I think that To Kill A Mockingbird is a boring and a time wasting book because it's an old book. I know that many people love this movie, but it is not my cup of tea, it seriously bore me to death. Even though Harper Lee's book is of course denser in detail and much richer, which always happens because books and movies are different media, I still think it is a fairly good, unpretentious, touching adaptation. I usually dislike kids in US movies, but these are truly an exception, they are just adorable. All actors are outstanding, and of course Gregory Peck's understating acting is truly exceptional. Not to mention the very brief, breathtaking appearence by Robert Duvall at the end of the movie. Elmer Berstein's score is a true classic, simply marvelous.…show more content… They have abused DNR once more and the result, although not as badly preposterous as, let's say, "Sleepy Hollow" or "Out of Africa", is still quite sad. Details are lost, borders appear blurry at times, and, most sadly of all, faces are rather waxy, very waxy at times. I just don't understand the obsession for getting rid of the celulloid grain, which was a natural part of movies for many decades; it was the way these wonderful movies were shot and watched in theaters for generations. Comparison with other black & white classics on blu-ray such as "Night of the hunter", "Casablanca" or "Citizen Kane" enhances all that is miserably lost in this one. A real shame. One would think that after the "Gladiator" affair, which had to be re-released with a new remastering toning donwn the DNR, this mistake would never be made again. But it does seem Universal is getting pretty good at spoiling wonderful movies. After watching the short documentary "100 years of Universal: restoring the classics" one feels really sorry that so much effort and care is spoiled at the very end with the absurd DNR
