User Reviews

Such a powerful movie, even after watching it over, it still made me cry. It's hard to imagine such kind of beasts exists between us.

Peter Jackson has done a great job. Hats off to him.

I vaunt myself of being an independent thinker and yet I was taken by the atrocious reviews "The Lovely Bones" got. Rogert Ebert called it "deplorable" I didn't go to see it when it first came out. Shame on me! The risks Peter Jackson took, a thoroughly established filmmaker, should be applauded. True, it's not going to be everybody's cup of tea but then, what is? I was taken by surprise, a film of unbearable emotional suspense breaking every imaginable rule. We're far too used to have stories in which everything is neatly tied up by the end, so we can go back home with a fictitious peace of mind. In "The Lovely Bones" we know who the monster is from the time the monstrosity is committed but we're only spectators unable to do anything about it and that frustration may have turn part of the audience and most of the critics away. True the CGI of the "in between" is, sometimes, too much but the film as a whole is a real experience. Saorise Ronan is marvelous, so are Rachel Weitz and Mark Whalberg. Stanley Tucci was deservedly nominated for an Oscar and Susan Sarandon, another risk taker, plays the emotional constipated grandmother with great courage. Look at the exhaustion on her face as she takes care of the family, drained without betraying the arid nature of the character. As the film ended I stayed in silence for the longest time, embedded in the sadness, clinging to the hope and mystified by the massacre the critics perpetrated in this original and highly recommendable film

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.

This movie shouldn't be my cup of tea. I'm pretty cynical and my favourite film genres are sci-fi and horror in that order. However, this film blew me away.

I don't understand all of the negative reviews concentrating on the CGI. It's supposed to be depicting an other-worldly realm between earth and heaven - what do you expect / want to see if you go to Heaven, grim city streets with alleys full of garbage and low-lifes? I found the imagery to be exactly what I would hope from heaven - endless possibilities bounded only by imagination - and it delivered that feeling.

As for the plot and the acting, I thought it was first-rate from start to finish.

If you still have a soul in this cynical world then I'm sure you'll like it - don't listen to the miserable horde.

Slow & confusing in the beginning, different. Stuck with it. Other characters were well done!!

-The following will not reveal any spoilers above those presented in any trailer-

It is rather sad, to see how people are grabbing on to many of the former reviews and are continually bashing on the CGI use in this, in my opinion, hauntingly beautiful movie.

If one would actually watch this movie without reading any reviews at all, without having an opinion about a movie they are about to watch before even having seen it for themselves and just take it for what is presented, I strongly believe there would be much more positive opinions about it.

And to mention this before anything else is said: I do not believe that the movie is too CGI crowded since the scenes at hand are meant to be unearthly and even a little mystical at that! I am not a very emotional person, I haven't even been able to really feel sad when others around me were already sobbing. But going into this movie and just letting it do its magic, it actually touched me deeply and made me think about it!

Sure - there are a few things that might have been done differently, probably even quite a bit better. But the all-in-all feel this movie leaves the viewer with is incredible. The bizarre but at the same time beautiful world of the in-between, the pain of the family members over the horrible loss and their unique ways of, not necessarily dealing, but rather living with it, even the sick mind behind the murder - it all works together in creating that viewing experience that is deeply touching through its countless layers.

The acting of pretty much each individual actor is already quite impressive, but as the characters interact, one can actually feel the emotional bonds and understandings, as well as the tension or even hatred between them.

All in all I can only urge anyone who loves movies that go beyond that typical mirror of merely entertaining and uninspired filmmaking to watch this gem. Certainly not everyone will enjoy or appreciate it as much as I did, but at least give it the chance it deserves without going into it, already looking for those 'evil CGI' parts and at the very least you will have your own opinion about it afterward and not the one of some guys that merely told you the same thing they only heard from someone else ;)

I hope you have a great viewing experience!

Although this isn't really a horror for me still it's classified under horror. I can understand that some people will find it gruesome due the subject but I must say that it had no drip of red stuff in it. Not that that is important, just look at Texas Chainsaw or Halloween, they were bloodless too. Nevertheless, I really enjoyed this creepy flick. It reminded me a lot of The Loved Ones somehow, it must be the use of slow motion and the score. On the other hand it also reminded me of Heavenly Creatures by the way they used the dream sequences. It's a special flick coming from the hand of Peter Jackson. Knowing him for splatter and gore in his earlier days this could be a let down for some but I really liked it the way it was shot and the use of CGI didn't bother me at all. Not for everyone but if you can stand weird flicks than this won't be a problem for you.

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.

Adapting a film from a source material that is anything but intended for cinema is always a tricky thing to do. Judging by the largely negative criticism this film received, Alice Sebold's novel by the same name is apparently gutted by director Peter Jackson. Apparently, because that is exactly what some mainstream critics seem to think. On the other hand, I have not read Sebold's novel. As such, I think it's safe to assume that my experience may have been better than those who did read her book. Even so, I'm sure my experience was a lot better than those who read it and watched the film with the sole intention of harshly comparing one to the other. Even J. K. Rowling has her fair share of 'haters' when you talk about what Harry Potter does on screen, as compared to what he does in one of her books. So the next time you decide to lash out at a film maker for not living up to your novel (pun unintended) experience, think for a minute what it would be like to watch a movie, adapted word for word from the novel it's sourced. Even if you read one page at the rate of one minute, how would a 300 or 400 page novel translate into a 300 or 400 minute movie? Even if that were possible, what good would it be if the source material was not altered for the screen? And why shouldn't it be, given that both mediums are limited in creativity.

So coming back to the subject on hand, and since I did not read the novel, I can say without a pause, that the movie experience was decent enough to have had me glued to the screen from beginning to end. In her narrative, Saoirse Ronan (pronounced Ser-Sher) explains her character's tragic end and what happens after. As Susie Salmon, Ronan portrays a time in America when "do not talk to strangers" was an unheard-of caution; a time when children could roam freely and not have to live in fear of preying eyes. Sadly enough, talking to a stranger was the last thing Susie Salmon did, before being murdered, dismembered and never to be found again. But this is where her story begins, first discovering her own death, then being stranded between her overwhelming feeling of vengeance towards her murderer and watching her family suffer and tear apart during their untimely loss. It is at this juncture, or the "in-between", as she calls it, where Susie shockingly learns that she is not the first, but the most recent victim in a series of brutal murders.

Questionable by some critics, is Jackson's use of strong visual effects in portraying Susie's transition into the "in-between". After "King Kong" and "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, we see why Jackson is well endowed in the CGI department. That said, even having Steven Spielberg sign on as executive producer could not have influenced Jackson into telling Sebold's story in any other way but his. Visuals are crisp, abstract, and fluent while his color palette is deep yet intense with contrast, resulting in images that will push your Bluray player and HD display to the max. Is it needed in a murder mystery? Not really, because the plot is not much of a mystery; it is an innocent 14 year old girl's narration of the after-life. Again, this is where cinema CGI has the edge over raw imagination, especially when reading a book. As far as mystery is concerned, there is none. After school one day, Susie doesn't reach home because she has been lured into an underground den, specifically engineered to entice under aged girls. Her last moments are spent with her captor, a seemingly average Joe. Playing this monster is the versatile Stanley Tucci in what has to be one of his best roles thus far, deservingly earning his first Academy Award Nomination in a supporting role. Although his offering is top notch, you can't help but notice the utter darkness oozing out of his character. If the eyes are windows to the soul, then Tucci does an exceptional job as George Harvey, complete with that unmistakable flicker of evil in his eyes. Other supporting roles come from Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz as Susie's parents and Susan Sarandon as her grandmother. As always, Whalberg's rage-filled scenes are intense, but very rarely are his characters helpless. For the first time here, we get to see a combination of both. Sarandon's Grandma Lynn is questionable as this character does not add to the plot, nor can her inclusion be considered a sub-plot. But if there is ever a light moment throughout the film, it does come from Grandma Lynn. Another key character is played by Rose McIver as Susie's sister and in doing so, offers some of the film's intended suspense.

This film succeeds as a drama. As a thriller, it could have been better. Comparing internet reviews between the book and the film will tell you that Jackson has chosen to leave the gory details out to get a wider audience. Although there are no actual scenes of rape, murder and mutilation, the act is heavily suggested during parts of the film and this is why it has a PG-13 rating instead of an R.

How does a film this wonderful only manage 6.6 on here.

Why are so many reviewers so hateful?

Maybe they don't like the fact that the vast majority of abusers hide in plain sight and are well known in the community. They aren't the stereotyped dirty raincoat types that many wouid rather believe.

As someone who worked with the victims of serious abuse for 25 years, I have some experience in these areas.

The lovely bones is a wonderful film. It's so enriching and tells us so much about life and about death.

Life is fickle. Death is even more so.

There's not a bad performance.

The film making is of the highest quality.

It's worth 10 stars to me.

Maybe those who deride the film don't like the fact that evil lurks in this world in plain sight. And we rarely see it until it shows itself.

And then it's too late.

I have read the book. I loved it, I thought it was both chilling and heartbreaking with a fine story and credible characters. I do think it is much better than the film, which was solid enough but lacking a strong emotional core.

I will start with the film's faults. The story is a very intriguing one, but it is quite slow complete with holes and any parts that strived to be heartbreaking came across as mawkish. The script is quite weak often, particularly with Susan Sarandon's character in the sense that it is never quite sure which direction it wants to go. But what hurt the film most was some aspects of Peter Jackson's direction. Jackson is a good director don't get me wrong, but he does make some decisions that detract from the impact of the story rather than enhance it. Especially with the CGI, not that it was bad CGI in fact it looked quite good, what I mean was that there was a complete overload of it and I think some of it was unnecessary.

However, the film does look absolutely beautiful, with beautiful scenery and cinematography. The score gives a haunting, eerie and intoxicating quality too. While the story is flawed, there is a good atmosphere especially in the more chilling scenes, where they are quite chilling and that's an understatement. Apart from two performances, the acting is quite good. The best performance comes from the very promising child actress Saiorse Ronan, who is just tremendous here. Stanley Tucci is very chillingly effective too, and Mark Wahlberg is surprisingly good. The two performances I wasn't so taken with were Rachel Weisz, who is wasted, and the normally solid Susan Sarandon, who overplays quite badly.

All in all, an okay if inferior adaptation. 6/10 Bethany Cox

If you read the book, please don't see the movie. I repeat, if you read the book, please don't see the movie.

I just read the book, and was by a RedBox and decided to see how well Jackson could put such a beautiful, poignant novel into a movie. I should have known, when it was so short, that it couldn't be any good. But honestly, I was appalled at just how bad it was.

The one thing that can be said is the actors did a wonderful job, and it's pretty. There's a couple good scenes in it, but overall, it's just sad.

They kind of took several flavors of jellybeans and threw it into a bag. It has nothing to do with anything. I did not get buttered popcorn, I did not get cherry, I did not get strawberry daiquiri. I just got a lot of sweet, bean-shaped tidbits that kind of, halfheartedly formed something resembling a plot.

The book made me sob. The movie? It kind of confused me.

It was so bad, I started making notes on green sticky notes and sticking them to the bottom of my television.

I would so not watch this. Don't bother.

I saw this tonight in spite of the negative reviews that have been pouring out on various forums.

Scratching my head to try and understand the vituperation against this movie, which seems to be for two main reasons:

1) Peter Jackson chose not to include the rape scene on screen.

2) Apparently there was too much CGI used to convey Susie's spiritual experience of the 'in between'.

Before I go further I'll make it quite clear that I feel this is neither a perfect film nor Jackson's best work. It's obvious Mark Wahlberg's part has been edited down and I can't help wishing Gosling had been able to stay on in the role of the father. He would have brought an emotional depth to the role which Wahlberg lacks. However, in the scenes that were included I didn't have a major issue with Wahlberg's performance. The rest of the cast were very good, except for the girl who played Holly who was not a particularly good actor.

People claim that Jackson has dishonored Sebold's novel by choosing not to show Susie's violation and death explicitly on screen. I think the opposite. Jackson has understood that whatever he tried to film would be inadequate to convey the horror of such an intensely personal violation. Those who have read Sebold's novel will no doubt remember that while she makes it clear what has happened--most of it is expressed by suggestion and metaphor rather than blow by blow descriptions. Jackson, in my view, rightly felt not only that we do not need to see blow by blow details but was perhaps concerned that from a victim's point of view it might actually be disrespectful to try and do so? I'm not trying to speak for anyone, just batting around ideas.

As for too much CGI; for me this was not an issue at all. Jackson has a terrific visual imagination and this greatly enhanced and helped to convey Susie's struggle to come to terms with what had happened.

Perhaps Jackson's purposes in making this film simply did not match the majority of viewers' expectations. However, even when his movies don't totally work, for me they are never boring.

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.

There are easy film reviews to write and there are tough ones. But this one balances in-between. The main reason for this is that I read (and loved) the book by Alice Sebold. Deep and richly developed characters helped round out this sometimes depressing yet engaging story surrounding the murder of 14-year-old Susie Salmon ("like the fish"), and how she views her afterlife ...and looks on as her family attempts to deal with her disappearance.

Sebold incorporated a ton of information that was crucial to our understanding within the Salmon household, and the community as a whole. But much gets lost in translation. This isn't too much of a surprise, as Hollyweird requires directors to cut-cut-cut so that movies run shorter and thus can be shown more often (i.e., a three hour movie will only show about three times in a day, whereas a two hour flick jumps up to five a day).

Peter Jackson took on a major task here, but nothing compared to his LORD OF THE RINGS series (which I found to be brilliantly done, by the way). But Jackson is more of a visual artist. Which was wonderful for Middle Earth fans. But for fans of a story that has such a heavy character background (like this), I think he floundered a bit. In place of story, we get more stunning visuals. Although I didn't mind them (in fact, I found them wondrously eye-catching), it did tick away precious seconds and minutes that otherwise could've been put toward the characters. Fans of the book will be highly depressed to learn that there's nothing in here regarding adultery, and a time-line that is skewed so that we have a more warm and fuzzy ending. Entire characters are removed (including an Indian neighbor), while others are moved around to fit an obviously tightened time-frame for the film.

Still, THE LOVELY BONES is entertaining. The special effects/green screen visuals will have your mouth hanging open. And Saoirse Ronan (ATONEMENT) as Susie is played exceptionally well. But if you're going to watch it, you'll probably love to hate Stanley Tucci (JULIE & JULIA) as the sick and weird George Harvey, Susie's murderer. When he lures her into his trap, you can feel the skin prickling on the back of your neck. Tucci's Best Supporting Actor nod at the Oscars last year was well-earned.

If you haven't read the book, much of what I said here probably won't mean anything. But if you have ...well ...beware.

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 viewer… 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.

Pretty to look at, beautiful at times even, but with all his distractions Jackson has somehow managed to take brutal and disturbing subject matter and leave me feeling nothing apart from vague amusement and disbelief that he actually went there.

I haven't read the book, and even I could tell he completely missed the point. This story, which seems like it should be about the slow disintegration of a family following an unimaginable tragedy, has been turned into a campy whodunnit where you know who dun it from the start.

Rather than concentrate on the relationships between the characters, he fails to connect the dots, jumping perspectives often enough to break any of those connections. It comes across as a set of disjointed episodes with overdone cgi in between rather than a coherent story. The jumps are so jarring at times (Oh look, mom is moving out. Oh look, she's come back again) I have to wonder if some of this is down to the editing and there was far more here in earlier cuts.

There's one particularly tone-deaf sequence where the grandmother (Susan Sarandon, clearly enjoying herself) swoops in and tries to "cheer everyone up". Fair enough there are people who would do that in this sort of situation, but it is so so overdone - overflowing the washer, setting the kitchen ablaze, all to a bouncy rock soundtrack - that I couldn't help thinking of Mrs Doubtfire. Completely off-color for something like this. I was struggling already but kind of gave up at this point, even if I did want to see how far he would go - and the ending is a doozy! After the luminous first half-hour, where I thought there was potential for a serious shattered innocence angle, it's a long sequence of "wait... really?" moments.

The actors try hard, including Wahlberg who I have trouble taking seriously after "The Happening", and I'm pretty sure THEY understood the real story here, but Jackson gives them very little to work with. Actors often say they don't like to watch their own work, because it's almost always disappointing to see a different story than the one you thought you were telling, and they would be well-advised to stay away from this one because Jackson not only changes the story - he barely tells a story at all.

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.

***/****

Director Peter Jackson's incoherent and ultimately pointless adaptation of the bestseller is just an intolerable mess from start to finish. Jackson manages to take a wonderful story about tragedy and grief and turn it to a carnival of incompetence and stupidity. Gone is the strong characterization that define each of the characters in the book and in its place is a sad spectacle of incompetence, with heavy handed CGI and bad scriptwriting that makes this film a real eye sore to sit through.

I don't blame any of the actors involved in the movie because you can see how badly this film was edited in post production, making certain characters look foolish with out any reason and certain scenes that don't make any sense what so ever. You can see that the actors are really trying to their best and for the most part, they are able to succeed but its manly due to their professionalism than what they are working with, which is not much. Stanley Tucci gives an ounce of humanity to his character but that's mostly because he's a great actor, not because of the role which he had to work with. His character is so badly written in this film that he comes more across as a cartoon bad guy than the monster that was in the book. Stanley Tucci manages to give the viewer glimpses of heavy psychoses with his character but he's left out there by himself with no support from his director or the script which fails him every step of the way. Rachel Weisz struggles hard with her role, which was short changed by the director in the editing room in post production because he could not handle the plot line that her character has. A plot line which gave the original book a sense of reality and made the reader look into themselves as human beings and question their own selves on how far their grief can go. Unfortunately Jackson proves that he's not a mature enough filmmaker to answer those questions and Weisz and the viewer are left with little to related to. Rachel Weisz does manage to convey her character's dilemma quite well despite Jackson's immaturity (Which of course is more about Weisz being a great actress than the material and director she is working with), and by doing this, Weisz manages to give the viewer a glimpse of how good this film could have been if you had a director who was mature enough to handle the realities that the book presented to its readers. Saoirse Roan is left with really nothing to do other than run wild in a computerize playground that is supposed to be limbo. She tries her best, she really does but one gets the sense that most of her dramatic scenes were left on the editing room floor during post production as well. We can't connect with this little girl and that's the biggest crime of all because she's the murder victim. The book give you a complete picture of who this little girl is and it give you a real human being to care for, too bad the script for the movie does not. Susan Sarandon is left with a shallow version of her character, who was quite no nonsense and soulful in the book but is reduced to becoming a sad and awkward comic relief device thanks to Jackson, who left almost all of her dramatic scenes with the family on the cutting room floor. Susan still makes her character soulful but again, that's because she's a great actress, not from any help from the director or the script. Mark Wahlberg struggles very hard as well with what he has to work with and he does make a great effort, unfortunately, his character comes across more befuddled than assuring and the heavy editing and lackluster script leaves him out to dried as well along with the rest of the cast in this movie.

No book can be faithfully adapted but they can at least have someone who care about its truthfulness to its core. Unfortunately," The Lovely Bones" does not have that and despite the game effort by all the actors involved, its the director who ultimately sabotages this movie with his unwillingness to face its hard truths and we are left with a film that is shallow to its core.

"It was like watching a bad train wreck". "An $80 Million Lifetime Movie". "A grand, sloppy folly for Peter Jackson".

Really? Because I've seen worse that same year.

The negative reception given to this film is somewhat cruel compared to other movies. You're complaining about the story being sappy? Then what do you call those melodramatic films of the '50s and '60s?

I think I'm gonna get bashed for this, but I have not read Alice Sebold's novel prior to seeing this movie. Reading is not really my thing, I like to see it visually. Everyone has their own interests and opinions and is entitled to them. Anyway, taken entirely on its own this movie is an excellent fantasy thriller with compelling performances by Ronan, Wahlberg and Weisz, and an exceptionally, superbly creepy and disturbing performance by Tucci.

Yes there are mistakes, but nothing is perfect. I think most of the negative reception is given by die-hard fans of the novel, disappointed by Peter Jackson's handling of it, and accusing him of ruining the novel's original point. Well I have no right to say anything about that given I didn't read the book. However Jackson directs with flair, the CGI sequences are outstanding and breathtaking. That doesn't mean he can't do live-action sequences either. The dramatic and suspense scenes are full of emotion and taut. Add beautiful cinematography and a perfect ambient score by Brian Eno and you got yourself an extraordinary mix of talent and skills.

While other reviewers tend to complain that Jackson's CGI bogged down the performances, I beg to differ; his direction brings out the best in the actors. You care and feel a LOT for these characters. Especially Saoirse Ronan. She is absolutely brilliant as the lead role Susie Salmon. I could see her having a career like Natalie Portman. Mark Wahlberg gives his all as the devastated father, as per Rachel Weisz as the mother who cannot cope with her daughter's death. Susan Sarandon is good but I felt her role is played mostly for laughs instead of comfort.

However it is Stanley Tucci that got the biggest impression out of me. He is a downright cruel and inhumane being. Pure evil. And his acting is brilliant, just brilliant. His villainous role doesn't just exist in the movies; knowing that people like George exist in the real world makes it even more disturbing. And Tucci pulls it off. He deserved his Oscar nomination and I hope for bigger things from him to come. Bravo.

One more thing. Although it is rated PG-13 it has LOTS of mature themes and some shocking things in it that may not be for the faint of heart or emotionally sensitive. This is a movie that should be taken by its own merit, and not as an adaptation, for most of the case it would surely be inferior to the original. Films and novels are two different art visuals; please treat and judge them differently instead of comparing them. I highly recommend this excellent, highly underrated emotional roller-coaster of a film. It's an extremely intense, disturbing and ultimately gut-wrenching experience.

Overall rating: 9/10