Capitalism - Feudalism without the Kings
Movie Monday: The Lovely Bones directed by Peter Jackson
(contains spoilers but the movie really gives away the plot very early on)
More apologies for my dearth of Knitting Fridays. I just seem to be knitting but not blogging about it. Tonight is my Needlework Group and perhaps I'll pick up some ideas there.
On to the movie. You know you're having trouble with a movie when 1: you have to will yourself to sit through it because you want to blog about it. 2: You misread the running time as one and a half hours (it actually runs over 2 hours) and at 70 minutes into it all you're thinking is: Well, at least I have only 10 more minutes to watch this.
The Lovely Bones:a first-person narrative by a murdered girl who looks down on her grieving family and the killer.
Let me begin with what I liked:.......waiting.....waiting
Oh, the CGIs! No, they went on and on. Unlike Jackson's early Heavenly Creatures which had a lovely CGI section, TLB stretched all this loveliness (and some nastiness) on and on. Stop already! We get that WETA studios is cutting edge. Stop showing off! I know Jackson got the slew of Oscars for The Return of the King but I thought that last movie of the LOTR trilogy was his weakest since he was so enamored with his special effects that he only served up the human emotions among his characters as a side dish.
And that's a big problem in TLB. It's like: OK, here's a magical realism story about a child's murder and her grieving family, let's see how many special effects I can cram in.
Unless you're dealing with straight entertainment (Iron Man, Terminator, etc.), your movie will fall flat if you don't connect with your audience; if you don't have your audience make an investment in what they are watching.
And I made no investment in this film. I watched a narrative; I was never caught up in it. The acting didn't help but perhaps the script contributed to this.
Some issues I had: 1: Before Susie is killed, Ray, a typical student in a high school in PA - an English accented, well-dressed boy!!! - makes a date to meet her at the mall. After Susie is killed, Ray mourns her and writes a poem to her. What? They just met! 2: After Susie dies and her mother flees her grief-obsessed husband, floozy Grandma comes to live with the family. Played by Susan Sarandon (no acting light-weight), she struts through her scenes, cigarette smoking, full liquor glass in hand. All stereotypical of the Rake's Progress until her daughter returns and she appears sober as a judge. 3: Susie, now dead, "wills" her father not to accost her killer. Instead, dad winds up mistakenly accosting a girl at a lovers' tryst and is beaten to near death by her boyfriend who misinterprets the situation. This is protection from beyond? 4: At the end of the movie, when Susie is ready to finally enter heaven, she returns because there is one more thing she has to do on earth. OK, I'm thinking, she's going to help them catch her killer. No, she morphs into a living girl so Ray can give her one last (and presumably first) kiss. WTF????
Now I know that The Lovely Bones was a hot best-seller/reading group selection so I'm thinking: Jackson must have had pretty bad source material with which to work. I think it's safe to assume that some scenes were iconic to the book and he put them in for the fan base. I'm also thinking that I going to take a pass on Alice Sebold's writing based on this movie.
Even giving Jackson a pass because he had some "rules" he had to follow; I know that lousy lit can make great movies. Good acting helps. Except for Rachel Weisz as the distraught mom, I felt no empathy. I did feel excitement and suspense in a well-crafted scene (but also a typical suspense motif) when Susie's sister discovers evidence of the killer's guilt while the killer is ascending the stairs to confront her.
One commenter said about this movie: What a mess! That's it in three words.
I think this is the first movie I have reviewed here about which I feel so negative. I know I would have be kinder to a lesser director. But Peter Jackson should have known better.
Some trivia: Some of this movie was filmed in PA, not far from where I live. and in areas I've driven through too, too many times. I recognized at least one shot. Also, the development right across from me contains the houses Jackson used. One car garage splits built in the 1950s. Small rec rooms, small bedrooms, all around compact. I do think Jackson only used the exterior of these homes and when the audience went into they were in a different floor plan.
And, one final question: As I remember it, once Lindsey runs off with the killer's journal, he leaves town with the safe (containing Susie's body) from his basement in the car. Even assuming, he didn't leave immediately: how did he ever get that safe up the cellar stairs and into the car - alone?
Edit: I'm starting to read the reviews of the book. Wow! I guess now my question is: I read that Jackson really wanted to make this book into a movie and owned the rights for some time. Why?
On to the movie. You know you're having trouble with a movie when 1: you have to will yourself to sit through it because you want to blog about it. 2: You misread the running time as one and a half hours (it actually runs over 2 hours) and at 70 minutes into it all you're thinking is: Well, at least I have only 10 more minutes to watch this.
The Lovely Bones:a first-person narrative by a murdered girl who looks down on her grieving family and the killer.
Let me begin with what I liked:.......waiting.....waiting
Oh, the CGIs! No, they went on and on. Unlike Jackson's early Heavenly Creatures which had a lovely CGI section, TLB stretched all this loveliness (and some nastiness) on and on. Stop already! We get that WETA studios is cutting edge. Stop showing off! I know Jackson got the slew of Oscars for The Return of the King but I thought that last movie of the LOTR trilogy was his weakest since he was so enamored with his special effects that he only served up the human emotions among his characters as a side dish.
And that's a big problem in TLB. It's like: OK, here's a magical realism story about a child's murder and her grieving family, let's see how many special effects I can cram in.
Unless you're dealing with straight entertainment (Iron Man, Terminator, etc.), your movie will fall flat if you don't connect with your audience; if you don't have your audience make an investment in what they are watching.
And I made no investment in this film. I watched a narrative; I was never caught up in it. The acting didn't help but perhaps the script contributed to this.
Some issues I had: 1: Before Susie is killed, Ray, a typical student in a high school in PA - an English accented, well-dressed boy!!! - makes a date to meet her at the mall. After Susie is killed, Ray mourns her and writes a poem to her. What? They just met! 2: After Susie dies and her mother flees her grief-obsessed husband, floozy Grandma comes to live with the family. Played by Susan Sarandon (no acting light-weight), she struts through her scenes, cigarette smoking, full liquor glass in hand. All stereotypical of the Rake's Progress until her daughter returns and she appears sober as a judge. 3: Susie, now dead, "wills" her father not to accost her killer. Instead, dad winds up mistakenly accosting a girl at a lovers' tryst and is beaten to near death by her boyfriend who misinterprets the situation. This is protection from beyond? 4: At the end of the movie, when Susie is ready to finally enter heaven, she returns because there is one more thing she has to do on earth. OK, I'm thinking, she's going to help them catch her killer. No, she morphs into a living girl so Ray can give her one last (and presumably first) kiss. WTF????
Now I know that The Lovely Bones was a hot best-seller/reading group selection so I'm thinking: Jackson must have had pretty bad source material with which to work. I think it's safe to assume that some scenes were iconic to the book and he put them in for the fan base. I'm also thinking that I going to take a pass on Alice Sebold's writing based on this movie.
Even giving Jackson a pass because he had some "rules" he had to follow; I know that lousy lit can make great movies. Good acting helps. Except for Rachel Weisz as the distraught mom, I felt no empathy. I did feel excitement and suspense in a well-crafted scene (but also a typical suspense motif) when Susie's sister discovers evidence of the killer's guilt while the killer is ascending the stairs to confront her.
One commenter said about this movie: What a mess! That's it in three words.
I think this is the first movie I have reviewed here about which I feel so negative. I know I would have be kinder to a lesser director. But Peter Jackson should have known better.
Some trivia: Some of this movie was filmed in PA, not far from where I live. and in areas I've driven through too, too many times. I recognized at least one shot. Also, the development right across from me contains the houses Jackson used. One car garage splits built in the 1950s. Small rec rooms, small bedrooms, all around compact. I do think Jackson only used the exterior of these homes and when the audience went into they were in a different floor plan.
And, one final question: As I remember it, once Lindsey runs off with the killer's journal, he leaves town with the safe (containing Susie's body) from his basement in the car. Even assuming, he didn't leave immediately: how did he ever get that safe up the cellar stairs and into the car - alone?
Edit: I'm starting to read the reviews of the book. Wow! I guess now my question is: I read that Jackson really wanted to make this book into a movie and owned the rights for some time. Why?
No comments:
Post a Comment