The lovely bones [based on the book] by dir. by

8 March 2010

Genre: ,
Script: , , , , ,
Cast: , , , , , , ,

Based on the novel by Alice Sebold
IMDb ; Official site ; Metacritic

lovely bones

Saoirse Ronan in The Lovely Bones, dir. Peter Jackson

I read the book this was based on a long time ago. So long ago that I don’t really remember the details. But I do remember thinking that it wasn’t the most film-friendly of novels when I heard that it was to be adapted. But of course neither was The Lord of the Rings and look how well Jackson et al did there. This, however, is a very different kettle of fish from LOTR.

This is the story of a girl, Susie Salmon, who is fourteen years old when she is murdered. It is the story of her journey in the afterlife. And it is the story of the family she left behind. Or at least that is what the film probably wants to be about. In actual fact the film is quite average. It tells the story, but never with any real depth or emotion.

I never really felt invested in anything that was going on up on the big screen. That’s not strictly true actually, the opening few scenes worked quite well, I liked Susie and her family. But then the murder happened and the story should have taken off. It never did; it plodded on.

Acting-wise I think that Rachel Weisz was probably the most effective. Not that there was anything terribly wrong with any of the others (save one, which I’ll get to in a moment). They all did a good solid job, Ronan was very good in her role. Sarandan was a little ott, but I think that was the character rather than any acting choice.

My main issue with the characters was with Stanly Tucci’s George Harvey. I don’t think what I’m about to say is a spoiler, so I’m not blacking it out, but if you are worried then this is your hint to stop reading now. He is the bad guy of the film. Susie’s murderer. And although it is never shown or actually said in the film he is a child abuser too. I just felt that the characterisation was so cliched and stereotypical of the neighbourhood weirdo & bad guy. I never wanted to feel sorry for him, nothing like that, but I do want characters to be maybe possibly realistic. I never thought of Harvey as a real person. He was merely “the murderer”.

I suppose that was the problem with a lot of this film. There weren’t characters, instead there were roles. The grieving parents. The vengeful father. The sorrowful mother etc. None of them ever became real enough for me to care properly about.

As for Susie’s version of heaven as portrayed by Jackson, well it looked pretty enough. But it most definitely wasn’t enough to make this film anything more than an average flick.

Other reviews: Martyn Drake *spoiler warning there* ; Mosher’sUnimaginativelyEntitledBlog ; Little white lies

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. Mosh says:

    Thanks for the pingback and I like your review. It pretty much summed up my feelings.

    I've not read the book (yet), but the general split seems to be those who have read it dislike the film while those who haven't read it think the movie's "OK but not that great".

    • Fence says:

      You're welcome :)

      I think if I had read the book any time recently I would've been more negative in my review. Because its a good book. The film isn't half as good.

  2. anne says:

    Hey at least you just thought it was average, as opposed to the ton of crap it received here… which i'm really angry about, after the debacle that was The Time-Traveler's Wife. I loved both of those books and they were butchered!

    • Fence says:

      Well see I'd heard the negative views so my expectations were quite low. Its funny how that can often make for a better cinema-experience :)

      TTW was pretty bad though.

  3. anne says:

    *apparently*, i should add – considering i saw neither.

    Sorry. I'm leaving now. Promise.