Genres

Visitors Review

2012-05-24 21:20:47

Such a sad movie

This review is from: The Lovely Bones (Two-Disc Special Edition) [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) It's also sad because these types of things happen every day. The man in this movie killed so many innocent people. The little girl (Suzy) wants justice to come to the man that killed her. The thing is, she is already dead. Long story short, another girl she meets in the "in-between" world suggests that she should let the past go and move on. But she can't. She loves the people she has left behind and wants justice. At the end, the man that killed her gets hit in the head by an ice sickle and falls off a cliff. Not a long movie, but a good one.

2012-05-24 17:46:06

Disturbing

This review is from: The Lovely Bones (Two-Disc Special Edition) [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) I have only watched this movie once so I am sure I need to see it again. I ordered it from Amazon and expect to get it in a couple of days. I also ordered the book. I originally saw it on HBO. I read many of the reviews. Those that gave it less than 4 stars are not seeing it for what it is. To many of these people review this movie like they were critics. I just watch movies because I love movies. I don't care what the critics say including those here. I did miss the beginning of the movie but I saw it online when I ordered it from Amazon. They provided it online for a day. I thought I would have it for 30 days but it was only one day. I found it disturbing because it really gives you a glimpse into the mind of a child serial killer. This man was a neighbor of Susie's. He wasn't a complete stranger so she followed him. What I found disturbing was how this can happen in real life. My grandchildren are in middle school and high school. There is a field between their schools. It isn't nearly as big as the one in the movie but a field never the less. It isn't as isolated as the one in the movie either but it gives me a sense of where this man killed Susie. This could happen in life and it scares me a lot. I always worry about my girls and it makes them nuts. They think nothing bad could happen to them. I don't want them to be afraid of their own shadow but I wish they would be more careful. I don't know if Susie was killed in the field or back at the killers house. The scene in his bathroom makes me think he brought Susie back to his house. My whole point of writing is to say this could happen and people need to be vigilant about their children and the children need to be aware of their surroundings. Think about where you are and what you are doing. Bad things do happen to good people and I don't see this changing any time soon. This is a great movie because I found it so realistic. I read some of the book and I am glad they didn't show the actual rape or murder. This is a child after all. Even on shows like Criminal Minds they don't show the murder of children. It's better not to see the details. Not a movie for kids.

olihist 2012-05-23 21:30:30

Good Effort, But A Difficult Adaptation

Death is a very difficult subject to treat honestly in any media, letalone film, and "Lovely Bones" seems to be no exception to this rule. Ihave not read Alice Seibold's novel so I will not comment on how wellPeter Jackson's adapted her story. That said, I thought the film did anice job in portraying the grief and emotions surrounding the violentloss of a loved one. In terms of acting, visuals, and overall story,"Lovely Bones" compares well with "What Dreams May Come," anothermoving film on death. There were some elements of this film, however(e.g. conclusion, supporting characters), that seemed rushed ordisjointed. Adapting a complex book is never an easy task, althoughdirector Peter Jackson should have considerable experience with such atask from his "Lord of the Rings" films. Still, many of the harshreviews that I've read from critics and moviegoers seem more directedtowards Peter Jackson than the actual merits of this film.Overall, I would give "Lovely Bones" an above average rating of 8 outof 10.

robotclam-1 2012-05-23 06:37:59

Dead on arrival.

How bad is this movie? How high is the sky? I was no fan of the book,but after being bludgeoned by Peter Jackson's grotesque acid trip, I'vecome to appreciate the novel's delicacy. The movie really neededsomeone who appreciates subtlety and nuance, like Terrence Malick,maybe; instead, we get a director who never met a wide-angle lens orgarish CGI effect he didn't like. Quick checklist of everything wrongwith this movie: (1) Casting. Saoirse Ronan is precious, in the worstsense of the word, and Rachel Weisz and Mark Wahlberg are just awkward,uncomfortable, miscast. Susan Sarandon grandstands in a hackneyed part.Only Stanley Tucci impresses. (2) Art and production design --Seventies overkill. Everyone's clothes are too bright and clean, andthe wigs the adults have to wear are just amateurish and awful. (3)Music. Brian Eno's original music is nice, but most of the score justpillages his back catalogue. It's nice to hear that great music again,but it's an awkward fit for the movie, and lazy too. Half a point forinserting a This Mortal Coil song at the climax, but it overpowers thescene, robs it of any real power. (4) The biggest problem, overall, isthat in a movie that runs well over two hours, Jackson is so busybombarding us with trippy post-death visuals that he forgot to includeactual human relationships. There are maybe fifteen minutes of actualconversation between characters in the entire movie -- and believe me,I'm not exaggerating. Everything else is given over to our perky deadgirl running through CGI mountains and fields, or observing her mopeyfamily, while the ponderous, constant, droning narration makes thewhole thing feel like an illustrated audiobook. The movie is so drainedof drama, so lacking in even rudimentary story construction, that itquickly becomes tedious. I wish Peter Jackson would stick with giantmonkeys and hobbits. He has no concept of how people behave. And Ifervently pray that there is no CGI in heaven.

collipal-1 2012-05-23 05:28:37

A failed and disappointing movie

I think Peter Jackson is one of the best contemporary directors,because he belongs to the reduced "club" of filmmakers who have showntheir talent on opposite extremes of cinematographic art, and as wellas he found huge success with his epic movies of The Lord of the Rings,he also won the devotion from a group of fans (I am one of them) whoconsider his horror movies (Bad Taste and Dead Alive) as high pointsfrom the genre.As a matter of fact, I consider The Lord of the Ringstrilogy as a magnificent example of adapting a literary work to thecinema, distilling the story to its basic components without losing theessence or the emotional weight which made the original workmemorable.So, I received a big disappointment with The Lovely Bones,his most recent film, since it ended up being a failed and boringadaptation of a book, which falls on the classic mistake of respectingthe shape and ignoring the substance.There was pretty much material to make of The Lovely Bones an intenseand provocative movie.The problem is that co-screenwriters Jackson,Fran Walsh and Philipa Boyens did not know what story to tell, so thescreenplay arbitrarily shakes a maternal drama with the investigationof a crime, the suspicions from the victim's sister, the twisted lifefrom the murderer, the psychic kid who sees the ghost from the deadgirl and the metaphysical adventures from the victim in the"intermediate space", where she can see our world and at the same timeinfluence the structure from her magical spiritual environment.Theproblem is that all those stories do not feel interconnected or wellbalanced.It was may more necessary a more energetic cut of charactersand content in order to refine the story and find a common axis whichunifies the tone and intention from so many narrative slopes, butwithout losing the central subjects of family redemption, "karma" andtriumph over adversity.In less pretentious words: the jumps between allthe stories are so abrupt that we do not get interested in any of them.The cast is irregular: on the one hand, Saoirse Ronan, Stanley Tucciand Rose McIver bring excellent performances; but on the other hand,Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz and Susan Sarandon feel too forced on theircharacters.I do not think Jackson was the right person to make this movie; I willkeep considering him as a great director, but I think that a differentsensibility was needed to this movie.So, I do not recommend The Lovely Bones, mainly because I think this isan unsatisfactory and boring movie which lacks of humanity.I wishJackson better luck on his next project.

akelmur 2012-05-22 22:31:59

Somebody scratching your back and not getting the itch

Ironically, shortly before the movie, one of my daughters was barkingat the other daughter for scratching her back but not getting the itch.This was foreshadowing of a movie that in no way satisfied people'sinnate desire for justice. The movie truly kept you on the edge yourseat as the perpetrator operated just under the family's nose. Theaudience intensely desired justice to be served and it was neverdelivered. Despite the philosophical karmic undertones, the fate of theperpetrator at the end was a failed substitute for what the audiencecraved. The itch wasn't scratched. The suspense was further diluted,when the screen writers delved into unrealistic behavior on the part ofthe younger sister. This particularly poor interjection into the scriptinvoked scoffs from the audience. The movie also attempted to create adichotomy between the girl's desire for justice and everybody "movingon." The attempt fell into the realm of a false dichotomy. The movieevidences that superb casting, acting, and directing cannot overcomefundamental shortcomings in the development, interpretation, andsequencing of the screenplay. Bottom line, fundamental flaws in theplot are difficult to overcome.

Susan 2012-05-21 20:04:53

Beautifully done

I read the book and was anxious how my husband (who has not read the book and is a critical movie buff) would react to the movie. We both LOVED it. It was beyond our expectations. Perfectly cast, outstanding acting, visually compelling and excellently done.

prateak gauchan 2012-05-21 02:30:23

A movie that could have been a masterpiece which sadly isn't...

If there's one thing I dislike more than a bad movie it's a bad moviewith aspirations of greatness. This movie wants to be great. A work ofart. Possibly a masterpiece. I have no doubt that Oscars were whisperedof at some point during production. But here's the catch: it's no good.Something strange happened with the adaptation of Alice Sebold's novel"The Lovely Bones" by Peter Jackson and his collaborators. The book wasone of the most read in the country after it was published.Unfortunately, what comes out on the screen is far from what Ms. Seboldwrote about, so the finished product is, at times, irritating, at best.The mere thought of translating the text into a motion picture, musthave been a daunting work on the part of Mr. Jackson, Fran Walsh andPhilippa Boyens.The story is a very intriguing one, but it is quite slow complete withholes and any parts that strived to be heartbreaking came across asmawkish. The script is quite weak often. But what hurt the film mostwas some aspects of Peter Jackson's direction. Jackson is a gooddirector don't get me wrong(he was the main reason that I wanted towatch the movie), but he does make some decisions that detract from theimpact of the story rather than enhance it. Especially with the CGI,not that it was bad CGI in fact it looked quite good, what I mean wasthat there was a complete overload of it and I think some of it wasunnecessary. The movie is overloaded with fantasy scenes with too-loudsounds, and it omits much of the thoughtful narration of the murderedgirl. The movie veers from mystery to fantasy, back and forth,satisfying neither format. And the small love-story between Susie andReece is not portrayed with panache and it feels nothing more than apuppy love.The Lovely BonesHowever, the film does look absolutely beautiful, with beautifulscenery and cinematography. The score gives a haunting, eerie andintoxicating quality too. While the story is flawed, there is a goodatmosphere especially in the more chilling scenes, where they are quitechilling and that's an understatement. Apart from two performances, theacting is quite good. The best performance comes from the verypromising child actress Saiorse Ronan, who is just tremendous here. Shewas perfect for the role. She has a beautiful spirit about her thatmakes you embrace her. She's so likable that that you care about hercharacter and what happens to her. Thanks to the sweet-faced and deeplyaffecting Ronan, you'll never forget Susie Salmon. Stanley Tucci isvery chillingly effective too, and Mark Wahlberg is surprisingly good.The two performances I wasn't so taken with were Rachel Weisz, who iswasted. She would have had a lot of scope for acting out her grief ifthe movie had stuck with the book, instead of rushing her out to thewine country of California and making it look like she had been awayfor just a few months. And then there is normally solid Susan Sarandon,who overplays quite badly. She plays the child's Grandma Lynn whoappears early in the movie and does not really help the weakscreenplay. Mark Wahlberg as the grieving father is just adequate. Ibelieve the weak screenplay limited both him and Rachel Weisz.The music, as opposed to fantasy sounds, is excellent. The locales areauthentic and well-shot. The writing of dialog in the real-life"mystery" scenes is good. But there is an abundance of fantasy sceneswhich for us added nothing and frustrated our enjoyment of the plot andgood acting. There's also a thriller aspect to the movie, and this partis well-done, but it's also overwhelmed by the excessive fantasyscenes.Instead of focusing on how Suzie's feelings evolved while she was inthe in between place, after her murder, Jackson resorted to inordinateamounts of special effects. The CGI worked well in Lord of the ringsand Kingkong, but this movie needed a different kind of handling, withCGI being used only where essential. The special effects in this movieare overpowering and they eclipse the movie.So, a movie that could have been a masterpiece which sadly isn't. Loadsof plot holes, Unsatisfying ending and the unnecessary use of CGIspoils the movie So I rate it 5.5 out of 10.

2012-05-21 01:27:04

The Lovely Film

Peter Jackson's adaptation of THE LOVELY BONES is beautifully executed. The movie is so rich in visual metaphor and surreal environments that it is breathtaking. The way the film is shot makes for an amazing play on emotions and tension. This film is almost poetic in the way it is offered. As a Christian, I must emphasize that the film's view of the afterlife is strange and not particularly Biblical. However, the film was so haunting that it has had me thinking of its rich landscape long after it was over. Saoirse Ronan's acting is absolutely top notch. Her portrayal is riveting and beautiful. Great film!

phantom_fan89 2012-05-20 19:06:53

There may be a few bones to pick but there still a lot of lovely evident

FOR MORE Reviews FEEL FREE TO VISIThttp://rantsreviews4filmnuts.blogspot.com/ Peter Jackson's adaptation of Alice Sebold's best selling novel isdeeply flawed. It is also deeply haunting, deeply moving and one of themost unforgettable film experiences of this or any other year.Fourteen year old Susie Salmon watches over her family from theafterlife as they attempt to piece their lives back together after herbrutal murder. But even in death Susie is still haunted by what hashappened and becomes consumed with bringing the perpetrator to justice.The subject matter is tough to say the least, but Jackson handles thematerial beautifully. Young Susie's rape and murder is nevergratuitous, in fact very little of the crime is actually seen asJackson opts to employ the use of haunting symbolism rather than brutalrealism to imply what has happened. In turn Jackson's powerful imageryhits more disturbingly close to home than one could possibly imagine.Jackson is the master of imagery and the film is glorious to look at.For a movie with such a dark subject matter, it may be surprising tolearn that The Lovely Bones is steeped in vibrant colour. Both in lifeand death Jackson creates visually interesting worlds for Susie toinhabit, both in an authentic recreation of 70's suburbia in both lookand feel and a heavenly universe rife with symbolism and magnificentimagery. This being so the scenes featuring Susie in the afterlife,whilst visually stunning, serve to derail the pace of the film.The Lovely Bones gets off to an excellent start. We are introduced toSusie and grow instantly attached. She is smart, witty and endearinglynaive, everything a likable heroin should be which makes the knowledgeof her impending doom even harder to digest. The film is a uniquemixture of light and dark moments. Jackson lolls us into a false senseof comfort after we view a comical encounter with Susie and herGrandmother about the joy of first kisses, we are then brought sharplyback to reality with Susie's narration reminding us that she will soonmeet her demise at the hands of the terrifyingly creepy Mr Harvey, thequiet but psychologically disturbed neighbour from across the road.The film starts of light but soon turns into a tense, gritty thrilleras the quest to discover what has happened to Susie begins. The scenesof Susie in the afterlife tend to derail the growing momentum of theinvestigation, as do some poorly executed sub plots. Susie'sinfatuation with Ray, a boy from school with which she has had but afew encounters, feels rather off note as she seems to spend more timemoping for him in the afterlife than for her family. Susie'sotherworldly contact with outcast Ruth also turns out to be highlyfrustrating as it builds expectation but accomplishes nothing in theway of bringing Susie's murderer to justice.One of the biggest faults in The Lovely Bones is poor characterdevelopment, with Susie's parents suffering most. Their relationshipseems false and their initial reaction to her death feels ratherhastily passed over. The disintegration of their marriage barelyregisters in the film and we never really get a grip on who they are ascharacters, making it almost impossible to understand many of theiractions, in particular Abigail's. The usually brilliant Rachel Weiszappears to be a blank canvas and doesn't seem to be fully presentwithin her role. Mark Wahlberg fares a little better as the fatherobsessed with finding Susie's killer, but the holes within hischaracter and thus performance are glaringly apparent. Whilst RoseMcIver turns in a solid performance as Susie's younger sister Lindsay,the murder of her sibling appears to have no emotional effect on hercharacter at all. Susan Sarandan in the role of Susie's unconventional,alcoholic Grandmother does well with the little she is given as somebrief but pointless comic relief and Michael Imperioli fails to riseabove his stereotypical, one note homicide detective.The two lead characters however manage to escape the fate of thesupporting cast. Susie is possibly the most well rounded character inthe film and Saoirse Ronan is brilliant in the role. One of the mosttalented actresses working today her work deserves to be recognised bythe Academy as she manages to outshine the majority of performancesgiven by actresses this year. The real show stealer however ismasterclass character actor Stanley Tucci as the deranged serial killerMr Harvey. Tucci's performance is so sinister and disturbing that itwill haunt you for some time to come. It would be an absolute crime forTucci to miss out on at least an Oscar nomination for his work asreally he deserves to win.Despite it's faults The Lovely Bones still makes for one of the mostoriginal and compelling film experiences of the year. Completelyhaunting in every way, it is a great film that could or should havebeen magnificent.

MovieZoo 2012-05-20 00:02:14

The Lovely Bones needed some meat

Performances in this movie are excellent. Special effects, very muchlike what you expect from Spielberg and Peter Jackson, were beautiful.The emotion you feel from the sadness and from anger were well drawnout. The frustration I felt from the movie was my curse I guess.The bits and pieces, being well done, just did not come together forme. I could not relate too well with anyone. I felt sorry for those whodeserved it and I hated the one who deserved it. But as some of theimagery we all saw in trailers seemed surreal, so were the characters.Sure they were real people but their reactions were as surreal as thescenes Susie had after her death.I had heard that you really have to read the book. I didn't read it.Maybe that's why I didn't fully appreciate it. Blame it on thereactions of the family. Forsaking their human nature hurt the movie asfar as my feelings about the film go. But then again, I think it mighthave sidetracked the movie from taking us on a trip through theafterlife. I get that the creators probably wanted us to feel like wewere on this surreal trip. But why was it for only murdered girls? Wasthe surrealism supposed to make us feel good? - with all these murderedgirls?? I am confused. Maybe I should read the book before I go on.My applause goes to the performances, despite weak characters, and forthe surreal imagery. I would have probably had no complaint if thissurreal trip had a justifiably good message. I could not shake my angerfor the creep (and for the poor investigation) long enough to reallyrespect the beauty of the trip.You will probably be reminded of ET: The Extraterrestrial andSpielberg's "Amazing Stories" because of the imagery and the storytelling. The performances and the beautiful artistic CGI alone put thismovie at a 7 for me.

2012-05-19 15:41:37

Lovely Bones will have you thinking twice before passing a corn field

This review is from: The Lovely Bones (DVD) The first time I watch it I couldn't take my eyes away from the television screen had no idea what was going to happen next.The second time I watched it with my young children because I want them to become more aware of strangers and what does happen besides the fact we live next to corn fields..LOL

2012-05-18 21:08:58

Very Good Movie better then I thought.

This was a very good movie, Much Better then I thought it would end up being. The cast was spot on and great for their roles. While It doesnt go hand in hand with the book it keeps pretty much to the storyline , However the difference from the book is Peter Jackson made this movie darker then the book was, it was very emotional, sad, angry at some points it gets your emotions flowing which some may view as a good or bad thing, I like what it does. Movies are supposed to get you into them, get you going and feeling emotions. This movie does that no questions asked. If your looking for a hand in hand spot on movie of the book you wont get it all here. However if your looking to just get the jist of the book in a good movie this will do it for you. When it comes to recommending movies I would defanitly say if you liked the book see the movie it is quite good for a movie version of the story but again dont look for an untouchable resemblance between movie and book. If you have a Blu-Ray player obviously get the Blu Ray over the dvd. the movie looks amazing in HD especially the other worldly scenes of suzie when shes in her own heaven, This was one of those meant for blu ray movies. hope this helps.

das_leichsi 2012-05-18 14:37:20

an amazing experience

I just watched the movie last night and I was blown away by this. I wastouched deeply by the performances and the art Jackson made out ofmaking this movie. I don't want and will not talk to much about themovie itself, cause it's a beautiful story well told and it's intensetill the end. What I want is to defend this movie against all thisnutjobs around. I always read about the CGI and that it was somisplaced and that Jackson is always going for this. Guys, you noticedthat this movie was a lot but not an "eye catcher"? the most importantand touching sequences were in the "real" world. the afterlife was likeit should be, larger than life, colorful and not as stained with oureveryday bullshit. I liked the CGI sequences and I was surprised thathe kept them at this few. but everyone's still complaining. Enjoy themovie. if you want to go off about to much CGI get back to LOTR (Ican't understand you're rating this one so high when it is nothing morethan CGI and Tolkiens 2dimensional characters) this movie is highlyenjoyable for everyone who likes a film that makes you feel instead ofjust to watch. the slow pace of the story is a minus, but the cast isplaying this one away like nothing. it's "fun" to watch them and itleft me crying for a while. watch it, but only if you are capable ofemotion. if not you wouldn't like it and see it as a waste of time andmoney (yeah I was talking to you)

gary-444 2012-05-18 07:43:06

An Unlovely Mess

There are occasions when you watch a film, understand its merit, butsimply reflect that it doesn't work for you. This is one such film. Thebook by Alice Sebold is much acclaimed, Director Peter Jackson ishugely experienced and vastly accomplished, as is executive producerSteven Spielberg, so what is it that doesn't work? The premise, of a murdered girl, Susie Salmon, played by Saorise Ronan,leading her parents, Jack and Abigail, to her killer from a spiritualnether world is an intriguing one. The cgi and staging of the girlsscenes in spiritual limbo are fine, it's the ones on terra firma thatdisappoint.The planning and execution of the murder are understated which weakenthe drama, there is no sense of horror about what has happened. ParentsMark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz convincingly portray grief strickenparents, but this in turn is undermined by an almost comic turn bySusan Sarandon as a grandmother Lyn.Attention soon focuses on the real killer as Susie Salmon leads herfamily towards the clues, but for little obvious terrestrial reason.This is no Revenger's Tragedy ,and by the end, I found myself simplywilling the end, which when it did come, was pretty unsatisfactory.Prior to this, Susie's father is beaten up by a teenage lad who has hisromantic assignation with his girlfriend disturbed as Jack chargesthrough the high crops in a field in a grief stricken frenzy reprisingthe actual voyeurism of the real killer. But so annoying has his rolebecome that instead of sympathising with him for his injuries , theviewer is tempted to think he deserved it for being so irritating.There is a gripping opening to the final act when Susie's sister breaksinto the killers house and steals a notebook containing vital evidencecausing the perpetrator to flee. But the climax wholly ignores thepolice, and presumable family ,chase to catch up with him, to cut to avery strange, anti-climactic final scene.Shorn of visceral action, and with much of the film set in Susies'dream world, the reality sequences are simply not enough to carry thestory over the line of credibility. Brian Eno's score is excellent, butits surreal ambiance only further distances the viewer from emotionallyconnecting with the story. Ronan's performance of Susie is anaemic, andbad guy George Harvey, played by Stanley Tucci, simply isn't sinisterenough to really generate much viewer ill will. Investigating officerFenerman played by Michael Imperioli has a cruelly underwritten sceneand the end result is a film that goes nowhere in particular. Massivelyover-hyped watch on no-pay TV or borrow someone's DVD only.

I_Love_Spielberg 2012-05-17 22:17:37

Peter Jackson's "Lovely" version

"The Lovely Bones" is a Peter Jackson film based on Alice Sebold'snovel about a 14-year-old girl named Susie Salmon who is raped andmurdered. She is sent into the "In-Between" to watch her family copewith the loss and her murderer continue to live his disgusting life. When I first heard that Peter Jackson was going to take on thisproject, I was very excited. I have not read the book, but I wasanxious nonetheless, and knowing Jackson's wide filmography, I wasaware that this was going to be something worthwhile. So, I waited, andwaited, and waited. I heard stories about creative clashes betweenJackson and the visual effects department as to the portrayal ofheaven. I had fears that it might not get made. It would be a deadproject. But my hopes were raised once more when they started filmingand it was in post-production, and then the release date was announced.Patiently, but oh so patiently, I waited. Upon my wait, I had heardmostly negative things about it, which did not shock me when I heardthe complaint on the director. However, still wanting to have my ownopinion on the matter, I went to the theater to see it. I was not disappointed by this film. Jackson, like he did with"Heavenly Creatures" and "Lord of the Rings," creates a perfect balancebetween story-telling and the visual effects, although some of thevisual effects were cartoonish; that does not mean that they did notfit well with the subject matter (they did). I could tell that this was a story that Peter Jackson wanted to tell,and he does it with great conviction and passion. Saorsie Ronan, who is known widely for her role in Joe Wright's"Atonement," does a fabulous job with the lead role of Susie Salmon. Itcan be viewed as emotionless, but what I loved about it was that it wasperfect, because the truth is: how do you feel about something likethis? You have been raped, murdered, and you are only 14 years old. Somuch happens. How do you react? And Ronan answers that beautifully. The rest of the cast, Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Susan Sarandon, andStanley Tucci, were excellent as well. Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz,both parents in real life even though they do not have childrentogether, brought tears to my eyes. Their portrayal of parents goingthrough the kind of loss that Jack and Abigail Salmon go through isreal, it is honest. And Susan Sarandon's part as Grandma Lynn wasspot-on. My sister viewed the character as a rude character. Which sheis, but she is handling the loss in her own way. And Stanley Tucci, whoplays George Harvey (the pederast), does a superb job at making youdespise Harvey, and making him so disgusting and creepy. What you seein the film is actually what happens in real life. You are seeingpederasty in its true and awful form. Now, be warned, this is not a film for everyone. There are transitionsthat people will not be comfortable with, but everyone is different inwhat they like. It did take a while for me to become adjusted with it.But after that, I was fine. So please, see it if you get the chance. Or if it is not worth spendingthe money to see it in theaters, rent it when it comes out on DVD. Itis worth every second. Also, if you are aware of Peter Jackson makingcameos in his movies, look for him. He is not that hard to spot.

Wes Lambert 2012-05-17 04:56:54

I read the book loved and still managed to fall for this movie

As a fan of Alice Sebold's "The Lovely Bone", I have been readingnegative reviews of the movie with dismay for months. I made what wasprobably a mistake and read even more reviews on sites like IMDb afterwatching "The Lovely Bones" this weekend. The idea repeated in reviewafter review goes something like this : Peter Jackson has gutted thestory and left viewers with mostly an empty CGI shell. What can I say,I get it but very much fell for this movie. I can't imagine the numberof choices that must be made when adapting a book into a movie. Thepull to include as much as possible bumping up against the reality thatyou have to edit, edit, and then edit some more.In the story of Susie Salmon, her tragic murder and afterlife Jacksonhas chosen to make a sparse story that gives you, if not all of thedetails from the book, then at least the feeling of Susie watching herfamily from a distance and exerting subtle influence. We get what couldalmost be described as vignettes of her family's life in the wake ofher death. She is meant to be moving on but is constantly drawn back bytheir grief and desire for justice.One element I'm surprised to find missing from all of the negativereviews is praise for the great performances. Saoirse Ronan as SusieSalmon is the literal and figurative voice of the movie. Her narrationperfectly captures the sweet sadness that runs through the book and herportrayal of Susie before the murder is so endearing as to drive homeeven more the tragedy of what is to come. As a counterpoint to her roleis Stanely Tucci as her killer. Without going overboard he perfectlyportrays the idea of the nightmare you don't realize is living nextdoor. I for one am glad his role is a bit subdued. I've tired of moviesportraying serial killer's every motivation, fetishes and macabredetails of the crimes. I'll admit the under use of Mark Wahlberg andRachel Weisz is a mystery to me. Susan Sarandon deserves notice asSusie's grandmother, a woman after my own heart tackles life'schallenges with a drink firmly in hand.I probably could not change the minds of those who feel Peter Jacksonhas ruined a beloved book but decided I could enjoy the movie that isand not worry so much about the one that could have been.

Dan Franzen 2012-05-16 19:13:19

Pretty, boring package with lackluster acting

A murdered teenager watches from Heaven as her family tries to sortwith the reality and consequences of her death. Not really meant to bean uplifting movie anyway, this adaptation of an Alice Sebold novel isalmost relentlessly depressing, overbearing, maudlin, and dull. It's amovie that demands considerable emotional investment, but it takes toolong to reach its conclusion, leaving you cold when you should beconcerned.The movie opens shortly before Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) is killedby a creepy neighbor (Stanley Tucci) in 1973 and then finds her stuckin limbo while her family deals with the tragedy. She is also keepingan eye on Mr. Harvey, her killer, in the hopes that someone will catchhim and find her body. But just so you're aware, this is not a murdermystery, since we know almost immediately who the killer is; it's amelodrama about how people cope with loss.So there's very little intrigue to be found, and every little plotdevelopment seems to exist merely to move things along to someundefined conclusion with which you may or may not agree. Dad Jack(Mark Wahlberg) copes by lashing out (at items he built with hisdaughter, not at his family); mom Abigail (Rachel Weisz) opts forescape; sister Lindsey (Rose McIver) escapes as well, out of Susie'sshadow. Even Abigail's mother, Grandma Lynn (Susan Sarandon) shows upto lend a hand to a family reeling - the fact that she's achain-smoking, liquor-swilling wild woman gives everyone a jolt, butit's just not enough.Critics have said that Sebold's novel is probably unfilmable, andthey're right. Director Peter Jackson uses some startling visualimagery, but it's really nothing noteworthy (and, truth be told, WhatDreams May Come, which covered some of the same subject matter, was farmore visually interesting); worse, everything feels jammed in, a squarepeg desperately trying to fit into a round hole.But worse than that, for me, was the interminable, uncomfortable scenein which Susie is abducted by Mr. Harvey. There seemed to be no goodreason to drag this interaction out as much as Jackson did, other thanto make everyone squeamish. Since the thrust of the movie was theSalmon family's reaction - and Susie's experiences in the afterlife -showing us a drawn-out attack scene felt gratuitous and had me eyeingthe exit signs.As for the cast, Wahlberg and Weisz try their best but are overshadowedby the constant shots of Ronan attempting to convey an emotion of somesort. Ronan, who was terrible in Atonement and mildly improved in Cityof Ember, is given little to do other than look pitiful. Sarandon chewsscenery as a vamping lush of a grandma. The only one who shines isTucci, who's almost unrecognizable as the bespectacled blonde killer.Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones is stylish but insubstantial. Whilethe effects are fun to look at and feel full of meaning and import, thestory and acting feel almost tacked on as an afterthought. This isproblematic when the movie relies heavily on the story to begin with,because it makes the low-key character-driven scenes look even worse incomparison.

2012-05-13 07:07:35

A lovely wallow of deep depression

Some drama films are the kind that you feel emotional resonance for the characters, feel mildly engaged by the plot, think about it for a few seconds after leaving the theater, get into your car, get pissed off at a stupid driver, and quickly move back into your own life. The Lovely Bones isn't that kind of movie.Director Peter Jackson, of Lord of the Rings and King Kong fame, doesn't seem like the most obvious choice to direct the adaptation of the seemingly untouchable Alice Sebold novel, but he does his best, by staying close to the source material, but occasionally taking things out here and there. He also brings alot of ah-mazing CGI shots that are so gorgeous, they may be worth the price of admission alone, and I doubt we would've had that type of a movie if anybody else had directed it. However, you get the feeling that Jackson paid too much attention to the CGI aspect, while he could've dealt with the center plot issue with more directorial sensitivity, mocking the same way the book was written, and that's what stops this from being a perfect movie.The plot centers around Susie Salmon (played by Saoirse Ronan), a 14-year-old girl who is raped and murdered in 1973. Ronan was absolutely perfect in this role. She showed promise in the 2007 film Atonement, where she also played a terrified youth who is dealing with an unbelievable situation. In the film, Susie is watching over her family, the boy she was in love with, and her killer -- from her own personal heaven.Stanley Tucci nails his role, playing the demented serial killer Mr. Harvey. He gives a particularly chilling, and uncannily believable performance, showing more versatility with every film he makes, you can tell that he really got lost in this role, because his part isn't one of those where you find yourself wondering what the actor has previously starred in -- you see his character, and he does a damn fine job at it.Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz and Susan Sarandon play Susie's family, and each of those roles require the actor to display quite alot of emotion, grieving her loss, and they all do terrific work, causing you to feel the extreme remorse that their characters do, and I really don't know if better actors could have been selected to play the respective parts.Nikki SooHoo plays Holly, a girl who Susie meets in heaven, another victim of Mr. Harvey. Her role is particularly memorable, serving as something of a reassuring voice to the Ronan's character, and I see her doing great things in her future, because, while being an unknown actress, she shows just as much talent as the other actors in this all-star cast.The core of this movie, however, the reason to go and see it in a packed theatre, doesn't lie in its acting, or the writing, or even the direction. It lies in the story. We've all wondered what happens to us after we die. The Lovely Bones suggests that we go to a world that we think is perfect, but we're still haunted by the things that troubled us in our lives. And while the movie leaves you heartbroken, wanting to spend every day you have on this earth as your last, it leaves you pondering your own life, the significance of it, how you'll be remembered. And that's something I particularly like in a film, when it not only moves you to the point where tears are flooding your eyes, but when it leaves you with a great deal of psychological issues to ponder, about your own life, and what comes after your life is ultimately over. And that's what The Lovely Bones does. And while staying true to the source material, that's all a fan of this story can ask for.

gert30 2012-05-13 01:11:37

Generally good acting..however to much CGI

OK the lovely bones would have done a lot better without Peter Jackson-whose work i'm not a fan of anyway. Hollwood seems to forget that goodfilms don't always come from a computer (unless you are Pixar). The CGIwas just everywhere. My idea of heaven is the normal white floors. Ifthey just had that and the Gazibo it would have been OK not changingevery bloody two seconds.Anyway acting was good and emotional. The girl did look like my visionof Susie in the book and the man was genuinely creepy. The parents dolook really heartbroken and the sister is fine actress and lookedactually scared when the man was chasing after her.The plot of the original book was a lot different to the film so thatwas also a disappointment.Overall: Acting:9/10 Plot:5/10 Choice of director:2/10 Final mark:5/10