‘The Lovely Bones’ Too Grim for Big-Screen Enjoyment
by Carl KozlowskiIt’s the middle of the Christmas movie season, and you’re likely aiming to see escapist romps like “Sherlock Holmes” or family fare like “The Princess and the Frog.” Is anyone out there ready for a holiday film about the rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl and the impact it has on her family?
Apparently Paramount Pictures thought it was a fine time to release “The Lovely Bones,” Oscar-winning writer-director Peter Jackson’s (“The Lord of the Rings” trilogy) first film since creating the vastly overblown remake of “King Kong” in 2005. Sure, it’s based on the novel by Alice Sebold, which has proven to be one of the decade’s biggest best-sellers, but considering how unpleasant and jarring much of the film is, it joins the list of works that suffer in translation from the page to the screen.
The time is 1973, and 14-year-old Susie Salmon (played by Saoirse Ronan, an Oscar nominee for “Atonement”) is an average suburban girl with a loving family who becomes the unwitting victim of rape and murder at the hands of a predatory yet seemingly gentle neighbor, Mr. Harvey (Stanley Tucci).
Sebold’s book sought to transcend its tragically lurid subject matter with a heavy dose of spirituality and hope that seemed to hit home upon its release in 2002, in the wake of 9/11. That coincidental appeal stemmed from the book’s idea that Susie spends much of the tale trapped in a limbo state, unable to fully embrace the happiness of heaven until her killer has been brought to justice and her family has managed to heal emotionally.
She’s able to see the havoc her tragic end has wrought on those who love her, and through a twist of fate is able to guide her father and others to clues that ultimately bring peace to all, including the other lost and forgotten victims of Mr. Harvey’s past. The concept is intriguing, and critics have hailed it as a modern classic, but readers had the option of putting the book down for a bit when events became too disturbing.
They also had the ability to bring their own interpretation of heaven and the limbo Susie hovers in while seeking final justice. But Jackson’s vision and his effects team, led by fellow “Rings” Oscar-winner Andrew Lesnie as director of photography, provide a series of jarring and overbearing surreal images to hammer home the afterlife journey Susie is going through. The sad and often disturbing imagery she’s surrounded with in the afterlife contrasts sharply with the naturalistic story of her family’s suburban life and winds up leaving the viewer with a stress headache until the final half-hour’s relatively positive events end the film with some warmth.
It’s a shame that Jackson’s script (co-written with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens) and herky-jerky direction overwhelm the film, because it is centered on several fine performances. Ronan proves herself adept at handling a wide range of emotions, ranging from the sadness and terror she experiences with Mr. Harvey to the wonder of first love as she accepts a date just moments before her untimely demise. Mark Wahlberg also does a solid job as her father, who obsessively tries to find her killer even at the seeming expense of his marriage.
But the almost unrecognizable Stanley Tucci steals the show with his fully transformed performance as Mr. Harvey, perfectly capturing the kind of quiet loner who has proven to be a menace to society even as his neighbors thought he was a perfectly normal yet shy guy, from John Wayne Gacy to Ted Bundy to Jeffrey Dahmer.
In a press conference following a series of critics’ screenings, Jackson defended his vision for the film by noting that 20 different directors would have directed it 20 different ways and that a film adaptation of a book must stand first and foremost on its own as a film. While he should perhaps stick to fantasy epics like “Rings” rather than depictions of intimate family life in the future, he and Tucci should be commended in one major respect: they refused to show or allude to Susie’s rape in any way, leaving it to the viewers’ sad understanding that a young girl’s murder would likely include that heinous offense as well.
Angrily answering a reporter who questioned the fact that the film doesn’t depict Susie’s
rape, Jackson said he intended the film to be PG-13 so that it could serve as a cautionary tale for girls akin to his own 13-year-old daughter. He sadly noted that there’s plenty of places to see such sick behavior on the Internet but noted that he personally wouldn’t be part of providing imagery for the twisted imaginations of predators.
If only more directors would share that sense of restraint in depicting disturbing subject matter. And if only Paramount had chosen a bleaker time of year to match the film’s mood – say, Halloween – it would likely be a much bigger winner at the box office. As it stands, its grimness makes it hard to recommend anytime, but especially during a season of joy.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
55 Comments
One standard by which i judge a movie is; does it affect you or does it make you feel some emotion.
Akin to Precious, this movie will affect you. Wether you like the affect is a different story. It is harsh and full of suspense. If you can handle the subject matter, this is a well made movie.
Very disappointed I can't find this or The Road playing near me. Plenty of tickets for Avatar though.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood and DNC DUDES, Mr. Pink. Mr. Pink said: ‘The Lovely Bones’ Too Grim for Big-Screen Enjoyment http://tinyurl.com/ylptsfr [...]
Note: Shutter Island was supposed to open now but it got pushed to February. Based on the trailer it's very graphic and not very cheerful.
It's not open nationwide yet. It's only at 2 theatres in LA.
Hang in their. "The Road" will appear sooner or later. I live in a town of 500K in an area of over 2 million and "The Road" opened here today. Don't know about "The Lovely Bones". Not at the Cineplex I usually go to — which is showing only "The Road", "The Princess and the Frog", "Invictus" and "Avatar". One must assume "Avatar" is occupying most of the screens – there are many; can't remember how many.
I tried to read the book 'Lovely Bones' – but it was so badly written that I just dumped it. (How on earth did this book become a best seller?) Anyway, because boring books inevitably make boring films, the movie already didn't interest me in the least.
Thanks, Kozlowski – you just gave me two lovely Christmas gifts. One – I'm not going to waste money on this film; two – I'm not going to get depressed watching this film.
I'm always ready for rape & murder! Moreso than I am for Susan Sarandon, actually…
I haven't read the book as a story about the rape and murder of a 14 y.o. is off putting even if beautifully written tho' a writer friend related it isn't even that.
Why Ho'wood is determined to film books like "The Lovely Bones" and ignore books like "Empire of Lies" and a host of other thrillers (when "Taken" did so well, taken (sic) them by surprise) I'll never know. I admire Peter Jackson's work (tho' I hated "Lord of the Rings" — I know HERESY here — but take heart, I didn't like "Gone With the Wind", "Casablanca" or "The Wizard of Oz" either).
"The Road" is finally playing in my area, and I though I thought the book the best book I have read in a very long time, I'm not sure I want to be pummeled with sadness here at Christmas. Whoever decided to release these films at this time of year obviously had Oscar more in mind than Box Office.
"Stanley Tucci steals the show"
I won't waste any money on any flick with Saradon but Tucci stealing the show is hardly shocking. He seems to have a knack for it. Can't wait to see him in this role on a commercial-free network.
Although I haven't seen "The Lovely Bones", I think it's a little unfair to say Jackson should stick to fantasy epics rather than depictions of intimate family life. He was able to combine both very well in "Heavenly Creatures".
This sounds like an intriguing story, but it has a few things going against it for me. First, it deals with a truly disturbing subject. The rape and murder of a child is quite possibly the worst subject matter on earth. Granted Jackson and Tucci showed class in not exploiting that vein, but just the thought turns my stomach.
Second, the timing. It's Christmas, I want joy and happiness in my heart, not the sadness and pain of a movie like this.
And third, Susan Sarandon is in this. She would be too much of a distraction for me. I can't look at her without the mental image of her burning a flag or something….
Maybe when my son graduates college in 17 years…..
"The concept is intriguing"…….Hardly, it's pretty downright unimaginative and it's been done in many various plots before where a ghost can't rest in peace until their murderer is caught. The "quiet loner" neighborhood serial killer is been done to death too.
The words "Hollywood script" have become synonymous with cobbled pieces of recycled plagarized tripe
I'll pass on the book and the movie. After the raw emotions of 9/11 shock and grief Sebold’s cheap and easy spirituality fiction about violent deaths is only that.
"…It’s a shame that Jackson’s script (co-written with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens)"
That statement of fact alone tells me everything about why the film was unable to handle whatever spiritual elements the story might have had. It was these two that ham-fisted their way through the finer spiritual elements of Lord of the Rings, reducing the hobbits to children and twisting the deeper levels of spirit into New Age falderal. Couple them with an actor wearing a makeshift t-shirt that said No Blood For Oil ( NO OIL FOR ACK!-TORS!!!!) and raving atheist who got the most spiritual role in the whole story (Gandalf) and you get a group of people who cheapen the whole story. I loved that Jackson was able to bring it to the screen at last, but I could done without Walsh and Boyens nursery school level of humor and story-telling. BLECH.
When I first saw the title "The Lovely Bones" come out, I got a little excited because I at first thought that it was a Hollywood-ized version of another book entitled "Lovely In Her Bones" which is a nice little murder mystery story written by Sharyn McCrumb…and I was excited about THAT because the author had based one of her characters on an anthro professor of mine, Dr. David Glassman, who was a forensic anthropologist.
Then I read that Lovely Bones was about the rape of a child and I felt sick to my stomach. Not that that particular subject should never be addressed, but it happens too much in real life for me to consider it a story that Id want to read about it in a fictional story. Its bad enough to hear about it in the news.
Well, if youre looking for a nice little entertaining murder mystery to read for a couple of hours that has a happy ending and involves forensic anthropology, I recommend "Lovely In Her Bones" by Sharyn McCrumb. When you read about the professor, imagine a man of about 5'4 with curly black hair and blue eyes and with a wicked sense of humor. He was a good professor. I learned a lot from him.
How wonderful that a director in Hollywood has the concern for the public not resort to cheap ,shocking rape scenes of a young girl. With this kind of attitude i will support the director by seeing the movie- after Christmas
John Wayne Gacy wasn't a quiet loner or someone his neighbors thought was shy; he owned his own businesss, was active in local politics, and was known for throwing big parties for his friends and neighbors. Ted Bundy managed the Seattle office of Nelson Rockefeller's presidential campaign, went to law school, lived with a long-time girlfriend, and was thought of as very charming to his numerous acquaintences. Jeffrey Dahmer is the only one out of the three you listed who fits the "shy quiet loner" image.
I think most quiet loners probably have enough problems already without being thought of as potential serial killers.
Interesting thoughts on the movie; I read the first chapter and a half of the book and then quit for good because it was just too disturbing for me.
"‘The Lovely Bones’ Too Grim for Big-Screen Enjoyment"
Funny thing is, the critics seem to think its major flaw is that it doesn't actually show the rape/murder (and that the special effects overwhelm). 'Cause that's what makes for great cinema: the rape of a teenager.
Congratulations to Jackson and Tucci for not including adolescent sexual content. Kudos.
Although a person I know read and liked the book, her mother, who is a registered nurse, was too upset by the subject matter to finish it. Whether or not it is suitable matter for young kids to view, I cannot judge, having not seen the film or read the book.
But, I commend Mr. Jackson for basing his decision upon what he felt was in the best interests of adolescent girls, rather than sensationalism and perhaps, more profits.
I have to go along with those who vote with their wallets and avoid the progressively outspoken Sarandon.
Eegads. A reporter was actually annoyed that he didn't get to see a 13-year-old girl raped on the big screen? Kudos to Peter Jackson for allowing the viewers to know/imagine what happened without luridly shoving the images at them.
I'm a total LotR film geek (the books too, but I keep them separate from the films … that's how big a geek I am), but I think Peter Jackson's best film is "Heavenly Creatures". I think it might be Kate Winslet's debut. It's a film that has haunted me since I saw it in the theater so many years ago.
I won't be seeing this (no one who wants to make a buck should ever put Sarandon in a movie), but I applaud Peter Jackson's work. I think he's a visionary, even if his biggest box office comes from EPICs.
Thank you! Somebody else saw, through the techno-wow, the the basic emptiness of PJ's magnum opus.
On the timing: All the Oscar fodder comes out in December. There's no law that says the holidays are just for family films (The Road, anyone?)
This was the saddest happiest book I have read. What happens to Susie is tragic and devastating to her family. But as Susie helps her family towards recovery the mood in the book lifted for me. I wish Susan Sarandon was not in this movie. She's a good actress but I have a hard time watching the old socialist on the screen.
Is anyone sure that the annoyed reporter wasn't French or possibly a cover for Ms. Sarandon whom I believe
was a supporter of Mr. Polanski. I could be wrong. I really don't need to find another reason to
not see this film. Ms Sarandon is a buzz killer for any movie.
If I were review the reviewer I would give him 3 stars out of 4. Like I said Ms Sarandon is a buzz killer.
thanks! (From koz)
Heavenly Creatures is Jackson's masterpiece by a mile. Pschologically gripping and superbly acted. I think it's great that Melanie Lynskey (who more than held her own with Kate Winslet in that film) is finally getting roles in bigger movies.
Of course, one of the most famous films of the 20th Century, Kurosawa's "Rashamon", is about a rape and murder. Too bad your film palatte is so limited.
No. The critics are cool on the film because of the erratic pacing and baffling tonal shifts. The script has been widely panned, and I'm afraid Jackson never really had a handle on what kind of film he wanted to make. He had the same tone-shift problem with King Kong as well.
First do not blame Peter Jackson for the release date. This decision was made by exectutives because of the upcoming Oscar Nominations. Second while this type of movie is not my cup of tea I will admit that it is a subject, however painful, that needs to be dealt with. It is the damage to the Family after the tragic event and the eventual healing by whatever mechanisim that is important. Compare this to Hound Dog which was Directed by a Woman where the whole movie is a pre-amble to destruction of a child through rape. That is the definition of exploitation and thankfully this movie was never released to Theaters but still found release to DVD. So here we have a case where a man ismore concerned than a Woman about putting these Graphic Images out there. Go Figure.
What a great comment. I was first excited by the LOTR movies, but as they progressed I became more and more disgusted. They took a wonderful series of books and abused the characters to make it a Hollywood flick. What was done to Aragorn, Gimli, Denathor and others was shameful. I recently tried to rewatch the first movie but stopped halfway through because of the way they tortured Tolkien's story.
I was going to say, after hearing what the story was about: No way do I want to see another "Precious" – a depressing, stark depiction of depravity (no, I have not seen it and don't plan to). But now, hearing that the rape is understood, rather than seen…and director, Peter Jackson's statement on the issue: "He sadly noted that there’s plenty of places to see such sick behavior on the Internet but noted that he personally wouldn’t be part of providing imagery for the twisted imaginations of predators." I might just have to see it for the performances and to support Jackson.
I suspect I'll wait for it to come on some commerical free channel too. I'm not in the mood to give ANY "stars" my money since they seem to get plenty of my money at the government hand out line. Perhaps when the propaganda is over and I never have to fear paying for a liberal dip sheet to get their point of view out to the world via something they call a "movie". NO THANKS.
The fact that this movie is depressing doesn't really bother me so much because I'm already depressed; however, I'll give these guys props for bringing a really important lesson to the screen. Perverts don't care what day of the year it is when they kidnap, rape and murder a child.
Snip "..who obsessively tries to find her killer even at the seeming expense of his marriage."
Ah, I dont think I could never watch this, I watched "Changeling" and was so disturbed by that one that I had to go and find the real story, which was a mistake becasue it was even worse.
[...] post: ‘The Lovely Bones’ Too Grim for Big-Screen Enjoyment This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
I agree! I'm in New Hampshire and The Road is only playing in one theater in Boston! The Lovely Bones, which I read and loved (as did my two adult daughters) isn't playing in NH or Mass. What gives?
I'll never see it because of Susan Sarandon. I would not be able to see the character, only her.
I think Faramir's character received the most abuse. That made me so mad.
I doubt I'll bother to see this unless it shows up some sleepy Saturday afternoon on my cable.
But you do pen interesting reviews. Quite entertaining. And to top it off (I can't say for sure, I only skimmed the last third – I have to go out soon and shovel out my truck), not one reference to global warming, or Bush bashing.
Very refreshing.
Mayhap a better release date would have been a few months from now, or as you noted, a few months earlier round Halloween. Could be positioning for awards season by making sure it gets in before the end of the year.
Just a FYI it's only been released in about 3 cities in the US. It won't have a nationwide release until January 15, hence it's not a bad time to release it. The limited release date was for Oscar contention not audiences. Your lucky you even managed to see it.
All I had to do is read Sarandon and that did it for me she is right up there almost with Damon! And why the bleep would I want to watch this poo at Christmas time!
I think Peter Jackson's got a teenage daughter of his own. If I remember correctly, she was one of the little hobbit kids in the first LotR movie.
Rape is one of the few topics I'm particularly adamant about not being used for "entertainment". (I get livid about how the so-called protectors of women's rights continually ignore how the "justice" system allows the pieces of filth to go free among us.) So regardless of how well written it supposedly is, this film (as well as the book) certainly isn't ever going on my list of things to see. Frankly I'd rather go watch that moronic Avatar film. At least the smurf CG natives are colorful.
I was the same way – only for my own particular interest in the character of Peregrin Took (whom I think received as much abuse as Faramir did) – reduced a lovely lovely character to the level of a five year old. The actor himself was wonderful, the essence of Pippin, but turned into a caricature rather than the extension of Bilbo that he was in the books. I love that little character and so based a good portion of my judgement on how he was handled…and Im in danger of waxing into a huge spiel of how I thought his role was vastly underrated by Jackson et al.
I understand the movie is a bit of a misfire, but I have to agree, I'm glad they left out the rape scene. I have to admit, I was horrified when critics and test audiences wanted to see a graphic rape scene! It takes more guts to NOT show that.
I agree, Pippin and Merry were not properly developed in the movies, and become stock comic sidekicks. Still, I think that the movies totally missed the tragic nature of Denethor's fall in the books. He was a good man who suffered from too much pride and ultimately despair in the books. In the movie he was just a pretty disgusting character, to the point of grossness in the scene where Pippin is singing.
My least favorite portrayal, ultimately, was Aragorn. They made him into a wishy-washy wuss in the movie, who was unsure of his desires and lacked all of the nobility of character in the books. I read an interview of the screenwriters, and they said they did this deliberately. Apparently you can't have truly noble characters in today's Hollywood.
I could easily let this discussion digress into a longer list of complaints. It surely does feel good to share this with others who feel the same way!
I looked on imdb and it lists its wide US release as 15 January 2010 with limited US release on 11 December – so just wait…it'll happen. Not sure about "The Road" as the last US entry is 25 November – Limited, though lots of worldwide releases in February and March
If ghosts can't come to peace until their murders are discovered and dealt with, then 3000 dead New Yorkers are about to descend on Illinois.
I hated that book with every fiber of my being. It was so unrelentingly depressing that I couldn't finish it. I think it was another of Oprah's picks which would explain it's popularity.
Yup, heresy. Every time I say that I find "Casablanca" to be so boring that I can't make it to the end I'm met with much anger, angst and hatred.
Any excuse for Sarandon to pile on thick makeup.
I haven't seen the movie or read the book, but shouldn't she play the Grandmother?
Though I agree with the reviewer's point about the timing of the release, overall this review and others like it disappoint me, as I really loved this book and am looking forward to seeing Peter Jackson's visual interpretation of it. The Lovely Bones was such a mesmerizing book I didn't want it to end. Skirting the borderlands between human reality and the imagined wonders of heaven, I felt I had been introduced to a world both startlingly tangible yet ethereal all the same. Since then, I have been looking for further excursions into the afterworld, but I haven't found much, until now.
Recently I read Gita Nazareth's Forgiving Ararat. This book too explores the interconnections between the land of the living and the land of the dead. As a publicist and a fan of this book, I'm interested to see what parallels are drawn between the two.
youre all ridiculous, the book is amazing, and by no means is the rape and murder of a child supposed to be something we all enjoy watching, its a touching story about family and if you can't look beyond the horrible tragedy that happens within the story, well that sucks for you.
I never got around to finishing LOTR before the movies came out (I wanted to read first before seeing the movies). But I actually enjoyed the movies, enjoyed the story, enjoyed the characters and found all of it to be quite profound, even knowing that Tolkein wasn't exactly writing about how great war is, but rather how terrible. But I am always reminded how powerful the message was, at least in the film, that despite how awful war is, we have to fight it so we can stop evil. It reminded me so of 9/11 and the War on Terror.
Now, for a HORRIBLE adaptation of a much loved book (or series of books) try DUNE (done twice, both sucked) and Harry Potter (Prisoner of Azkaban was wonderful, went downhill from there). I'm not saying that you're not right that they didn't butcher certain things and characters), but I can't imagine it's any worse than Dune and Harry Potter.
Just a little perspective.
[...] Reviews: John Nolte at Big Hollywood Carl Kozlowski at Big Hollywood Kyle Smith Parcbench Sonny Bunch Kurt [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.