Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:””; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Ok, so sue me. I didn’t read the best selling novel upon which this film is based. Certainly book adaptations are nothing new, but the films often don’t live up to the book anyway. Since I didn’t read the book, I won’t be giving you any in depth comparisons here, so if you’re a film snob, you can just go somewhere else. Actually, you should anyway, because the only film snobs here are the ones that debate which Star Trek series was the best (original, duh!) or the merits of Jar-Jar-Binks (that would be zero).
However, if you’re going to get someone to direct a film based on your book, get someone with a proven track record in that area. That brings us to Peter Jackson. He gave us the miracle of the The Lord of the Rings trilogy on film. He did the impossible. So, the idea of him directing “The Lovely Bones” is really promising. We also know he can direct a smaller, more intimately focused story since he directed “Heavenly Creatures”.
This film is about Susie Salmon, a 14 year old girl who is murdered and her spirit watches over her family in the aftermath. She is torn between vengeance, and helping her family to heal from their loss. Oh, and a boy in school she had a crush on just before she died.
First off, this film looks beautiful. It is clear that Peter Jackson is very adept at what he does. I’m no directing expert, but even I can feel the skill at work here. The transitions, the camera work, how every scene is framed, it’s wonderful.
Rachel Weisz plays the mother, Abilgail Salmon, traumatized and unable to cope with her daughter’s death. She’s great. She’s Rachel Weisz. Stanley Tucci is great. He is the all-too-creepy, George Harvey. Susan Sarandon plays the father’s mother who comes to help out when Abigail has difficulty. She offers the small amount of humor in the film as she smokes and pops pills and offers sage, if not skewed advice while she makes a mess of the kitchen trying to cook, and vacuums with one hand and drinks scotch with the other, in between boozy naps.
Even Rose McIver who plays Susie’s sister, is good as she becomes suspicious of neighbor Harvey. Oh and Michael Imperioli plays the police officer that leads the investigation of the Salmon girl. Is it me, or has he only played cops since he left the Sopranos? The weak link here is Mark Wahlberg as the father. I don’t suppose that’s a terribly big surprise. He’s ok, but he’s, you know, Mark Wahlberg. He doesn’t score that much higher than Keanu Reeves on the emotional range scale.
And this is the main problem I have with this film. For all of the emotional subject matter here, it seems somewhat devoid of emotion. Saoirse Ronan plays Susie, and as this story is told from her point of view, she narrates throughout. Unfortunately, that narration pushed me away from much of the intensity of the emotion in the film. She sounded distant and unconnected. There are moments where it was fine, but I couldn’t get past that element, which seemed rather important.
It’s still a good film, don’t get me wrong. But it certainly seemed to lack the emotional impact it should obviously have. But it is beautiful to watch, with much fantasy world mixed with reality as Susie lives with one foot in the realm between the living and the dead. Go ahead and check this out, but it’s a film just short of really great.
~ Neil T. Weakley, your average movie-goer, glad this wasn’t as long as King Kong.
