The Lovely Bones

The Lovely Bones

The Lovely Bones has everything working in its favor.

Based on the bestselling novel by Alice Sebold, director Peter Jackson came to it fresh from his award-winning, record-breaking Lord Of The Rings trilogy (we'll ignore the disappointment of King Kong... for now). Add in Oscar-nominated teen actress Saoirse Ronan and Hollywood stalwarts Stanley Tucci and Susan Sarandon, and this is one movie that should have been leading the pack come Oscar season.

So what went wrong? The Lovely Bones is still a good movie, but it's not a great one, and it certainly fails to live up to its promise on almost every level. What turned this Oscar certainty into such an underwhelming display of mediocrity?

Part of the blame has to lie with Jackson, who has yet to reproduce his Lord Of The Rings success. He seems more intent on crafting intricate, spectacular special effects than telling stories, and as a result The Lovely Bones is more of a visual feast than a cerebral one. And even those effects sequences occasionally look more like a Febreze commercial than a multi-million dollar movie.

The casting is rather wayward at times too, and not everyone is up to the tough task set by Sebold's bold source material. Ronan and Sarandon are as watchable as ever, and Stanley Tucci gives what may turn out to be a career-best performance as reclusive killer George Harvey - but Rachel Weisz and Mark Wahlberg don't make a convincing screen couple, and Wahlberg in particular looks perpetually stoned and/or lobotomized.

His dopey everyman act was already starting to wear thin - here he stretches it to breaking point.

The core problem lies with bringing Sebold's ambitious novel to the big screen, however, and it's a challenge that Jackson never successfully addresses. In the original story the recently-deceased Susie Salmon (Ronan) influences the events following her death from the afterlife, ensuring that her killer is finally punished for his crimes. Here, Salmon drifts whimsically through the fields of her own personal limbo, but the interaction between the living and the dead is kept to a minimum.

As a result The Lovely Bones fractures into two separate narrative threads, one of which involves Susie Salmon wandering aimlessly around, watching her family fall apart and waiting for something to happen. Jackson does his best to make it look pretty, but it's no substitute for genuine action and conflict.

The Lovely Bones still manages to be interesting and engaging, largely thanks to Tucci, Ronan and Sarandon, but it never scales the heights that it promised. Sometimes it's not enough to have a great story, a great director, and a great cast. Sometimes there has to be a little magic too.

3/5

The Lovely Bones

The Lovely Bones - Directed by Peter Jackson, starring Saoirse Ronan, Mark Wahlberg, and Stanley Tucci - Rated PG-13

The film has its moments, but overall it's a bit weak, like Commodus.



The Lovely Bones, Peter Jackson’s latest, is all over the place but when it’s focused, the film is very effective. The problem, for me, was that the weak moments overshadowed the strong.
The film takes place in Pennsylvania in the early 1970’s. Susie Salmon is a regular 14-year old girl who gets murdered by a creepy neighbor and then spends time in the “in between,” watching over her family as they deal with her death. The problem I had with the film is that she seems to only be watching. While the film pretends she has some influence in the living world, all it really amounts to is her voice breaking through on occasion (save for one nearly pointless moment at the end). So it’s kind of like Ghost, except Susie never learns how to be useful after her death. The film tries to make it seem like she is influencing events, though. Susie says in narration that she has “willed” things to happen, but I don’t buy it. The events she thinks she influences are completely believable without Susie’s involvement, so what is she really doing?

The film’s stronger moments take place in the living world where her father (Mark Wahlberg) is trying to track down the killer. I can’t take Wahlberg seriously after the “Saturday Night Live” sketch about him and his performance in The Happening, but his storyline intrigued me the most. Saosirse Ronan is great as Susie, though. She definitely creates sympathy for her character. Ronan exudes such innocence before her death that you’ll get a true sense of hate for her murderer. That’s not to say that Stanley Tucci, as the murderer, needs any help in creating hatred. He absolutely embodies creepiness and his portrayal is one of the most unsettling performances in recent memory. I would go so far as to say that Tucci alone makes this film worth watching.

It’s a shame that the unsympathetic character is given the most development, though. The mother and father get their angry/crying scenes, but Susie’s dad almost instantly goes into obsessed mode while the mother just leaves. I normally wouldn’t suggest this, but this film needed a better misery scene. The biggest mistake in the character department, however, rests with Susan Sarandon as Susie’s wacky grandma. Now, this is a movie about the murder of a child, yet the filmmakers felt that they should add a montage of Sarandon acting goofy. Watch as grandma messes up the laundry, sets the kitchen on fire, drinks too much, and always smokes! Hilarious, right? Completely out of place is more like it. I felt like I was watching a different movie in that moment.

Scenes like that led me to believe that the screenwriters tried too hard to please fans of the book. I have never read the bestseller that this film is based on, but the out of place moments of this film must be better handled in the book. Maybe that’s not the case, but even if I had gone into this movie with no prior knowledge, I would’ve known that it was an adaptation after that montage.As I mentioned earlier, though, this film does have strong aspects. The scenes involving Tucci were full of tension and they truly made me feel uncomfortable. The visuals are impressive at times, though I was actually expecting them to be a bit better since it was Peter Jackson. Regardless, some images stuck with me, like the giant bottled ships crashing into rocks. And speaking of Jackson, his cameo (a not so subtle shot of him looking through a camera) and references were an amusing touch.

Peter Jackson is a proven director, but he really needs to trim the fat off of his films. I’ve had issues with his films since the multiple endings of The Return of the King and then the bloated King Kong remake. This film isn’t extremely long or anything, but plenty of it could have been cut to tighten the focus. For starters, Jackson could have cut the Sarandon character completely. I believe other characters, like Susie’s sister, could’ve have been cut down as well.

I wanted to see a movie that was only about a father and his daughter and how they both deal with her death. Instead, I got an unfocused film that seemed to randomly focus on different characters. If the filmmakers could’ve seen the strong aspects of The Lovely Bones during production, maybe the film would have turned out better. As it is, the film is mediocre and worth a rental at best.

(Read Less...)

Eric Harris - www.canneltoncritic.com

Last updated: 2010-05-08 10:29:15 by user06

The Lovely Bones

Starring:  Saoirse Ronan, Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz
Drama, Rated PG 13 (2009)

Susie Salmon (Ronan) is a bright energetic fourteen year old on the cusp of finding her first love.  She has a loving family and dreams of being a photographer.  All of this is taken away from her when an unsuspecting neighbor murders her.  Susie finds herself in the midst of a nightmare that she can't wake up from when she discovers that she has been killed.  She is not ready to let go of her family just as they are not ready to let go of her so she lingers in a mystical in between world and watches with anger and sadness as her family unravels in the wake of her disappearance and her killer goes on with his life as if nothing happened.  She wills her family to discover her murderer as much for herself as for them.

• This movie uses a lot of great imagery and symbolism to make connections between life on earth and the afterlife.  It isn't spelled out for you and sometimes is confusing but leaves you to draw some of your own conclusions about where Susie has gone to after her death and what that means. 
• She remains intangibly connected to her family and people that she knew.  Though her physical presence is no more there are moments where they can sense her.
• This movie really gives voice to victims in a way that I have not ever seen before.  It makes you really think about all of those people in the world who have been viciously taken too soon and the thoughts and feelings that might occur after being murdered, taken from your life, and knowing that there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
• The story line was very captivating and took us on a journey that showed a unique perspective of everyone involved.
• They left some things undone in this movie which didn't sit well with me but neither is murder and so it was fitting.  I wanted closure, justice, and I wanted to know exactly how Susie died but all of those answers weren't given to us.  Murder is messy and so too were all of the loose ends in the film.
• Ronan is a talented actress which was obvious from her break out role in Atonement. She is clearly one to watch and will likely have a long career in the movie biz.

5/5 Stars

Just Me

The Lovely Bones: Peter Jackson's Blunder

The Lovely Bones
 
Peter Jackson attempts to adapt Alice Sebold’s novel The Lovely Bones into a creepy, yet thought provoking drama that plays very close to the chest.  He succeeds in those points, but in the process he destroys a great novel and perverts its message into one that is almost insulting.
 
Set in the 1970’s The Lovely Bones is a story about Susie Salmon, Saoirse Ronan, who’s a typical teenager.  She loves taking pictures, riding her bike around, and crushing over a fellow student named Ray.  As Susie fawns over Ray she doesn’t realize her neighbor George Harvey, Stanley Tucci, is going to kill her.  Susie leaves no room for interpretation about her killer and as she watches her family from heaven she weighs the decision of revenge and coping. 
 
This movie is not a murder mystery as the murderer is known already and there’s really no one else it could be if one might be exploring the possibility of a twist.  The interest of the movie lies in how Susie deals with her own death and how the family copes with the loss of a child.  She’s not quite ready to accept that her physical life is over and as a result implores her father, Mark Wahlberg, to avenge her.  What she doesn’t realize though is her father’s obsession with finding her murderer is tearing the family apart.
 
The failure of this movie is no fault of the acting.  Even though Wahlberg was cast days before shooting he does a good job.  His relationship with his daughter is subtle and just the right amount of heartbreaking.  The best performance though has to go to Stanley Tucci.  His role as Susie’s killer is chilling.  Every time he appears on screen you find yourself just as interested in him as much as you despise him.
 
The Lovely Bones falls off the tracks because of its conductor, Peter Jackson.  Jackson felt that the novel was too dark.  In response he left the details of Susie’s death to the imagination, which hurts our ability to further understand the pain of her death.  He also changed the tempo of the ending which is touched off by a scene where Susie meets up with previous victims and they frolic in the bliss of heaven.  This somehow implies that Susie is happy to have been raped and murdered because now she can be free of her earthly burdens.  That kind of message is irresponsible.
 
With that being said there’s a bigger problem in that nothing really happens.  With the mystery virtually solved it seems that no one is left with anything to do.  The characters look around either at each other or at inanimate objects for much of the film.  The movie seems to float on from Susie’s actual death until her sister decides to take action towards the end of the movie.    
 

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: Shutter Island, District 9 (Neill Blomkamp, 2009), Morning Glory

Last updated: 2010-04-12 19:05:45 by jpgreenb

Review: The Lovely Bones

   Rated PG-13 for mature thematic material involving disturbing violent content and images, and some language

In The Lovely Bones's first trailer, Susie Salmon says "My father had the pieces, but he couldn't make them fit." Susie states much of the plot in a nutshell. She also, most definitely on accident, describes the main flaw in The Lovely Bones: Peter Jackson just couldn't fit it all together correctly. Whether it's the plot, with a delicate issue in tow, or the abrupt switches from sentimental to dark, The Lovely Bones is made not so lovely by it's near contradictory tonal changes and a some directorial flukes.

The Lovely Bones is the 1973 fictional story of thirteen-year-old Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) and her family, as both she and her relatives on Earth cope with her rape and murder. The murderer, Mr. Harvey (Stanley Tucci), eludes capture even with Susie's father (Mark Wahlberg) searching for answers months after all is said and done. A major issue comes into play having to do with the story's initial and horrifying event, the death of Susie Salmon. Having a PG-13 rating means a no-no for any graphic scene involved, so the bad stuff is only implied.  Jackson's decision to remove the act itself (which I'm not sure if it  was in the book or not) takes away from what could better express how  terrible Mr. Harvey's actions were. At the same time, he spares us from seeing something that could have destroyed all enjoyment of The Lovely Bones. This was nearly a lose-lose situation, because either controversy would surround Peter Jackson's decision for (possibly) showing the rape and murder of it's protaganist, or people would complain like they are now (but showing a scene like that is doable, as one can see from The Kite Runner). The plot, despite how difficult it is, is a strong one. However the tone is hard to capture at the same time. The Lovely Bones makes tonal transitions suddenly, but not very deftly. Often times these changes are abrupt and hardly flow. One scene, having to do with Susie's alcoholic grandma (Susan Sharadon), was very funny, but I didn't feel like laughing with the context as heavy as it was. Many times the most jarring shifts are from the in-between to Earth. Some sequences were downright bizarre and hard to take seriously, such as a 70's themed montage of Susie and her downright annoying companion (who destroys many of the scenes that she is in). Luckily, all of this takes place in the first half of The Lovely Bones.

Peter Jackson makes both great visuals and scrappy shots in the initial section of The Lovely Bones. The in-between sections are vivid and pleasant to look at. Jackson uses CGI  for some incredible  vistas and imaginative sequences. On the other side, he seemed to develop a love for extreme, home video like close ups. While they may have had a greater intent, the way Jackson executed these strange shots was as hard to watch as some of the weirded out in-between segments.  Peter Jackson captures the Salmon family's torment both intimately and informatively. At times he magnifies Rachel Weisz and Mark Wahlberg's strong performances, and temporarily blocks some of the glaring flaws as a result.
The second half of The Lovely Bones is stellar. Peter Jackson cranks up the intensity once things finally get going. A parade of great scenes take up the latter hour or so. A suspenseful and remarkably crafted break-in start the riveting closing segment that ends beautifully. At the same time, Saoirse Ronan and the rest of the cast, especially Stanley Tucci, shine. Saoirse plays Susie with a persistent intelligence that transcends her age and acting experience. She manages to communicate the pain that has never fully gone away, but retains the bubbly personality given to her character. Stanley Tucci hits all the right buttons by being creepy and ferocious. At times he seems unnaturally fit for the role. The soundtrack is fitting here as well. It is both tense and beautiful. One song in particular, by Brian Eno, is spectacular. I wish all of The Lovely Bones was as good as the second half. Peter Jackson would have seen some Academy Award nominations coming down the pipe.

The Lovely Bones is one of those movies that could have been great. The narrative, which is strong in it's own regard, ultimately hinders much of Bones. Peter Jackson took a difficult subject and stumbled with it at times. However, once Jackson hit is mark, the rest fits together wonderfully. If all of The Lovely Bones was up to the levels of the second portion, then it would have been truly lovely. If only, if only.

60%

Last updated: 2010-04-11 14:08:39 by user01

FILM REVIEW : The Lovely Bones (2009)

When I sat down to watch Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones, which has received mixed responses at best, I honestly had no clue what I was getting myself into. I was highly anticipating the film, but I was also very skeptical given what I had heard. Even after seeing the film, I'm still a bit confused about the whole thing...

The Lovely Bones is based on Alice Sebold's novel of the same name. The film follows Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan), a teenage girl living in the 1970s. Upon being murdered and raped by neighbor Mister Harvey (Stanley Tucci), her family - mother (Rachel Weisz), father (Mark Wahlberg), sister (Rose McIver), and grandmother (Susan Sarandon) - deals with the murder in various ways. Meanwhile, Susie is stuck in a limbo that is dubbed "the In-Between," where she observes what her family and her murderer are doing.


What is there to say about The Lovely Bones that has yet to be said already? It's been deemed everything from a near masterpiece to a complete waste of film. I mean not to make a pun out of one of the film's plot devices, but I'd place the film somewhere in between.


The strength of the film is in the performances, particularly those of Saoirse Ronan and Stanley Tucci. Ronan's interpretation of Susie Salmon is something to behold. She takes this fairly one dimensional character to emotional places that most other young actresses could not. As for Tucci, he gives a tour de force performance as Mister Harvey. He is completely deserving of his Academy Award nomination; quite frankly, I think he's the best of the nominees that I have seen (still haven't seen The Last Station, so I can't comment on Christopher Plummer).


The other performances were fine as well. Rose McIver is quite effective as Susie's sister. The parental dynamic created by Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz is pretty strong as well, although Wahlberg's performance occasionally dips into the mentality of Andy Samberg's "Mark Wahlberg Talks to Animals." Susan Sarandon's performance as the grandmother is something of a mess, but it's a campy mess that is certainly a whole lot of fun to watch


The real problem with The Lovely Bones lies in the writing and directing. The screenplay doesn't really allow for these characters to have any real depth other than at face value. In addition, the film switches between two different perspectives: Susie in the In-Between, and the happenings of the Salmon family and Mister Harvey.


Unfortunately, Susie's perspective is not focused on enough. So much focus is spent outside of Susie's eyes that you begin to wonder who the film is supposed to be about. In addition, Susie's escapades in the In-Between are basically the same song and dance over and over again: nothing new or interesting happens. As for the dealings of the Salmon family and Mister Harvey, there isn't enough substance to most of the material. It is all face value at best.


The directing is no better than the writing. Peter Jackson is a man of meticulous detail, and there is certainly nothing wrong with being detailed. However, when the visual effects and camera angles have more effectiveness and detail than the emotions of the characters, there is a huge problem - especially in a film like this.


Upon viewing The Lovely Bones, I really had no idea what I thought of it. It's been about a month or so since I've seen it (apologies for the lateness of my review), and I still have no solid opinion. I guess you could say it's something of a wannabe masterpiece with its fair share of problems. Here's what I've concluded for myself: strong performances help make this film a worthwhile watch. However, they don't make up for the awkward direction and unevenly paced screenplay that both make this a poor film overall


No comments on recommendation


Rating: 5.5 out of 10 stars


Academy Award nomination:
Best Actor in a Supporting Role: Stanley Tucci

Photo Courtesy: About Hollywood Movies

(Read Less...)

Julian Stark (pen name)<br />
<br />
Founder/Editor: Movies and Other Things<br />
<br />
http://julianstark-moviesandotherthings.blogspot.com

Lovely Bones: Scarier than Death Itself

Caught in the blue horizon between Heaven and earth: the murdered Suzi with some unfinished business


"The Lovely Bones" isn't exactly the bright, cheery movie about a girl gone to Heaven, watching over her family, as which some have described it. If they had paid attention, they might have caught that Suzi Salmon, the girl who tells the story of her murder on December 6, 1973, from the Spirit World, hadn't gone on yet to Heaven, at all, because she had some "unfinished business" to take care of.
That unfinished business is what makes the film quite a thriller, so, this is not your average "gone to Heaven to haunt you" type of comedy.

Based on a book by Alice Sebold who had been raped at the age of 18, and was told to have come away "lucky" to have lived through her experience, the story comes across in such a way that it makes you wonder whether perhaps the real Suzi had told her story to this writer who could relate to her fate.

There are a lot of bad reviews of the film on IMDB from people who claim to hate it on account of the "overdone" CGI effects (none of which struck us as "overdone,") but if they're honest, it was probably more likely that the thought of a life after death scared the hell out of them, or just having been confronted with the issue in such a somewhat rude, unexpected manner.

If you have a problem with life after death, you'll probably hate this film, but you might as well get used to the thought anyway. Chances are there's a lot more to it than a few movies.
Chances are, the whole thing isn't going to be half as scary as movies like this one make it out to be.

All in all I found this movie watchable; a little too intense to call it "enjoyable," but nonetheless not an experience you would regret.

Recommendations: The Matrix , Fratello sole, sorella luna , The Visual Bible: The Gospel of John

There IS no spoon!

Last updated: 2010-04-09 16:43:02 by McDozer

Lovely Bones, The (Peter Jackson, 2010)

THE SCOOP
Director: Peter Jackson
Plot: Centers on a young girl who has been murdered and watches over her family - and her killer - from heaven. She must weigh her desire for vengeance against her desire for her family to heal.

Genre: Drama/Fantasy/Thriller
Awards: Nom. for 1 Oscar - best supporting actor.
Runtime: 121min
Rating: PG for mature thematic material involving disturbing violent content and images, and some language.

IN RETROSPECT
Peter Jackson’s popularity rose dramatically in 2001 when he released the first chapter of The Lord of the Rings (LOTR) trilogy. He followed up with two extraordinary sequels (2002, 2003) and an astounding remake of King Kong (2005). If there is a filmmaker who could take you to a distant world, a land of fantasy and horror where every image serves to placate our senses, look no further than Jackson. However, in his new film The Lovely Bones, it seems like the master of the epic Hollywood blockbuster has lost his touch.

To be fair, The Lovely Bones is not a film meant to be viewed as “epic”. Neither is its plot. It is a low-key fantasy-drama with a big name director. The storyline is adapted from Alice Sebold’s novel of the same name and centers on its lead character Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan). Ronan plays a fourteen year-old middle-class girl whose existence in a loving family is cruelly cut short by her psychopathic next-door neighbor George Harvey (Stanley Tucci) who leads her down to a makeshift underground hideaway and brutally rapes and murders her.

For much of the film after Susie’s death, it is split into two different worlds. One describes the afterlife Susie finds herself in, a realm between heaven and earth, as she watches from above the effects of her death on her family and her murderer (who both inhabit the “earthly” world). Jackson alternates between the two worlds – fantasy and reality – and brings them together in an attempt to draw a grandiose picture of “life after (a) death”. Unfortunately, that attempt falls very short of what Sebold’s source material intended to deliver.

How does an Academy Award-winning writer-director with so much passion about film (and with the skills to boot) suddenly make a lousy film? Short of asking Francis Ford Coppola (who made his fair share of unbelievably bad films despite helming The Godfather trilogy (1972, 1974, 1990) and Apocalypse Now (1979)) to give a plausible answer, a better explanation could be found in the question itself – too much passion, too much skill. That’s right. Only a director with (too) much passion and skill could have messed it all up.

The most glaring flaw of the film is its unevenness in tone. The alternation between the two worlds does not leave us with awe-inspiring moments (though Jackson’s portrayal of Susie’s pseudo-heaven is at the very least colorful and imaginative). Instead, it gives us a sense of void, a vacuum-like feeling that fails to make us care despite strong performances from Ronan and Tucci whom are the film’s saving grace.

If I may be kinder to Jackson, there are two standout sequences in The Lovely Bones which serve as a reminder that he still hasn’t lost his magic: First, Susie finds herself in the bathroom of a creepy house. She sees a still body lying in the bathtub with a cloth draped over the face as she tiptoes past “it”. This scene jolts the memory of a similar creepy scene in another film, Guillermo Del Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth (2006), where a similarly-aged girl sees a pale-faced monster sitting motionlessly at one end of a long table filled with sumptuous food delights. An influence perhaps? Well, is it not a coincidence that Jackson earmarked Del Toro to tackle The Hobbit, an extension of the LOTR trilogy?

The other sequence is another suspenseful one involving Mr. Harvey’s discovery of Susie’s sister in his own home as she attempts to search for evidence of his heinous crime. Sound is used for startling effect as Jackson does a Hitchcock, cranking the suspense to an almost unbearable level. Even with these two finely executed sequences and the abovementioned strong performances, The Lovely Bones still stands as a momentous flop. It is a major disappointment from someone whom we have come to revere as a master storyteller.

SCORE: 5/10
[www.filmnomenon.blogspot.com]
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED!

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: Toy Story 3 (Lee Unkrich, 2010), To Kill a Mockingbird (Robert Mulligan, 1962), The Visitor

Singapore's Most Prolific Film Blogger @ www.filmnomenon.blogspot.com

Last updated: 2010-04-09 07:42:49 by eternality_tan

Booze Revooze: A Drinker’s Skewed View of THE LOVELY BONES

Ramblings:  [i will not say Lovely Boner, i will not say Lovely Boner, i will not say...]

Final Proof: 3 Shots

You know how you drink with psychos?  i mean, there are psychos and there are psychos. The first kind is no problem ’cause they come in sporting a suit of rotting fish, pick a fight right away and get thrown out faster than you can say “Is that a spoon in your hair or are you missing a shoe?” That’s not the kind of psycho i’m talking about here. i’m talkin’ about the kind of guy who looks cool and talks cool but every once in a long while he mutters a strange aside that makes you wonder. And the way he looks at you makes you wonder so you get tense and drink less than you wanted ’cause you feel like you gotta be on your guard at all times so this guy doesn’t jab cocktail umbrellas into your eye sockets while you’re scoping out the young talent surrounding you. He’s a weird one all  right. Off kilter enough like you’re always looking at him through a half-empty bottle and just by existing makes you feel guilty for being human. Yeah, The Lovely Bones is kinda like that.

i gotta say i liked The Lovely Bones. The problem Peter Jackson has is that geeks aren’t gonna like this because there aren’t any hobbits in it and film buffs are gonna slag it ’cause the dude made three whole freakin’ Lord Of The Rings movies and a King Kong to boot. But hell, if you don’t know who Peter Jackson is or don’t hate on him for having more money than you’ll ever see in three lifetimes, then you should see this.

There’s a lot here to like. The actors really flesh out their parts, with special props to the young Saoirse Ronan who assures in her role as the murdered teen, and Stanley Tucci who freaked the crap out of me.  Also, normally The Bar None is against credit but i’ll give it where it’s due and tonight it’s due to Peter Jackson. He took some risks when filming the nether region and i thought he pulled it off damn well.

For example, it’s a well-established fact that i hate movies with violence against women, but the way it’s treated here is so suspenseful that it made me kinda sick. Sure, it’s an unpleasant sensation but what i’m saying is that he was able to make me feel something rather than just sit there thinking he was an asshole for making a movie about hurting young ladies.

Don’t get me wrong, i didn’t love everything here. Some of the long passages were long and the movie kinda loses direction a little in the middle. There is one WTF moment that bugged me so much i woulda yelled at the screen if i’d been drunk and plus this is another one of those movies that keeps ending. You think it’s over, nope, one more scene.  Done? One more ending. Ok? Just one more. It’s like that guy at the end of the bar who says he’s leaving and is on his third ‘last drink’.

Maybe you read the book but i don’t read anything longer than bottle labels so i can’t compare it to the novel. What i can tell you is that The Lovely Bones is more suspense/thriller than it is a literary film.

Before we move on to the next section—and you knew this was gonna happen so stop your whining—i gotta card Saoirse Ronan (who apparently pronounces her first name SAIR-sheh) ’cause at 15 the babe is really only a babe and, unlike the psycho nut job in the movie, i’m all about age appropriateness in The Bar None. (But check out her eyes! You won’t believe me, but Miss Demeanor has the exact shade of infinity blue in her eyes, too.)
Sex: 2 Shots

Guess what. No nudity. Yeah, yeah, i know, not my fault. Anyway, with the theme of the movie, any kinda nudity here would be as unwelcome as a stripper at a bris.  Which doesn’t mean we can’t have hot babes, thank goddess.

Case in point, i get to exposé Rachel Weisz just a few days after doing her in Agora.
Starring as Lindsey Salmon, the younger sister, we got New Zealander Rose McIver. Is is just me or is it weird that we got a 22-year-old playing a 15-year-old’s younger sister?
Finally, another Kiwi, but this one is a newcomer. Meet Carolyn Dando (21) who plays Ruth, the dark friend who sees dead people.
For those of you who prefer bones to tissue, i got some Mark Wahlberg (38) action for ya:
This here’s Reece Ritchie (23):
Drink: 1 Shot

The only character that does any  drinking here is Susan Sarandon as the alcoholic grandmother. i’ll give her a shot for that but no more ’cause i’m still pissed at her for dumpin’ my man Tim Robbins for younger meat. (And i’ll apologize profusely and offer you a drink on the house if any of y’all got more time than i do to find out if i got the story wrong.)

• Grandma drinks Jim Beam, brings a fifth to take care of daughter
• Drinks whiskey with ice
• [She drinks from a ] Bottle of Crown Royal (?) in grandson’s room; calls booze ‘medicine’
• [She] Drinks cooking sherry when she’s out of booze
• SS chain smokes

Rock & Roll: 2 ½ Shots

i’m being generous with my shots here, but i got my reasons. There’s no real rock here, other than the two i’ve already posted, but the other tunes (Cocteau Twins, This Mortal Coil, Brian Eno) suited the mood.  Brian Eno wrote the original music as well and also included “1/1″ from Music  For Airports. Sure, it’s not what i’m gonna listen to get my drink on, but it was served at the right temperature for this film.

On top of that, like i said before, the suspense really got to me, especially for the first half hour, and that’s gotta count for something on the rock and roll scale.

Boring Technical Crap

Written by:

• Alice Sebold (novel)
• Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson (screenplay)

Directed by: Peter Jackson

Starring

Saoirse Ronan – Susie salmon

Rachel Weisz – Abigail Salmon

Rose McIver – Lindsey Salmon

Carolyn Dando – Ruth

Mark Wahlberg – Jack Salmon

Reece Ritchie – Ray Singh

Bottom Line

Yeah, i’d see it. ‘Course i already have, but there ya go.

Al K Hall<br />
Functional Alcoholic Slurperson<br />
(No, REALLY. Google &amp;quot;Slurperson&amp;quot; if you don't believe me.)

Last updated: 2010-03-31 21:16:32 by user08

The Lovely Bones

Overwhelming performances from Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, and Stanley Tucci make this a must-see! ....Ignore all the critic-bashing this film is getting.

The Lovely Bones is based on the critically acclaimed best-selling novel by Alice Sebold, and directed by Oscar® winner Peter Jackson from a screenplay by Jackson & Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens. The Lovely Bones centers on a young girl called Susie Salmon who has been murdered and watches over her family and her killer from the inbetween earth and heaven. She must weigh her desire for vengeance against her desire for her family to heal. Oscar® nominee Mark Wahlberg and Oscar® winners Rachel Weisz and Susan Sarandon star along with Stanley Tucci, Michael Imperioli and Oscar® nominee Saoirse Ronan.

Firstly I'd like to say I'm in no way clued up to how accurate this is to the original book, so I can't really comment on that front, all I can say is how good my experience of the story was based on seeing the film alone and based upon performances of the actors in it. A similar thing happened with 'The Road' film adaptation, I've heard from people that things were left out, but when adapting a screenplay for the bigscreen you simply have to think about what people want to see in a flim and somethings you DONT want to see for obvious reasons.
I have to say this film has been knocked about like its had 12 rounds with Muhammad Ali. Critics have slammed it saying it counters the book's creativity and imagination. I have to disagree,The Lovely Bones is great due to the performances in it which I really liked, for me this feels like a Peter Jackon film, the dreamy/limbo-heaven scenes very closely mirror scenes from his previous work, for anyone who has seen 'Heavenly Creatures', you will see the similarities. Yes it is hard to visualise heaven, in the fact that no-one has been to tell us what its like, makes it in terms of a visual idea something your always going to hit a brick wall with. I generally did think this film was okay, and its thanks to the performance of Stanley Tucci, who develops a character who exhibits the most creepy and sickening on-screen presence I've ever witnessed since Anthony Hopkins in 'The Silence of the Lambs'. Literally every time Stanley walks on you feel this deepened sense of dread that makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end. The second best performance has to be Rachel Weisz, every time I see her in something new I end up loving her even more than before and certainly in this film she displays her wide array of acting skills, she plays a distraught mother who refuses to keep it together. Weisz's skills display the coming apart bit perfectly. Mark Wahlberg plays the father and husband who becomes hell-bent on apprehending his daughters murderer and jumps from conclusion to conclusion stumbling to find any true suspects, while the police department tire from his poor judgement. Its also worth mentioning how well these two actors fit together as a couple and the depiction of their relationship coming apart is also believable.


So all in all, yes its a very chilling and a dark film but there are some elating moments and the whole movie deals with life and moving on as a sub-theme. 

(Read Less...)

http://robinollysays.blogspot.com

Last updated: 2010-03-27 18:32:38 by Robinolly

The Lovely Bones

Starring:
Saoirse Ronan, Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Susan Sarandon and Stanley Tucci

Director: Peter Jackson

Genre: Fantasy, Thriller

Rated: PG-13

Susie Salmon is a young girl who is murdered by her neighbor and then watches over her family from the “in between” seeing how her family is torn apart by her death she has to decide between having her family heal or seek vengeance against her killer.

Susie’s Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) is a young girl who has just fallen in love for the first time; tragically she is murdered by her neighbor George Harvey (Stanley Tucci). The police have nothing to go on with no body being found they have to treat the case as a missing person.  With no leads Susie’s family has a tough time coping with her loss and quickly grows apart. The father Jack (Mark Wahlberg) is intent on finding out what happened while the mother Abigail (Rachel Weisz) runs from the pain and the family. George soon sets his eyes on Susies’ younger sister Lindsey and Susie tries to help her family stop him.

The lovely bones is a colossal disappointment the only thing that stands out is Stanley Tuccis Awesome performance as the creepy neighbor with a penchant for murdering young girls. Tucci is truly the only reason to see this film, from his comb over and mustache combo to his hobby of building a dollhouse there is nothing that isn’t repugnant about George Harvey. On the flip side you have Mark Wahlberg who feels the need to whisper every line. The lovely bones is a film with no clear path or direction one minute Abigail is so upset she leaves her family and the next her mother  Grandma Lynn (Susan Sarandon) is in a pointless comedy montage complete with soap suds unleashed from a washing machine and extinguishing a fire on the stove with the water from a house plant. The sequences of Susie in the “in between” feel like an excuse to utilize CGI rather than advance the story and the voice over doesn’t work either.

Tucci is Amazing and the rest of this is a jumbled mess. Amazing how one person can be so good and everyone else can fall so flat. Grade -68

The Lovely Bones (2009)

Directed By: Peter Jackson

Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Susan Sarandon, Stanley Tucci

What It’s All About:

Based on the best selling novel of the same name, The Lovely Bones tells the story of Susie Salmon, a fourteen year old girl that is raped and murdered. Stuck in-between death and the afterlife, Susie watches as her family deals with her disappearance. Her father becomes obsessed with finding out what happened to his daughter, and Susie is stuck between wanting vengeance towards her killer and wanting her family to move on from their tragic loss.

The Verdict:

When watching The Lovely Bones you can’t help but be captivated by the story that unfolds on the screen, yet the constant mood swings between a light-hearted movie and a dark thriller offer enough juxtaposition to pull away from the immersion. There are some real stand out moments in this movie, yet the constant changes of tone and themes simply don’t mesh well with the source material. Stanley Tucci’s performance is outstanding, and Mark Wahlberg has his shining moments. The Lovely Bones is certainly worth a watch, yet it could have been so much more.

3/5

(Read Less...)

Recommendations:

Last updated: 2010-03-04 20:18:52 by hellerphant

The Lovely Bones: Leave your brain at home

In the beginning of this loopy flick about a murdered teen living in the inbetween — a suburb of heaven — a mother calls out to her two daughters as they leave for school. "Suzie," she shouts, "put on your hat. You'll be cold." (Or something like that.) The younger sister doesn't have a hat, but mom isn't concerned. Why? Because only Suzie's hat figures in the rest of the movie, after she's murdered.

Hello Captain Obvious! "The Lovely Bones" is marred by such sloppy plotting and groaner dialog. But that doesn't mean the Movie Slut is trashing it.

Oh, no. Wonderful performances by Mark Wahlberg, dad; Rachel Weisz, mom; Stanley Tucci, weird neighbor who — duh! — nobody suspects; Susan Sarandon, drunk grandma; and especially Saoirse Ronan, Suzie — of "Atonement" fame — make this movie worth seeing.

Just watch it with your heart and switch your brain to pause.

See you at the movies, The Movie Slut

The Lovely Bones

I suppose the lesson to learn from The Lovely Bones is that Peter Jackson may be heading prematurely to the way of Oliver Stone. That is to say that a promising film-maker, whose work gets ever more askew because they can't just ever tell the story. The visuals are so intrusive that the film becomes about them, instead of the characters and the story which it should be about. His ever roving camera and blunt, to the point visuals, which were so wonderfully complimentary to the world of the Lord Of the Rings franchise, do not recontextualise well for this film. At all. His insistence of stylising everything within an inch of its life means the real human horror of thing, the emotional nuance is just gone. Everything is exaggerated to the point of suffocation from the world of the 'in-between', which is so crudely put together that for every moment of beauty there are ten more moments of garishness. To his representation of the characters, all ciphers with no emotional depth because Jackson had no time for that. But the problem is this is a human story, and if you don't understand that then both the horror and the wonder are less effective.

The Lovely Bones is the story of Susie Salmon (Soarsie Ronan), a ten year old girl murdered and stuck in the limbo of the in-between, where she keeps watch on her family and her killer as they cope with both the loss and the thrill of her death. I feel awfully sorry for the actors in this movie, because Jackson seems to represent each one in broad caricature. The worst of it is for George Harvey, the child molester/killer in question. Every shot of him seems intent on making him a grotesque, pans over fingernails, over his thinning hair, over glasses etc, that he never gets to be the more complex monster he should have been. Which is all the more frustrating because Stanley Tucci gives a good performance in spite of all this, and if Jackson had just pointed the damn camera at him and let him act a bit it could have been something more interesting. But no, he tries to give the performance for him through visual exaggeration. This simplistic take translates to all areas of the movie really and makes it a much dumber, blunter movie then it should have been. Only the acting and the occasional impressive piece of CGI prevent it from being an out and out disaster. Ronan, perhaps is the biggest victim in all of this, because in other hands she could have done something extra-ordinary here. As it stands she is still very good, but the character is a mess whose motivations shift on a dime, and I'm willing to bet it wasn't that way in the book. Mark Wahlberg flatlines a little as the grieving father, and as much as I like Wahlberg, to be honest it needed a smarter actor then he to do what needed to be done here. Rachel Weisz and Susan Sarandon are flat out wasted.

This is what happens, and I doubt this happens too often, when a subtle, emotionally nuanced and powerful story is told with obnoxiousness to the hilt and the subtlety of a sledgehammer. The funny thing is Jackson can tell human stories, he did it fantastically in Heavenly Creatures. But he Oliver Stoned this movie to its grave, which is sad because there are glimpses of the movie it should have been (mostly through Ronan and Tucci) but the predominance is film-making it its most misguided. Through all of this its not terrible, simply half the movie it should have been.

Rating: 6/10

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-03-29 02:52:05 by FadingMemory

The Lovely Bones

The Lovely Bones! The latest love child from the man who brought us Heavenly Creatures, The LOTR series and King muthafuckin Kong ya'll! To bad this movie was shitty. Wait, WHAT? Peter Jackson made a shitty movie? Yes he did people! Yes he did!



Based on the Alice Sebold novel, Lovely Bones is about Susy Salmon, played by Saoirse Ronan  who was brutally murdered by her neighbor and is now trapped in a fantasy world between heaven and Earth. From this wonderland she watches over her family as they grieve and her killer as he attempts to hide all traces of the murder.


Interesting story, no? Really the premise is really creative here, so what the hell went wrong?



All the stunning visual effects in Susy's fantasy world served no purpose to the story and really threw off the whole focus of the film which is the family drama post-Susy's death. Just when the build up of this story of a family trying to stay together after the death of a loved one and the story of the murderer trying to stay under the radar gets good, the film cuts off to show some effects shot of Saoirse Ronan running around in the fantasy world.



And it would have been nice if the sequences in the fantasy world and the sequences in the real world connected with each other but it didn't. You'd think Susy might try to reach out from the afterlife to try and contact her family like in any other ghost movie but it never happens. Which really begs the question of why we are even seeing the whole fantasy world sequence at all. So great visuals, but ultimately served no purpose whatsoever.



Mark Whalberg who plays the dad should stick to playing foul mouthed characters like in The Departed cause he was really really annoying here. He overplayed his role by a long stretch. It was like he was talking to a baby throughout the whole movie. You know.. what with the goo goo ga ga tone and all. And when the story goes to when his character has a nervous breakdown following his daughters death, he was kinda one note pulling it off. But then again the mediocre script really didn't give him much to work with.


I liked Rachel Weisz and damn she's smoking hot. But she disappears through half the movie and almost with no reason at all.



My absolute favorite performance from Lovely Bones was Stanley Tucci as the creepy rapist neighbor. This man plays the very definition of a psychotic serial killer. What sold his performance to me was his eyes. On the outside, his character is incredibly silent and composed but when you look into his eyes it just sends a chill down you're spine. I can't really describe what I saw in them but there's just something off about them. If you saw his character in real life, you'd really feel unsafe around that person, that's how great his acting was.



So am I saying that Lovely Bones was a complete mess? No not really. I just wasn't satisfied with it coming from someone as great as Peter Jackson. There were some parts I liked a lot. Susan Sarandon gives great comic relief, parts of the Salmon family beginning to suspect their neighbor as the murderer were very well done and I loved the performances from Stanley Tucci and Saorise Ronan.



I blame it completely on the fantasy world sequence. It took me out of the really interesting parts of Lovely Bones just so that it can show me some nice effects, which are great eye candy but completely unnecessary. I thought they should have just stuck with the story of the family and the murderer with Saoirse Ronan's narration. Overall, nice idea.. poor execution. Please don't fuck up The Hobbit, Peter Jackson.

RATING: 4/10

NicholasC

The Lovely Bones

The last movie I will review for 2009 before I produce my best/worst of 2009 is "The Lovely Bones" based on the great and powerful novel by Alice Sebold. Like earlier this year with Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" I think this is a very difficult book to film and it shows. I felt a slight disconnect watching this movie and when I read the book I felt the opposite. It took me a while to warm up to the movie and feel emotion. The movie is a little messy and unfocused and I think that comes from trying to capture the fantasy sequences and making them mesh with the real life murder drama. The movie like the book is narrated by a 14 year old girl named Susie Salmon. She is telling us that she was 14 when she was murdered and all signs point to a lecherous neighbor played creepily by Stanley Tucci. She then proceeds to watch over her family as they grieve. Susie is in her own perfect World after her death. I was first worried that the fantasy sequences would be weak and garish. I actually found them beautiful visually and kind of touching. The problem I have is with the family drama and murder story because I felt it was weak and too familiar when the book didn't make me feel that way. I have seen this type of story done better and many times before. That story just feels on a different plane then the fantasy stuff. Now Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Stanley Tucci and Susan Sarandon are good and even Sarandon is better than the bad reviews she got. The film though belongs to Saoirse Ronan as Susie and she is the main reason I will recommend this movie for she is Susie Salmon! This Oscar nominated actress for "Atonement" is astonishing and perfect in the role and she steals the movie away from everyone like she did in "Atonement". She is so good that I am surprised she didn't get nominated for this.

The movie has caused controversy surrounding the subject matter and how the fantasy sequences are silly and distract from the scenes on Earth. There are people that are angry because the murder and rape are off screen and not shown. First like I said the fantasy sequences are well handled and the strong point of the movie. Next do we really want to see a 14 year old girl get raped and murdered and tell me how are you going to show this? I was fine with not showing the murder because this is a strong female centered movie and I feel younger women will appreciate the film's strong depiction of a 14 year old girl. This is PG-13 rated for a reason and I think girls Susie's age will get into this movie. If you make it bloody and gruesome you are going to lose the poignancy of this story and a book is a different matter because you can disconnect from the brutality of the murder when you read. I was on the fence with this movie and it is not as good as the book which is one of my favorites. But a funny thing happened at the end where I actually started to tear up. There is a beautiful, touching and subtly powerful few scenes at the end where Susie gets closure in a way you wouldn't expect. Peter Jackson tries his best and he does succeed in a minor way and Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens screenplay captures the pain and wishes of a 14 year old girl very well. I think men might find this movie boring and I think females will embrace it more. It is not a chick flick but it's strength is in the scenes that deal with Susie and her emotions and not the scenes dealing with her family trying to solve her murder.

(Read Less...)

Vincent Snavely

The Lovely Bones

I'm not crazy about the story of THE LOVELY BONES. That being said, it was Peter Jackson's decision to adapt the book that first drew me to read it, and after I finish it, I was even more interested on seeing how he would go about separating his vision from the book.  Make no mistake, it was obvious after reading the book, that he would have to deviate from the novel to be able to create a movie base on it.

For those in the dark, the story concerns a 14yr old girl named Susie Salmon, who gets raped and murdered by someone from the neighborhood on her way home from school.  From her very own version of heaven, she then watches over her family as they mourn their lost, and her murderer as she waits for justice.  The novel is not only lengthy but it spans several years and that in turns, makes editing one of the biggest uphill battles of the movie.  On book form it flows better, but with the running time constraints of film, it rushes a bit too much and it really struggles to give the viewers a good sense of passing time.
Peter Jackson wisely exorcised some of the most jarring moments from the novel. Several changes do enhance the story--specially during the first half--but others hurt the story, specially for those who know it from the book.
The character that deviates the most from the book, is Susie's mother played by Rachel Weisz, because most of her storyline was basically erased. Mark Wahlberg, whom I thought was a bit miscast, actually does a good enough job as Susie's father. Saoirse Ronan gives Susie lots of heart. She makes Susie a very sweet girl while on earth, and a confuse spirit that can't leave behind her family because deep inside she feels cheated by fate.  Susan Sarandon made the grandma feel more vivid on screen than the book allowed, and Stanley Tucci really brings the creep factor up with his portrayal of rapist/murderer George Harvey. He's so good and he gives Mr. Harvey so many nervous/suspicious tics and mannerisms; he completely disappears into the role. I couldn't even tell that was Stanley Tucci up on screen. A very good job.
The main problem with the movie is that it erases too much of everyone's storyline to concentrate on Sussie, unlike the book which gives us detailed lives of every character. This is something that was to be expected as with any book to film adaptation, but here it leaves the character not fully realized.  The heaven sequences were very magical and the FX shots were cool to look at.  But in the end, as beloved as the book is by many people, it just wasn't a story done in a way that could create a satisfying film, specially during the second half of the book where author Alice Sebold basically compromises a great premise by having characters betrayed who they are with ridiculous actions.  Peter Jackson takes most of that out of his film.  The movie may feel like a more docile version of the book to some, but no matter what, this was never a film that was going to be any better than its source material.  Grade: B-

The Lovely Bones (published January 2010)

Before seeing "The Lovely Bones", I thought that, perhaps, all the negative reviews were a result of misunderstood subject matter. Maybe it was too original for people. Maybe it didn't resemble any of the conventions they anticipated it to and so they simply rebelled against wrapping their mind around it. And then I saw the movie and realized there is nothing to be misunderstood when you simply can't understand the film in the first place.
 
I've become accustomed to long movies from Peter Jackson, but at a mere 2 hours and 15 minutes the Subjective Time in this one is by far the longest. The movie is poorly structured without any sort of discernible arch... or at least one that I cared about. It's like the whole thing is cut up into sequences and scenes that were assembled apart from the whole and then strung together by a few very weak threads. The shifts and switchbacks are jarring and untamed. I read the book and I don't know if I could tell you what this movie is about. I found myself in my own "In-between" as I tried to decide whether it was worth trying to enjoy or should I just give up.
 
Part of the brilliance of "King Kong" (2005) was that it was a massive film that was given a level tenderness. It took its time. Everything could be absorbed appropriately and the emotions ran high. Jackson, however, takes a major step backwards as "The Lovely Bones" seems to have been treated as if it was established as a tender story and he desired to make it massive. It's excessively stylized and overdramatized for something with the level of tragedy and humanity it's suppose to have. None of the emotions that it wanted me to attain were earned.
 
For a character-driven story, the characters have very little presence. This is a family tragedy without the family. There is no sense of the supposed coping that happens. This should have been about a family's journey towards a world without one of their own and the connections that result. There should have been despair and heart ache over the life the characters longed for and wanted but were denied at no fault of their own. Instead I ached for the movie I longed for but was denied at the fault of the filmmakers.
 
I will forever believe this is a story that could make a great film. In this case, it didn't happen. Nowhere close, even if it does have good moments. I will stand for the visuals in this film. The effects are good and the cinematography rather splendid (although unfortunately the editing is too annoying to fully enjoy either). Much of the imagery is beautiful. The opening scenes play out effectively enough for the most part, particularly when Susie realizes what's happened to her as she sees her murderer in a bathtub with her own blood everywhere. Maybe I'm just thankful that the scene took place while I could still digest what was happening.
 
Unfortunately by the time Susie's sister, Lindsey, breaks into the killer's lair, a scene that on its own achieves a desired level of suspense, things were just too awry and I had simply stopped caring at a point about 45 minutes sooner. Alternatively, I listened to the rumbling of "Avatar" playing in the adjacent theatre, wishing that I had instead chosen to see it for a 4th viewing.

(Read Less...)

THE LOVELY BONES (2009)

BOTTOM LINE: Peter Jackson has fashioned a tragic, beautiful and unsettling story in “The Lovely Bones”, with an unusual narrative which follows the aftermath of the murder of a 14-year old girl at the hands of a serial killer, with a stunning performance by Saoirse Ronan.

THE GOOD: Based on the book by Alice Sebold, “The Lovely Bones” sees director Peter Jackson enter a more independent film mode, but he manages to combine that with his big-screen story telling sensibilities to perfection. 14-year old Susie Salmon (Saorise Ronan) is kidnapped and brutally murdered by serial killer George Harvey (Stanley Tucci), the neighbour from across the road. Susie becomes caught in the world between heaven and earth, no longer living but still in touch with her family and the killer her haunts her new existence. Back on Earth, her family is torn apart by their grief and her father’s (Mark Wahlberg) search for the killer. “The Lovely Bones” is a unique film experience, taking us on a journey through the after-life, while at the same time, taking us through the pain and anguish of a family losing a child. Somehow Peter Jackson manages to give all of this a hauntingly beautiful quality, particularly in the sequences where we see Susie in the after life. There is also room for menace and foreboding, with Stanley Tucci giving an incredibly creepy performance as the serial killer. The film is not what you might expect, and plugs in to an idea that the universe and destiny will make everything right in the end, despite the tragedy. Jackson does a great job with the actors in this film too, but his real find was Saoirse Ronan who gives a wonderful performance as Susie. Jackson uses her character to create moments of joy, wonder and anger, with one stand out sequence, that will send chills down your spine, occurring when Susie realises that she is dead and she comes face to face with her killer. “The Lovely Bones” is an unusual yet engrossing film, and well worth watching on the big screen.

THE BAD: This will entirely depend on your taste, but the film does not give you that thorough sense of closure that you might expect from what is in effect a murder-mystery tale. The bad guy does get his justice, but not in the way that you might want or imagine, given that he dies through an accident with the family never knowing that he was the killer. That death itself is almost absurd in that his tumbling and crashing down a cliff was obviously put in to make you feel satisfied that this evil man got a painful death, but one wonders how much better it would have been if Jackson had been allowed to leave it as he originally intended with the subtle shot of him disappearing off the edge. Despite the stunning cast, there is one mis-judgment in that Mark Wahlberg does not quite fit in to the ensemble. It could be that the material does not suit his style, but whenever he shows up, something feels off. “The Lovely Bones” is more like a poem about life, destiny and the universe rather than a narrative, and if this is not your thing, then you may not like the film.

RATING: 8/10

Todd Murphy <br />
http://www.allaboutmovies.net

The Lovely Bones

In The Lovely Bones\'s first trailer, Susie Salmon says \"My father had the pieces, but he couldn\'t make them fit.\" Susie states much of the plot in a nutshell. She also, most definitely on accident, describes the main flaw inThe Lovely Bones: Peter Jackson just couldn\'t fit it all together correctly. Whether it\'s the plot, with a delicate issue in tow, or the abrupt switches from sentimental to dark, The Lovely Bones is made not so lovely by it\'s near contradictory tonal changes and a some directorial flukes.

The Lovely Bones is the 1973 fictional story of thirteen-year-old Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) and her family, as both she and her relatives on Earth cope with her rape and murder. The murderer, Mr. Harvey (Stanley Tucci), eludes capture even with Susie\'s father (Mark Wahlberg) searching for answers months after all is said and done. A major issue comes into play having to do with the story\'s initial and horrifying event, the death of Susie Salmon. Having a PG-13 rating means a no-no for any graphic scene involved, so the bad stuff is only implied. Jackson\'s decision to remove the act itself (which I\'m not sure if it was in the book or not) takes away from what could better express how terrible Mr. Harvey\'s actions were. At the same time, he spares us from seeing something that could have destroyed all enjoyment of The Lovely Bones. This was nearly a lose-lose situation, because either controversy would surround Peter Jackson\'s decision for (possibly) showing the rape and murder of it\'s protaganist, or people would complain like they are now (but showing a scene like that is doable, as one can see from The Kite Runner). The plot, despite how difficult it is, is a strong one. However the tone is hard to capture at the same time. The Lovely Bones makes tonal transitions suddenly, but not very deftly. Often times these changes are abrupt and hardly flow. One scene, having to do with Susie\'s alcoholic grandma (Susan Sharadon), was very funny, but I didn\'t feel like laughing with the context as heavy as it was. Many times the most jarring shifts are from the in-between to Earth. Some sequences were downright bizarre and hard to take seriously, such as a 70\'s themed montage of Susie and her downright annoying companion (who destroys many of the scenes that she is in). Luckily, all of this takes place in the first half of The Lovely Bones.
       
Peter Jackson makes both great visuals and scrappy shots in the initial section of The Lovely Bones. The in-between sections are vivid and pleasant to look at. Jackson uses CGI  for some incredible vistas and imaginative sequences. On the other side, he seemed to develop a love for extreme, home video like close ups. While they may have had a greater intent, the way Jackson executed these strange shots was as hard to watch as some of the weirded out in-between segments. Peter Jackson  captures the Salmon family\'s torment both intimately and informatively. At times he magnifies Rachel Weisz and Mark Wahlberg\'s strong performances, and temporarily blocks some of the glaring flaws as a result.

The second half of The Lovely Bones is stellar. Peter Jackson cranks up the intensity once things finally get going. A parade of great scenes take up the latter hour or so. A suspenseful and remarkably crafted break-in start the riveting closing segment that ends beautifully. At the same time, Saoirse Ronan and the rest of the cast, especially Stanley Tucci, shine. Saoirse plays Susie with a persistent  intelligence that transcends her age and acting experience. She manages to communicate the pain that has never fully gone away, but retains the bubbly personality given to her character. Stanley Tucci hits all the right buttons by being creepy and ferocious. At times he seems unnaturally fit for the role. The soundtrack is fitting here as well. It is both tense and beautiful. One song in particular, by Brian Eno, is spectacular. I wish all of The Lovely Bones was as good as the second half. Peter Jackson would have seen some Academy Award nominations coming down the pipe.

The Lovely Bones is one of those movies that could have been great. The narrative, which is strong in it\'s own regard, ultimately hinders much ofBones. Peter Jackson took a difficult subject and stumbled with it at times. However, once Jackson hit is mark, the rest fits together wonderfully. If all of The Lovely Bones was up to the levels of the second portion, then it would have been truly lovely. If only, if only.

60%

(Read Less...)

Movie Review :The Lovely Bones (2009)

When I first heard The Lovely Bones (directed by Peter Jackson and based on the best-selling novel by Alice Sebold) was being made into a movie, I had some reservations.  Sure, the story was amazing, but adapting it to the big screen was going to have its fair share of challenges.   Those who have read the book will know what I mean.

And after watching it on Christmas Day, I must say I was right in some respects.  There are parts of The Lovely Bones that are genuinely beautiful and heartbreaking, full of pain and yearning from a life tragically unfulfilled.  Those are the same elements that made the novel such a magnificent success.  However, the more troublesome aspects of the adaptation, while probably handled as well as they could have been, just didn’t quite work.

Without giving too much of the plot away, The Lovely Bones is what is best described as a drama fantasy set in the 1970s about a teenage girl and her family, and how each of them deal with unexpected death and loss. There’s a lot more to the story than just that, but as usual, it’s best to go in knowing as little as possible.

The dramatic aspects of the film were done well.  Jackson manages to capture that gut-wrenching ‘what might have been’ sensation of regret and melancholy at all the right moments, and it wouldn’t be a stretch to describe the film as a tear jerker.  I wouldn’t go as far as to say that the emotional impact lives up to the book, but with the medium and time constraints, it came fairly close.
The suspenseful aspects of the film, on the other hand, were simply outstanding.   There were probably only a handful of such scenes, but Peter Jackson applied his magic touch to them and it kept me on the edge of my seat every time.  It made me wish there were more of them.

Of course, much of the credit has to go to the cast.  Saoirse Ronan (Atonement), who plays Susie Salmon, delivers an excellent performance beyond her years.   She has a touch of class that is rarely seen in young actors these days.  In a few years she will be a big star.  Rachel Weisz and Mark Wahlberg play her parents, and are both good, but not exceptional.  Apparently, the film was initially set to go with Ryan Gosling in Wahlberg’s role, but he looked ‘too young’ to pull it off, even with a full beard.  While that may be right, I got the feeling that Wahlberg may have been too young as well, especially with that floppy 70s haircut.

The standout though, has to be Stanley Tucci’s Mr Harvey.  Tucci has been nominated for a Golden Globe for this performance (and I predict an Oscar nomination as well).  Every time he’s on screen he unsettles you and makes you feel uncomfortable.   I don’t know if he is more deserving than Christoph Waltz from Inglourious Basterds, but Tucci is right up there after delivering one of the creepiest performances I’ve seen in a long time.

So that’s what’s good about The Lovely Bones.  As I mentioned earlier, the film is a drama fantasy, and it’s because there are a substantial number of ‘fantasy’ scenes, filled with expensive special effects and an abundance of pretty imagery.  These sequences take up a large part of the second half of the film, and that’s when my interest in the film really waned.
Those sequences were an integral part of the novel, so I wouldn’t have expected Jackson to cut them out completely, but there was too much of it for my liking.   They were too long, too weird, and dare I say even somewhat silly.   It just didn’t match the rest of the film as well as I would have liked.   I don’t know if anyone else could have done a better job with it, but the bottom line is that those sequences, for the most part, didn’t work.  If Jackson could have limited such scenes to an absolute minimum and ramped up the suspenseful and dramatic scenes, The Lovely Bones may have been a classic.

So overall, The Lovely Bones is a very solid, albeit uneven film.  There are moments that can get to you on an emotional level, but it’s unfortunate that the lengthy fantasy sequences dragged it down.  A minor disappointment as I had been looking forward to it and expected it to be better than it actually was.

3.5 stars out of 5!

PJM

Last updated: 2010-01-30 05:45:06 by pacejmiller

The Lovely Bones (2009)

Proof that Peter Jackson isn’t the greatest.
When 14-year-old Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) is murdered, she watches from above as her family deals with her tragic death — and as her killer prepares to strike again. Torn between vengeance and healing, Susie’s loved ones are forever changed. Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz star in Peter Jackson’s adaptation of Alice Sebold’s riveting best-selling novel; Susan Sarandon and Stanley Tucci co-star.

Now this is based off a n0vel, that I have never read. Before this movie was coming out I really wanted to go out and buy it but never got that far. But now after watching this I have decided I need to give the book a nice read.

Peter Jackson uses a lot of these great ways to lighten up the mood in this film. He uses a full pallet of rich color, lush music, and astonishing visual effects that will simply leave you in awe. When Susie is in the after world there is a lot of images to look at, yeah they may be a bit creepy and weird with their CGI look, but I felt like I was in a whole new world of love and beauty when these scenes were on.

There are some beautifully crafted suspenseful set pieces within this film as well. Scenes come up out of nowhere that just leave you on the edge of your seat not knowing what was going to happen next, and how it was going to happen.

The one big bad problem that the film has is that it can’t find a coherent approach to this story. At times its grim and the others its beauty, but it just didn’t work out real well. One minute I would be in this beautiful wonderland full of joy and happiness, then the next minute I would stuck watching this serial killer at all nutty, while the parents of Susie are still trying to investigate. The film should have just went with one whole approach and mood towards this film instead it tries to combine these two, and it doesn’t work at all.

The biggest problem, overall, is that in a movie that runs well over two hours, Jackson is so busy bombarding us with trippy post-death visuals that he forgot to include actual human relationships. There are maybe fifteen minutes of actual conversation between characters in the entire movie — and believe me, I’m not exaggerating. Everything else is given over to our perky dead girl running through CGI mountains and fields, or observing her mopey family, while the ponderous, constant, droning narration makes the whole thing feel like an illustrated audio book.

Wahlberg and Weisz are completely given really nothing at all, other than being just these cheesy one dimensional characters throughout the whole film. For me they could have been given more material, because these two have proved in the past that they can work with good material, if given it correctly. The best performance here is Stanley Tucci as the creepy serial killer. Every time he was on screen I was just scared and wondering to myself what was this man going to do next. There wasn’t one time that I didn’t believe that this man was a crazed and amazingly creepy neighbor. Ronan is OK in this role, as sometimes she is just seen as being scared, and at the same time just repeating these little monologues.

One last thing with this film is that it’s message about death, and the after life did not seem all that well brought out. It wasn’t that preachy, but it also wasn’t well brought out in the way it could have been with the source material it was given.

Consensus: The Lovely Bones has Peter Jackson’s visual flairs and a great performance from Tucci, but can’t find a coherent approach to its mood, and barely shows any other human emotion other than just being sad all the time.

5/10=Rental!!!!

(Read Less...)

life has its own ways of working out<br />
visit my movie review site at www.dtmmr.wordpress.com Feel Free to comment or request any movies at any time! :)

The Lovely Bones: A Lovely, Original Vision

Peter Jackson’s The Lovely Boneswas bombarded with controversy before the film was ever released.  Based on the novel by Alice Sebold, the story was considered, by many, to be unfilmable.  Dealing with a main character who dies, then narrates the world she left behind, many fans of the book felt the visual quality of film would simplify the deeply complex story.  Add to this a violent child rape and murder…you’ve got a bit o’ controversy.  While some felt the filmmakers made the right decision by keeping the rape and murder off screen, others felt it was a cheat, stepping around an issue that made the book so powerful.  Here’s the breakdown:
Susie Salmon is a normal 14-year-old girl.  She goes to school, has a family, has a crush.  Unfortunately, her life is cut short when a neighbor lures her into a trap, raping and brutally murdering her.  Caught in a world beyond, Susie must help her grieving family come to grips with her death…and eventually bring her killer to justice.
The Monkey: Visually, the film is beautiful.  The story’s 1970’s setting maintains its vibrant color while giving the audience a retro feel…this contrasts nicely with the other-worldly place Susie occupies for much of the film.  There are some truly stunning images: Susie’s main point of constancy, a wooden gazebo, appears in many settings, from a lake of wheat to a frozen tundra; the killer conducting an interview with the police, expertly shot through the windows and rooms of a doll house.  The most beautiful scene was not only visually shocking, but emotionally resonant as well; Susie’s ship-in-a-bottle builder father, in a fit of grief, shatters model after model, sending life-sized bottled ships crashing against beach rocks in Susie’s world.
The movie’s suspense was a nice surprise.  While the identity of Susie’s killer is never a secret, the filmmakers are able to pack an enormous amount of nail-biting moments into the film (particularly, Susie’s “capture” and a climactic scene involving a wooden floorboard).
Saoirse Ronan carried the film remarkably well, considering her character was dead and forced to deliver breathy, ethereal lines.  Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz worked very well as the grieving parents (love Rachel Weisz!).  The true star of the film, however, was Stanley Tucci as the creepy killer.  His performance was so understated, so incredibly subtle…I truly believed he was capable of such awful things.  If it weren’t for Christopher Waltz’s genuis performance in Inglourious Basterds, Tucci would have the Golden Globe and Oscar for best supporting actor.
And as far as the off-screen rape/murder: the stylized scene in which Susie realizes what has happened to her is more chilling and emotionally effective than actually seeing the crime on-screen.
The Weasel: The middle act of the film lost pace, confusing the tone and mood that had been previously established.  Susan Sarandon appears as the alcoholic, domestically challenged grandmother, trying to help her family deal with Susie’s death.  The scenes are meant to be humorous, but the humor feels forced, as if the filmmakers assumed the audience would need a break from the serious subject matter.  This middle act also featured a montage of Susie’s limbo: playing in fields with butterflies, snow-sledding, etc.  Perhaps this is what fans of the book felt was “unfilmable”…and they were right.  It seemed out of place and disrupted the rhythm of the movie.
A visually original and beautifully filmed movie, The Lovely Bones features award-winning performances, and succeeds in pleasing the eye while maintaining emotional weight.
Note: Keep an eye out for Peter Jackson’s Hitchcock-esque cameo!
3.5 Death Stars out of 5
http://hearculturepop.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/the-lovely-bones-a-lovely-original-vision/ 

The Lovely Lovely Bones

So reactions upon my friends seem to be fairly mixed. But one thing that Alex and I do agree on, is that we think that The Lovely Bones is lovely.

Over a year ago, I read one of the "must read" that had been floating around on bestseller lists everywhere around the world. Alice Sebold's story of Susie Salmon, a fourteen year old girl who was raped and murdered and thus watches and aids her family from heaven into discovering the perpetrator who lives just houses away.

The book blew me away. It was gruesome and yet funny, melancholic and yet uplifting, and a true page turner. I have had friends who have also loved the book, and when we heard news of the book being turned into a movie, skeptics summoned their opinions. Mine? It's in Peter Jackson's hands. Can you get someone who has been more faithful to a piece of literature? Now, I admit, I'm not the biggest Lord of the Rings fan (but I would like to be....give me time!!!!) However, I've seen Jackson's other work before LotR which featured a gruesome ghoulish ghost story The Frighteners and a lesbian melodrama murder mystery in Heavenly Creatures, just to name a couple. Jackson is such an interesting filmmaker, and it is this blending of the wonderful scripts, co written by long time collaborator Phillipa Boyens and even longer time collaborator and wife of Mr. Jackson, Fran Walsh.

So came time for viewing the movie. I did so on my birthday, and to me, this was the perfect birthday film. I took along five friends, all bar one who were slightly surprised at my choice of seeing this as an enjoyable birthday film. The one who wasn't surprised had also read AND loved the book, so we were quite anxious and nervous as well. But I kept thinking, it's alright....Peter Jackson.

It was, for all intents and purposes, heavenly. While the story is not the lightest of stories, it dealt with the running emotions of grief in such an honest way, whether Hollywood-ised or not, that it was quite the experience going through the film. Luckily, the two dedicates of the book were pleased. However, my other friend did not feel the overwhelming desire to see the film again, simply because it was an almost traumatic experience. This I accredit to the suspense that Jackson brings to the story, and is most painfully (and wonderfully) exercised in a sequence which has Susie's sister inside the house of the man that killer her, just as he comes home to discover someone in his house. The thing that made it so suspenseful was the soundtrack. Or lack thereof I should say. I was literally sitting in my seat in awe, completely under the spell of thinking that Jackson is a genius. His closeups and the mood that surrounded them were just simply amazing to one, who seems to be either imitating Hitchcock, or simply becoming his modern protege.

As for the acting. Once again, blown away. Saoirse Ronan (the young Academy Award nominated actress from Atonement) had such a central and signficant part to the story, and thank god handled it so honestly with vulnerability, humour and just sheer talent. I was skeptical about the casting choice of Mark Whalberg, but he even managed to slightly impress me. I think the boy has talent! Rachel Weisz broke my heart in the aftermath of grief that came after the police informed of Susie's death. Susan Sarandon was brought in so effectively for comic relief and as the glue which held together this extremely fragile story (and look great as an alcoholic bad ass grandma!) And of course, Stanley Tucci (who I think is one of the main contenders for the Best Supporting Actor Academy Award in this performance) was one of the creepiest characters I've seen portrayed on film, probably since Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men.

An interesting point to consider, and one that I think saw polarising my friends who I saw the film with and others whom have seen in since, is the films idea of heaven. The film (and the book) give off an strong impression of a "between place" and a heaven, thus propelling an idea of an afterlife forward. Naturally, bring up religion, and you're gonna get opposing opinions. However, what I liked about this take of the "in between place" is that is subjects the audience to an idea of energies being present of those who have passed within those who remain. This idea, while perhaps more subtle than the computerised Avatar style projections of heaven (and boy did it look amazing too) is the one that has the lasting impression to me, and follows the themes of the story as well.

So there, I've said it. I see Jackson as a modern Hitchcock. I don't know he is going to continue in such a suspenseful arena, however, I would love to see more. And also, look out for his Hitchcock stlye cameo in the mall. And his poster for a certain famous book trilogy in the window of a mall too....Genius!

(Read Less...)