To Kill a Mockingbird

Film

Drama

Du silence et des ombres

User ratings:

<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>4</span>/5
Rate this
 

Time Out says

Tackling Harper Lee's novel, Stanley Kramer would have hit us over the head with a hammer, so perhaps we can be grateful that Mulligan merely suffocates with righteousness. The film sits somewhere between the bogus virtue of Kramer's The Defiant Ones and the poetry of Laughton's Night of the Hunter, combining racial intolerance with the nightmares of childhood, born out of Kennedy's stand on civil rights and Martin Luther King's marching. In Alabama in the early '30s, Peck is a Lincoln-like lawyer who defends a black (Peters) against a charge of rape, while loony-tune Duvall scares the shit out of Peck's kids. It looks like a storybook of the Old South, with dappled sunlight and woodwormy porches, and Peck is everyone's favourite uncle. But screenwriter Horton Foote does less well by Harper Lee's novel than Lillian Hellman did by Foote's The Chase for Arthur Penn. That movie really was a pressure-cooker; this one is always just off the boil.
0

Reviews

Add +

Release details

UK release:

1962

Duration:

129 mins

Users say

0
<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>0</span>/5

Average User Rating

5 / 5

Rating Breakdown

  • 5 star:5
  • 4 star:0
  • 3 star:0
  • 2 star:0
  • 1 star:0
LiveReviews|11
1 person listening
James

This movie is really bad in comparison to the novel. The plot was way too condensed. Entire events were skipped and scenes which were supposed to be separate, took place at the same time. There was such a lack of detail in the plot that if I hadn't read the book, the movie would have been unreasonably simple and very boring to watch. The orchestra music was very cheezy, because it was trying to make the audience have emotion when the scenes were not properly portrayed. For a 1960's movie it's ok, but a book like To Kill a Mockingbird deserves a remake.

i hate you

wow you are so stupid. i didnt get a word you said. To even think that this is a bad movie, is unfathamable. jesus... wow.

i hate you

wow you are so stupid. i didnt get a word you said. To even think that this is a bad movie, is unfathamable. jesus... wow.

Red

There's always somebody that likes to be different... even if different means completely unabashed, unfathomable ignorance. Your 'review' is unintelligible refuse. Get it together man.

Red

There's always somebody that likes to be different... even if different means completely unabashed, unfathomable ignorance. Your 'review' is unintelligible refuse. Get it together man.

Matthew

A truly fatuous review. Don't be misled by the fool who wrote it. (Heed instead the other users' comments.) Anyone inclined to watch the film should do so; you'll enjoy one of the two or three greatest works ever produced in American cinema.

Matthew

A truly fatuous review. Don't be misled by the fool who wrote it. (Heed instead the other users' comments.) Anyone inclined to watch the film should do so; you'll enjoy one of the two or three greatest works ever produced in American cinema.

GERALD

I didn't get a single point you said in this review... All you did was compare it with different movies and rate it 3 stars.. If I was to rate your review, it really would be 1 star... Consider writing reviews that aren't a waste of life. You obviously didn't get the broad message of the story, next time, mouth shut please...

GERALD

I didn't get a single point you said in this review... All you did was compare it with different movies and rate it 3 stars.. If I was to rate your review, it really would be 1 star... Consider writing reviews that aren't a waste of life. You obviously didn't get the broad message of the story, next time, mouth shut please...

Scott

One of the best film adaptations of a novel, period. I love how the reviewer smugly throws around his knowledge of film by insulting Stanley Kramer, who made some pretty good movies himself. Those who can do, and those who can't write snide and disparaging reviews. I suppose some people simply have hearts of stone.

Scott

One of the best film adaptations of a novel, period. I love how the reviewer smugly throws around his knowledge of film by insulting Stanley Kramer, who made some pretty good movies himself. Those who can do, and those who can't write snide and disparaging reviews. I suppose some people simply have hearts of stone.