The Lovely Bones

[bullets]

Tucci's scene in the bathtub was haunting. Kind of reminded me of the old weird looking guy in Pans Labryinth with the eyes as hands.

Most memorable scene for me .

 

[ComicChick]

I wish the ending was more satisfying. Maybe a longer, more prolonged scene.

thats what is so bittersweet about the end of the book too

From what I know, Jackson had to cut a lot of the family drama (the affair, etc.) to get the film in a 2 hour runtime. Arguably the film would have been better had he trimmed the inbetween stuff and made room for more character development, but I'm sure we'll see a typical Peter Jackson extended cut on DVD.

i sure hope there's an extended version

 

[lime]

Watched the movie again, for the second time.

To be honest I like it better, this time. In reality the only crapy thing in that movie was the whole heaven thing, and I don’t mean the idea, but the realization. All the actors played good, the drama was somewhat fear, and the best part of the whole movie was the criminal drama. Greatly made. The best thing in the movie was Stanley Tucci’s performance, as George Harvey. The man was brilliant and damn scary. Soarise Ronan was also good, not best, but little above average.

If I must rate the movie by my new rating system, there it goes:

Acting: 8.5/10
Script: 6/10
Directing: 7/10
Visual stile (Art, costumes, cinematography, etc): 9.5/10
Music: 8/10

Overall: 7.8/10

 

[Episode29]

My review:

Even the greatest film directors occasionally meet a cinematic nut they can’t crack; an ambitious tightwire-walk of a project that ultimately culminates in a glorious mess of inappropriate stylistic tics, confused storytelling and misspent good intentions. Steven Spielberg had 1941. Martin Scorsese had New York, New York. Tim Burton had Planet of the Apes. And now Peter Jackson, the visionary mastermind behind The Lord of the Rings and the flawed-but-sweeping King Kong remake, has The Lovely Bones, a perfect storm of gross artistic overindulgence and narrative carelessness.

Too bad, because it’s not as if Alice Sebold’s best-selling 2002 novel, which traced, in heartstring-pulling detail, the life and untimely death of 14-year-old Susie Salmon (“Like the fish!”) was devoid of rich material. As portrayed in the film version by gifted young actress Saoirse Ronan – an Oscar-nominee for 2007’s Atonement – Susie is a spritely, shy and cheerful middle-child, adored by her loving middle-class parents Jack and Abigail (Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz), as well as her boozy, vampy grandmother Lynn (Susan Sarandon), and hopelessly enamoured with her dreamy British classmate Ray (Reece Ritchie). As cruel fate would have it, however, shortly after her nervous first interaction with the object of her unbridled affection, Susie is lured to her doom by her creepy neighbour Mr. Harvey (a sinister and barely recognizable Stanley Tucci), a cunning sexual predator who hides behind a deceptively placid demeanour of nerdy shlubbiness.

Spirited away from our earthly domain, the girl awakens in the “In-between”, a heavenly surrealistic world of lush green gardens, bobbing lighthouses, crystalline ocean and ornately-designed gazebos, where she is able to observe first-hand the shattering after-effects of her grim demise upon the people she loves. While her anguished father becomes consumed with the need for closure – an obsession which causes a dreadful rift between the two Salmon parents – and Grandma Lynn is forced to take dominance over the broken household, Susie’s inquisitive older sister Lindsey (Rose McIver) begins to stir animalistic cravings within Mr. Harvey’s unhinged mind. Eager for revenge against her killer and desperately yearning for her family to heal, Susie becomes stuck in limbo, unable to move onto the next stage of the afterlife until she can find solace in her present situation and leave her cherished former life behind.

In its earliest stages, prior to Susie’s regrettable exit, Jackson’s direction feels confident and restrained, carefully drawing the viewer into the immaculately-recreated1970s-period setting and allowing us to settle comfortably into the wholly ordinary – yet ominously foreboding -daily life of the Salmon clan. He makes us genuinely care for these people, for their modest hopes and dreams, and understands exactly how to twinge our fragile human sympathies when necessary. Indeed, when Tucci’s perverted killer makes his presence fully known, casually convincing Susie to step into his underground hide-out, it’s akin to being locked in an emotional vice, unable to turn away from the unavoidable tragedy chillingly taking place on-screen.

Unfortunately, it’s at this crucial point that the crippling limitations of the patchwork screenplay, by Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, rear their ugly head and The Lovely Bones scatters in multiple directions at once. Although the story is ostensibly intended to be an intimate study of a family in turmoil, the script unforgivably condenses the Salmons’ poignant journey into a superficial series of uninvolving bullet-points (Weisz’ character, in particular, feels criminally short-changed) with the occasional inappropriate comedic montage tossed in to alleviate the gloom. It’s perhaps a sign of the film’s borderline cynical nature that the unsavoury murderer is given a more satisfying and well-developed character arc than Susie’s mourning loved ones.

The Lovely Bones’ biggest bungle, though, is in how Jackson chooses to portray Susie’s psychedelic, prog-rock album cover-esque trip through the magical “In-between” zone. Exploiting the potential of gaudy CGI to its fullest, the director creates a fantasy-land which, more often than not, comes across like Ronan standing in front of a splashy demo-reel. These dreary segments, which constitute a large chunk of the film’s run-time, feel utterly disconnected from the rest of the work and lead to numerous jarring edits when the story bounces clumsily between the story’s two contrasting realms.

If there is an upside to this often disastrous – yet bizarrely watchable - work it’s that Jackson’s inherent brilliance as a filmmaker does manage to make itself known from time-to-time, such as during a nail-bitingly tense house investigation sequence. Sure, these moments are quickly overshadowed by the flick’s insufferably inept storytelling, or unintentionally hilarious bits (Don’t even get me started on the inexplicably dragged-out climax involving a safe that seems to take upwards of an hour to move ten feet), but they act as a pleasant oasis in the middle of an otherwise barren entertainment desert. Still, for the good of Peter Jackson’s otherwise-impeccable filmography and future, I propose that The Lovely Bones be swiftly buried in a shallow grave, preferably unmarked.

1.5 out of 5

 

[lime]

Can someone give me this picture in HQ?

 

[TheFuture]

I think the poor reviews are warranted, it may have worked well as a book but it just doesn't adapt well to the big screen. The "in between" scenes just ruined the film, everytime they came on I was waiting impatiently for them to end. There was potential for a great film, in fact I think if they just had Susie narrate the film and replaced the in between scenes with actual character and plot development then it would have been a great film. Alas, I know that would probably be a case of butchering the novel.

Oh and Susan Sarandon is still fine, damn.

 

[lime]

It was announced. DVD and Blu ray on April 20th

Cover:

 

[lime]

I had just finished the book. Literature masterpiece! Brilliant book, and I can’t believe how different the movie was. The Whole story was set in 14 years in the book, but it was all made in to an year in the movie. I think that Stanley Tucci and Susan Sarandon’s performances where spot on. An R Rated crime/drama story was turned in to an PG 13 rated Romance/Fentasy. Shame on you Jackson!

 

[Raiden]

I think in the future, another filmmaker may tackle another adaptation of the novel, possible making it more faithful to the source material than what Jackson had done.

 

[TheFuture]

For those who read the book, would a simple narrative (voiceover) from Susie minus the in between scenes have worked?

 

[lime]

For those who read the book, would a simple narrative (voiceover) from Susie minus the in between scenes have worked?

If that was to happen, i wouldn't be suprised if the movie was in the 10 Best Picture nominated films. I realy think all of the movie worked perfectly, exept of the inbetween fantasy scenes.

 

[TheFuture]

If that was to happen, i wouldn't be suprised if the movie was in the 10 Best Picture nominated films. I realy think all of the movie worked perfectly, exept of the inbetween fantasy scenes.

I got the exact same impression. I agree too, there was so much potential for an excellent film but plot development was sacrificed in favour of needless flashy effects.

 

[spider-neil]

rotten tomato has lovely bones at 32% and I have to say after seeing the movie yesterday I agree.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I saw this today and was very disappointed, such a mess of a movie that is tonally all over the place and comes off incoherent and convenient. How much different is the book?

 

[Crook]

I am way behind everyone on this, but forgive me, cause I just had to express my anger right now.

Recently bought a Nook and have been on a reading spree. Bought this novel because of all the great things I heard. In short...brilliant and captivating. Got a hold of the film with great anticipation. In short...WTF. I can't express how frustrated I am with this movie, this is quite possibly one of the worst adaptations I've ever seen. PJs passion was all over the project, and I respect the artistic vision he brought. The Inbetween segments were just as I had imagined, very surreal and beautiful.

Tucci is the only saving grace of this movie. It's such a shame because he was so pitch perfect for this role that I wish someone else had adapted this movie with him in it. Everyone else was ok I guess, but they barely had anything to do. The biggest issue of this movie is how much heart and emotion it lacked. The book took the reader through over a decade's worth of life experiences. From the family to the friends, we got a peek at their lives, what Susie meant to them, what they were doing to cope, who they shared their feelings with. The movie took 95% of this away. I'm not even exaggerating with that figure.

Typically I can very much understand a film adaptation truncating plot points to fit the runtime. But what was cut is absolutely deplorable. You can't feel for a single character in this movie because you never knew them. The whole damn meat of the story were Susie, Lindsey, Abigail, and Ruth. How each of them had to move on from the murder is crucial to the overarching development by the book's end. Total screentime for all of them put together? I would be surprised if it was over 15 minutes.

F**k you PJ.

 

[xwolverine2]

lol i guess im the only one that really enjoyed this movie... and no i didnt read the book and never cared or knew about it prior to this.

jackson has yet to ever dissapoint me...

 

[The Phantom]

I've never read the book, but I thought the movie was phenomenal and could be an important tool in helping those people that still mourn for the lost, accept the facts and move on with their lives.
I think movies like this that explore the ugly reality of life and how fragile it can be are important and there need to be more of them. Sometimes a movie isn't supposed to make you happy, its supposed to convey its message and maybe even help you get back on your own path if you've fallen from it.

 

[El Payaso]

My review:

Even the greatest film directors occasionally meet a cinematic nut they can’t crack; an ambitious tightwire-walk of a project that ultimately culminates in a glorious mess of inappropriate stylistic tics, confused storytelling and misspent good intentions. Steven Spielberg had 1941. Martin Scorsese had New York, New York. Tim Burton had Planet of the Apes. And now Peter Jackson, the visionary mastermind behind The Lord of the Rings and the flawed-but-sweeping King Kong remake, has The Lovely Bones, a perfect storm of gross artistic overindulgence and narrative carelessness.

Too bad, because it’s not as if Alice Sebold’s best-selling 2002 novel, which traced, in heartstring-pulling detail, the life and untimely death of 14-year-old Susie Salmon (“Like the fish!”) was devoid of rich material. As portrayed in the film version by gifted young actress Saoirse Ronan – an Oscar-nominee for 2007’s Atonement – Susie is a spritely, shy and cheerful middle-child, adored by her loving middle-class parents Jack and Abigail (Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz), as well as her boozy, vampy grandmother Lynn (Susan Sarandon), and hopelessly enamoured with her dreamy British classmate Ray (Reece Ritchie). As cruel fate would have it, however, shortly after her nervous first interaction with the object of her unbridled affection, Susie is lured to her doom by her creepy neighbour Mr. Harvey (a sinister and barely recognizable Stanley Tucci), a cunning sexual predator who hides behind a deceptively placid demeanour of nerdy shlubbiness.

Spirited away from our earthly domain, the girl awakens in the “In-between”, a heavenly surrealistic world of lush green gardens, bobbing lighthouses, crystalline ocean and ornately-designed gazebos, where she is able to observe first-hand the shattering after-effects of her grim demise upon the people she loves. While her anguished father becomes consumed with the need for closure – an obsession which causes a dreadful rift between the two Salmon parents – and Grandma Lynn is forced to take dominance over the broken household, Susie’s inquisitive older sister Lindsey (Rose McIver) begins to stir animalistic cravings within Mr. Harvey’s unhinged mind. Eager for revenge against her killer and desperately yearning for her family to heal, Susie becomes stuck in limbo, unable to move onto the next stage of the afterlife until she can find solace in her present situation and leave her cherished former life behind.

In its earliest stages, prior to Susie’s regrettable exit, Jackson’s direction feels confident and restrained, carefully drawing the viewer into the immaculately-recreated1970s-period setting and allowing us to settle comfortably into the wholly ordinary – yet ominously foreboding -daily life of the Salmon clan. He makes us genuinely care for these people, for their modest hopes and dreams, and understands exactly how to twinge our fragile human sympathies when necessary. Indeed, when Tucci’s perverted killer makes his presence fully known, casually convincing Susie to step into his underground hide-out, it’s akin to being locked in an emotional vice, unable to turn away from the unavoidable tragedy chillingly taking place on-screen.

Unfortunately, it’s at this crucial point that the crippling limitations of the patchwork screenplay, by Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, rear their ugly head and The Lovely Bones scatters in multiple directions at once. Although the story is ostensibly intended to be an intimate study of a family in turmoil, the script unforgivably condenses the Salmons’ poignant journey into a superficial series of uninvolving bullet-points (Weisz’ character, in particular, feels criminally short-changed) with the occasional inappropriate comedic montage tossed in to alleviate the gloom. It’s perhaps a sign of the film’s borderline cynical nature that the unsavoury murderer is given a more satisfying and well-developed character arc than Susie’s mourning loved ones.

The Lovely Bones’ biggest bungle, though, is in how Jackson chooses to portray Susie’s psychedelic, prog-rock album cover-esque trip through the magical “In-between” zone. Exploiting the potential of gaudy CGI to its fullest, the director creates a fantasy-land which, more often than not, comes across like Ronan standing in front of a splashy demo-reel. These dreary segments, which constitute a large chunk of the film’s run-time, feel utterly disconnected from the rest of the work and lead to numerous jarring edits when the story bounces clumsily between the story’s two contrasting realms.

If there is an upside to this often disastrous – yet bizarrely watchable - work it’s that Jackson’s inherent brilliance as a filmmaker does manage to make itself known from time-to-time, such as during a nail-bitingly tense house investigation sequence. Sure, these moments are quickly overshadowed by the flick’s insufferably inept storytelling, or unintentionally hilarious bits (Don’t even get me started on the inexplicably dragged-out climax involving a safe that seems to take upwards of an hour to move ten feet), but they act as a pleasant oasis in the middle of an otherwise barren entertainment desert. Still, for the good of Peter Jackson’s otherwise-impeccable filmography and future, I propose that The Lovely Bones be swiftly buried in a shallow grave, preferably unmarked.

1.5 out of 5

^^ Pretty much. After the girl died no one had much to do in the movie except Mr. Harvey. I still don't know what Sarandon's character was doing there except drinking.

There's zero clarity about what Susie did after she dies, what kind of "signals" was she sending. Can you think of one? All I saw was some characters having random flashbacks for too long and then they suddenly knew things. And in the end no one did anything good about it.

I didn't hate the movie, I had a nice time watching it but it was far from working.

2/5