Matt Shea
RubySoho
Morgan Bell
Cibbuano
David O'Connell
Mountain Fog
The Lovely Bones
December 29th 2009 08:57
How many times have you heard someone comment that a film’s not as good as the literary work upon which it’s based? It’s a common complaint, and understandable, but perhaps not always fair.
The requirements for the two mediums are so different that for a film adaptation to succeed it just about always needs to make drastic changes to the source material. Characters are cut, plot arcs tightened and subtext added. They’re intimidating hurdles for a reader-turned-viewer to leap, and that doesn’t even take into account the more basic elements: how certain characters might look or the particulars of a setting.
So if you ask someone who’s seen The Lovely Bones what it was like, there’s a good chance they’ll tell you it’s not as good as the book, and that’s fair enough. But unfortunately it doesn’t come close to telling the whole story of this flawed film.
I haven’t read Alice Sebold’s source material but it’s not a requirement to find The Lovely Bones a sagging disappointment. The story of a heaven-bound young girl trying to influence the search for her murderer back on earth is a gaseous and unwieldy enterprise, pretty to look at but ultimately lacking in firm ground on which to lay its narrative.
And it’s a shame because the film gets a few elements spot-on.
It opens at a gallop, the short life of Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) thrown down with impressive artistry. These early scenes suck in the audience, illustrating director Peter Jackson and regular writing collaborators Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens’s true gift for storytelling.
There are other small corners of the film that are just as impressive: Susie’s encounter with her killer, George Harvey (a bizarrely made-up Stanley Tucci) is frightening for what you don’t see, and a later scene where her younger sister, Lindsey (Rose McIver) breaks into Harvey’s house in search of incriminating evidence is one of the finest pieces of tension you’re likely to witness.
As great as these moments are, however, they can’t hide the wrong turns taken by Jackson, Walsh and Boyens at the scripting stage. Not concentrating on the earthly elements of the story – which swing mainly around the efforts of Susie’s father (Mark Wahlberg) to find the identity of her killer and the subsequent pressure it places on the Salmons – the filmmakers instead choose to maximise the time spent with Susie in her mystical halfway house, where she traipses about the Weta-created dreamscape with a new found buddy, a la Heavenly Creatures 2: Electric Boogaloo. These scenes are breathtaking in their design and beautifully shot, but every time we go there the film grinds to an unholy halt, momentum an expendable commodity in this particular universe.
It leaves things back on earth in a parlous state, character development breezed over in order to facilitate a return to the ever after. The players do admirably under the circumstances, but Rachel Weisz in particular struggles with a character so sparsely written she seems like a total stranger. Susan Sarandon’s Grandma Lyn is even worse, her midway arrival having virtually no impact on the story whatsoever.
Perhaps the mystic material should have been pushed to the side and Susie’s father’s story given the central strand of the narrative. It would have allowed the filmmakers to explore in more detail the effect the young girl’s death has on her family and saved the audience from the uneven momentum shifts that the The Lovely Bones suffers.
Still, The Lovely Bones can be pleasing when considering its smaller elements: the scenes mentioned earlier, for example, or Naomi Shohan’s beautiful production design, a meticulous eye being applied to the story’s early 70s setting. Brian Eno’s subtle score is at times almost too unobtrusive and noodling, but for the most part percolates effectively.
Ultimately this is a film that’s bound to disappoint, whether you’ve read the source material or not. And you can’t help but feel a little sorry for Peter Jackson: after his successful producer credit on District 9 it would have been nice for him to return to the director’s chair on a high. Still, I guess there’s always The Dam Busters.
I say: A flawed enterprise that so easily could have been much better.
See it for: The performances of Saoirse Ronan and Rose McIver. McIver in particular: she’s handed a character that truly develops and makes the most of it.
*This image is from FilmoFilia
| 103 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Hahahahaha. Haven't seen this yet but most reviews i've read have been similar to yours. It's a shame. It looks like the kind of film you really want to love.
Comment by David O'Connell
Screen Fanatic
A lot of it comes down to faith - I think your average athiest for example would find the film complete hokum and be instantly turned off.
As you mentioned, some really fine moments of tension and the horror of realisation for Susie about her death. That scene where she encounters Harvey in his bath is masterful stuff - Jackson's direction all 'round is pretty damn good I think even though his leading man Wahlberg isn't flash in certain scenes - he really is a limited actor, let's be honest.
But offsetting that, Ronan really sustains the promise shown in Atonement and Tucci is always good, but especially so here. The weird green eyes were a creepy little touch. And yes, McIvor as the sister is fantastic.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
It's interesting that you talk about the film not being inferior to the book: I thought they came close to pulling off a great film that was obviously (from what my companions were telling me) very different to the book. When I hear the 'different' comment before I see a film, my hopes are always raised a little - you need to make those changes to the source material or you're screwed.
As for your atheist point: I don't think this was the problem for me - I may come across as a cynical, godless swine but I can be reasonably spiritual in my own little way
I agree regarding Wahlberg - limited range... but still a strong actor when the role suits. As for Tucci: I love the guy and that's perhaps what drove me away a little from his character - I felt like I was watching The Jackal where Bruce Willis's myriad of disguises all make him look like a dude who looks like Bruce Willis.
Anyway, it just didn't tie together for me: I needed more narrative, meatier character work and more payoff. Regardless, I'll make it my mission to read the book... right after I knock off Tim
Thanks as always for taking the time to read.
Comment by David O'Connell
Screen Fanatic
There's no doubt The Lovely Bones is a flawed film, I'm not denying that - the underwritten secondary characters being the most glaring point of neglect - but sometimes you just go with your gut reaction to things and with this I just found it really moving, and quite haunting ultimately. For me the strengths end up outweighing the shortcomings by a fair way.
Comment by sim
Your blog is negative. You try to create such beauty and illustration.... (your blog has a mid 1990's html look....)
Comment by Journeywoman
Great Hair Style Tips
The Mama Sutra
I Dream of Hollywood
Fashion Peach
I'm all about character driven stories, and when the actors totally embody the written characters the effect is pretty amazing, and Peter Jackson really knows how to get the best out of his cast...... Saoirse Ronan and Rose McIver were great, sure, but I also thought Mark Wahlberg really outdid himself, with the only disappointment being Susan Sarandon's two-dimensional lush. And I agree that Rachel Weisz deserved a lot more screen time; I love her!
As for Stanley Tucci, wow. Totally gave me the skeevies
So yes, this was a flawed film, but I'd still recommend it simply for the actors' performances. Good review by the way Matt. I wouldn't call it negative, I'd call it honest and realistic.
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
No, I haven't read the book, but I shouldn't have to to enjoy or understand a film.
As for your comment regarding the look of 20/20: it's timely - there will be a few visual and layout changes taking place in the next couple of weeks, hopefully making it a little easier and more enjoyable to read.
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
Talking to people over the past couple of weeks, the film's certainly proving to be a little divisive.
Some people seem quite offended by it, which I don't entirely understand. For me, it was just flat and uninvolving for a lot of its running time - a good-looking disappointment.
Comment by Anonymous
And so I found that Roger Ebert wrote a really scathing review which kind of shocked me because I nearly always agree with his reviews, point for point. And he made a fare few points, especially in regards to the message of the film over all. But it's all how you see it I guess because I most definitely don't agree with him, as neither the intention of the filmmakers nor the message you should look for. In fact, I found it crazy that Ebert even took it the way he did! Maybe he's just pissed off at Jackson.
Anyway, I read your review and you pointed out the small things that made this film worth seeing for you despite the fact that ultimately you were bored. And I'm certain now that those small things you mentioned, in addition to the brilliant work by Tucci and Ronan, and the incredible imagery, made the movie kind of excellent for me. It just hit all the right notes I guess. And I didn't mind the pacing so much. I really enjoy movies that unfold in that kind of slow, undulating manner. I guess that's why I adore Wes Anderson.
Although, I would have replaced Wahlberg with a Jon Hamm or even a Russell Crowe. This just isn't his genre. And Weisz was sadly misused. It's not a perfect movie by any measure. I just liked it. A lot. And your review helped me figure out why. So thanks.
PS. I'm an athiest!
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
There's absolutely nothing wrong with reading reviews about films while you're still forming an opinion - it's like discussing a flick with some friends.
I'll have to read Ebert's review - although I didn't love it myself, I can't really understand anybody having that strong a negative reaction to the film.
And nice suggestion on Hamm!