How many posters for Peter Jackson’s “The Lovely Bones” can there be? Apparently this is the final version, but we swear there’s been like four or five already. This one? It’s not bad actually and captures a decent atmosphere and mood.
The film itself? We heard three early reviews.
The first one came second-hand from Jeff Wells whose anonymous friend compared it to a “Terry Gilliam serial-killer film.” 10 years ago, that would have been a very enticing proposition. In the here and now? Mmm, not so much. The person didn’t really share what they felt about the picture otherwise, but noted they were fans of ‘LOTR’ and “Heavenly Creatures” and stopped short of anything else suggesting dislike.
Then, we got a second-hand report from a friend of a friend in the U. K. that we’ll print right now: “the worst movie of the year.” Youch.
Then the Guardian dropped what was probably the first proper review and they gave the film 2 out of 5 stars saying, “the screen version [of the novel]… is so infuriatingly coy, and so desperate to preserve the modesty of its soulful victim that it amounts to an ongoing clean-up operation.”
More reviews started to trickle in today, mostly from the U.K. with one rather, ahem, large U.S. exception. Surprise, surprise, Mikey-likes-it Harry Knowles from AICN loved it, but he is so far up studio asses (and has such brilliantly horrible taste) even most readers know his opinions are compromised and worthless.
A more reliable source is ScreenDaily, who see value in the film, but ultimately feel like Jackson loses the plot in special effects. This rings true and reads as the most salient review so far.
“The power of the story of a young family devastated by murder is undeniable and the blockbuster film-maker demonstrates subtlety and tenderness in his treatment of the emotive subject matter. But he also almost blows it all with his afterworld special effects, smothering Sebold’s delicate conceit with overblown visuals and ostentatious CGI.”
While not quite negative, the review isn’t quite a thumbs up either, but does say Stanley Tucci gives a stand-out performance as the serial killer and this we can believe as he’s usually fantastic.
Total Film gives it a strong 4 out of 5 stars, but they are fanboys. Still, they’re nowhere as near as bad as Knowles and say:
“Lovely Bones [teeters] along the thin, thin line that separates genuinely affecting from schmaltzy. How can it not, with colors popping from heavenly vistas (cornfields, lakes, mountains and more, the picture postcard views forever morphing to reflect Susie’s emotional state) and Wahlberg’s wide, earnest eyes rimmed with tears. Some will label it “What Dreams May Come 2,” and even those plugged in might experience a short circuit splutter come the 12-hankie denouement. But many more – the book’s fans, certainly – will exit exalted.”
At least those thoughts are cautionary. Overall? Hmm, not boding entirely well so far. Update: The trades have seen the U.K. drop their reviews and jumped in.
Variety is clearly disappointed and says Jackson and his direction is the weak link.
Peter Jackson’s infatuation with fancy visual effects mortally wounds “The Lovely Bones.” Alice Sebold’s cheerily melancholy bestseller, centered upon a 14-year-old girl who narrates the story from heaven after having been brutally murdered, provides almost ready-made bigscreen material. But Jackson undermines solid work from a good cast with show-offy celestial evocations that severely disrupt the emotional connections with the characters. The book’s rep, the names of Jackson and exec producer Steven Spielberg, and a mighty year-end push by Paramount/DreamWorks will likely put this over with the public to a substantial extent, but it still rates as a significant artistic disappointment.
THR‘s review is kinder, but suggests the film isn’t completely successful in its adaptation either.
This was never going to be an easy story to film. Using the same characters and many events, Jackson and his team tell a fundamentally different story. It’s one that is not without its tension, humor and compelling details. But it’s also a simpler, more button-pushing tale that misses the joy and heartbreak of the original.
Myspace, which delivers this poster, has also released a clip of the film as well. The tone is questionable, but one thing’s for sure: you can tell Saoirse Ronan can act. There’s a great quivering thing she’s doing and it’s all in the eyes even if that scene isn’t particularly remarkable (lack of context doesn’t help). Update 2: a second clip below.
“The Lovely Bones” opens December 11 in limited release and doesn’t go wide in the U.S. until January 15. That’s a huge gap ala “Gran Torino” last year and look how that one ended up awards-wise (empty handed). That is to say our posit from a few months ago — ‘Lovely Bones’ is likely to end up empty-handed at Oscar time, is seemingly more and more on point. Tucci might be able to score himself a nod, we’ll see. We just hope the Brian Eno score is at least good and you can hear bit of it in these clips. A recent script review we posted was rather favorable as well. Maybe there is some hope, but script to screen can be a pretty big chasm sometimes.
