Alice Sebold wrote the beautiful book, "The Lovely Bones" back in 2002. It was a critical sensation among readers all over the world. A beautiful tale of loss, redemption, love, and revenge all interconnected and being told through the eyes of a fourteen-year old girl, Susie Salmon, who is murdered in 1973 by one of her neighbors. When announced that it would become a film, many fans worried about the translation of the literary work and how it could be interpreted by the great Peter Jackson. So, did Jackson get it right?
It's a near miss from the Oscar-winning director of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. The Lovely Bones is an over- thought and at times visually exhausting picture. When it's great, it's really great, especially the first half-hour. The story begins enormously emotional and you could likely be in tears from moment one. Jackson and fellow writers Fran Walsh and Phillippa Boyens drove too far from the original story, leaving out key components that made the novel so extraordinary. The character development is a bit lazy and under thought in place of an over zealous visual spectacle, which is to say the least, quite impressive. Is The Lovely Bones a bad film? Just as a film, definitely not. It's a valiant effort and has some beautiful things that tie it together nicely. As an adaptation stand point, it's not one of the strongest works of the year. Where Jackson faltered in some parts, he made up for in others.
The big star studded cast is some of the best actors working today. Rachel Weisz, Oscar Winner for The Constant Gardener, is satisfactory in one of the most underdeveloped characters of the entire story. Playing "Abigail," Susie's mother, Weisz takes on one of AMPAS' favorite characters, the suffering mother/wife. Weisz does a great job at conveying her loss and pain for her daughter and the battle for her unemotionally available husband. Where Weisz goes wrong however, is illustrating the inner conflict in her player. Many people and critics may interpret it as a throw-away role, in which "Abigail" could have provided many opportunities for her.
Susan Sarandon plays "Grandma Lynn," a heavy drinker with a near infantile attitude towards life and her family. "Lynn" doesn't provide anything more or less to the story other then momentary comic relief for the very heavy subject matter. Sarandon gives her all but nothing superior to some of her other co-stars. Michael Imperioli is brief and again, unused and misused. Mark Wahlberg, replacing Ryan Gosling early in the film's production, is better than one would have thought. Wahlberg is a gritty, tough man in real life, and in his acting career, his best works have been where he's allowed to essentially play himself. Here however, Wahlberg exhibits sensitivity, paternal instinct, and a loving aura; these things have not been seen by him before. Also, not receiving billing on the marketing materials, Rose McIver (who plays Lindsey, Susie's sister), Reece Ritchie (Ray, Susie's love interest), and Carolyn Dando (Ruth, a teenager with who is touched by Susie's spirit) are all suitable and adequate.
The film belongs to Saoirse Ronan and Stanley Tucci in two of the very best performances of the year. Ronan who plays the sweet "Susie," is on her way to superstardom, mark my words. She easily could be our next Kate Winslet, a remarkable young talent that will take the film world by storm. She efficiently and resourcefully portrays a heartbreaking and emotive young girl with nearly no effort. Ronan can get nearly lost in all the heavenly images displayed, but will rise out of it with tears and quality. Stanley Tucci, who plays "George Harvey," the killer of the young fourteen-year old, gives one of the most shockingly and horrifying performances of the year or perhaps, the last ten years. As the mentally unstable and child pedophile, Tucci shows assurance and seems almost comfortable in the skin of his dark-natured player. Alarming as it is, Tucci demands attention and engages his audience with fear and panic. It's one of his most brilliant turns seen yet. He could easily be the Oscar winner in March 2010. These are two of the best performances worthy of critical and Oscar consideration this year. Take note.
Artistically the film sits quite well. Cinematography by Andrew Lesnie, Sound by Tod A. Maitland, and a beautiful score by Brian Eno are the strongest mechanical portions of the film. Direction by Peter Jackson is stamped, printed, and in the mail as he creates a world that is both beautiful and revolting. The narrative is unfortunately lost and rushed in its two hour and fifteen minute run time. It's an epic story that needs time to settle into the viewers. Bothersome is that we've come to expect long films from Jackson in his career. Biting the bullet and paying that extra attention to narrative detail, Jackson could have made a world of a difference and left a more gratifying and nourishing feeling for the viewer.
The Lovely Bones is still, a solid effort and shouldn't be automatically dismissed. I really wanted to like it. My expectations were through the roof (as fans of The Awards Circuit can attest) and it under whelmed. It's not necessarily a masterpiece but at least worth a consideration. Some, who may have not read the book, could agree with the film and no comparisons can be made. Whatever its worth, the theme is still alive and can still leave one sustained.
***/****
It's a near miss from the Oscar-winning director of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. The Lovely Bones is an over- thought and at times visually exhausting picture. When it's great, it's really great, especially the first half-hour. The story begins enormously emotional and you could likely be in tears from moment one. Jackson and fellow writers Fran Walsh and Phillippa Boyens drove too far from the original story, leaving out key components that made the novel so extraordinary. The character development is a bit lazy and under thought in place of an over zealous visual spectacle, which is to say the least, quite impressive. Is The Lovely Bones a bad film? Just as a film, definitely not. It's a valiant effort and has some beautiful things that tie it together nicely. As an adaptation stand point, it's not one of the strongest works of the year. Where Jackson faltered in some parts, he made up for in others.
The big star studded cast is some of the best actors working today. Rachel Weisz, Oscar Winner for The Constant Gardener, is satisfactory in one of the most underdeveloped characters of the entire story. Playing "Abigail," Susie's mother, Weisz takes on one of AMPAS' favorite characters, the suffering mother/wife. Weisz does a great job at conveying her loss and pain for her daughter and the battle for her unemotionally available husband. Where Weisz goes wrong however, is illustrating the inner conflict in her player. Many people and critics may interpret it as a throw-away role, in which "Abigail" could have provided many opportunities for her.
Susan Sarandon plays "Grandma Lynn," a heavy drinker with a near infantile attitude towards life and her family. "Lynn" doesn't provide anything more or less to the story other then momentary comic relief for the very heavy subject matter. Sarandon gives her all but nothing superior to some of her other co-stars. Michael Imperioli is brief and again, unused and misused. Mark Wahlberg, replacing Ryan Gosling early in the film's production, is better than one would have thought. Wahlberg is a gritty, tough man in real life, and in his acting career, his best works have been where he's allowed to essentially play himself. Here however, Wahlberg exhibits sensitivity, paternal instinct, and a loving aura; these things have not been seen by him before. Also, not receiving billing on the marketing materials, Rose McIver (who plays Lindsey, Susie's sister), Reece Ritchie (Ray, Susie's love interest), and Carolyn Dando (Ruth, a teenager with who is touched by Susie's spirit) are all suitable and adequate.
The film belongs to Saoirse Ronan and Stanley Tucci in two of the very best performances of the year. Ronan who plays the sweet "Susie," is on her way to superstardom, mark my words. She easily could be our next Kate Winslet, a remarkable young talent that will take the film world by storm. She efficiently and resourcefully portrays a heartbreaking and emotive young girl with nearly no effort. Ronan can get nearly lost in all the heavenly images displayed, but will rise out of it with tears and quality. Stanley Tucci, who plays "George Harvey," the killer of the young fourteen-year old, gives one of the most shockingly and horrifying performances of the year or perhaps, the last ten years. As the mentally unstable and child pedophile, Tucci shows assurance and seems almost comfortable in the skin of his dark-natured player. Alarming as it is, Tucci demands attention and engages his audience with fear and panic. It's one of his most brilliant turns seen yet. He could easily be the Oscar winner in March 2010. These are two of the best performances worthy of critical and Oscar consideration this year. Take note.
Artistically the film sits quite well. Cinematography by Andrew Lesnie, Sound by Tod A. Maitland, and a beautiful score by Brian Eno are the strongest mechanical portions of the film. Direction by Peter Jackson is stamped, printed, and in the mail as he creates a world that is both beautiful and revolting. The narrative is unfortunately lost and rushed in its two hour and fifteen minute run time. It's an epic story that needs time to settle into the viewers. Bothersome is that we've come to expect long films from Jackson in his career. Biting the bullet and paying that extra attention to narrative detail, Jackson could have made a world of a difference and left a more gratifying and nourishing feeling for the viewer.
The Lovely Bones is still, a solid effort and shouldn't be automatically dismissed. I really wanted to like it. My expectations were through the roof (as fans of The Awards Circuit can attest) and it under whelmed. It's not necessarily a masterpiece but at least worth a consideration. Some, who may have not read the book, could agree with the film and no comparisons can be made. Whatever its worth, the theme is still alive and can still leave one sustained.
***/****