REVIEW: ‘The Lovely Bones’ Just Kind of Lie There
by John Nolte“My name is Salmon, like the fish. First name, Susie. I was fourteen years old when I was murdered on December 6th, 1973.”
After a limited theatrical run for what is likely to be a fruitless search for year-end award affection, director/co-writer Peter Jackson’s “Lovely Bones” finally goes wide in a couple thousand movie palaces today to in order to prove to every American that winning an Academy Award can turn an otherwise talented director into the very definition of tone deaf and self-indulgent.
Jackson’s film is a serious one dealing with big themes involving child murder and grief and justice and the afterlife. But incredibly, dropped right in the middle of all this harrowing drama, is a flat-out comedy montage straight out of a Chris Columbus movie that has Susan Sarandon’s grandmother-character fumbling and stumbling about like Uncle Buck with the household chores, including — yes! — an out-of-control washing machine. Better yet, it’s all set to a pop song.
Maybe the projectionist was having a laugh with a deleted scene from “Mr. Woodcock.” Regardless, it was the equivalent of a cinematic silver bullet. The movie never recovered.
The real tragedy is that the first hour is superb; an elegant, disturbing and tense spellbinder that sets the story pieces in place and delivers a mesmerizing vision of the first stop on your way to Heaven. And then, just when you feel like you’re in the safe hands of a mature storyteller, bloat sets in; heavy bloat, where the special effects are overblown, the character through-lines mishandled, and the two-hour twenty-minute runtime becomes its own kind of Purgatory.
The opening quote from the trailer tells much of the story. Saoirse Ronan is Susie and she lives a pleasant life in a pleasant Pennsylvania suburb circa 1973, with her accountant dad (Mark Wahlberg), mother (Rachel Weisz), older sister (Rose McIver) and younger brother. Susie’s murder is one of opportunity, nothing more, and it will eventually expose previously unseen relationship cracks in the family left behind. It also delivers into their life Homicide Detective Len Fenman (an underused Michael Imperioli).
What’s also frustrating is that Jackson shows a real flair for creating suspense, a talent that ends up completely wasted in the final messy eighty minutes. One of Alfred Hitchcock’s wickedly amusing skills was in his ability to make us root for the bad guy. Every once in a while, The Master chose a particular scene where he would put the audience in the antagonist’s shoes to twist our sympathies completely around and somehow accomplish the impossible: have us on the edge of our seats worried the killer might be discovered or caught. The Necktie Killer desperately prying his gold pin from the dead hand of his latest victim aboard that potato truck in “Frenzy,” is probably the best example. Jackson elicits the same audience emotions in a beautifully crafted scene involving a charm bracelet and dollhouse.
Unfortunately, fine moments like that simply can’t overcome the rest. There’s a truly terrible subplot involving the Wahlberg character’s obsession to find his daughter’s killer. Oddly, however, he’s not obsessed enough to have developed all the photographs she took right before her death. Instead, he chooses to do take a roll to the Foto-Mat once a month.
Gee, think that last one might pay off?
Maybe that kind of movie-ish plot-pointing worked better in Alice Sebold’s novel (haven’t read it). Or maybe I’ve simply seen too many movies and find that kind of pipe-lying entirely too obvious. The real problem is how contradictory and inconsistent the behavior is. We’re supposed to believe Dad would pull the tax records on his neighbors but wait a year for a look at the last photos his murdered child took? And aren’t there laws about withholding evidence from the police?
Like the hair that stands up on the back of the neck in “The Sixth Sense” and the sneezes in “Ghost Town,” “Lovely Bones” has an interesting idea as to how spirits/angels/ghosts touch the living. What you and I might call a hunch or instinct is in fact a willful push of sorts from beyond. You will find the film’s version of Heaven a little more Strawberry Fields than St. Peter, but there’s nothing that comes close to offensive and a strategically placed pair of earrings in the shape of a cross are appreciated.
The performances are uneven, but that’s the script’s fault, though seeing Mark Wahlberg as the father of a teenage daughter is asking a bit much. The real standout is Stanley Tucci. It’s like he’s in a movie all his own — only a good one. Truly, a dynamite performance that makes this worth a look on DVD.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
67 Comments
"Maybe that kind of movie-ish plot-pointing worked better in Alice Sebold’s novel (haven’t read it).
John, don't bother. The book's lousy. I picked it up and tried (and I mean, tried) to read it and it was worthless. Just blabbering nonsense by a writer convinced she's the next Virginia Woolf. Sebold isn't (in truth, she deserves a sneer from a high school sophomore in English class). Not surprised, therefore, that the script fell flat. It is a rare screenwriter who has the talent to craft a story better than the novel. This film's scripter clearly wasn't that 'rare' kind of person.
That's advice I will take!
This man has no clue what heis talking about that book was great. I started readin everynight because of this book.
Rose McIver plays the younger sister just to correct you. Susie was the oldest of the family.
I have to agree with your review. I too managed to see it and its like it can't decide if it wants to be a police thriller or a melodrama about family healing etc. Of course since the book tried to have it both ways you can't expect the movie to be anything better.
I liked the book. Haven't seen the movie.
That's not the first time Jackson did that. There was a scene in The Frighteners that killed the movie dead. The movie stared Michael J. Fox and probably should have been as big as Gremlins. But about a quarter of the way into the film there's a scene where a ghost rapes a, thankfully inanimate, mummy. It's played entirely for laughs.
Why a talented director chooses to sabotage his own work, but attempting impossible humor, is a matter for psychologists to debate. Meanwhile, I wish somebody would bring the art of editing back to Hollywood.
I'll pass, boring, borrowed from previous plots, another Hollywood script failure. Mediocre books don't make good movies.
It's true that mediocre books rarely lead to good movies, but I can think of one notable exception to that rule and that would be The Godfather. It's one of the best movies ever made, but the original Mario Puzo novel is pretty lousy.
"can turn an otherwise talented director into the very definition of tone deaf and self-indulgent."
Like his Lord of the Rings WASN'T tone-deaf and self-indulgent????
Tell it, brother! I'm still bitter over Gimli being used for comedy relief.
Nobokov's Lolita is great literature on so many levels. I re-read it every five years or so and with each new reading as I age I find a different novel – farce, tragedy, comedy – you name it. It's a brilliant novel. The original James Mason, Shelly Winters film stayed close to the book. I never bothered with the re-make.
The shmucks infesting Hollywood today are generaly incapable of filming good novels as their pc addled and boring brains undermines the author's intent.
I saw this movie because I love Peter Jackson's "Heavenly Creatures". I was disappointed in "The Lovely Bones". It didn't suck, it just felt empty. The movie really didn't show what happened to Suzie. I had no idea she was raped and murdered until people who have read the book pointed that out. It made it like she was killed when she was trying to climb up the ladder to get away. I felt that there were a lot of plot holes and skimming over important points that would have made the audience more emotionally attached to the characters. The only character that I liked was Suzie's sister because she seemed intelligent enough to put two and two together. I feel Jackson was trying too hard to get a PG-13 rating. I felt this before I even knew the movie was PG-13. The movie felt like it was made with restraint.
director/co-writer Peter Jackson’s “Lovely Bones” finally goes wide in a couple thousand movie palaces today to in order to prove to every American that winning an Academy Award can turn an otherwise talented director into the very definition of tone deaf and self-indulgent.
I thought he hit that with District 9, but that's just me…
I loved the book but I haven't see the movie – maybe I'll pass because they always screw it up. BTW, I think Alice Sebold is a great story teller.
Amen.
Thing is, the book isn't a detective novel. Yes, the hunt of the murderer goes on but the killer himself is a somewhat peripheral character to the entire story. He's a shadow that hovers in the background. The core of the book is the disintegration of the family left behind after Susie's murder and how it manages to rebuild itself over the years. The book is enjoyable. Not great literature, but absorbing. One thing worth mentioning, the father in the book is actually one of the strongest, most positive characterizations of a modern American man that I've seen in a long while. He loves and is loved by his three children. Before and after the murder of Susie, he is the most stable and constant thread in his children's lives. "Lovely Bones" is worth reading for his story alone.
Nah, he was only the producer on that one.
Even if I didn't know about the book the premise of the film scares me off right away. When I take time out of my day to watch a film (whether it has good acting or not) I want to walk away feeling good. I'm not saying -all- films have to have happy endings but that's my preference. Life has enough troubles without bringing depressing stories into it. (I can probably take mildly depressing if there are attractive guys but that's another issue….
)
Incidentally, I tried the book. I stupidly didn't do enough research on it before picking up a copy. The book starts off with a disgusting rape scene that stopped me from reading further. To be fair, the book might have been better later on but I can't handle that sort of content. I mean, I was in a funk for a week after seeing Up. I won't get into my feelings after reading THAT.
There was a positive outcome though. From now on I make darn sure I know what I'm getting into before trying out a new author.
Hey! What about how Legolas was turned into Mr. Sidekick?
And don't get me started about how they threw out the hot erm… the nice brothers of Arwen!
I agree with most of your points but I did thoroughly enjoy it.
[...] Read the Full Article @Big Hollywood [...]
Because of the critical love-fest about Lord of the Rings, a lot of people came to believe Peter Jackson was a great filmmaker–and I use the word "great" as in "one of the greats" not just an excellent filmmaker. LotR was ok, but it basically pushed all the right Hollywood buttons. The same problem Nolte finds in the Lovely Bones permeates the LotR trilogy. Jackson aims for heavy, heart-breaking drama, and at the same time interposes as many gags and Gimli burping/pratfalling jokes as he can. King Kong was the essence of mediocrity. I simply can't believe they recycled the cliched gag of having someone practice what she wants to say in front of a mirror and then screwing it up in person. Jackson and his wife are not good screenwriters; they need to recognize this. There is a reason that LotR only received a single nomination for acting (and no wins) and it wasn't because of the actors, it was because of the lousy writing. Jackson's visual sense has tricked us into thinking he's more skilled than he is. His true calling is the low-budget shlock horror flicks that he used to make. He should return to that.
Peter Jackson takes the old Hollywood notice for new movies "You'll laugh! You'll cry!" as gospel. He mixes them up as much as possible, almost always inappropriately. It plagues all of his movies.
Holy $#!^! Did you just say what I think you said? Did Fran Walsh say she (he?) was a better writer than J.R.R. Tolkien? The man who wrote the book that is continually voted the best of the century? The only book from the 20th century that people will be reading in the 27th? Did she really say that? And if so, how did she word it?
Jackson and Walsh are making a habit of finding a book that is popular, that people have enjoyed, paying big bucks for that popularity…and then changing it. Why? I mean, Hollywood does this all the time, but it never gets any easier to understand. Another thing they changed that made the story more poignant is that the girl was not just murdered, but raped and murdered. Which makes an important difference in how you see the motivations and actions of the father and the killer. But they found that part "icky" and cut it out. It reminds me of when Adrian Lyne remade Lolita and cast some makeup slathered late teen model as Lolita. It kind of ruins the entire point of the story, doesn't it?
(Special shout-out to Fran Walsh–despite your claims on the commentary track to Lord of the Rings, you are NOT a better writer than J.R.R. Tolkien. Just so you know.)
I like the LotR movies for the things they got right (athmosphere, looks, feel, cast, music). I can imagine the myriad ways in which it could have been worse. But you are right; there were numerous moments where Jackson went over the cliff, most notably in The Return of the King Extended Edition. And wasting screentime on invented and distracting scenes while throwing important characters under the bus… don´t get me started.
Jackson does this in all his movies. King Kong was great but then he cranks up the action scenes and gross-out moments past the point of ridiculousness.
Every time they deviated from Tolkien in a significant way they found themselves in trouble later on.
The worst moment – perhaps the silliest scene of the decade – is when Sam just leaves after Gollum turned Frodo against him. Apparently he would have marched all the way back to the shire, but later we see him finding the lembas bread on the stairs. Only at this point he realizes: "Hey, I didn´t actually steal the bread. It must have been Gollum!" No sh*t, Sherlock! Then we see him go back up, which by the way takes the surprise out of his reappearence in the nick of time later on. Let me just, say, it wasn´t like that in the book. At all.
Me and a bud walked out of the theater on District 9. What an utter POS of a film.
I'm leaving the "Lovely Bones" station and taking a side-track to….Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy:
Remember the '99/'00 full-length trailer at lotr.net? That magnificent and beautiful, what…three minute appetizer? I used to watch that thing over and over and over. Simply beautiful.
And remember how Christmas '01 could not get here soon enough? Or Christmas '02? And when you walked out of the theatre at the credits of ROTK, you were thinking…"Crap! It's over!"
Okay – well, that was me.
Flaws and all (and yes, there are some huge ones!) I read "Fellowship" and "The Two Towers" every three years: just enough to let me forget certain details so I can get excited all over again. Kind of like short-term memory.
Having said all that, I too think it was humorous how Hollywood bowed down at Jackson's feet to say how amazing he was. And I'm thinking…"Well, great, maybe. Good, certainly!" Then "King Kong" came around and I was bored to tears.
Hard to tell with Frighteners – the whole thing was definitely played for dark laughs. I don't remember that scene, but if it was handled clumsily it could have broken the mood.
You do run across lapses of mood sometimes – not sure why. Seems like either they just slip through the cracks during editing or else the director is, for some reason, so in love with the scene that he can't bring himself to cut or change it.
One that sticks out in my mind – I don't know why – is in Legend (with Tom Cruise, Mia Sara, etc. – great movie, by the way.). The whole thing has a medieval/fantasy/fairytale mood – archaic, high-toned dialog for the most part. (The exceptions are two brownie characters who sound kind of like old-fashioned stage Irishmen.) But there's one scene where a monster of some sort bursts through the floor of a dark, spooky cave and grabs one of the troll bad guys. And the troll yells "Adios, amigos!" And his troll compatriot remarks. "Sick…" A trivial moment, but it stuck out for some reason. I couldn't understand why it was left in. Maybe to lighten a terrifying moment for the kiddies? Who knows. I guess these things just happen sometimes.
I agree! There's plenty of nits to pick in LOTR. I appreciate it just because somebody got the damn thing on screen at all. And despite whatever shortcuts and changes Jackson made, I think he took the story very seriously and did his best. That was a heroic accomplishment.
But yeah, there were lapses – Kwiki's definitely right about Gimli. Dwarf-tossing, anyone? Please…
I thought King Kong was beautiful, too. However, I also think Jackson could have edited the hell out of it and ended up with a much tighter, more intense movie. A lot of his scenes went on and on and on – sign of a man who was in love with every precious frame and couldn't bring himself to cut anything. I was thinking "self indulgent" as I watched. Still – excellent movie and very beautiful to look at
That may be a problem with big-movie auteurs like Jackson, Lucas, Cameron et. al. Sometimes complete creative control is not a good thing. You need some objective helpers (editors, scriptwriters) who aren't afraid to tweak your "vision" a bit in order to create a better movie.
You should have stuck with it. "District 9" was a disturbing but thought provoking film. For most of the film I wanted to walk out. My spouse was squirming, clearly uncomfortable. I felt like I needed a bath. I hated the creatures, hated the protagonist, hated the "business people" (of course, that's how every Ho'wood film is written), and pitied all (save the latter, but again, that's how Ho'wood writes films these days). The special effects were excellent — the hideous aliens seemed real to me. I can't recommend the film because it is so disturbing, but if you do go, stick with it to the end. You'll have plenty to discuss with others who've seen it.
houseofusher,
Thanks for the dose of sanity regarding Jackson's LotR trilogy. That's exactly right, they push all of the mindless Hollywood rollercoaster buttons, both in terms of action and emotions, but suffer from all of the problems you mention: tone-deaf directing, bad writing, et cetera. And the true tragedy is that he and his two Enya-addled co-writers needn't have changed one word of Tolkien, they could easily have kept all of the great writing and superior tone of the books, and even the plot structure, and just condensed. But of course, that would have taken a more than skin-deep realization on their part of what exactly it was they were adapting. I can't help but think they'd have no problem adding fart-jokes and pratfalls to the Bible or the Iliad or to dramatic Shakespeare, too. So catastrophically clueless.
When the rollercoaster thrills wear off and the films start looking a bit creaky special effects-wise, fans of the books are going to wake up and realize how grossly inadequate the films are.
I'm interested to see if del Toro is going to get The Hobbit right.
Sounds along the lines of "Ordinary People" – the family coming apart after the tragic death of one of its members. The strong father character would change the dynamics a lot, though. I should give the novel a look sometime. Heard about it, just never bothered to read it. Thanks for the info!
I despised LOTR. Elijah Wood is along with Gylaanhaal (squared), Penn, Clooney and Maguire, one of the most annoying actors on the planet. I hated the hobbits and most of the time was rooting for the bad guys. Legoalas and Viggo were worth watching, but yes, Gimli was a creep. Sean Bean is always good and usually steals scenes from everyone else, as he did in "Troy" and did in this film. Liv Tyler was lovely and Cate Blanchette mesmerizing. Otherwise the three films were a study in boredom.
I haven't seen "Bones" and the only reason I'd even consider going is Mark Wahlberg who is grossly underestimated and underused in Ho'wood. Maybe he ought to get out there and trash Bush a few times so the Hollywood Politburu will hire him. A writer friend trashed Sebold's novel as tripe, so I didn't bother reading it. Not tempted to be "entertained" by a film about the rape and murder of a 14 year old, especially told by an industry that defends and lionizes Roman Polanski..
Attempted to read the book after much prodding by my college-age daughter. Endured about 30 pages before giving up. I've read more compelling prose on cereal boxes. The writing is dull, sophomoric and self-indulgent – I mean it was so bad it hurt. Seeing the movie comes in somewhere after root-canal therapy on my to-do list.
Jackson does this in all his movies. King Kong was great overall but then he cranks up the action scenes and gross-out moments way past the point of ridiculousness.
Well, that's what comes of starting out as a low-budget horror auteur.
One more thing–you really notice how dumb Jackson's battle scenes are when you compare them to those of directors like Ridley Scott (think Kingdom of Heaven) and Paul Greengrass. Jackson could learn a lot from those directors. I also loved the battle scenes in Troy, even though that movie has its own flaws. The LotR battle scenes are more like Jackie Chan movies– "romps" that keep the audience laughing at the wisecracks rather than emotionally invested and tense about the battle for survival.
We must be grateful that they did LotR in three long movies. It was a courageous decision. And there are certainly many beautiful moments as well. King Kong is underrated in my opinion. I actually enjoy the slow build up and the eerie moments on the island. It is the action scenes (the Dinosaur fight, the scenes at the bottom of the gorge) that turn a tense movie into slapstick.
The finale with the airplanes gave me vertigo like I have never experienced in a movie theatre. Almost fell out of my chair. I mean that as a compliment.
Nolte, I find the very essence of what you're doing here objectionable. You expect all of popular culture to reflect YOUR values. What a miserable little Ayatollah you are. I suggest you throw out your TV, boycott the movies, and content yourself with reading the Bible.
Do I ever remember that trailer! And the very first teaser that came before it. And almost two years earlier, the first image I ever saw of the movie, an illustration of the boat going down the river below the Argonath. I was immediateley turned into a drooling fanboy. Flaws and all, it was something to look forward to and get excited about.
This movie sounds like crap.
The reference to "Ordinary People" is a good one; I hadn't thought of it, but it's really appropriate. "Jack Salmon" is tortured by his daughter's murder and he does push the police to investigate, but from the looks of the movie trailer they've turned this into some sort of cat and mouse game between Jack and "George Harvey," the book's nemesis. It's a shame because that's a really small part of the story. It's the entire Salmon family that's important.
The movies made a crapload of money, though, and a lot of people went to see them–and loved them–who didn't normally do fantasy. He got most of the awards for the third one, which were mainly (in my mind) for the whole technical accomplishment of the trilogy. Personally, I enjoyed the 1st one, then halfway through the 2nd I remembered why I never made it through the books. Saw the 3rd out of obligation and was stunned to see a good friend weeping through the interminable endings. No interest in enduring them ever again. HATED King Kong (ice skating in the park????), and "Precious" used up all my depressing teen movies for the year, so I won't be at "Bones." He seems to have snagged the teen girl/Twilight audience though.
How about "roller coaster" or "thrill ride?"
Kreevich, I find your post here objectionable. You expect John to reflect YOUR values. What a miserable little Ayatollah you are. I suggest you throw the tinfoil off your head, boycott this site and content yourself with reading the instructions the doc left you for your daily dose of Clozapine.
I remember the book being suspenseful and moving. But I don't remember the photo thing being in book. As I recall the rolls of photos were found years later. But it's been 3 or so years since I read it. I saw the preview for this movie and the whole "Strawberry Fields" purgatory scenes looked unbelievably stupid. It appeared to be taking what was a suspenseful murder mystery and ghost story and turning it into an acid trip.
I in fact teach a class on Tolkien at the University of Georgia, and we do discuss the films in the class. At least 80 percent of my students have a lesser view of the films now than when they first saw them. The trilogy just isn't aging well, or at least, it's spell is starting to wear off and people are beginning to recognize its many flaws. And you're right–what in the world made the filmmakers think they were smarter than Tolkien such that they so inexplicably changed the text for no apparent reason? Quite a number of my students have reversed their opinion of the films after we read and discuss Tolkien's text, seeing how serious and complex and original it is, compared to the films, which are utterly conventional, with particularly weak dialogue. You know, I've tried discussing this with some of my friends/colleagues and am usually criticized for "expecting too much." They say the films are big and fun, just like they were meant to be. It seems the worst crime you can commit if you have a big budget film is not to make it so that it can be described as "Fun!" in review blurbs.
As a digression just let me say "Fun!" should be limited in its usage, and I propose a moratorium on reviewers using the terms "slam-bang action thriller" and "smart and sexy!"
How many of us remember "Bad Taste?" That was the first PJ film I ever saw.
"(Special shout-out to Fran Walsh–despite your claims on the commentary track to Lord of the Rings, you are NOT a better writer than J.R.R. Tolkien. Just so you know.)"
ACK – I posted before I finished!!
Wanted to say THANK YOU for pointing that out!!!! OMG – is why I think Jackson injures himself by letting Walsh write the script – does he not know any other script writers in New Zealand??????
I really enjoyed the book, but if you want a great read, read Alice Seibold's autobiography Lucky. When I heard they were making The Lovely Bones into a movie, I was a little surprised they picked that one and not Lucky. I was really disappointed in the movie, it missed a lot of the strengths and themes of the book. It's also been in "the can" for a year or two, perhaps trying to fix it. Mark Wahlberg was miscast. Ryan Gosling was originally cast as the father, he would've at least made the mediocre material a little more palatable. If memory serves, Alice wrote The Lovely Bones as therapy to her brutal rape when she was in college. . .then she wrote Lucky, because as the police said after her rape, she was lucky to be alive. It's harrowing, brutal and triumphant and her strength brings tears and joy. It's a really good book.
You are crazy, Jackson was great in pointing out that Harry the moth was the true hero of LOTR. Had he not brought the eagles then no Gandolf for the fellowship and it fails in Moria.
And…. the point of that was? Trust me, Nolte is far more generous with Left-of-Center movies that a good 90% of us (Che, anyone?), and your interjection is just unusual no matter how I cut it.
I HATED this book and am glad to find the reason why is not in the movie for you surely would have mentioned it, I trust. Susie is throughout the book, and she chooses to experience sex a la "Ghost" through inhabiting a friends body over alerting her friends her killer is driving by with her body for disposal, bring him to justice, and thereby stop him from killing again too. Sick. Time moves on and so does Susie who happens upon her killer who is killing again and feels no sadness or guilt for those who he has killed in the meantime but is oh so pleased with herself to kill him through accident. Selfish even in heaven.
Don't forget she is 14 and dead but wants nothing more than to experience sex with consent. Roman Polanski would be pleased after the opening rape scene made a 14-year-old more interested in sex.
Carolyn, I find your response to me unoriginal, and full of the rancor and bile one expects from right-wing sphincters who resort to insult since they are incapable of conducting an intelligent debate. I do not expect Nolte to reflect my values– I am suggesting he go away and read his Bible, since no one needs his two cents– OR yours!
I read the book a few years back. I wasn't my favorite, but it was appealing in its dark way. It confronts a lot of what makes us fearful, but the book is particularly directed at young women. It sounds like they changed the perspective of the book to focus more on the father, but I remember Susie playing a big role. There was also a bit about how her sister coped with it; that really spoke to me, since I had a dear friend lose a sister as a teenager. If I'm remembering, the book was more about grief and loss, and less murder mystery. This is unfair, but after reading that book, for years I was very suspicious of single middle-aged men who lived alone. Sounds like Jackson doesn't "get" this story or is using it to make a "whodunit" to appeal to a wider audience. If so, I hope it flops. I hope this doesn't give anyone any ideas to make "The Shack" into a movie.
I usually read the end of a book before buying it. No sad endings please. Enough of that in my real life. This book kept me riveted, yet at the same time, my world was a bit darker until I finished. I perservered until the closing scene in the hopes that the saddest scene was in the beginning. It was a hard trip, but one that I am glad I took.
Actually, Caroline, Alice Sebold was obviously not murdered but she was raped and left for dead. The Lovely Bones is based on the true story of her life, so let's be a wee bit kind when we discuss both the book and the movie–not her fault.
John, I am sure your review is spot on, but it appears that neither you nor your readers are aware that the book was Alice Sebold's way of thinking about her own rape and what effect it would have had on her family if she had died, which for a long while she wished she had. When we deal with fictionalized accounts of true stories–horror stories in any setting–I think that comments about a film are just and helpful, but comments about the author or about the book can be cradled with some sympathy.
My book didn't come with any information or disclaimer that it was based on reality for the author. I'm sorry she was a victim but I'm sure she need not be cradled with my sympathy to be a survivor. We are talking about the art, film and book, and not how the artist is above it which would have shades of Free Roman Polanski.
I can definitely see how the book would not be everyone's cup of tea – it's a very weird story, even for those of us who liked it, and there are moments that just frustrated me. That said, what I loved about the story was the unexpected direction it took. I don't refer to the premise itself, although it is unusual, but the fact that the first half of the book leads you to believe the story is about Susie's family finding her killer. That it ended on a completely different note, demonstrating that justice alone will not bring healing from grief, really appealed to me. I recommend giving the book a try, and if you can't get through it, at least you'll be able to recognize whether the problem was the source material or the adaptation.
Huh????
The quality of the book v. the quality of the movie cannot be critically discussed because of the author's fragile state of mind. Who wrote that rule?
Very well.
The book is juvenile, insipid mush …. but in a nice way.
Jokes about rape. Do they ever work? Man Bites Dog had one, but it got censored out of most releases of the film. Even years after I first saw the film, when I finally saw the intact version, I wondered if the movie wasn't better off without it. That said, in the context of Man Bites Dog, it made sense. It the Frighteners, it was truly played as trivial, which it why it seemed so out of place. It was like backwards gallows humor. I can't believe somebody involved in the production didn't think it was horribly out of place, given the budget of the film.
[...] Reviews: John Nolte at Big Hollywood Carl Kozlowski at Big Hollywood Kyle Smith Parcbench Sonny Bunch Kurt [...]
""the can" for a year or two, perhaps trying to fix it."
If editing means fixing it and putting all the CGI "in-between" world then yes. It was shot in late 2007 (Oct-Dec) and rolled over to early 2008 (Jan-March). That was six months of shooting and I bet Jackson wanted a month break after that long haul. I would think Jackson and his special effects and editors where trying to put together a movie coherent enough for Paramount to be pleased with. It originally had a 1st quarter of the year 2009 release but was pushed back due to the studio wanting it to have the strongest contention for awards season – hence a late 2009 release. Again, editing isn't fixing it – it's deciding how a movie flows and what scenes to add and what scenes not to add. It also is the stage to incorporate music and special effects, which it had a lot of.
You must be logged in to post a comment.