MovieChat Forums > To Kill a Mockingbird (1963) Discussion > Possibly the most over-rated film ever m...

Possibly the most over-rated film ever made.


This will cause much foaming at the mouth, I'm sure, and some people will call for the rope and demand a hangin', but I think To Kill a Mockingbird is the most over-rated, over-praised, over-evaluated, and over-esteemed film ever made.

People, it's just a hokey old B/W movie that tried to be the last gasp of the 50s, before the 60s really got going. Sentimental Pap. Formulaic, by-the-numbers mock-"Down Home" cliche.

If it hadn't had the exploitive race angle, it would have been exposed for what it is - a b-grade programmer.

reply

I think its popularity is a result of it being the "go to" favorite movie for people who haven't seen many films and/or are book fans who feel like they need to have an answer to the "What is your favorite film?" question.

It's just such a dull and un-fun film to call your favorite. Stagey and set bound, it doesn't look remotely authentic. It doesn't feature any exceptional performances, photography, sets, or editing. It does have good music I will give it that. But it's just so blah.

If you like liberal courtroom dramatics Fritz Lang's Fury is superior. If you want Southern gothic melodrama try Night of the Hunter instead. If you want to see a film that was brave in its depiction of race relations check out James Wale's version of Showboat.

There's just so many better films out there to call your favorite like Gun Crazy and Nightmare Alley and Curse of the Cat People and Ace in the Hole and I could go on and on. Picking To Kill A Mockingbird is just boring. It's like picking tofu as your favorite food. Tofu ain't bad, but it shouldn't be your favorite.

reply

First, the thread is not about "favorite" film but "most over-rated film."

Currently it's rated #60 on IMDB ... can I think of 59 films better than To Kill A Mockingbird? No.

If a film does or doesn't resonate with someone it is as much a reflection on them then it is the film itself. That said, to suggest that people really like To Kill A Mockingbird because these are the people "who haven't seen many films" is ridiculous and pretentious. And quite frankly, while I enjoy the films on your list if anyone favorite film is Curse of the Cat People, it is they that need to see more films.

reply

Well, the premise of my initial post was that the film is over-rated because it is the favourite of so many people, 501. I'm using the term "over-rated" in the sense that an inordinate number of people obviously consider it a favourite of theirs. Otherwise, obviously, it wouldn't enjoy its current Rating. So, I think ebright's comments are quite valid.

I agree with you that any film's popularity is largely a reflection on the Subject. It reflects the Subject's taste, experience, education, cultural niche, personality, standards, and everything else that constitutes the Subject.

So I think it's quite correct for ebright to point out that some people call TKAM their favourite film simply because their experience with movies is limited. Perfectly valid comment, imo.

I couldn't help noticing, 501, that your last comment is almost a duplicate of the comment that ebright made, and which you objected to.

.

reply

Melon, I agree with the previous poster that it's incredibly pretentious to assume anyone who really likes this movie, hasn't seen a lot of films, just because you think it's overrated.

To quote you:

"I agree with you that any film's popularity is largely a reflection on the Subject. It reflects the Subject's taste, experience, education, cultural niche, personality, standards, and everything else that constitutes the Subject.

So I think it's quite correct for ebright to point out that some people call TKAM their favourite film simply because their experience with movies is limited. Perfectly valid comment, imo."

That logic makes absolutely no sense... While the first is a summation of all kinds of things, the second is an assumption that picks out just one of those things (experience). It's hopelessly selective logic, if not completely contradictory with your first statement that anyone's opinion is influenced by a list of a NUMBER of things. A list that isn't even complete, because let's face it, the grade a film is going to get is not only influenced by the characteristics of the viewer. The viewer's frame of referense has a lot of influence, sure, but you are forgetting the most obvious thing which is the film itself. A terribly film is going to be a terribly film no matter who watches is it, or at least it wouldn't get an average score of 8,5 from 102,676 different viewers with different experiences, personality's, etc.

I for one have seen a lot of movies, well at least a lot more than most people, and I think To Kill a Mockingbird is a good movie. It's not the best Top250 movie I have seen, not at all, but it's a good movie that I would give a 7 or an 8. To claim that it's "just another" B-grade 50's movie if it weren't for the racial angle" is just nonsense. First of all the "racial angle" as you call it is essential to the films plot, so what is your point exactly? Yeah of course; if it didn't have that if would be a different movie. That's like saying The Godfather would just be an average crime film if it didn't have that whole mafia angle. Or the Eiffel Tower wouldn't be such a special building if it didn't have that whole built-from-numerous-tiny-steel-parts thing. Sjeesh... :S
In the Netherlands we have a saying (or maybe it's just me): "IF my aunt would have balls, THEN she would be my uncle."

And secondly, it's a 50's movie that's right, but if you think this is B-grade, than you obviously haven't seen many 50's B-grade movies... Besides, a lot of films that are generally considered very good from that era were a lot more "sentimental" than we are used to nowadays. Have you ever seen "It's a Wonderful Life" or "The Apartment"? To name just 2 random ones that just crossed my mind. Both are high up in the Top250, and well deserved in my humble opinion, but if you would execute those scripts and especially the dialogue today; you probably wouldn't even get the movie to be made, or everyone would go "Oh come one... seriously?" Those movies were made in different times... and besides nowadays almost everything worth making has already been done before. Not so in those days. So to call something a cliché is highly influenced by a hindsight-point of view.

I hate to dignify your original pretentious assumption with a to-the-point response, but here you go: most people that I know that "haven't seen a lot of movies" haven't seen To Kill a Mockingbird, and certainly won't name it as their favorite movie ever.

You may find an 8,5 is too high, and that's just fine. That's how averages work isn't it? For every person that has given this film a 9 or a 10, there has to be someone like you to make it come out an average 8,5. I'm just glad they don't all start a topic on these boards making "ad hominem" arguments about people who voted differently. :S

I do think people on IMDb are in general far too generous with handing out "10" and "1" grades; sometimes it seems there just isn't anything in between anymore, but that's another discussion. That's a phenomenon that we're seeing across the whole spectrum, with every movie that you click on, so that doesn't really hold any bearing as to what average grade "To Kill a Mockingbird" should have as a film, compared to other films.

reply

Melon.....To quote you:

"I agree with you that any film's popularity is largely a reflection on the Subject. It reflects the Subject's taste, experience, education, cultural niche, personality, standards, and everything else that constitutes the Subject.

So I think it's quite correct for ebright to point out that some people call TKAM their favourite film simply because their experience with movies is limited. Perfectly valid comment, imo."


I think my grammar is throwing you off. Let me paraphrase what I said, and add some words that might clarify it for you;

"A film's popularity is to a large degree a reflection of the taste, experience, education, cultural niche, personality, and standards of the People who watch it. When People watch movies, all of those factors affect those Peoples' response to it.

Now, in my comment, the terms, "taste", "experience", "education", "cultural niche", "personality" and "standards" obviously are to be taken in the context of "movie watching". We weren't discussing sociology here, but movies.

To clarify further, I suggest that movie "taste" is acquired through wide and varied "experience" of many (unlimited) movies.

So, when I say that it is valid to observe that some people call TKAM their favourite film because their experience with movies is limited, I am in fact saying that their limited "taste, experience, and education", vis a vis movies, could account for their very high regard for the film. I did not say that this is always the case, nor did ebright.

The viewer's frame of referense has a lot of influence, sure, but you are forgetting the most obvious thing which is the film itself. A terribly film is going to be a terribly film no matter who watches is it, or at least it wouldn't get an average score of 8,5 from 102,676 different viewers with different experiences, personality's, etc.


Now you're being illogical. First you say that the viewer's frame of reference influences their rating of a movie, (which is precisely what I said), but then you suggest that there is a universal standard for what constitutes a "terrible" movie. Further, you cite statistics to "prove" that, (to put it colloquially), "102,000" voters can't be wrong. That's very thin ice you're walking on.

In the Netherlands we have a saying (or maybe it's just me): "IF my aunt would have balls, THEN she would be my uncle."


Yeah, we have that one, too. Every country does, I'd say.

And secondly, it's a 50's movie that's right, but if you think this is B-grade, than you obviously haven't seen many 50's B-grade movies...


I'm 66 years old. I daresay I've seen more 50's B-grade movies than you've had Stamppot.

So to call something a cliché is highly influenced by a hindsight-point of view.


Well of course it is. That's how things become cliches.

most people that I know that "haven't seen a lot of movies" haven't seen To Kill a Mockingbird, and certainly won't name it as their favorite movie ever.


Huh?

You're confused. Nobody said that everyone whose movie-watching experience is limited would like TKAM. The gist of the thread so far is the film's inordinate popularity.

I'm just glad they don't all start a topic on these boards making "ad hominem" arguments about people who voted differently.


You don't know what "ad hominem" means, huh? I started this thread by saying that the movie was over-rated. I then agreed with ebright's comment that its huge popularity was possibly partly due to its being highly rated by people who don't see enough movies to make a good comparison, (and also people who just want to have a name that they can drop if they're asked what their favourite movie is).

Has that clarified it, R2?

.

reply

RagingR2: TKAMB is a 1960's film. It's a Wonderful Life is a 1940's film and The Apartment was made in the 1960's.

You and Melon_Blando seem to both be foreigners. As I've pointed out in a post that appears below, both of you need to understand that TKAMB (both book and film) is a major part of the American education system. It's high rating is a result of several generations of young Americans having it drummed into their head that it is a great film.

reply

RagingR2: TKAMB is a 1960's film. It's a Wonderful Life is a 1940's film and The Apartment was made in the 1960's.


Yes, that's a common mistake made by anyone born after 1990. lol. Everything before their time is "old"...

You and Melon_Blando seem to both be foreigners. As I've pointed out in a post that appears below, both of you need to understand that TKAMB (both book and film) is a major part of the American education system. It's high rating is a result of several generations of young Americans having it drummed into their head that it is a great film.


LOL, "foreigners".... never been called a "foreigner" before.

Ebright, I completely agree with you. I'm aware that the US education curriculum, (and many other western countries' systems), energetically promoted TKAM as the film de rigueur for students. And I completely agree that the film's inordinate popularity can be attributed in large part to this "campaign" on the part of educators.

And to put a fine point on it, I'd add that those students and pupils also were, generally-speaking, the quintessential "people whose taste, experience, education, cultural niche, personality, standards" were limited with regard to films.

So, the campaign was bound to have an effect. And obviously it did. The only thing I don't understand is the reason for it. Why choose and hold up that particular mediocre film as the epitome of film-making? Did they want to diminish their student's collective appreciation of film? And if so, why?

.

reply

[deleted]

You and Melon_Blando seem to both be foreigners. As I've pointed out in a post that appears below, both of you need to understand that TKAMB (both book and film) is a major part of the American education system. It's high rating is a result of several generations of young Americans having it drummed into their head that it is a great film.


Lol, I'm a 33 year old foreigner who read the book for the first time last week and saw the film for the first time yesterday. It is one of the finest adaptations of a book to the screen I've ever seen. The beginning of the film and how the different characters and events from the novel are introduced and put together is pure perfection. The rest suffers slightly in comparison with the source material but never drops below good.

reply

It’s kind of interesting to read this thread and to note the amount of passion generated by the OP’s suggestion, that I suspect was made with slight tongue-in-cheek since he knew that it would do just that. I never read TKAM in school (I am a foreigner), but I can very well relate to the phenomenon of well-meaning teachers propagating and showing a movie not because it’s an outstanding piece of filmmaking but because it’s about an important subject like racism.
I find that many of the people in this thread seem to be commenting not so much on the objective merits of the film as the fact that it was one of the earlier Hollywood films about racism, and I really believe this is really one of the main reasons for it being put on a pedestal to this day.
I saw the movie a year or so ago, and was taken aback by just how studio-bound it seemed. There was just no sense of the South, but very much of a back-lot, where in fact it was also filmed, and great parts of the movie play like an ordinary TV-production. There were also scenes that were close to cringe-worthy in their Pollyann-ish righteousness, like a little girl talking down an angry lynch mob. You just don’t believe it.
TKAM is certainly not a bad movie, but the title of the thread was “Possibly the most over-rated film ever made”, and it bears on the quality of the film-making vis-à-vis the reverence with which this movie is obviously held be a lot of people. I, for one, believe much of Bergman’s work would rate high in such a contest, not bad films as such, but nowhere near as great is they are cranked up to be by critics who are awed at not understanding and thinking there must be greatness there, while there was really not that much to understand. (Oh, dear, I might have put my foot in another hornet’s nest there!)
But to conclude, I agree with the OP on this.

reply

To clarify further, I suggest that movie "taste" is acquired through wide and varied "experience" of many (unlimited) movies.

So, when I say that it is valid to observe that some people call TKAM their favourite film because their experience with movies is limited, I am in fact saying that their limited "taste, experience, and education", vis a vis movies, could account for their very high regard for the film. I did not say that this is always the case, nor did ebright.


To be honest, your post didn't clarify anything, nor did your original post require any clarification. The central message of your post was, and is, still that you make all kinds of assumptions about the people who rated this film, and who you apparently think gave it too high a vote.
If your assumption is: viewing experience may be (partially) responsible for what grade users give to a film, then, yes, obviously that is the case, partially being the operative word here, and besides, that goes for *every* film on IMDb. Just because TKAM is a film that has, in your opinion, too high a grade, you assume that this is more so the case for TKAM than for any other given film, for which you have no proof whatsoever. Basicly, your point boils down to: I think this film was not as good as the average IMDb public:
1) SO they are wrong, and
2) SO that is to blame on their limited viewing experience.

Another thing; I said:
To call something a cliché is highly influenced by a hindsight-point of view.

To which you replied:
Well of course it is. That's how things become cliches.


This is my whole point about your 'Cliché' statement: something can not BECOME a cliché. A film either IS a cliché when it comes out, or it isn't, but it can not become a cliché after the fact, just because other similar films came out later. As others have pointed out TKAM was based on a book. If by cliché you mean that it was cheaply based on other earlier films, than 1) I challenge to name 5 similar earlier ones, and 2) you are clearly wrong because it was based on a book.

I wrote: In the Netherlands we have a saying (or maybe it's just me): "IF my aunt would have balls, THEN she would be my uncle."

To which you replied:
Yeah, we have that one, too. Every country does, I'd say.


You're not responding to my point. My point was that your statement that TKAM would be a mediocre film if it wasn't for the racial angle, is totally moot because the racial angle is an essential and integral part of the film. As of yet you have not provided any credible support why your statement makes any sense at all. Like I said it would be the same as calling the Godfather an average crime film if it weren't for the 'maffia' angle, but you don't seem to get my point about how that makes your whole statement moot, or you don't feel the need to react on it.

Furthermore in your reaction, and some of your other posts in this thread, you seem to respond to parts of my - and other people's post with claims about how many 50's films you watched, and how you are 66 years of age, without responding to the subject of someone's post, which I think is extremely weak and pointless. If you have no sensible subject matter to respond to other people's opinions, don't hide behind how old you are and how many movies you have seen, and at the same time make assumptions about how "young and experienced" other people are who don't agree with you.

Finally, a lot of your, and other people's posts, seem to hinge on the "conspiracy theory" that TKAM was launched into the Top250 by 60's and 70's indoctrination telling teens how great a film this is. Again, part of what you say may be factually true, but your theory about how TKAM's rank on the Top250 hinges on this fact is largely speculation. First of all, the majority of people who voted on TKAM are NOT people from the US who were raised in the 60's and 70's. If you click to see the statistics, you'll see that about 50% are non-US voters, and the biggest group of voters are people aged 18-29, followed by the group aged 30-44. It is true that the group above 45 rate this film the highest (although the difference with other groups is relatively small) but 45+ people make up less than 10% of the voting population for TKAM.

All in all, my point remains the same: you are largely speculating about why other people rate the film higher than you. To state that TKAM is high in the Top250 because people have less film viewing experience than you or because people are "indoctrinated" by an education system, are highly speculative assumptions that strongly imply that you are trying to say that somehow your opinion is worth more.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I was agreeing with you, until you said one of the worst misconceptions there can be in the appreciation of art.


"The viewer's frame of referense has a lot of influence, sure, but you are forgetting the most obvious thing which is the film itself. A terribly film is going to be a terribly film no matter who watches is it."

A film is neither good or bad by itself. Its appreciation depends 100% on the viewer. There is no real GOOD or TERRIBLE film at all! It depends on each particular viewer. Saying that it doesn't all depend on the viewer, but on the film itself, is like saying that you can reach objectivity in the appreciation of arts, and that's simply NOT true. There can be objectivity in this practice, but not when the time comes to say if a film is really good or bad.

reply

Objectivity is the sum of thousands of subjective opinions (the majority of people who have seen it).

http://www.imdb.com/user/ur1981820/ratings?start=1&view=detail&amp ;sort=your_ratings:desc

reply

That doesn't really work, does it? Objectivity is "defined" as a view-point based on its being "not" subjective, or without regard to one's own prejudices - detached, impersonal, external, unself-conscious, etc. How can art be judged that way since its objective is to touch us personally? Additionally, there is no "right" standard with which to weigh the object being considered, as there is in an objective analysis. We certainly can't do it by "majority rule", as you suggest ... can we?

reply

[deleted]

I wouldn't take the IMBD ratings too seriously. While I like most of the movies in the top 100, the order they are in tells me quite a bit about the people doing the voting.

reply

I can think of over 800 films that are better. Still a 6/10 though. I thought the portion of the film involving adults was actually quite good, but I could have done without all the kid stuff.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

reply

"I can think of over 800 films that are better. Still a 6/10 though. I thought the portion of the film involving adults was actually quite good, but I could have done without all the kid stuff. "
_____________________________________________________________________________

Yes, let's waste effort on someone whose favorite movie of ALL TIME is Her (2013).

reply

And my second favorite is Network (1976), my third-favorite is Un Coeur En Hiver (1992)...etc. What's your point? There isn't a film in my entire top 50, and then some, that wasn't widely acclaimed.

Many critics had Her on their "best of the year" lists.

Christopher Orr of The Atlantic named it the best film of the year: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/12/why-em-her-em -is-the-best-film-of-the-year/282544/

So did the National Board of Review (est. 1909): http://variety.com/2013/film/news/national-board-of-review-winners-201 3-1200918383/

David Edelstein, who had already for some time been my favorite film critic, put up a review of the film headlined "Spike Jonze’s Her Is One of the Best Films in Years": http://www.vulture.com/2013/12/movie-review-her.html

So while you certainly don't have to agree, it's not some oddball pick like Porky's that indicates my opinion is not to be taken seriously.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

reply

Yes, exactly, ebright. As I understand it, at one time or another the film has been urged upon high school students as "the" film to watch, as part of their "education". No doubt many students were delighted to be given permission to neglect more important studies to go watch a movie.

But that they all went on to become film fans is unlikely. In any case, it's very likely that the residual gratification that so many past-students still feel about having had a Hollywood movie as part of their formal education, is probably a large part of this film's otherwise-puzzling popularity.

Totally agree with you about the many better alternatives. Particularly "Night of the Hunter". It makes TKAM look like a Saturday morning children's cartoon, (which in some ways it was).

And, your tofu analogy is perfect!

reply

Totally agree with you about the many better alternatives. Particularly "Night of the Hunter". It makes TKAM look like a Saturday morning children's cartoon, (which in some ways it was).


I have seen a LOT of movies, and TKAM is one of my favorites. I found The Night of the Hunter to be mediocre.

reply

"Stagey and set bound, it doesn't look remotely authentic."

I grew up in that time, very near to that place, and of all of the bad things that one might want to say about the movie, "it doesn't look remotely authentic' is NOT one of them.

reply

[deleted]

We're not allowed to favor a movie that you personally don't like? Yeah. I see your logic there.

reply

Hey I agree with you on this one. I've read the book, and the book was amazing, but the movie doesn't even touch the surface of the characters or even the plot that the book had. The characters were just too different in the movie for me to enjoy it and the sets were too fake, too much like a Hollywood set, and not like Alabama. Heck the great depression was going on, so shouldn't people in the movie be a bit poor?

reply

Melon_Blando I agree with your assessment 100%. Throughout the 70s and 80s the book and this film were major parts of the American high school English curriculum. EVERY young person in America had it impressed upon them by an authority figure (their teacher) that this was a great film (and it is a great film, but nowhere near among the GREATEST). A small fraction of those students went on to seek some greater appreciation of film and discovered the multitude of films that surpass To Kill a Mockingbird, the rest went on to other interests and perhaps casually watch a few movies each year, maybe whatever won an Oscar, and that's about it. To those people, the vast majority, it's forever locked in their head what they learned in High School English, that THIS is superior filmmaking.

reply

Why choose and hold up that particular mediocre film as the epitome of film-making? Did they want to diminish their student's collective appreciation of film? And if so, why?

Why?

1. The film is not being held up by film studies teachers but by English teachers. Their knowledge and exposure to film may not be any better than their students. Most people will probably see 500 films in their life, I know people who watch 500+ films a year. I probably watch about 300 a year.
2. The book is a good book, not great, but better than the film. The book quickly became part of the cariculum in most schools, and the film along with it. No schools teach only the film, they watch the film as part of the process.
3. The book/film deals with the subject of the American South before the civil rights movement. This gives the book an interdisciplinary quality that crosses over into the students' lessons in US History.
4. Of course this liberal subject draws English teachers like flies to honey.
5. It's a book/film about young people which also makes it an easy fit within the High School cariculum. Other popular novels in American High Schools include Huck Finn, The Chocolate War, A Seperate Peace, Black Boy, Romeo and Juliet, and Lord of the Flies; all books about kids/teens.

BTW, Where are you from foriegner? :)

reply

Never realised Romeo and Juliet was a novel, I thought it was some film by an Australian set in LA with weird gangsta dialogue.
As to most over-rated, surely thats Fern gully 2 or its lesser known name Avatar.

reply

I have to start out by saying that calling To Kill a Mockingbird, "most over-rated, over-praised, over-evaluated, and over-esteemed film ever made," has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with it's quality as a movie. Citizen Kane is most over-rated, over-praised, over-evaluated, and over-esteemed because for me no matter how good no movie can live up to the hype that one gets even though I think it is an excellent movie. No movie can be considered the best movie ever made and then not be a disappointment. In this case I really don't think the movie has that much critical acclaim but it is very popular and I can understand if the movie didn't live up to the expectations someone would have after hearing people praise it.

As to the next part of the OP:

"People, it's just a hokey old B/W movie that tried to be the last gasp of the 50s, before the 60s really got going. Sentimental Pap. Formulaic, by-the-numbers mock-"Down Home" cliche."

I have to say that those two sentences are just plain wrong. The film is based, and I mean practically scene by scene based on the Pulitzer Prize winning novel. To say the movie is "hokey" is just wrong. Sure it has to do with southern people, so more and less sophisticated than others, but everyone are well-rounded characters. The acting is extremely good by Gregory Peck and Mary Badham who played Scoot and it's perfectly plotted. The book has nothing to do with the 50's or 60's for that matter being it's set in the 30's and if the movie is cliche it's because it's so iconic that other movies stole from it (and the book) and since you saw those other movies first the originality and concise plot are lost on you.

But if you don't like it. I honestly don't give a damn. It is a good movie and that issue isn't up for debate in my book. If you want to debate about it's greatness that's another issue all together.

reply

All that angst just to say you don't give a damn....

Your comments were so muddled, I couldn't be bothered to read them all.

By the way, the character's name was "Scout", not "Scoot". Obviously you weren't paying attention at school.....



reply


If you don't care about the others' opinion what makes you think people care about yours. The only reason why this topic generated so much of a fume coz you tried to insult something which is considered great. Like an old man said once, To get fame, you either be Great or insult the Great. Cheers my friend.


The Oscars' jury never disappoints people looking for Bullsh*t. All Hail band of Mor*ns!!

reply

Always a good idea, when one comes in late to a thread, to read ALL the responses before commenting.

Then there's less chance that one will make the mistake that you just made.

reply

Yeah, I read most of them and honestly found your habit of breaking down everybody's comments into paragraphs and trying to prove them wrong; quite annoying. Rather than coming up with good comments, you kept on bashing everybody else and even called them illogical. They are just expressing their views dude, no body said you didn't make any sense, they just meant, you didn't make any sense to them. Even half way through the thread I understood how idiotically persistent you were. Nobody needs to go through the entire thread to understand what you have been up to throughout this whole conversation. I respect your opinion but seriously disagree with it. Instead of answering to what I have written, you deduced that I didn't go through the thread at all. Funny how you assume things. Isn't that a sign of desperation to prove you right then. :)

The Oscars' jury never disappoints people looking for Bullsh*t. All Hail band of Mor*ns!!

reply

If you really had read "most" of this thread, you would not have made the comment that I had "kept bashing everybody else and called them illogical".

Clearly, you didn't really read the thread through.

In fact, if you had even read a short representative section of the thread, the first thing that would have struck you was that it keeps getting resurrected by people whose sole purpose is to attack me rather than my views.

As you did.

It seems to me that my original comments have been vindicated by the tone of the responses. People who think this film is something wonderful seem to be unable to brook any criticism of it. To some, it's scared, sacrosanct, and beyond criticism. And anyone who criticises it is to be discredited. That tells me something about the mentality of such people.

Personally, I'd be more than satisfied if I received no more of these petulant reactions. If a film fan can't accept an opposing view about his personal favourites, that's his problem, not mine.

reply

Ha Ha Ha, isn't that what you're doing here my friend? Let me serve you your own recipe.

"If a film fan can't accept an opposing view about his personal favourites, that's his problem, not mine."

Isn't that what you're trying to prove, may be in a different way? They can't accept your views which oppose their favorites; similarly you can't accept their criticism when they don't agree with your so-called idea of a great movie. I did read a big chunk of the thread, but like I mentioned earlier, I didn't go through all of it coz I lost my interest after reading few of your responses. And after a while I got tired of it. You think people were trying to attack you? You also had your fair share of blitzkrieg if I may. :)

In the end, I would again say I respect your opinion (but don't agree with it), its just that you don't seem to respect that of others. Peace out :)

The Oscars' jury never disappoints people looking for Bullsh*t. All Hail band of Mor*ns!!

reply

To say the movie is "hokey" is just wrong. Sure it has to do with southern people, so more and less sophisticated than others, but everyone are well-rounded characters.

The reason the film is "hokey" is because it is so unauthentic and stage bound. No location work/all studio backlot. I think you can hear the traffic on the 5 freeway through Studio City if you listen close enough. It's just a cheap looking production that resembles the kind of production values that Universal-MCA would very quickly put toward producing made for TV content.

All other elements being equal the film's mis-en-scene is so lacking that it should never be held up as anything near great.

reply

actually ... you are wrong. To Kill A Mockingbird was filmed in Harper Lee's (the author's) hometown.

The reason this film is so great is because it teaches an indisputable moral.

It is compelling because it tells of a coming of age where children learn of their father as being the great man others could see but they could not.

It is a landmark film because it was one of the first to deal with racism in a true setting.

It is a great film because 50 years later we are having this debate ...

reply

actually ... you are wrong. To Kill A Mockingbird was filmed in Harper Lee's (the author's) hometown.


You are incorrect. The following is from the Trivia section for the movie, found right here on IMDB.


Director Robert Mulligan and producer Alan J. Pakula traveled to Harper Lee's hometown of Monroeville but found it unsuitable for filming. The town had been modernized. Therefore the production team constructed their own ideal version of Monroeville on a backlot at Universal. When Lee saw their recreation, she said it was perfect.



"I can't sit down. These aren't my pants."

reply

Hmm... the book 'Mockingbird' the biography of Harper Lee says it was filmed in her home town.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

We are watching TKMB again and were telling each other it was one of our favorite films. This thread caught my eye as I was curious how a favorite film might be overrated (or underrated) by others, and how these two things might be related. I saw this film for the first time when I was 12. From around 1965 thru 1973, every time it came on TV my mother would gather us together and we would watch it in the living room. My deep, almost religious reverence and appreciation for this film rises not simply from the film itself; the actors, subject matter, musical score, etc. but also from my position; age, education, mood and location. I cannot separate them. It's like a sweet childhood memory; a story, told from a child's perspective, deepened by my mothers thoughtful commentary; her desire to instill in us not only an understanding of race relations in America, but also her strong admiration for Gregory Peck and his liberal idealism. Film is an amazing medium, but the context in which we view film can strongly affect our reactions to it and rating of it. I state the obvious but I wanted to add my two cents.

Patrick

reply

I saw this film for the first time when I was 12. From around 1965 thru 1973, every time it came on TV my mother would gather us together and we would watch it in the living room. My deep, almost religious reverence and appreciation for this film rises not simply from the film itself; the actors, subject matter, musical score, etc. but also from my position; age, education, mood and location. I cannot separate them. It's like a sweet childhood memory; a story, told from a child's perspective, deepened by my mothers thoughtful commentary; her desire to instill in us not only an understanding of race relations in America, but also her strong admiration for Gregory Peck and his liberal idealism. Film is an amazing medium, but the context in which we view film can strongly affect our reactions to it and rating of it. I state the obvious but I wanted to add my two cents.


Nice post Patrick. I agree some movies have a place in our heart over and above the film itself because of the time, place and people we saw it with.

However in the case of TKMB I don't believe it can ever be over-rated regardless of circumstances in which you watch it or the age you are at the time. This is a special movie.

reply

Well said, Schnand!

reply

You are such a prat. Every comment you make is just streaming of so much arrogance that I can't even read this thread anymore.

This ain't my first tea party...

reply

This coming from the guy who debates, in fine detail over multiple posts, that Uhura should be described as curvy instead of chunky.

Not exactly a film connoisseur this one.

=P

reply

Well, this is actually my favorite film.

I can't say it is the best film ever made because I am not an expert in film-making. However, I would say it is likely one of the best films ever made because of its profound impact on so many people. It is a film that moved me and stayed with me longer than any other.

I also think, though, that it is inextricably tied-up with the book. This is also my favorite novel. The film was unusually successful in its adaptation of the book. People who loved the book and consider it a masterpiece likely feel similarly about the movie. The film was remarkable in that it captured the time, place, characters, and key events so evocatively and faithfully.

reply

However, I would say it is likely one of the best films ever made because of its profound impact on so many people.


I have to respond by saying "its profound impact on so many people" is not a particularly good criterion for being considered "one of best films ever made".

"Ishtar" had a profound impact on a lot of people, too...


reply

Well, I'd say that "profound impact" is one possible way of justifying a film's greatness.

And, although I've never seen Ishtar, I've of course heard how "special" it is :)


reply

I think it has more to do with the fact that this is one of those rare films that comes so close to approximating the book in almost every way. Don't forget Peck's portrayal of Atticus is perfect - so much that if you read the book after watching the film it is Peck who will remain your as your mental image of Atticus.

It's hard for me to be objective of how one might view the film without knowing the book but perhaps it is reasonable to assume one who watches it without any prior reference might find it a bit flat and somewhat overrated. But I'm someone who thought "It's A Wonderful Life" was a ridiculous mess of a film when I first saw it. I still do but I tend to overlook my own criticisms simply to enjoy the familiarity of the film's viewing experience.

reply

Unless a film is made from an original screenplay, it truly helps that the source material is a great story, beautifully written, about universal themes. That is certainly true of the novel by Harper Lee. The reason English teachers have loved the book for fifty years is because they are by inclination and training able to recognize excellence when see it. If they are good teachers they work hard to convey their own love for a piece of literature to their students and to convey the reasons it is great. To Kill a Mockingbird is collectively the object of much admiration and affection because it deserves to be. And it is more relevant than ever because racial injustice is, unfortunately, alive and well in our country.

For over twenty years it has been a rare student in my junior high class who has not loved the novel and the film, which we see as a culmination of the unit.

I am sorry that today's generation of film buffs are so dismissive of what is a brilliant movie, a true classic.

By the way, the film also has a fan in the White House:

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/04/obama-to-introduce-to-kill-a-mockingbird-119506.html

reply

The reason English teachers have loved the book for fifty years is because they are by inclination and training able to recognize excellence when see it.


You mean "selective recognition", surely? The number of books that qualify for the status of "excellent", but which have not been recognised and promoted decade after decade by English teachers must be in the hundreds.

And it is more relevant than ever because racial injustice is, unfortunately, alive and well in our country.


That is the single, solitary reason why the book/movie was promoted and popularised. A worthy cause, yes, but having a worthy cause as its subject does not make an excellent book/movie out of an ordinary book/movie.

I am sorry that today's generation of film buffs are so dismissive of what is a brilliant movie, a true classic.


Make that "yesterday's generation of film buffs". I'm 66.

reply

That is the single, solitary reason why the book/movie was promoted and popularised. A worthy cause, yes, but having a worthy cause as its subject does not make an excellent book/movie out of an ordinary book/movie

Not true, it is only one of the reasons. Another of the many reasons why this is considered classic literature is because it tells a racially charged story from an unexpected view at the time-a young, white girl without a racial bone in her body. Truly, this movie doesn't stand the test of time as other classics (racism has changed a bit over the years), but in my opinion, it doesn't have to in this case.

I don't have a problem with people who don't like this movie, any form of art has a right to be judged, but I do question the reasons that you've given.


A clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease. -Sun Tzu

reply

[deleted]

I saw this movie this past weekend for the first time in about 50 years. At that time I was too immature to fully appreciate just how good it was. This time, my wife and I were profoundly moved by the entire movie. It was so good at capturing the innocence and wonder of childhood, how innocent kids would see events, how their fears might manifest themselves. I had forgotten many parts of the plot and I kept hoping that black man would win his innocence, as Atticus Finch so deftly and cleverly made obvious in his cross-examination. Yet justice did not prevail. He had a chance to win on appeal, but seeing no hope, he tried to escape, and died.

The character Scout was a standout in that she seemed to have the knack for saving tense situations from becoming a disaster.

You might think that all these decades later, justice might prevail in the USA. Instead, it has gotten far worse. In the 1970's, there were some 230,000 people in prison in the USA. Now there are 2.3 million! This is the highest per capita prison rate in the world! We once scoriated the USSR for their high prison rate. What do we say now?

If people value freedom, they must also value government by the people, and fairness in the justice system. If we do not have that, what kind of a country do we have, anyway?

reply

In this thread, you can see an example of people using the common sense and relativism to judge (or not) the quality of a movie. I don't think that the OP wanted to discuss the subject but the overall quality of the film, the way that it developed this subject, its technical flaws and i really think that you can find parameters to compare and decide wheter this is overrated or not, something that will requires you a better knowledge about cinema.
I can't agree with this thing about "depends of the viewer bla bla bla". If a novel is badly written, millions of people can love it and it still will be badly written.

Your mother cook socks in hell!

reply