Directed by:
Peter JacksonCinematography:
Andrew LesnieComposer:
Brian EnoCast:
Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Saoirse Ronan, Stanley Tucci, Susan Sarandon, Rose McIver, Michael Imperioli, Christian Ashdale, Reece Ritchie, Carolyn Dando (more)VOD (4)
Plots(1)
The haunting aftermath of a crime and the stirring restoration of a family unfold from the unexpected vantage point of the beyond in The Lovely Bones – the story of a life and everything that came after. Based on the beloved, best-selling novel by Alice Sebold, the film centers on Susie Salmon, who was just 14 years-old when she was murdered in December 1973 on her way home from school. Following her death she continues to watch over her earthbound family – while her killer remains at large. Trapped in a wondrous, yet mysterious hereafter, Susie finds she must choose between her desire for vengeance and her yearning to see her loved ones heal and move on. What begins as a shocking homicide unravels into a suspenseful and visually inventive journey through the bonds of memory, love and hope – towards a surprising and emotional reckoning. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (2)
Reviews (13)
A genre mishmash, emotional turmoil, perfect actors, and most importantly, an unexpected spectacle. Peter Jackson has created an entirely intimate story where even the most magnificent special effects shot remains a personal desire. Plot-wise, it may suffice with the simplest premise, but the tension, tears, and magnificent camera did not even let me properly think about it. A complex and evolving experience.
()
If there’s nothing happening, not even a death can change things (screenplay) and less often means more (special effects). The images we see are often beautiful, but also absolutely empty of emotion. It would never have occurred to me that Peter Jackson would end up suffering from the syndrome that accompanies the works of Tarsem Singh. But in the first half-hour it has everything it needs, including emotions, which are so important for movies like this. But this just makes the rest of the movie that much more painful, because this outstanding “prolog" just proves that the movie could have been different. For instance, more in terms of hints instead of spectacular CGI landscapes.
()
Can this movie really get under someone’s skin and make them rave about it? Peter Jackson is once again great in terms of details; for example, the depiction of a chilling clash of the purest childhood innocence with the most terrible human evil (murder) is unique in its credibility. But the multi-level collage that follows the promising start of the film, and especially the final outcome of the individual plot lines, raises a single key question: “What the hell did the filmmaker want to say with this confused film?” Clarify the meaning of specific scenes and characters would actually require a dozen such questions, but I do not want to spoil this for anyone. So I ask only one harmless question: What is the meaning of Susan Sarandon’s comic character for the dramaturgical concept of this film? Or is she in the film only because the director is a fan of hers? The problem with The Lovely Bones doesn’t lie in its fantasy images (those are beautiful when they stand alone), but in its completely dysfunctional narrative vision.
()
In short, weird. Jackson is a good director, but the story jumps from one level to another too often and so it’s hard for the viewer to build a sufficiently strong bond with any of them. Visually exquisite and emotionally very strong scene from “purgatory" sometimes contrast weirdly with the “real world" (yes, mainly with smokey Susan Sarandon), but despite it all, Jackson manages to hold it all together. Sometimes it isn’t about what story you tell, but how you tell it.
()
Jackson may be one of the filmmakers who can make whatever they want, but with this film, he has cruelly missed the mark. He has drowned a completely bland and uninteresting story in kitschy images that stink of plastic and are put on the captions of the Watchtower by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Only three things are decent: a) the haughtily sleazy Stanley Tucci, b) the arrival of the mother-in-law, and c) the spy in the house. The rest of the film, though not boring through and through, is a desperately empty spectacle. 2 ½.
()
Ads