To Kill a Mockingbird
9.5/10. Watched this last night taped off TV. It was shown uncut, with one short commercial break, widescreen, and in English.
So, why not a perfect score for this acknowledged classic? Because as good as it is -- and really, objectively there’s nothing wrong with it -- I can’t quite place it in the same group of movies that I personally feel are worthy of perfect scores. As much as I recognize and appreciate the movie’s many virtues, it doesn’t quite get stuck under my skin. Nevertheless, highly recommended.
By the way, also highly recommended is a movie Mockingbird director Robert Mulligan made nearly thirty years later, The Man in the Moon. Also a coming of age story featuring a young girl, also a period piece set in the American South, it stars Reese Witherspoon (in her debut) and is a beautiful and affecting movie.
posted by Ian @ 9:55 PM
3 Comments:
I've mulled over this myself. I wonder if it has something to do with the story coming from the vantage point of such a daddy's girl. It slightly sullies the portrayal of Atticus Finch (as opposed to, say, the story told by a member of the town who might initially think Atticus crazy). But that's a problem I have with book, too, the hero-worship. It interferes with my sense of identification to feel pushed to it.
Good point. And on top of that, I'm not the world's biggest Gregory Peck fan.
Regarding the book (which I just reread last year) it's impressive how good the movie is as an adaptation without being a slavish reproduction. Pretty much everything's in the movie that's in the book, but in cinematic form.
Peck schmeck. Shoulda been Jimmy Stewart. Today he'd be played by Tom Hanks.
It's true! I often have a hard time remembering which is which. Nothing essential was left out, and they put just about everything to good cinematic use.
Post a Comment
<< Home