The Lovely Bones (2009)

Peter Jackson's unhealthy obsession with CGI truly drives his film off a cliff in his poor adaptation of the novel "The Lovely Bones" Jackson forgoes the book's intelligence and intricate story and puts in an unhealthy obsession for the sensational that drives a wedged between his actors, who really are working with nothing and the viewer, who is left with a empty feeling after the film is over. The characters are nothing but objects for Jackson to manipulate in order to put in more CGI shots and their story is forfeited for a child like look into death, but with out the reality and complexity of the grieving process.

Rachel Weisz, who is one of the most gifted and versatile actresses working today is giving little to do while in the book, her character is the most complex of the entire novel. Despite this, Weisz does a great job, giving the movie more heart and complexity with the little that she's given to work with than what the film does for itself, making a small dent in the parade of mindless CGI that Jackson puts on screen. Mark Wahlberg faces the same problem, giving a good performance that has no support from the director. Susan Sarandon does as much as humanly possible by giving humanity to her striped down and degraded character, who in the book is much more than the comic relief that Jackson tries to puts on screen and Stanley Tucci manages to give a tight performance as the creepy neighbor despite Jackson's unhealthy obsession to make him the main character of the film. Tucci brings dignity and substance to this character, while Jackson tries to exploit him. Last and not least, Saoirse Ronan does wonders with her role, which also stripped bare from the novel. Her character in the book had a complex innocents that had many layers of conflict while in the film, she's basically held as a angel in Peter Jackson's mind. Jackson puts on rosy color glasses when he deals with the character of Susie and that's where he goes really wrong because he does not make her a real person, he makes her an unreal angel that was with out fault.

Peter Jackson not only hurts his own film but hurts the actors who made an effort to be faithful to the heart of the book as well, making this adaptation very painful to watch.

Fmovies: I'm not sure how so much could go wrong on this film. It seemed like a pretty sure thing: a book that has been very widely acclaimed and read as a work of sad life-and-death meditation from a 14 year old girl looking down or somehow from the "in-between", a kind of purgatory, after being raped and murdered, on her family and killer. It seems like the stuff that could make for some harrowing dramatic material... or, possibly, a sappy story. It turns out Jackson takes the latter route, but there's more than that wrong here. It's a giant miscalculation that has a few moments of real impact and where the performances match up with the material.

Maybe it's just a general attitude that Jackson and his writers, wife Fran Walsh and Philippa Bowens, take from the book. What might have been poignant observations, for example, from the girl Suzie Salmon (like the fish) becomes a series of really jagged narration in the film that is a) poorly written, b) in a continuously ineffective and/or annoying tone from Saoirse Ronan (who is not bad in the film, by the way, when the material requires it), and c) it's redundant. We see her sights in this in-between world, moving about and in quick motions without consistency, though as with Avatar one might say at least it's "pretty", and her descriptions are at best unnecessary and at worst just stupid. It's some of the worst use of narration last year (compare it to The Informant! and see how much of a drop-off it is).

But narration is just one thing. Another is a lack of focus in the story, and actually getting to really care about any one of the living characters. It's not really the actors fault, as Wahlberg, Weisz and Imperioli do what they can in their roles (Wahlberg especially, in spite of everything, throws himself into the devastated father well). When it comes time for us to really get into the emotional grit and horror of this situation, of how horrible it really is, it's actually glossed over by Suzie's situation up in the in-between. There isn't a solid 'conflict' about who the killer is since it's revealed in the first few minutes of the film. On top of this the logic on Stanley Tucci's character is all-too obvious - it's a perfectly creepy performance, but a little subtlety might have helped. And then there's the lush grandmother played by Susan Sarandon that is used for very ill-timed and unfunny comic relief midway through the movie, after which she's pushed aside to a reactionary role.

And yet I didn't have as big a problem like some critics have had, which is with the in-between itself and its visual scheme. While it's not as imaginative as Jackson seems to think it is, it does reflect, more or less, what a 14 year old girl's emotional state would be in an afterlife world. It's more-so a problem when Jackson deals with balancing this fantasy afterworld with the real one, and the rules of how Suzie reaches out to those is never firmly established (the one girl she brushes against running down the street is one thing, her parents and sister are another). It's not so much the sights but, again, a mood and attitude that Jackson botches: what is with this Asian girl that accompanies Suzie? It's explained, to be sure, as are the other victims of Tucci's child killer, but the attachment she has with her previous life and family is screwy, it becomes muddled and unsatisfying.

I would almost stop short... no, I would just about claim that this

A very unconventional movie that crosses many genres (murder/suspense/thriller/drama/fantasy), defies normal expectations and is an intense emotional experience. Right from the outset you are informed of when the lead character will be murdered and who her killer is but you are still kept on the edge of your seat and surprised by later revelations. The story dovetails between reality (before and after the murder) and a surreal afterlife realm in between Heaven and Earth. Despite the tragic, heart-wrenching and dark subject matter, the film is uplifting, captivating and hauntingly beautiful throughout. As the credits rolled, I ran through a gamut of emotion and found aspects of the film resonated with me long after.

It is difficult to conceive as to why this movie was critically panned. I can only surmise that either the story didn't follow the source material closely (I have not read the book) or viewers didn't appreciate the story being told from the perspective of a 13 year old girl or critics were just being spiteful towards a successful director (Directed by Peter Jackson and produced by Steven Spielberg).

PROS

(a) Original, imaginative, creative story / screenplay. (b) Authentic, well-drawn, endearing characters. (c) Thrilling & entertaining from start to finish. (d) A visual masterpiece - both from a cinematic perspective and a CGI/special effects perspective. Definitely warrants viewing in HD (Blu-Ray). (e) Superlative lead actors: Saoirse Ronan, Stanley Tucci. (f) Solid supporting actors: Susan Sarandon, Rachel Weisz, Mark Wahlberg. (g) Subtle but powerful soundtrack. (h) Thematically rich and filled with symbolism & metaphors.

CONS

(a) Childhood romantic relationships seem forced and only marginally believable. (b) Film appears to be heavily edited due to the long running time. Certain characters, scenes, and threads could have been fleshed out more. (c) The clairvoyant girl (Ruth) was a bit cliché & one-dimension. (d) Adequate resolution of killer's fate but not deeply satisfying.

The Lovely Bones fmovies. I'd like to preface my review with a comment about the negativity circulating around here about this movie. I don't think it's any coincidence that some of these self-appointed "film-making experts" who have nothing remotely positive to say about Jackson's effort cannot formulate complete sentences. It's not surprising at all that someone obsessed with the wetness of a prop in one scene and its dryness in the next lacks the faculty and capacity to appreciate the many merits of this film. It's ridiculous to knit-pick on 'unrealistic' depictions of this aspect of day to day life or that aspect. If you want a realistic depiction of day to day life, observe the world around you, not a movie screen.

The Lovely Bones is being unfairly hammered as maudlin drivel. Some of the concepts and visuals are on the representational side, but if you take this film as a strange amalgam of a murder/suspense thriller and a fantasy in the vein of a children's book, it all works perfectly. The emotional outpouring is portrayed very well by all the players involved. None of it seemed forced. I became emotionally invested early on and the overall impact of this work struck a chord in me that resonated deeply.

More than anything else, this film is unique. Jackson takes many chances when one considers all the traditionally accepted conventions of film making, but unless you are one of those self-absorbed, self-important film student types who endlessly struggle with the "rules of making good films," you'll get something out of this.

The use of CGI was adventurous to be sure, but if one views this piece as an interpretation of life, love, and death through a fantastical lens, then the effects remain harmonious to the telling of the story. More, the CGI in this case describes 'world's unseen,' metaphysical possibilities existing simultaneously without the bounds of physical space and time. A welcome departure from space ships and crumbling cities. Some of the nastiest complaints about the CGI are coming from people who probably have no problem with giant robots that transform into cars and trucks.

Acceptance of a fictional story, the suspension of disbelief, these events occur in the relationship between a movie and its viewerÂ… completely apart from all the rules of pacing, subtext, and all the rigid pigeonholes that don't really apply to the creative process anyway. I did not find the Lovely Bones to be maudlin, and I am a pretty jaded movie-viewer.

In navigating the torrent of negativity to which this movie has been subjected, one thing to keep in mind is that it's an adaptation of a very widely read and popular book.

The book itself had a rather sunny disposition, which is ironic as it often was somewhat grislier in detail than the movie. That's because events can be described in words in a grisly way but still be part of an optimistic universe when you are reading -- it works. That doesn't quite happen when you actually see things with your eyes, film is much more literal (strange to say) that literature.

Considering the subject matter, the murder of a young girl, it's a bit unfair to go to the movie and expect to see the book come to life on the screen.

The problem in making the movie, as in any adaptation of magical realism concerning dark subjects, is how to capture the magic without having it jar too much with the realism. That was extremely difficult to do here considering how grim the subject is. So when Jackson uses special effects to invoke heaven, people tend to completely flip out, without really offering their own alternative about how that "should" have been done.

All this adds up to a book that perhaps shouldn't have been adapted for the screen at all. That said, I think the movie is quite a fine one, especially because of the magnificent performances of the two leads, Ronan and Tucci. Thanks to the sweet-faced and deeply affecting Ronan, you'll never forget Susie Salmon. The music is also just fantastic, not surprising as Brian Eno did it -- it's very disappointing that the soundtrack is not available, as it's beautiful and haunting.

I'd suggest seeing it and just let yourself decide if it's a worthwhile experience or not. I found it to be a very good try at adapting a book that by its nature is extremely hard to film. Actually the best way to go at it would be to watch the movie, then read the book, then try to figure out for yourself how you would have done it differently. I suspect that you'll gain a new appreciation for Jackson's movie if you do that.

I just saw The Lovely Bones today & having let it set in I thought it was a tremendous film!!! OK, I'll admit that Peter Jackson tried a little too much to overpower the film with CGI but that does not take anything away from the heart & emotion this film can generate.

Firstly the acting is absolutely superb with fine performances all round. Saoirse Ronan (from my homeland - Ireland) is a revelation as Susie Salmon. I have yet to see such a gifted piece of acting from such a young actress since Natalie Portman in Léon. She has been robbed of a nomination for a truly Oscar-worthy performance. Rachel Weisz, Mark Wahlberg, Susan Sarandon & of course Stanley Tucci (one of the finest supporting actors in modern times) are all convincing here too.

I believe that when the nay-sayers saw the level of CGI they lost interest & forgot what this film can really offer you at its core - tension, heartbreak, thrills & joy.

If you really make the effort to delve into this film, you will come out with a tear in your eye. If not, then I pity you for not being able to look past the CGI blunders & see a really emotional film.