is that is seems more like the 1950's than the depression, but Hollywood used to be pretty lax with getting period details correct.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||02/10/2013|
I feel the same way about Casablanca and Citizen Kane.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||02/10/2013|
OP, older movies sometimes require the viewer to have an attention span.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||02/10/2013|
I got this same type of comment from high school kids after showing them "A Man For All Seasons."
I guarantee the OP is no older than mid-20's.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||02/10/2013|
Saw the movie once and thought it was really quite good. But it was nothing I needed to either own and watch again.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||02/10/2013|
It would have been better A LOT if there had been a car chase through the streets of Monroeville.
And maybe an explosion?
|by Anonymous||reply 31||02/10/2013|
[quote]scout is a lezling
The proper term is "baby dyke."
|by Anonymous||reply 32||02/10/2013|
I guess it is boring if you're a moron.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||02/10/2013|
Well, I'm 25 and I love it, it's one of my favorite films. I enjoyed the book as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||02/10/2013|
It's no "Dude, Where's My Car?" but it'll do when the real thing isn't available.
Having said that, I've read the book and watched the movie any number of times. It's a well-told story with a Gregory Peck bonus.
It's not for anyone who has the attention span of a gnat or think they deserve to be entertained.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||02/10/2013|
OP= a cranky, drunk Rex Reed whose rentboy failed to show up.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||02/10/2013|
Just another troll. This one specialized in these threads.
Don't feed it.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||02/10/2013|
Liked the book but hated the movie. Very hard for me to get through it. Agree OP.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||02/10/2013|
R6: Misplaced sense of guilt about poor treatment of blacks???? WTF???????
All whites who were alive before the Civil Rights Acts of the 60s should have a sense of guilt about the horrors to which all blacks were subjected.
To Kill A Mockingbird is one of the greatest films of all time. It is hauntingly beautiful.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||02/10/2013|
The book (along with the movie) still causes a good deal of controversy, particularly in the way it portrays Atticus' somewhat passive attitudes to racism. The movie came out just as the Civil Rights movement began to heat up (the book came out in 1960, the first freedom ride was in 1961, the movie in 1962), and it had a powerful effect on how people then perceived the still segregated South. But the Civil Rights movement reflected a decisive break in this respect with the premises of the book.
The prose of the book is, IMHO, excessively lush (kudzu-like, I'd say), and some of this comes through in the movie voice-over. But both book and movie are exquisitely plotted, as the two narrative lines of Tom Robinson and Boo Radley are improbably drawn together. The point, at the end, is how human relationships even of the most elemental kind (Boo's with the three kids) can reach across societal barriers and effect genuine change.
I've seen the movie many times, and never fail to be amazed about how complex it is. The scene on the jailhouse steps, as Scout confronts the mob, is amazing.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||02/10/2013|
I saw it for the first time in my early 40's, with my then-bf who was a decade older, who'd never seen it either. I found Member of the Wedding a film I'd much rather watch again of the two.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||02/10/2013|
Thank you for Scout's final narration, R22. It gave me chills.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||02/10/2013|