The Lovely Bones (2009)

Basq

So.. Peter Jackson's first film since 2005's "King Kong" and the acclaimed director of "Heavenly Creatures" and "The-One's-He-Did-With-All-Them-Hobbits!".

As a big Peter Jackson fan.. I've been anxiously waiting for this. I've never read Alice Sebold's critically acclaimed and award-winning book "The Lovely Bones" (which the film is obviously based on).

Anyways, onto the film. Was it worth the wait? Did it deserve the critical blasting it's got by critics?

Strangely enough.. the answer to both of these is "no". The film is heavily-flawed yet I think the absolute slating it got by most critics is quite unfair. The film is largely wonderfully shot and shows flair of real class, but it also suffers from some terrible dialogue and moments of pure absurdity.

Let me say the one reason you should see this film is the absolutely tremendous performance by the always fantastic Stanley Tucci. The rest of the performances were "wishy-washy" - this isn't the performance that'll make people forget Mark Wahlberg's role in 'The Happening' (he's better in this.. but not by much), Rachel Weisz was probably the best of the supporting roles and Saoirse Ronan really didn't have to do much although

her expressions of sheer discomfort and unease in the scenes with George Harvey were impressive (although I suspect Stanley Tucci's performance motivated her here).

It's essentially a story of two half's -

Susie's family pre-and-post Susie's death, and Susie's time in purgatory. The latter is what kills the film - these ridiculous overly bright absurd visuals of heaven or purgatory absolutely destroy what is essentially a well-made (although with some flaws) film.

Maybe this is where the book excels and the medium of film fails.

Was is worth waiting for? No.. but that's not to say it's as dreadful as I think the critic's are making out. One critic called it a "Lifetime True Movie" but with a larger budget.. that man is talking bollocks in my opinion! :rolleyes:

It's overly saccharine at times, far too much un-necessary CGI (probably full of deep expression and meanings, but you're just too left jarred out of the film to notice), suffers from some poor dialogue and a mediocre performance too many.. but I enjoyed it for what it was.

It was a decent film.. not an amazing film by any means but there was some seriously superb moments of flair and nerve-wreaking tension in there. It's not as bad as critics would make you believe.. go in and don't expect another mind-blowing film by Jackson and you might enjoy a lot of it.

PS - Sorry Film mods.. what started off as a simple opinion piece turned into much more of an waffly analytical review. Feel free to move.

johnny_ultimate

Haven't seen this yet, but have read the book (which is OK, but as you say a little too saccharine). The one thing that concerns me from the trailers are the

heaven

scenes, which look ludicrously over-CGIed. Your review and many others seem to confirms my suspicions . There are very few things that break my immersion in a film as much as distracting, excessive CGI.

(Also: never apologise for in-depth opinion! Isn't enough of it sometimes )

Basq

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The one thing that concerns me from the trailers are the

heaven

scenes, which look ludicrously over-CGIed. Your review and many others seem to confirms my suspicions . There are very few things that break my immersion in a film as much as distracting, excessive CGI.

Yep..

the scenes in heaven completely took me out of the film. They're so bright and colourful that it just seems too jarring and un-necessary. Not to mention one ridiculous montage sequence that.. ah, you'll know it when you see it.. it belonged in the Hannah Montana movie.

Unfortunately, this is where the film suffers. Outside of this, I actually largely enjoyed it (despite some flaws obviously)!

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

(Also: never apologise for in-depth opinion! Isn't enough of it sometimes )

Cheers.. wasn't intending to make it a review. But I do think some critics have been quite harsh on the film (the one I quoted for one).. but a lot of the criticisms I read are also quite accurate with my own.

But as a star rating (out of 10) - it's not by any means a 3 or 4 star film (which seems to be the mean rating for it over at RT.com - haven't checked Metacritic), I'd probably give it a 6 or 7 tops.

fitz0

Aw I was really looking forward to this. I'll still go and see it more than likely but now I'll have lower expectations thanks to the less than stellar reviews.

Basq

Read my review again fitz0 - it's a decent movie.

It's not amazing, but don't let the reviews put you off - most of the reviews I've read are far too harsh.

Voodu Child

Saw it the other day, didn't think much of it.

I would have enjoyed the film if it was a straight murder/thriller. All this

farting around in some Mario Galaxy-style heaven

ruined a perfectly good film, but I guess that was the nature of the subject matter. Only the great superb performances of Soairse Ronan and Stanley Tucci saved the movie from being a complete waste of time.

fitz0

basquille wrote: »

Read my review again fitz0 - it's a decent movie.

It's not amazing, but don't let the reviews put you off - most of the reviews I've read are far too harsh.

I'm hoping they were too harsh. Metacritic has it at 44! I'll still go see it but I was looking forward to the

Purgatory/Heaven scenes

which seem to have been the worst part of it. Oh well Ill have to see for myself I suppose.

Rabidlamb

Caught it last night & found it to be more compelling than the previous posters.
The "in between" visuals were overdone but I believed that overall they added to the purgatory experience.

It was the real life after scenes that seemed a bit lacking for me as if it had been edited heavily.

The wife leaving & returning so easily plus the grandmother bit seemed a bit shoehorned on.

I felt that the sentimental tone may play better to a female audience.
My wife gave it 4.5 stars out of 5, thought it was the best thing she'd seen since State of Play.
I'd be generous & give it 4 stars.

fitz0

WHere has everyone seen this? I thought it wasn't out until the 29th.

MikeC101

Oscar nominations coming up soon, means lots of leaked screener copies of movies that generated "Oscar buzz", which I think this movie did (at least before anyone saw it).

Or eh, their friends in the entertainment industry are showing them advance copies, maybe.

Possibly it's already released in some regions too?

fitz0

Oh I'll give my money to the cinema I think.

Voodu Child

fitz0 wrote: »

WHere has everyone seen this? I thought it wasn't out until the 29th.

It was released in the Cinemas in New Zealand on Dec 26th. Thats where I saw it anyhow..

Basq

Voodu Child wrote: »

It was released in the Cinemas in New Zealand on Dec 26th. Thats where I saw it anyhow..

Yeah... ummmm... me too!

Forgot to say, I was hugely impressed with the score by Brian Eno.

Richard Dower

basquille wrote: »

Yeah... ummmm... me too!

Forgot to say, I was hugely impressed with the score by Brian Eno.

Me three!

emmetcummins

Was at a party with saoirse's uncle last night. He's cool

chump

Saw this movie in the cinema a couple of days ago.

I was hesitant going to see it, due to the poor reviews.

However, it really was an enjoyable movie. I wasn't put off by the "heavenly" visuals at all - but I am quite easy going.

I'd recommend it to anyone. 7-8 out of 10 for me (probably 7)

pickarooney

Major disappointment for me. It was like a rush-hour taxi-ride for the last hour, just waiting for anything to happen while time dripped away in a tedious stream of CGI nonsense. A real waste.

Clare Bear

I haven't read the book so not sure how I'd feel about it if I had but I liked it. Though parts were definintely lacking but in general I thought it was good and kept me interested for the most part. I'd give it a 7.

don ramo

good show, but TBH it was a bit to drawn out, the purgutory scenes could easily have been done on earth (i never read the book, but even by describtion you could never truely display the afterlife, and theres no way you could create it with CGI), theres no reason she couldnt be there directly, maybe in that canopy,

i really miss the old days when you see the bad guy doing something (

like rolling a safe into a sinkhole) and you expect the cops (or maybe that weird one, cant remeber her name) to come runing out and exposing whats in the safe

, theres a lot to be said for what worked for years,

not an entirely bad film, but not very memorable, i had fairly high expectations so id say 6-7 out of 10, id deffinately say theres an audience out there for it, im just not in it,

Tusky

As a big Jackson fan, I was really disappointed in this. I pretty much agree with everything basquille said, except I thought Rachel Weiz and Mark Wahlberg were both quite good. Saoirse Ronan really annoyed me. Her voice over, and all the scenes in purgatory and heaven seemed really out of place.

The over use of CGI (which is something I would rarely criticize Jackson for as he normally handles it very well - ghosts from ROTK and dinos from King Kong aside) in these scenes seemed at odds with the visuals in the rest of the film.

I know in the book the idea that she is narrating the story from heaven is integral to the story and how its told, but it didnt make the transition to the screen well.

Stanley Tucci was excellent, and I thought Jackson handled all the scenes with him really well. There are flashes of what Jackson can do, mainly in creating tension and scares, but overall I found the film to be jarring, badly paced and a little boring. About halfway into the movie, I became bored and stopped caring about what was going on onscreen.

I would love Jackson to do a straight up horror movie. Bad Taste and Braindead are horror comedies, but I think he would make a really great and scary horror movie.

hitlersson666

Hey i just saw the screener of this and it was amazing and i really enjoyed it but im shocked its 12a?? it was 15a but goot appealed but still parts of this movie are really horrific and i dont feel a 12 y/o would be able to handle it tbh?? if anyone saw this would they agree with me?

Snake Plisken

Saw it tonight and thought it was fantastic really loved it, I hadn't read the book but had read the poor reviews and wasn't expecting much after being very dissappointed with Mr Jackson's King Kong, but I was fully engrossed in this movie, maybe being a Parent helps to engage with this as the subject matter is every parent's worst nightmare, their child abducted and murdered, some great acting from Saoirse, and Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz played the parents well. I didn't find the inbetween scenes took away from the movie at all. Stanley Tucci was an evil fecker real menace in his performance.
This reminds me a bit to Beautiful Creatures which I also loved. So well done Mr Jackson a fantastic movie

Sound Computers

basquille wrote: »

So.. Peter Jackson's first film since 2005's "King Kong"

He did District 9 released Aug 09.

Interesting twist on ghetto life with aliens.

Basq

Sound Computers wrote: »

He did District 9 released Aug 09.

He just produced it.. he didn't direct it.

PS - I love 'District 9'.. one of my favourites of last year. Picked up the Blu-ray before Christmas.

2Bv¬2B

hitlersson666 wrote: »

Hey i just saw the screener of this and it was amazing and i really enjoyed it but im shocked its 12a?? it was 15a but goot appealed but still parts of this movie are really horrific and i dont feel a 12 y/o would be able to handle it tbh?? if anyone saw this would they agree with me?

I hate the IFCO, the reason that was appealed was because they would loose more audience, it's all to do with money. Usually alot of films that are 18's are re-appealed for 16's

I enjoyed the Lovely Bones, ok it wasn't as good as I was expecting it to be, but the film wasn't all that bad

Mr E

Was the ending of the movie true to the book, or was that something the screenwriters tacked on? I didn't mind the "inbetween" scenes, but the fate of George Harvey literally made me roll my eyes. There was nothing clever about it.

If the ghosts of the kids spooked him into falling (like the shadow of the bike did earlier), that might have been acceptable, but to be hit on the shoulder by an icicle and falling off a cliff? No body for the Salmon family, no showdown with George, no real closure or payoff for the 2 hours that came before it

. It was random and unsatisfying.

Really liked the movie otherwise (Tucci, Ronan and even Wahlberg were all excellent), and that scene with Lindsey in George's house was a masterclass in suspense.

sarahlulu

the ending of the book was worse,

George Harvey just disappeared

hitlersson666

sarahlulu wrote: »

the ending of the book was worse

For thoes who have not seen/read it please use SPOILER TAGS >.<

Mike Litoris

I haven't seen it yet but will soon. I wouldn't take any notice of RT ratings the majority of their "top" reviewers are a joke trying to outdo each other with their cynicism.

Giselle

So I take it the ending of the movie deviated from the ending of the book?

I didn't think much of the book, I can't understand how it was received as well as it was. It'll be interesting to see if its one of those rare things that makes a better movie than it does a read.

johnny_ultimate

I watched this last night eventually, and I definitely felt it was one of the worst films I've seen in a long time. Maybe worst isn't the right word, there are things to like in it. But it was disappointing, a missed opportunity, and a strangely unfocused effort from a director who generally is extremely talented.

It started off relatively well. There was enough visual flourish from Jackson to back-up the fairly simple family drama carried over from the book. The performances were largely solid. Stanley Tucci carries the film basically, his character dominates the screen everytime he is on it.

Then

Susie gets murdered,

and everything goes to ****. The

murder scene

itself is tense and unsettling, but after that, the film entirely loses focus.

Entire characters are rendered pretty much redundant, having very little to do. Honestly, would this film have been significantly different with Susan Sarandon or Michael Imperioli? These were two vital characters in the book, their roles limited to a scene or two that suggest but never fulfill subplots that are engaging and important in the book. Why did Rachel Weisz have to visit Imperioli at the police station? Anyone who has read the book will know why, here it just clogs up screen time.

Gone is the book's focus on all the characters

adjusting to and dealing with Susie's absence

, which means we can never get a good grasp on central characters like Susie's two school friends who are here limited to two brief and out-of-place scenes. The goal appears to be to make a thriller as opposed to a character-based drama (which I always thought was the main focus of the book). While they have an effective villain, otherwise it means the tone is all over the place, and lingers way too long making points the audience is well aware of.

It's a whodunnit in which the audience knows the identity of the killer, but unlike something like the Chaser (a Korean film with a similar twist) other characters trying to prove his guilt never feels compelling or interesting.

Then there are the

heaven

scenes, where the film totally falls apart. Cheesy, overwrought and over-CGIed, the visuals constantly pulled me out of the film by just looking unreal and silly. The lessons Susie learns are too drawn out and simplistic to engage. These scenes just don't work at all, and considering so much time is spent on them it becomes a major problem.

Now, I wasn't a big fan of the book or anything. It was simple and relatively enjoyable for what it was. Yet most of the enjoyable things about it have been completely removed, creating an unfocused, messy and dull film that goes nowhere fast. I just felt like there were hours of vital character development cut out for a future 'extended cut', which wouldn't surprise me. As it stands, I thought the Lovely Bones was a significant missed opportunity.