Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

"To Kill A Mockingbird" is such a snoozefest.

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?

by Anonymousreply 4202/10/2013

Only racists find TKAM boring.

by Anonymousreply 102/09/2013

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 Anonymousreply 202/09/2013

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 Anonymousreply 302/09/2013

This should be moved to here:

by Anonymousreply 402/09/2013

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 Anonymousreply 602/10/2013

Philip Alford grew up into a gorgeous young man. See him in "Shenandoah."

by Anonymousreply 702/10/2013

There is almost no accounting for the idiocy on DL.

by Anonymousreply 802/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 902/10/2013

R5, give it a rest, gramps.

by Anonymousreply 1002/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 1102/10/2013

TKaM had a groundbreaking title sequence.

by Anonymousreply 1202/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 1302/10/2013

OP---DURRRRRTY YANKEE!

by Anonymousreply 1402/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 1502/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 1602/10/2013

Really? I think it's a classic.

by Anonymousreply 1702/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 1802/10/2013

He's a Cunningham, ma'm

by Anonymousreply 1902/10/2013

It's fabulously beige.

by Anonymousreply 2002/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 2102/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 2202/10/2013

Most depressing thread ever.

by Anonymousreply 2302/10/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 2402/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 2502/10/2013

I feel the same way about Casablanca and Citizen Kane.

by Anonymousreply 2602/10/2013

OP, older movies sometimes require the viewer to have an attention span.

by Anonymousreply 2802/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 2902/10/2013

Saw the movie once and thought it was really quite good. But it was nothing I needed to either own and watch again.

by Anonymousreply 3002/10/2013

It would have been better A LOT if there had been a car chase through the streets of Monroeville.

And maybe an explosion?

by Anonymousreply 3102/10/2013

[quote]scout is a lezling

The proper term is "baby dyke."

by Anonymousreply 3202/10/2013

I guess it is boring if you're a moron.

by Anonymousreply 3302/10/2013

Well, I'm 25 and I love it, it's one of my favorite films. I enjoyed the book as well.

by Anonymousreply 3402/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 3502/10/2013

OP= a cranky, drunk Rex Reed whose rentboy failed to show up.

by Anonymousreply 3602/10/2013

Just another troll. This one specialized in these threads.

Don't feed it.

by Anonymousreply 3702/10/2013

Liked the book but hated the movie. Very hard for me to get through it. Agree OP.

by Anonymousreply 3802/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 3902/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 4002/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 4102/10/2013

Thank you for Scout's final narration, R22. It gave me chills.

by Anonymousreply 4202/10/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.