Thoughts on THE LOVELY BONES film

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/7/09 at 11:43am

Caught a screening of this yesterday at the DGA. Hit and Miss for me.

It's of course visually spectacular - and I was as impressed with Jackson's careful attention to detail in recreating 1973 middle America as his gift for imagining an ever shifting emotionally charged afterlife.

The script takes a number of changes from the novel - some of them work - some create a lot of plot holes and implausibilities. But Jackson and his team should be commended for a number of sequences that are artful, suspenseful and beautifully rethought for the world of film.

Unfortunately, and this is a big problem; Jackson was unable to resist the temptation to sentimentalize Sebold's rather detached novel. His direction of the emotionally charged scenes with the actors feels forced and heavy handed and he often resorts to the overwrought (the slow motion close ups, the intrusive soundtrack) at those heightened moments that would have been more effective treated with a subtler touch.

Luckily, Jackson surrounded himself with a terrific cast of actors (perfectly cast) - with Rachel Weisz, Stanley Tucci, and Susan Sarandon (over the top as required) who do their best to keep the material grounded, even with the film teeters on melodrama. Only Mark Walhberg seems to succumb to the later.

The films best asset is natch, Saoirse Ronan who is a mesmerizing presence and who looks to have an amazing career ahead of her.

The movie like all of Jackson's films probably could have used some trimming.

I think the critical reception will be all over the place - with a lot of people hating the film. I'd probably give the overall film ** 1/2, but would recommend it for the moments that work, some of which are truly breathtaking.




Updated On: 12/7/09 at 11:43 AM

[BroadwayBenny]

Posted: 12/7/09 at 12:18pm

Thanks for the review.

Jackson's movies are for me, always better after several viewings. I had similar issues with the Lord of the Rings films. I enjoyed them much better the second time after I was able to get past the shock of not seeing MY vision of the books on screen. I am expecting the same for Lovely Bones.

My only problem with King Kong was that there was no need at all for it to be 3 hours long. If he had cut 45 minutes from it, he could have had another masterpiece.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/7/09 at 12:24pm

I'm really excited for this but could tell from the trailer it would be hit or miss with people. Does Sarandon get a decent amount of screen time? She hasn't really had much screen time lately in her films which is disappointing.

Oh and Benny, I don't think a film with that ridiculously untalented Jack Black will ever be considered a "masterpiece".

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/7/09 at 12:26pm

Oh I adored KING KONG. And I appreciate the LOTR cycles. But in some ways, THE LOVELY BONES, despite its scope, needs to be a much smaller film, with more pointed, realistic emotion. It was interesting to watch Colin Firth's performance in A SINGLE MAN, learning of the death of his lover in contrast to Jackson's approach to a similar scene in BONES. There was so much more power in Firth's simplicity and honesty.

Jackson is true visionary who wears his imagination and his emotions on his sleeve. Emotion for him is BIG and sweeping. That worked much better for the heightened world of LOTR and KONG than for Bones.

Sarandon's part is fajrly small, showy and she's a lot of fun.
Updated On: 12/7/09 at 12:26 PM