- CLR Rating:
The Lovely Bones
Directed by Peter Jackson
Screenplay by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson
Based on the novel by Alice Sebold
Jack Salmon – Mark Wahlberg
Abigail Salmon – Rachel Weisz
Grandma Lynn – Susan Sarandon
George Harvey – Stanley Tucci
Len Fenerman – Michael Imperioli
Susie Salmon – Saoirse Ronan
Lindsey Salmon – Rose McIver
Buckley Salmon – Christian Ashdale
Ray Singh – Reece Ritchie
Saoirse Ronan stars as Susie Salmon in The Lovely Bones
Copyright © Paramount Pictures. All Rights Reserved.
Peter Jackson’s Latest Suffers from Too Much Special Effects and Too Little Character Development
Peter Jackson’s newest release The Lovely Bones bears greater similarity to his smaller films (particularly the wonderful Heavenly Creatures) than to the sprawling, epic Lord of the Rings trilogy—but it’s unlike any film he has directed previously. Alice Sebold’s 2002 novel is a startling, sometimes brutal, and often touching tale of a girl whose life ends before she even has her first kiss. Unfortunately the movie, though beautifully filmed, is an incoherent mashup of the book’s most tender aspects.
The novel opens with a striking, abrupt proclamation: “My name is Salmon, like the fish; first name, Susie. I was fourteen when I was murdered on December 6, 1973.” After her murder, Susie watches from the Inbetween, a kind of non-Christian purgatory, as her family struggles with her death. Jackson, whose visionary filmmaking has earned him massive acclaim in the past, creates a heaven of brilliant, surreal landscapes in which Susie and her fellow dead frolic. The best aspects of Sebold’s novel, though, are the poignant, sometimes illicit relationships that formed in the wake of Susie’s murder. The film focuses far too much on the fantastic Inbetween and not enough on earth. Susie’s mother Abigail (Rachel Weisz), father Jack (Mark Wahlberg), and sister Lindsey (Rose McIver) deal with her death in their own ways, as all grieving people do. However, either to shorten the film’s length or secure a PG-13 rating, Jackson skips or glosses over many of the aspects of the novel that made it so horrific and beautiful. The result, as with so many book-to-film adaptations, is a pretty, superficial muddle.
Make no mistake, Jackson is a great filmmaker (if you forget about King Kong), and his movies are nearly always visually impressive and soundly acted. The Lovely Bones is both. If Jackson’s Inbetween bears any resemblance to a possible afterlife, we should all rejoice. Fifteen-year old Saoirse Ronan (Atonement) has real star potential, and The Lovely Bones is proof she can carry a movie. She manages to play both snotty but sweet teenager and wise voyeur with grace and self-possession. Stanley Tucci, playing Susie’s murderer Mr. Harvey, is utterly terrifying. His affected voice and piercing eyes make him nearly unrecognizable—and Jackson’s talent behind the camera is most perceptible when he focuses on Mr. Harvey. When he lures Susie into the underground hatch where she’s murdered, extreme close-ups and a distortion lens build a horrific, creeping dread. Later in the film when Susie’s sister Lindsey breaks into Mr. Harvey’s house, the tension is nearly unbearable, the only sound in the theater the whir of the projector. Weisz and Wahlberg are effective parents, grieving both separately and together in their own ways. Susan Sarandon also does well as Susie’s alcoholic, slightly nutty Grandma Lynn, but she’s comic relief in the simplest sense, which is utterly incongruous with the rest of the film and seems unnecessary.
The novel is effective partly because of its brutality. Susie is a victim of the most horrible of crimes: she’s viciously raped, murdered, and dismembered, her body shoved into a safe and dumped into a sinkhole. Yet she accepts this evil and even develops a grudging pity for her murderer, a serial killer who preys on young women and girls. The book is about the triumph of good over evil, the fantastic idea of life after death, and the transformations caused by losing a loved one. The movie, on the other hand, seems to be about how cool special effects can be. Possibly to please the MPAA, Jackson glosses over Susie’s rape (though it can be assumed) and she’s murdered off camera. To truly appreciate the ways in which Susie grows up after her death (as odd as that sounds), those things are key, and it was a mistake to skip blithely over them. Further, Jackson meticulously sets up his characters’ personalities in the first few minutes of the film, and they remain static—which is problematic considering the subject matter. The very title of book and film refers to the transformations that happened after Susie’s death: “These were the lovely bones that had grown around my absence: the connections — sometimes tenuous, sometimes made at great cost, but often magnificent — that happened after I was gone.”
The film suffers from the same ills which often befall book adaptations, and the result is a series of events that never quite engage, a number of threads that don’t quite knit together. It presents characters that could’ve been much better developed if Jackson hadn’t poured so much energy into making the afterlife look unbelievably gorgeous. It is by no means a terrible movie; the camerawork is admirable, the effects pretty, and the acting laudable. Those who haven’t read the novel might enjoy the film, but even those who skipped the book will probably get a sense of failed potential. In trying to combine visual spectacle with an intimate, poignant tragedy, the film ends up being neither, instead residing in its own kind of purgatory.
The Lovely Bones Trailer
Related articles:
Follow the California Literary Review on Twitter: @calitreview
January 16th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
The movie was a disappointment. I heard the book was really good. The movie had way too many loose ends and things that didn’t make sense. There were parts that seemed completely unnecessary to the plot.
January 16th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
I must agree with most of this review. However, as a parent who has lost a child, I found aspects of it profoundly moving. Regardless of what, if anything, we believe about afterlife, when a loved one leaves before his time, his family members are left wondering where he is. I found the experience of wandering in this secular purgatory with Susie oddly comforting. And her shell-shocked, grieving parents, left behind, were well played by Wahlberg and Weisz.
January 16th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
though jackson does have a lot of effects in the lovely bones, i must admit i was quite taken by the movie and story a s awhole. i haven’t read the book but from what i’ve heard about it the movie tells the original story in a ifferent way, not necessarily the wrong way but different.
January 17th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
i havent seen the movie yet but i want to and idk if its good or not
January 17th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
I just saw the movie which I anxiously awaited. I have not read the book, but am headed out to buy it. I could not agree more with this review than if I had written it myself. It tapes into the “failings” in a sense of this movie. In his attempt to over emphasize his vision of the afterlife”, an aspect of the movie while visually appealing, does not bear strongly on the “bones” of the movie, the viewer is neither watching a tense thriller, nor a heart-rendering film with a strong message to drive home. It is neither. I personally, would have preferred to see this as a drama that focused on the serial killer and the family, and less about Susie wandering in the “in between”. The audience got Peter Jackson’s message there in the first ten minutes. I would have preferred more vision to where the story was developing on earth. It could have been an Oscar worthy movie that way. He will probably get an award for cineamatography but I doubt that is why he became a director. If he had stuck to the book, this movie would have been rivoting.
January 17th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
I am seeing the movie tomorrow… I have read the book, and I really liked it. I really did not think that I would, my daughter wanted it so I bought it for her, she f=got partially into it and said it was too sad and did not want to read anymore, so I took it with me on a trip. I could not put it down, but I have to agree with my daughter, it had some sad parts. When I read the book my daughter was the same age as Susie, so it was a tough read at times. I have been waiting for this ovie for well over a year! Can’t wait to see it tomorrow!
January 18th, 2010 at 7:35 am
As a father of four girls,I can relate to the closeness that Wahlberg’s character had with his daughter,Susie.I can only imagine the pain this father had while losing his daughter.It was so realistic to me, being a father that would lose my child to such a pittylesss monster.The movie kept me in suspence,and i did hear the book is somewhat different,but I thought it was pretty well thought and directed.The special effects were cool too.Hopefully my younger daughter can see this and understand the evil out there in our society.
January 18th, 2010 at 11:47 am
i love this book and im headed to see the movie today and i really hope alot of these reviews are not real i want it to be just as good as the book.
January 18th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Really? I loved KING KONG.
I haven’t seen this yet, but plan to soon…
January 19th, 2010 at 10:44 am
i Lovee the Moviee =] so much is sad :( but i cant wait to read the booKk !
January 23rd, 2010 at 10:56 pm
i just saw it and though i do agree some parts of the movie were not needed for the plot i found the whole movie extremely moving
i myself was assaulted and the look on the character’s susie face right before she was killed made me really know what she felt. i knew her fear and i knew the stupidity she felt when she realized she had let someone trick her, of course it want her fault but i felt it, i think this film was beautifully directed and showed the true emotions of a greving family.
January 23rd, 2010 at 11:58 pm
im just going to say this was the worst movie i have seen in years…. the movie startedoff good and jsut was draged out then sumtimes it seemed like it was going to get good again then it let you down.. im goona have to say hands down twiceto this movie wros i seen in years.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
I didn’t find it moving in the least. It was beautiful, but all those scenes about heaven and the platitudes spouted by the dead girl actually got me worked up and angry rather than any kind of pleasant feeling.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
This movie was horrible in comparison to the book. SOOOO much stuff was missing or different. I always read the book before going to a movie based on a book and this was extremely disappointing it actually made me really mad I wanted to leave within 5 minutes of the movie starting….some books are just better off as books. Some movies just cant explain things like books can….such as the icicle. A friend of mine came with me to the movie who hadn’t read the book and she didn’t even notice the icicle which is a main part of the book the perfect murder weapon. All in all it was a good try but I really do love the book.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:03 pm
books are different than movies just like paintings are different than music.. all art forms but conveying a story in a completely different way, i thought this movie was fantastic and Saorise Ronan is amazing, i thought the mixture of reality with the surreal inbetween world worked really well, sure peter jackson could’ve aimed for a more mature audience but i think that’s missing the point of what he was trying to achive, An absolutly captivating movie from beginning to end.. The cast where perfect with Stanley Tucci in particular having a stellar performance..
looking forward to see’ing more of Saorise Ronan, that girl is a class act :)
Slan..
February 28th, 2010 at 12:34 am
i just saw the movie.and it was goood. but i thought that peter jackson should have told about her death and not necessarily showed it but should have told about it in some way. i heard the book was really good witch is why i cant wait to read it. as people always say the book is always better than the book.
February 28th, 2010 at 12:36 am
i meant movie not book the book is always better than the movie
March 10th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I have read the book and it is amazing. I have seen the first hour of the movie online, but didn’t get to finish it. It is different than the book but what I have seen of it, it was pretty good. No movie is going to be the same as the book. There will be parts skipped or re written. I’ve heard they left out the icicle as the way Mr.Harvey dies, which is a disappointment. That was key in the book. Someone…I think Susie maybe not had said an icicle was the perfect murder weapon and then it killed Mr. Harvey…to leave that out is stupid!!!!! I am ready to see the rest of it and see if it’s as good as the first part.