Bad (or good?) news for Godardian and other Lynn Ramsay fans, since she's off the project and Peter Jackson and company are looking to sign on. (http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=upsell_article&articleID=VR1117903728&categoryID=13&cs=1)
Based only on the synopsis of the novel, which I haven't read, I think it's a fantastic choice for them, a move back to Heavenly Creatures territory after so much epic grandstanding.
Quote from: GhostboyBad (or good?) news for Godardian and other Lynn Ramsay fans, since she's off the project and Peter Jackson and company are looking to sign on. (http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=upsell_article&articleID=VR1117903728&categoryID=13&cs=1)
Based only on the synopsis of the novel, which I haven't read, I think it's a fantastic choice for them, a move back to Heavenly Creatures territory after so much epic grandstanding.
Oh, pooh... I just knew this was going to be Ramsay's big break. :cry: I agree that it'll be nice to see Jackson get back to something more small-scale (I'm not entirely indifferent to
Lord of the Rings, they're obviously good stuff, but I'm a much bigger fan of
Heavenly Creatures than the ubiquitous trilogy).
Because you need to be a member of Variety to access the link, here's the story and synopsis:
Peter Jackson Collects The Lovely Bones
"The Lord of the Rings" director Peter Jackson and partners Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens are in talks to adapt Alice Sebold's best-selling novel The Lovely Bones after completing King Kong, reports Variety.
"Bones" is a heartbreaking tale narrated by a 14-year old girl -- after she has been raped and murdered. From heaven, she observes her shattered family's attempt to heal, as a detective tries to solve the case and as her killer moves along his demented path.
The film rights are controlled by British-based FilmFour and producer Aimee Peyronnet, who made an option deal in 2000 based on the book's first 100 pages. Talks with Jackson & crew are early and no deal has been made yet, adds the trade.
well if they're moving backwards in time (king kong is the mirror to LOTR, lovely bones is the mirror to heavenly creatures) then can we expect some low budget horror films soon?!?
From AICN (http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=19072).
Jackson and Boyens confirm THE LOVELY BONES as their KONG follow-up!!!
When asked: WHAT'S NEXT FOR YOU PHILIPPA? WILL YOU CONTINUE TO WORK WITH PETER AND FRAN FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE?
Philippa responded with: Our next project after KING KONG is THE LOVELY BONES. We feel comfortable with each other. I am sure there will be other projects we do separately, but at the moment, as long as it works, we'll keep doing it.
Peter also says, "Well, the plan is to make THE LOVELY BONES after KING KONG" when answering a question about his future shooting in New Zealand.
As we all know, plans can change. There is that rumor that has been going around about a WW1 flick to be done after KONG. Personally, I'm excited for either. When Peter focuses on material he loves, he seems to have a way of making great films out of said material. LOTR, from what I've seen of KONG, BRAINDEAD, etc. His love for WW1 is astounding, to the point that he owns a few WW1 planes and a tank. THE LOVELY BONES (book by Alice Sebold) would have Peter and Fran returning to their HEAVENLY CREATURES roots, the intimate (and kind of fucked up) look at a small group of characters with some fantasy elements thrown in.
Anyway, THE LOVELY BONES seems to be in the crosshairs of both Peter and Philippa to be done after KONG. Until we hear otherwise, that's what I got on this one.
'Rings' Director Eyeing 'Lovely Bones'
Oscar-winning "Lord of the Rings" couple Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh plan to bring the grim saga "The Lovely Bones" to the big screen in 2007 after they have finished "King Kong," Daily Variety reported in its Tuesday edition.
The trade paper said the New Zealanders have reached into their own pockets to option the feature film rights to Alice Sebold's debut novel from Britain's FilmFour movie production company, and will start adapting the screenplay with their "Rings" partner Philippa Boyens next January.
The project will be shopped to studios once the script is finished and Jackson has worked out a budget, Daily Variety said. Jackson will direct and serve as a producer.
"The Lovely Bones," a bestseller published in 2002, is narrated from heaven by a 14-year-old girl who has been raped and murdered, and looks down on the people left behind to deal with the tragedy.
"It's the best kind of fantasy in that it has a lot to say about the real world," Daily Variety quoted Jackson as saying. "You have an experience when you read the book that is unlike any other. I don't want the tone or the mood to be different or lost in the film."
FilmFour, which will develop "Lovely Bones" with Jackson and Walsh, is a unit of U.K. state-owned commercial broadcaster Channel 4.
Jackson, Walsh and Boyens won Oscars last year for writing "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" the third installment in their hobbit smash. The couple also shared the best picture Oscar, while Jackson was honored for directing and Walsh for song. Their remake of "King Kong," starring Naomi Watts, is set for release in December.
has anyone read the book?
it sounds very interesting.
I read it over Christmas. It's a very good read, of mostly good literary merit -- there's some stuff towards the end I wasn't too happy about, but for the most part I'd recommend it.
Jackson will almost certainly work wonders with it, provided he shows restraint with the afterlife stuff -- it'll be a sister film, in a lot of ways, to Heavenly Creatures.
Jackson Rolls His Bones
Book adaptation being shopped to studios.
Peter Jackson is currently shopping the script for his next project, The Lovely Bones, to the major Hollywood studios ... save for New Line Cinema, which is embroiled in a protracted legal battle with the Oscar-winning Lord of the Rings helmer and has banned him from working on their adaptation of The Hobbit.
Based on Alice Sebold's novel, The Lovely Bones was adapted by Jackson and his screenwriting partners Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh. Jackson will also direct the pic.
"As of early Monday evening, the bidding for Bones had not yet begun in earnest," Variety reports. "In addition to the majors, the project was sent to smaller companies, including United Artists."
An unnamed source for DeadlineHollywood.com claims, "It went out today to almost everybody and the offers are across the board. That's because there was a cover letter laying out basics like approximate budget, start of photography, etc. It simply wants the studios to make a proposal with no ask. It also wants them as part of the proposal to make a recommendation about release date and inform what competitive titles they'll have during the quarter of the release date they suggest."
The Lovely Bones revolves around a teenage girl who is raped and killed, but her spirit continues to follow her family and her murderer.
I thought the Hobbit ban turned out to not be totally true.
So How Is Peter Jackson's Script for 'The Lovely Bones'?
Source: New York Magazine
As Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Lovely Bones continues to make the rounds among Hollywood's studios (aside from New Line, sworn enemies of the once-burly Kiwi filmmaker), we thought we'd take a look at his screenplay to see how it reads. The screenplay, 112-pages long and co-written with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, doesn't diverge wildly from Alice Sebold's novel; the famous opening line of chapter one — "My name is Salmon, like the fish; first name, Susie. I was 14 years old when I was murdered on December 6th, 1973" — appears nearly verbatim on page 5 of the script.
We admire Jackson's determination to make this film after the immense undertakings of the Lord of the Rings trilogy and King Kong; The Lovely Bones is a throwback in many ways to Jackson's breakthrough film, the still-wondrous Heavenly Creatures. Both are small, narrowly focused stories of teenage girls in trouble: Heavenly Creatures' Pauline and Juliet, real-life New Zealand teen murderers, and Susie Salmon in The Lovely Bones, killed at 14. And both make dramatic use of Jackson's skills as a fantasist by weaving the supernatural into reality: Heavenly Creatures through the girls' retreat into their charged fantasy world of knights and damsels in distress, and The Lovely Bones via Susie's frequent attempts to make contact with the living world.
But The Lovely Bones looks to be not nearly as good as Heavenly Creatures. Jackson doesn't get into Susie's head the way he did Pauline and Juliet's, and the incursion of the supernatural into everyday life feels showy rather than integral. The fantasy scenes in Heavenly Creatures were momentous, despite the shakiness of the special effects; though it's certain that the effects in The Lovely Bones will be brilliant, the scenes in Heaven, and Susie's interaction with Earth, don't have much magic on the page.
Spoilers ahead! Jackson's screenplay leaves in most every plot point from the book, including the crucial scene in which Susie returns to earth, inhabits the body of another girl, and has sex with the boy she loved at 14. It also keeps the anticlimactic ending to the investigation into Susie's murder: Her killer is never found, though Susie in a tiny way contributes to his ignominious death. So much of the novel's action is stuffed into the screenplay, in fact, that little of it registers as important — to the family left behind, or to Susie. And despite frequent voice-over, we lose the sense — so important to the novel — of Susie as both caring participant and omniscient narrator, seeing into the souls of those left behind.
As we noted Tuesday, Jackson is reportedly asking for $65 million to make The Lovely Bones, plus his directing and producing fees. (Variety reported yesterday that the total budget could run to $90 million.) So that's almost $100 mil to make a slightly spooky, gently sad domestic drama narrated by a raped and murdered girl. It's got a gruesome premise, a downbeat ending, gentle healing in place of Hollywood catharsis, and little opportunity to cast stars. Susie's parents are decently sized roles, but the mother is unsympathetic: She cheats on her husband and leaves her family. Susie's father might be an attractive role for an actor with box-office draw, but who knows if Jackson — who seems to prefer real actors to stars — will cast one?
As for Susie? Let's just hope Jackson doesn't punt and cast Dakota Fanning in the role.
Variety attributes the delay in selling The Lovely Bones to Jackson's demands for promotional plans from the studios in question. But isn't it also likely that studios are balking because they can't figure out how to avoid losing their shirts on an art-house movie with a blockbuster budget?
Dreamworks, Peter Jackson unite
Studio picks up 'Lovely Bones'
Source: Variety
Peter Jackson will make his next movie at DreamWorks.
Committing at least $65 million, DreamWorks in association with Film 4 has won the bidding for Jackson's bigscreen adaptation of Alice Sebold's best-selling 2002 tome "The Lovely Bones."
Announcement came early Friday evening, capping a weeklong auction that had three other majors vying for Jackson's project as well-Warner Bros. Pictures, Universal and Sony.
Jackson is set to begin lensing in October in Pennsylvania and New Zealand from a script he co-wrote with "Lord of the Rings" collaborators Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh. Paramount, which owns DreamWorks, will distribute "Bones" worldwide, with Jackson promising to deliver the film by the fourth quarter 2008.
Producers are Jackson, Walsh and Aimee Peyronnet. Ken Kamins, Film 4's Tessa Ross and Jim Wilson will exec produce.
Project is a departure from the string of the special-effects driven tentpoles-"Lord of the Rings" franchise and "King Kong"-that have made Jackson one of the industry's most influential filmmakers.
"Bones," with its heart-wrenching storyline, is closer in tone to Jackson's 1994 "Heavenly Creatures." Sebold's book tells the story of a 14-year-old who has been raped and killed, and now watches over her family and killer.
"When you read an emotionally magical story that cries out to be turned into a major motion picture, you hope its winding path can find its way to the door of your own company," DreamWorks' Steven Spielberg said.
DreamWorks was a natural fit for several reasons, including Spielberg's interest in working with Jackson. Also, DreamWorks fought hard for the film rights to Sebold's book several years ago before the rights went to Jackson.
And Jackson made his last movie, "King Kong," with DreamWorks CEO-co-chair Stacey Snider when Snider was still running Universal.
Insiders say the acquisition deal came in at just under $65 million, but that might not include a $25 million contingency fee.
"We are thrilled that DreamWorks Studios has been able to acquire the film rights to this story that has captivated so many people," Snider said. "In the hands of Peter Jackson, we have a master of cinematic storytelling to bring it to the screen."
so i read this in two days. i enjoyed. as usual, i agree with what the ghostboy said back in '05. some things in the end fall flat or were too cliched or something. but i loved the narrative and the way it danced around through different lives/flashbacks.
jackson will do great with this. that is unless spill burg gets in the way too much...
Steve: Fanning?
Pete: An unknown?
Steve: Can't go wrong with Dakotes.
Pete: I feel she's a bit overused. Great in your stuff though.
Steve: We'll come back to this. Next idea - now roll around in bed with me on this one - we combined projects. Indiana Jones and The Lovely Bones...
Weisz to star in 'Lovely Bones'
Actress set for Peter Jackson adaptation
Source: Variety
Rachel Weisz is set to star in "The Lovely Bones," the Peter Jackson-directed adaptation of the Alice Sebold novel.
DreamWorks begins production on the film in October, and Paramount Pictures will distribute worldwide.
Weisz will play the mother of a young girl who is abducted and is feared to have been murdered.
Jackson wrote the script with his "Lord of the Rings" scripting partners Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh. DreamWorks bested several studios to acquire the fully-developed project, which will be made in association with Film 4.
Carolynne Cunningham, Jackson, Walsh and Aimee Peyronnet will produce, while Film 4's Tessa Ross will exec produce with Ken Kamins and Jim Wilson. The film will shoot in Pennsylvania and New Zealand.
Weisz, who won an Oscar for "The Constant Gardener," was available after declining to reprise in a third installment of "The Mummy" for Universal.
Ryan Gosling set for 'Lovely Bones'
Actor joins Weisz in Jackson adaptation
Source: Variety
Ryan Gosling is set to star opposite Rachel Weisz in Peter Jackson's feature adaptation of best-selling tome "The Lovely Bones" for DreamWorks.
Jackson will begin lensing in October in Pennsylvania and New Zealand. Film will be distributed worldwide by Paramount.
Based on Alice Sebold's novel, storyline revolves around a young girl who has been murdered and watches over her family--and killer--from heaven. Girl must weigh her desire for vengeance against her desire for her family to heal.
Gosling will play the girl's father; Weisz plays the mother.
Gosling, who garnered an Oscar nom for his performance in indie pic "Half Nelson," will next be in theaters with "Lars and the Real Girl," which bows this fall. His other credits include "Fracture," "Stay" and "The Believer."
Producers of "Lovely Bones" are Jackson, Carolynne Cunningham, Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh. Film 4's Tessa Ross, Ken Kamins and Jim Wilson are exec producing. DreamWorks secured the film rights to Sebold's book in association with Film 4.
Jackson, who developed the project before shopping to studios, penned the adapted screenplay with Boyens and Walsh. Trio are frequent collaborators, co-writing and producing the three "Lord of the Rings" films and "King Kong" together.
i too read it a couple of years ago. enjoyed it as well.
the opening alone is great. and the end did kinda lack what made it so enjoyable in the beginning.
looking forward to this.
he's too young for them to be a believable couple.
Quote from: modage on June 28, 2007, 09:32:38 AM
he's too young for them to be a believable couple.
plan b: viggo mortensen
Quote from: modage on June 28, 2007, 09:32:38 AM
he's too young for them to be a believable couple.
he's method, he's gonna become older for the part.
I'm starting to really like this guy. I saw The Notebook a while back and thought he did a good job. But then last week alone I saw Half Nelson and Fracture and the guy is really good in both. Good for him...
viggo would be ideal i suppose, but i like the gosling idea a lot. his emotion does not come off fake with his acting which is much needed for this type of character. example of a cringe worthy emotional crazy person grieving over the loss of their child performance: sharon stone in alpha dog (at the end with fat suit).
Gosling has a tendency to be way better than the material, notably in The Notebook and that horrendous piece of shit Murder By Numbers. He even brought a raw believability to the Mickey Mouse Club that wasn't inherent in the source material.
Irish actress joins 'Lovely Bones'
Saoirse Ronan onboard for DreamWorks film
Source: Variety
Young Irish actress Saoirse Ronan will star alongside Rachel Weisz and Ryan Gosling in director Peter Jackson's bigscreen adaptation of Alice Sebold's bestselling tome "The Lovely Bones" for DreamWorks.
Ronan will play Susie Salmon, the murdered girl who watches over her family -- and killer -- from heaven.
Jackson penned the adapted screenplay with his longtime collaborators Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh.
Jackson is set to begin lensing "Bones" in October in Pennsylvania and New Zealand. Paramount will distribute worldwide.
Producers are Carolynne Cunningham, Jackson, Walsh and Aimee Peyronnet. DreamWorks acquired the rights to Sebold's book in association with Film 4.
Exec producing are Film 4's Tessa Ross, Ken Kamins and Jim Wilson.
Ronan, 13, has several movies awaiting release, including "Death Defying Acts," starring Catherine Zeta-Jones and Guy Pearce, and "I Could Never Be Your Woman," starring Michelle Pfeiffer and Paul Rudd. This summer, she films "The City of Ember."
Ah yeah.
She's also playing Briony Tallis in Atonement (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=9729.0). She seems to be involved with some pretty respectable projects, so I suspect she's pretty good.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fe%2Fe1%2FSaoirse_Ronan.jpg&hash=b1621c6b7dbddfdf0cb7cdf0b30c6421f274fac1)
Thats the future Lindsay Lohan...
nah i'm hoping more like ludivine sagnier.
Tucci cracks DW's 'Bones'
Source: Hollywood Reporter
NEW YORK -- Stanley Tucci is in negotiations to play the pivotal role of killer George Harvey in Peter Jackson's adaptation of "The Lovely Bones" for DreamWorks.
Rachel Weisz and Ryan Gosling will play the parents of Susie Salmon (newcomer Saoirse Ronan), a 14-year-old who has been raped and killed by a neighbor she refers to as Mr. Harvey. Alice Sebold's best-selling 2002 novel is told from the perspective of Susie, who looks down on her family and Harvey from the afterlife.
Jackson acquired rights to the acclaimed book and adapted it for the screen with Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh. Carolynne Cunningham, Jackson, Walsh and Aimee Peyronnet are producing the project, set to begin shooting in October in Pennsylvania and Jackson's native New Zealand.
Tessa Ross, Ken Kamins and Jim Wilson are producing the film, which will be distributed by Paramount Pictures.
Tucci's recent credits include 20th Century Fox's "The Devil Wears Prada" and the Weinstein Co.'s "Lucky Number Slevin." His upcoming films include Warner Bros. Pictures' "What Just Happened?" and "Blind Date," a remake of slain Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh's eponymous film that he also directed.
was thinking a not so familar face would be necessary for that role. i think i had david strathairn in mind while reading the book. but yes, indeed the tucci will work.
Sarandon joins 'Lovely Bones'
Peter Jackson film co-stars Weisz, Gosling
Source: Variety
Susan Sarandon has joined the cast of Peter Jackson's "The Lovely Bones," based on Alice Sebold's tome, for DreamWorks.
Rachel Weisz, Ryan Gosling and newcomer Saoirse Ronan star in the pic, which Jackson begins lensing in October.
Story revolves around a young girl who watches over her family -- and killer -- from heaven. Sarandon will play the grandmother, who comes to live with the family after the girl's murder.
Stanley Tucci is circling the role of the killer.
Sarandon will be seen later this year in "Mr. Woodcock," "In the Valley of Elah" and "Enchanted."
Imperioli connected to DW's 'Bones'
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Emmy winner and current nominee Michael Imperioli has joined the all-star cast of Peter Jackson's adaptation of "The Lovely Bones" for DreamWorks.
The offed "Sopranos" actor joins Rachel Weisz, Ryan Gosling, Susan Sarandon, Stanley Tucci and newcomer Saoirse Ronan in the big-screen version of Alice Sebold's best-seller. The story centers on a young girl who is murdered but continues to observe her family on Earth after her death. She witnesses the impact of her demise on her loved ones, while her killer skillfully covers his tracks and prepares to murder again.
Imperioli will play Len Fenerman, the detective in charge of investigating the girl's death.
Jackson is directing the movie, whose script was written by Jackson, Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh.
Carolynne Cunningham, Jackson, Walsh and Aimee Peyronnet are producing "Bones," which begins filming in October in Pennsylvania and New Zealand. Executive producing will be Film 4's Tessa Ross alongside Ken Kamins and Jim Wilson.
Paramount Pictures is distributing.
I'm starting to like this... casting is great
Wahlberg steps into 'Bones'
Actor to replace Gosling in lead role
Source: Variety
One day before shooting began, Mark Wahlberg stepped in to replace Ryan Gosling in "The Lovely Bones," the Peter Jackson-directed adaptation of the Alice Sebold novel for DreamWorks.
Wahlberg has taken the role of Jack Salmon, the grieving father of a young girl. That role was vacated Friday by "Lars and the Real Girl" star Ryan Gosling, who stepped out after gaining 20 pounds and growing a beard for the job. Sources attributed the exit to creative differences.
After reading the script, Wahlberg quickly committed Sunday. He joins Rachel Weisz as a couple whose world is shattered after their daughter is murdered. The girl watches over her family and her killer from heaven. Jackson wrote the script with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens.
The film begins shooting today in Pennsylvania, where Wahlberg most recently wrapped the lead in the M. Night Shyamalan-directed "The Happening" for Fox. It is Wahlberg's first time working with Jackson, though the filmmaker did an on-screen stint last season on "Entourage," the HBO comedy series Wahlberg exec produces.
Wahlberg also recently committed to star with Brad Pitt in the Darren Aronofsky-directed "The Fighter" at Paramount. That picture is expected to begin production next fall.
I don't know if this is better casting, but it's definitely a lot more interesting. Gosling was too young for the part. Whalberg's a little bit older, and he's never played anything like this, so I'm much more excited to see what he can bring to the role.
uh oh. Mark Wahlberg can't act, so, you know, he just ruined this.
You kidding? He won like 25 Adult Acting Awards back in 1997! He can totally act :)
I actually like him... but I thought Ryan Golsing was great for this. We'll see how it goes.. where the hell is Andy Serkis?
:yabbse-thumbdown: :yabbse-thumbdown: :yabbse-thumbdown: :yabbse-thumbdown: :yabbse-thumbdown: :yabbse-thumbdown: :yabbse-thumbdown: :yabbse-thumbdown: :yabbse-thumbdown: :yabbse-thumbdown: + :yabbse-thumbdown:
Heaven Is Wonderful For AJ Michalka In Peter Jackson's 'Lovely Bones'
Source: MTV
For viewers who gaped at his vision of Lothlorien, who were left awed by his realization of Helms Deep, or who stood slack-jawed in amazement at the details of Minas Tirith – get ready to be blown away again, insists AJ Michalka, who says the next place Peter Jackson takes you will have you thinking of heaven. Literally.
"I think it's going to be stunning," Michalka said of Jackson's vision for heaven, a major set-piece in his upcoming adaptation of "The Lovely Bones." "There's going to be this beautiful gazebo involved, I know that. He's doing a lot of stuff with blue screen, which if going to be insane, unbelievable. It's going to be her own little world in heaven."
The "her" in this case is Susie Salmon (Oscar nominee Saoirse Ronan), a 14-year-old who watches her family and friends from the afterlife, observing them as they struggle to cope with her brutal rape and murder.
AJ plays Clarissa in the film, Susie's best friend. As I wrote back in September when we first announced AJ's participation, Clarissa plays a vital part in one of the book's biggest turning points, a confrontation between her boyfriend and Susie's father.
"Basically, he hears noise in the cornfield and thinks it's the killer and he's about to go after him but really it's me and my boyfriend," AJ explained. "He goes nuts and my boyfriend almost ends up killing him."
At the time we last spoke to AJ, the role of Jack was supposed to be played by Ryan Gosling. A few short days before filming began, however, the "Half Nelson" star was replaced by Mark Wahlberg. Was "The Departed" star able to catch up quickly enough?
"He's incredible," Michalka said of her co-star, adding that he was a real pro in the cornfield scene. "We all did our own and after every take he was like, 'Are you okay? Are you okay?' He was super cool, super nice. It was great."
AJ saved her most effusive praise, however, for Jackson, a director that is "really good about letting the actors do what they feel is right for the character," she said.
"He talks about it with a lot of the actors, like, 'What do you think I should do here?' He involves everybody, which is super cool," AJ said. "I kind of go with what he says and make it my own. From there he's usually pretty happy with it, so it's great. He's unbelievable."
Wahlberg On Bones And Jackson
Source: Sci Fi Wire
Mark Wahlberg, who stepped in at the last minute to play the anguished father in Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones, told reporters that he found the role a challenge but welcomed the chance to observe filmmaking by the Oscar-winning Lord of the Rings helmer.
In the movie, based on Alice Sebold's novel, Wahlberg plays Jack Salmon, the father of Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan), a 14-year-old girl who was brutally raped and murdered and watches from heaven how the crime affects her parents and family. Wahlberg joined the production days before it started, after original cast member Ryan Gosling dropped out.
"The last-minute [thing] was fine," Wahlberg said in a news conference in Beverly Hills, Calif., on Oct. 12 while promoting his next film, Max Payne. "The only thing, again, I was worried about was dealing with the subject matter and having to go to that place, which is also why Max Payne was such a great release afterwards, because the other side of me would want to go out and wreak havoc on whoever was responsible, and I got to do that through this film."
In Max Payne, Wahlberg plays a renegade cop who seeks revenge against those who killed his wife and child. In a different way, Wahlberg's Salmon in Lovely Bones must deal with the loss of a child and the desire for revenge.
But Wahlberg, who expressed ambitions to direct films, said that he welcomed the opportunity to learn from Jackson. "The experience working with Peter Jackson was like no other," he said. "I've always wanted to direct. I thought after working with many of the great directors that I picked up a lot of things along the way. Like a lot of actors, you get a great script, you hire a great cinematographer and producer, you get great actors, you can make a pretty good movie. But I don't think you can do what Peter Jackson can do, and I would like to be able to at least shoot for that level of ability one day. I don't think I'll ever get there, but it was the most amazing experience of my career."
Wahlberg, who has three children of his own, added that it's difficult to play men who have to deal with such losses. "Definitely," he said. "I'm not one of those Shakespearean actors that thinks about the color blue or goes to that place or thinks about that place when I wanted to hide and be alone as a kid," he said, with tongue in cheek. "I have my past, which has got a lot of stuff to draw from, and I have children, so I think about something horrible happening to my family. That's why I can't wait until the last day of shooting: so I can go home and hug my kids and get those thoughts out of my head." The Lovely Bones opens in 2009.
Quote from: MacGuffin on October 13, 2008, 11:47:20 PM
"I'm not one of those Shakespearean actors that thinks about the color blue or goes to that place or thinks about that place when I wanted to hide and be alone as a kid,"
no shit.
see: most of his films.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.empireonline.com%2Fimages%2Fimage_index%2Fhw800%2F33340.jpg&hash=5ac1f18fa56e671cb6d5cdae26a61bbbac37bc76)
Fuck Empire.
Why they gotta ruin the picture by putting their name on it?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.usatoday.net%2Flife%2F_photos%2F2009%2F04%2F20%2Flovelybonesx-large.jpg&hash=e5c7f1d0f7ee35011e6a4fb2a33f836c5b269e3f)
First look: Murderous 'Lovely Bones' is also 'curiously optimistic'
By Scott Bowles, USA TODAY
For all the violence and grief of The Lovely Bones, Peter Jackson believes the movie adaptation need not be a downer.
In fact, he says, the film version of Alice Sebold's best-selling novel about teenager Susie Salmon, who watches from heaven as her family collapses after her murder, is downright uplifting.
"I found the book to be curiously optimistic," Jackson says by e-mail from New Zealand, where he's finishing the film. "I felt inspired by Susie's struggle to come to terms with her own death. In the face of overwhelming grief, she finds hope.
"She holds on to love, and by doing so, she transcends the horror of her murder."
Don't expect Lord of the Rings-style special effects to create a nether world, Jackson says. The film, which stars Saoirse Ronan as Susie and Stanley Tucci as her killer, proved one of Jackson's toughest, particularly scenes of the child's afterlife.
"It's God-less in the sense that when Susie dies, she finds herself caught in a place between Earth and heaven — she is in an 'In-Between,' as Alice Sebold calls it." When she moves on, "we're happy for audiences to imagine this new world in whatever way makes them comfortable."
^^ that reminds me something jack nicholson told in the kubrick doc., that he told him the shining was in reality an optimistic picture, that the movie was about ghosts and anything that says there's anything after death is an optimistic story..
also, good, the pic no longer has the stupid empire name on it..
More Photos From Peter Jackson's Lovely Bones
Source: ComingSoon
Saoirse Ronan fansite Access-Saoirse has received more scans of photos from Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones that can be found in the new issue of Empire magazine. Opening December 11, the big screen adaptation of Alice Sebold's best-selling novel stars Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Susan Sarandon, Stanley Tucci, Michael Imperioli and Ronan.
The film centers on a young girl who has been murdered and watches over her family – and her killer – from heaven. She must weigh her desire for vengeance against her desire for her family to heal.
http://access-saoirse.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=99&pos=0
jan. 29, 2010? strange
i didn't know eno was doing the score, awesome!
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F07%2Flovebones.jpg&hash=1e6e950b89242b7ca722f822d1f534caf105fb1f)
For some reason that reminds me of a commercialized bottle of water sold at convenience stores nationwide.
Yeah, they could do better.
Quote from: Stefen on July 08, 2009, 10:17:03 AM
For some reason that reminds me of a commercialized bottle of water sold at convenience stores nationwide.
I thought the EXACT same thing.
Yeah and I thought this would open at the end of this year.
I'm pretty sure it still is. Jan. 29 2010 is the UK release date.
Check on IMDb fo dat shit.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F07%2Flovebones.jpg&hash=1e6e950b89242b7ca722f822d1f534caf105fb1f)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2Fswlineup.jpg&hash=50ce9e0ed79da180b49c24671e009a9fb11bf7fe)
^HAH. That's what I was looking for. It was on the tip of my tongue.
Yeah, but looks even more like VITAMINWATER
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.costco.com%2FImages%2FContent%2FProduct%2F188950_vxb.jpg&hash=1aa5b71ff6df660850eaa51710f53ee48e103500)
SDCC: Peter Jackson unveils his vision of Lovely Bones
Source: SciFi Wire
When Peter Jackson invites you to sit down with a few dozen of his closest friends in the press, you go, and SCI FI Wire was lucky enough to spend a couple of hours with the Oscar-winning producer/director of the Lord of the Rings films, the upcoming gritty sci-fi drama District 9, the adaptation of The Lovely Bones and the two new Hobbit movies being directed by Guillermo del Toro.
In a cozy salon in a San Diego hotel, Jackson was able to relax in a wing chair with a cup of tea and chat amiably about films and his hobby—rebuilding antique World War I-era airplanes—far removed from the chaos of Comic-Con outside.
During his chat, he screened an extended collection of clips from his upcoming Lovely Bones, based on Alice Sebold's novel, told from the point of view of a 14-year-old girl who is brutally murdered but remains behind in spirit to watch how the crime affects her surviving family. (He revealed that a trailer for the film will be released in theaters on Aug. 7, along with Julie and Julia.)
The clips provide a glimpse of Jackson's warm style for the film, which is set in the 1970s: We are introduced briefly to the innocent Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) and her parents, played by Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz, before she is tricked by a neighbor, George Harvey (an unrecognizable Stanley Tucci), into an underground room, where she meets her fate.
We then see scenes of the police investigation, her family's anguish and Tucci's feigned innocence. The clips also provide a brief look at Jackson's luminous version of Susie's personal "heaven" or afterlife: A glowing gazebo floating on water, life-size ships in bottles on a lake, leaves falling in a sepia-toned forest glade.
Jackson described his approach to the wrenching story. Following is an edited version of our conversation about The Lovely Bones. Tomorrow we'll have Jackson's thoughts about The Hobbit, and on Wednesday Jackson's District 9. The Lovely Bones opens on Dec. 11.
This is a film that's obviously very different from your blockbusters. Do you get the feeling of, when you made this film, was it more like the Heavenly Creatures experience?
Jackson: Yeah, it was definitely more like the Heavenly Creatures experience, which was the reason why I made it, in a sense. You know, I had done, obviously, four of those big blockbuster effects films in a row, and I just ... felt like trying something that was going to be hard and difficult and very different. And I'm just like anyone: ... You just want to keep trying things that you aren't sure that you can do. And so this seemed like ... a very interesting challenge. I loved the book. I cried when I read the book. And most of it is a very personal book, because ... I think how you take that book when you read it [is] very much based on your own life experience. If you've had loved ones that you've lost, and if you think about that stuff, and if you've been affected by it, you're obviously going to take a very different impression of the book than if you haven't had that experience.
So the film is also equally personal, because ... it's our interpretation, it's really myself and Philippa [Boyens] and Fran [Walsh] collaborating and adapting the book. It was interesting, because it's a very, very difficult book to adapt, I have to say that. It doesn't lend itself to any sort of film structure. ... We haven't slavishly followed the book. There's big sections of the book that we never used. We elaborated on other bits of the book. ... We very much adapted it. It's certainly a personal adaptation rather than, like, a very accurate copy of the book.
How much of your own impression of the afterlife went into this adaptation?
Jackson: Well it's not really my impression of the afterlife; it's Susie's. Because the lead character, Susie Salmon, she's a 14-year-old girl in 1973, ... when she dies. So we have a very '70s-feeling afterlife, which is sort of done on purpose. .... For our research in the afterlife, we actually looked at episodes of The Partridge Family. Which is not where you normally go for the afterlife. Although maybe some people do, I don't know. ...
People refer to it as heaven, but you never actually go to heaven or see heaven in the story. ... It's like an in-between [place]. ... The idea, which is in the book, is each person experiences it based on what their life experience is. ... What Susie experiences in her afterlife is based on being a 14-year-old in 1973 and ... the pop culture that she's grown up with and the life experiences she's had. ...
She's also wonderfully funny, too. ... We didn't want to make a maudlin, depressing, tear-jerky sort of ... film. We wanted to make it very lively. The great thing with Susie is she doesn't feel any self-pity. She's got this wonderfully ironic, wry observations, and she watches her family deal with her death, and she watches her killer, and she watches ... the police bungle the investigation, which drives her crazy, in a very humorous way. And she comes up with a very ... bad idea of trying to use her father as a weapon against the killer. Which, ... she comes to realize, ... was a mistake. But she realizes a bit too late, so it's got an interesting story to it.
Watching that footage, it seems obvious that there are tonal shifts in the picture. The stuff with the family seems to be a little bit darker, a little bit heavier, and the stuff in the afterlife seems to be brighter. Can you talk about balancing that and sort of making that work, and how tough that is?
Jackson: Balancing the tones, yeah. I mean, the lighter stuff, there is a moment in the film where Susie has fun in the afterlife because ... you have this degree of freedom and this incredible, slightly hallucinogenic experience. But ... that's fleeting in the sense that she also witnesses and is able to look at what's happening. She can hear and see what happens, but she can't be heard. It's not that easy for her ... actually to be seen or to be heard by her family. ... It's not like a ghost story in the traditional way that you'd imagine. So she's very frustrated. So even though there's ... this crazy fun that she has for a while, ... I would say the tone of the movie is pretty much like a thriller, really.
Can you talk about the casting of Mark Wahlberg? Because I know a lot of fans of the book, when he was announced, they kind of had a little bit of a problem seeing him as the dad. I'm wondering, what did you see as Mark Wahlberg as the dad that you wanted to put him in the film? ...
Jackson: We really liked his comedy that was in I Heart Huckabees, and one of the things with the character of Jack Salmon is he's an obsessive. I mean, he's kind of an obsessive in a gentle, comedic way, and he's an obsessive in his relationship with his daughter. And then, when she dies and he's wracked with guilt, but he's also thinking, "Who did this? Who did this?" And he becomes obsessed with finding the killer. So we wanted somebody, but we didn't again want to play that heavy and ... make it sort of maudlin. We wanted somebody who was going to be a little bit nutty, and we really liked his nutty obsessiveness in the I Heart Huckabees film. So that was actually the thing that sort of steered us on to Mark.
Stanley Tucci looks very different than we've come to see him.
Jackson: Yeah, well, Stanley liked the idea of playing the part, but I think he was terribly worried about being spat on in malls and [that affecting his life], because he's a very, very evil character. He plays a very, very nasty guy. ... So one of the things was finding an appearance for Mr. Harvey, which is the name of the killer. ... He is the basic next-door-neighbor type of guy, so we wanted on some level to make him look like that traditional person from the '70s, again. But Stanley also liked the idea of looking as least like Stanley Tucci as he possibly could and for ... the sake of his life following the movie.
I'm really looking forward to this. I don't know whether to expect a dark comedy, a dramatic masterpiece or something Spielberg would do where it tries to make you cry but makes you roll your eyes. Regardless, I want to see some footage.
i love that it was I heart huckabees that got wahlberg the role.
can we see a trailer already?
settle for a trailer for the trailer?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY1K6YQ2Cx8
(as ruined by EntertainmentTonight)
Full trailer (as ruined by EW)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu1zpBS4gcE
its ruined by entertainment tonight, not EW
You know what I meant.
oh my god. i'm never watching another et-posted trailer for a film i care about again. how can they not understand what they're doing to the footage??
Real Trailer here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/thelovelybones/)
Anyone else get the feeling Wahlberg seems to be in over his head in this? I don't know if he has the range to pull that particular character off.
yep.
Quote from: modage on October 22, 2007, 08:12:55 AM
uh oh. Mark Wahlberg can't act, so, you know, he just ruined this.
Quote from: modage on October 15, 2008, 08:51:44 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin on October 13, 2008, 11:47:20 PM
"I'm not one of those Shakespearean actors that thinks about the color blue or goes to that place or thinks about that place when I wanted to hide and be alone as a kid,"
no shit.
see: most of his films.
haha. well, I don't think Wahlberg is that bad. As a matter of fact, I think in the right role he can do very well but this doesn't seem like that type of role.
Wasn't Gosling supposed to play his role originally? He's a better actor but he's pretty young. I don't know if I buy him as the father of teenagers.
Jackson's casting has always been hit and miss.
any character which combines intensity plus stupidity equals a wonderful mark whalberg performance.
anything else, open guess.
I have a theory that Mark Wahlberg will ruin your movie if you let him. His acting is terrible by nature, but in the right role (Boogie Nights) the terrible acting can go a long way or if he only has to give a one-note performance being an asshole (The Departed) he can do that as well. In life I think he's an asshole that's also a terrible actor, but if you can harness that you can do great things. Peter Jackson is not the strongest director when it comes to actors, he's like a classy George Lucas, and so I think this performance could be terrible but the movie still looks intriguing.
Quote from: Stefen on August 05, 2009, 09:17:23 AMWasn't Gosling supposed to play his role originally?
Why we keep all the posts:
http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=6061.msg246029#msg246029
what a dishonest trailer. clearly they're trying to sell it as a thriller. parts of it feel too sentimental but that may just be terrible editing. heaven looks fantastic.
Not as overrated as the book "The Lovely Bones", though.
did it bother anyone else that the beginning of the trailer is a normal narrative of the gist of the film but with tiny pieces not necessarily in order and then out of nowhere it shows what appears to be a very critical scene almost in its entirety?
Quote from: 03 on September 03, 2009, 02:22:16 PM
did it bother anyone else that the beginning of the trailer is a normal narrative of the gist of the film but with tiny pieces not necessarily in order and then out of nowhere it shows what appears to be a very critical scene almost in its entirety?
yes.
I read the book and that part of the book is hardly pivotal.
well i haven't so i don't know the difference.
but to have a very normal style trailer of random point in time scenes that build a loose narrative without being too independent of a timeline
and then suddenly have a point that seems like the beginning of a conclusion being filled out almost shot after shot,
especially when it started to intercut unrelated pieces near the climax as if trying to go back to the original style but still showing the current action out of nowhere was kind of jarring and ruined
the amazingness of the beginning part.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.indiemoviesonline.com%2Ffiles%2Feditorspics%2Flovely-bones-poster.jpg&hash=d93544f50fbe02314cd5c076e3147ee706886dcf)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.collider.com%2Fwp-content%2Fimage-base%2FMovies%2FL%2FLovely_Bones_The%2Fposters%2Flovely_bones_movie_poster_lo-res_01.jpg&hash=af4821b7e519d6be7065cadada340f49e96b6380)
Early Buzz: 'The Lovely Bones' is a "Significant Artistic Disappointment"?
by Erik Davis; Cinematical
The first reviews for Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones are beginning to pour in, and, naturally (for a popular, fan-friendly director like Jackson), there are the raves (Harry Knowles from AICN) and the pans (Todd McCarthy from Variety). Just posted this evening over at Variety, McCarthy's review is perhaps the hardest one to swallow. Essentially his biggest problem with the movie were the effects, claiming Jackson uses them way too much (and too often) for a film (and story) that doesn't really require them. He calls it "show-offy" and says the film "rates as a significant artistic disappointment." It's an unfortunate review for a film that was a shoe-in (and still may be, especially for Stanley Tucci) for multiple Oscar nods on almost everyone's list.
Some other quotes (no spoilers):
-- "This is an incredibly lovely film. From the visuals to the performances to the story-telling and film work... it all goes to capture a very powerful story in a way that makes you want to hug those close to you." -- Harry Knowles, AICN
-- "It's not that The Lovely Bones is a bad movie, exactly. It is handsomely made and strongly acted, while its woozy, lullaby ambience recalls Jackson's work on the brilliant Heavenly Creatures, before he set forth on his epic voyage through The Lord of the Rings." -- Xan Brooks, Guardian
-- "Peter Jackson's eagerly awaited film version of Alice Sebold's bestselling novel is sometimes exquisitely realised, sometimes frustratingly uneven. ... While The Lovely Bones is as dark as it gets thematically, it will still be an event movie for the adult audience." -- Mike Goodridge, Screen Daily
-- 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." -- Kirk Honeycutt, The Hollywood Reporter
The Lovely Bones hits theaters on December 11th.
Why Peter Jackson added MORE violence to Lovely Bones
Source: SciFi Wire
When Peter Jackson started to do early test screenings of his eagerly awaited new film, The Lovely Bones, which opens Friday, he says he was "shocked and surprised" to get a lot of complaints about the level of violence in the PG-13 film.
"All the complaints were to do with the death of the villain, played by Stanley Tucci," he explains. "So we had to go back in the editing room and fix it, so audiences would be happier." (Big spoilers ahead!)
It's understandable, as the film, based on the 2002 best-seller by Alice Sebold and with a reported budget of $70 million, tells the harrowing and intensely emotional story of a 14-year-old girl (played by Atonement's Oscar-nominated Saoirse Ronan) who is brutally raped and then murdered by her neighbor, George Harvey, played by Tucci.
But here's the twist: The Oscar-winning director found that he'd "totally misjudged" audiences' reactions to Tucci's death scene. "They actually wanted MORE violence!" he admits. "And I was quite taken aback—audiences were simply not satisfied with the killer's death scene—they wanted far more violence and suffering."
Jackson points out that the fact that it's the neighbor who rapes and kills Susie "is no secret or mystery, as it's not a whodunit. The mystery is, what's going to happen to him, as the police never catch him. I won't spill all the beans and go into great detail, but we do have a sequence where Stanley's character dies, and he dies an accidental death, but not quite. You'll have to see the whole film to understand why."
"But I really wanted the film to have a PG-13 rating," Jackson stresses. "That was very important to us, because we wanted the film to be very accessible, and we wanted it to have a very positive message and tone, so we were very scrupulous about how we shot it, to make sure we would get a PG-13. So when Stanley's character dies, he tumbles down a cliff, and I had simply filmed it by having him disappear off the edge of the cliff. But when we screened the film for Paramount and DreamWorks in November last year, they decided that instead of releasing it in March they'd hold it till this December instead, which was great for us, because all of our films have always been down to the wire in terms of post [-production]."
"But what happened is that everyone who saw early screenings of the film ended up hating this guy with a passion—far more than I'd expected," Jackson says. "They really hated him! And we got a lot of people telling us that they were disappointed with his death scene, as they wanted him to see him in agony and suffer a lot more. It sounds terrible, but they really wanted him to suffer and be punished for what he'd done, and they just weren't satisfied. So we thought, what on earth can we do to fix this? Especially as it had been a long time since we'd finished shooting the film."
The obvious solution—re-shooting the death scene—wasn't an option, "as we couldn't get Stanley back for more filming, and we couldn't be too graphic," says Jackson. "So we came up with the idea of doing a digital fix on it, and as he falls down the cliff, I threw in two or three shots in where he bounces against the cliff face on the way down and then breaks bones against trees as he falls and then cracks his head against a rock. So, within the realms of PG-13, I tried to make him suffer more. So we had to create a whole 'suffering death' scene just to give people the satisfaction they needed at his demise."
Paramount nixes plan to expand 'The Lovely Bones' for Christmas
Source: Los Angeles Times
With critics and early moviegoers agreeing that Peter Jackson's chilling drama, "The Lovely Bones," is anything but lovely, Paramount Pictures has decided not to go forward with a plan to expand the movie this Friday wider than the three theaters where it is currently playing.
Instead, the studio is holding its marketing and distribution firepower for Jan. 15, when it will expand the adaptation of the bestselling novel nationwide and aim to attract its most promising audience: young females. Although the movie has some fairly intense moments, it is rated PG-13.
For now, "Bones" will keep playing at the three theaters in Los Angeles and New York City where, thus far, ticket sales have been weak. After debuting Dec. 11 with a modest three-day take of $116,616, receipts dropped 61% this past weekend to $45,097. After 12 days, it has collected just $218,774, a sign that word of mouth is as poor as reviews.
However, the latest research surveys indicate that girls between 13 and 20 have a strong interest in seeing the picture. It's the strongest-tracking movie with that audience coming out in the next month after this weekend's "Sherlock Holmes," which stars Robert Downey Jr. and is generating excitement with all demographic groups.
Until the heavy advertising campaign for "Bones" rolls out in early January, Paramount is screening the movie aggressively for high school and college girls.
Originally Paramount, which inherited the picture from former subsidiary DreamWorks, had expected "The Lovely Bones" to appeal to a sophisticated adult audience. However, test screenings this fall revealed that it wasn't adults but young females who reacted the most positively after seeing it.
Considering the early bad buzz, it remains to be seen whether young women will flock to "The Lovely Bones" in big enough numbers come January to justify Paramount's investment of $70 million in production and an additional $85 million in worldwide marketing and distribution.
This years Benjamin Button.
Sporadically interesting, but stilted and drenched in sentiment. Pretty much anything I can say about this film only echoes what the reviews have said so far... which is a shame because I went into it expecting to have a contrary reaction to the critical mass.
Maybe it's just that Jackson's visual technique doesn't vary much from film to film - what is complimentary in something like Lord of the Rings or King Kong (still my favorite film of '05), just feels insistent and out of place here. The whole time I just imagined what an incredible film this would have been had Lynne Ramsey been able to direct.
Wahlberg and Tucci give pretty terrific performances, but only because they are terrific actors... they almost seem untethered by a director who is more focused on post-production special effects than telling an actual human story.
I'm sure most folks here are already skeptical of this film, but I wasn't. Momentarily interesting but, ultimately, the biggest disappointment of '09.
Quote from: john on January 03, 2010, 10:51:56 PMWahlberg and Tucci give pretty terrific performances, but only because they are terrific actors.
Wahlberg is the man. One of my favorite actors. I have a hard time deciding if he's a good actor, though. He reminds me of Brad Pitt. Someone who isn't a very good actor, but always picks great scripts and works with awesome people.
Glad to see him get some love.
Quote from: Stefen on January 03, 2010, 10:59:57 PM
Wahlberg is the man. One of my favorite actors. I have a hard time deciding if he's a good actor, though. He reminds me of Brad Pitt. Someone who isn't a very good actor, but always picks great scripts and works with awesome people.
Glad to see him get some love.
Never thought of him that way, but it makes sense. Really, that's all I require in a good actor.... I don't really need someone to be able to change their physicality or the cadence of their voice. Accents and disguises aren't really that impressive but if you have an inherently interesting personality (or a blank enough one to properly project the director's intentions) you can probably win me over as an actor.
For example, in the commentary for Boogie, PTA says that Wahlberg wasn't really sure how to say the "you don't know what I'm gonna do... I have have good things.. etc..." speech to his mother and Anderson told him to just say it the way it feels right to him... and he fucking nails it. That's a quality you either have or you don't.
Wahlberg seems like the kind of actor that critics are reminded that they love every decade or so. Critics made a fuss about him in Boogie, then basically ignored him until The Departed but he's been continually terrific in between and since then.
Also... sorry if none of this made any sense. I acknowledge that I'm rambling. I fractured my hand and I'm fucking swimming on painkillers right now.
Mark Wahlberg is only awesome in the way that Nic Cage is awesome. They are both spectacularly bad sometimes, but sometimes they are actually really good. I think Mark Wahlberg has only been good with PT, Scorsese and David O.
Mark in The Happening: "With whom???"
Wahlberg? what..? no! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rq-7zEVuwI)
This is the biggest piece of shit I've ever seen. A complete mess. The tone is completely mishandled. People were laughing and boo-ing.
What a nightmare.
yeah this is really horrendous. i had to watch it in four sittings. Stanley Tucci is still great in spite of everything which is amazing. easily Mark's second worst performance. it's just maddening how wrong Jackson got the tone over and over and over. nearly every character speaks in this terrible drawn-out faux sincere voice.. there are moments that contradict the script like "I remember when I couldn't see over the edge of a table" CUT TO little girl clearly looking over the edge of a table. one or two bits are alright, but they're pretty much all when people aren't speaking. i'm really angry at this movie. this material could've been something amazing.
i noticed a little moment that sums up the problems pretty well: Peter Jackson's mini-cameo about midway through as a guy in a camera store waving around a camera. at first you think "that's nice. and what could be more appropriate?" but then the scene continues outside the camera store and you can still see him inside playing with the camera. just in the background, out of focus. and the actors are having a moment. he CAN'T be there to pay any attention! all for one little out of focus thing that doesn't matter! he got wound up in the camera and completely forgot about the actors/emotionality of the movie. such shit.
oh and there's a part where the girl playing Susie's sister (such a BULLSHIT performance) ADR's some heavy breathing, and the breathing is actually going "Wha?? Ahh." i have such contempt for this moment. from the way he tells this story, it's clear Peter Jackson thinks we're all dumb babies.
This movies a mess. The last hour makes no sense.
PJ needs to get fat.
I saw this too. I'm really shocked at how many bad choices PJ made here. The whole thing is shot from a kind of hazy distance which doesn't allow you to be present in the scenes. In the beginning you can't really enjoy Suzy being excited for her date because you already know she is going to be SPOILERS! raped and murdered before then. After the murder we only get faraway glimpses of the family dealing with the grief but never really feel what it was like for her sister or parents because the film spreads itself too thin keeping up with Suzy's afterlife and the murderer's latest creepy activity. The scene itself intercut with her family eating dinner and every time it cut to the family I hoped that would be enough and it would not cut back to her, but it continued to. For most of the movie I thought it was okay but the entire ending is just terrible. Also: what is up with the 70's rock tunes?
Quote from: Stefen on January 06, 2010, 05:07:56 AM
This movies a mess. The last hour makes no sense.
PJ needs to get fat.
^two for twosies. best review of this film so far.
It's been over a day since I saw this and I'm still pissed off. The most frustrating part is that it doesn't start off too bad. It stumbles a bit but you always feel like it's going to get going and everything is going to be alright, but it never does.
I have absolutely no idea what the point of the police detectives were. Did they do any sort of police work? All they seemed to do is tell the family they need to move on. Shittiest detectives ever. Where's the loose cannon who drinks too much and takes it upon himself to find the killer AT ALL COSTS?
Did the score EVER let up? Wahlberg could have farted down in the basement while playing with his model boats (HAHA) and the score would have swelled.
What was the Grandma's point in this? Was it just to give Sarandon a gig? She did nothing but smoke cigarettes and paint her toenails. And the little brother? Did he just disappear half-way through the movie? Their little boy goes missing but the family is so distraught about their daughter being missing that they don't even notice their other children are disappearing one at a time.
And how the hell did the sister and the dad ever find out that Harvey was the killer? It's like a gust of wind happens and then they go, "My god! It was Mr. Harvey!" then the score swells. AWFUL. I can't remember anyone finding any sort of clues. The sister breaks into the killers house and just happens to think to look for a loose floorboard and just happens to find it? Gimme a break.
And heaven? I'd be more entertained sitting in a dentists office reading the September 2005 issue of Good Housekeeping than I would being in heaven. How boring was that? $100 million for THAT? Gimme a break.
And by the end absolutely NOTHING gets resolved. That ending was a complete cop-out. What was the point of the corny foreign boy and that clairvoyant headcase chick anyways? Made no sense.
The death of Mr. Harvey feels so forced. Like it was tacked on at the last minute just because people were SO mad that nothing got resolved.
I'm pretty pissed off.
*spoils*
the novel makes all those things make sense. the seemingly useless characters have much bigger archs. it's really an anti-detective story because it's more concerned with how the family moves forward and what comes out of death rather than simply who gets justice/a whodunnit, even though at first it appears it'll be about finding the killer. jackson just completely fucked up the importance of everything.
Quote from: Stefen on January 06, 2010, 03:19:58 PMAnd heaven? I'd be more entertained sitting in a dentists office reading the September 2005 issue of Good Housekeeping than I would being in heaven. How boring was that? $100 million for THAT? Gimme a break.
IT'S NOT HEAVEN IT'S AN IN-BETWEEN DIMENSION
Quote from: picolas on January 06, 2010, 04:18:10 PM
*spoils*
the novel makes all those things make sense. the seemingly useless characters have much bigger archs. it's really an anti-detective story because it's more concerned with how the family moves forward and what comes out of death rather than simply who gets justice/a whodunnit, even though at first it appears it'll be about finding the killer. jackson just completely fucked up the importance of everything.
MORE SPOILS
Yeah, I had that feeling throughout the entire film. It felt that there were arguments for forgiveness and transcending pain and personal redemption following personal loss that would have won me over if they'd been articulated clearly, sensitively, and with a bit more insight... instead I just kept thinking "fuck that. An icicle? And everything's great because the wife flaked out then came back home... and the sensitive dude got his nut off with the weird girl? Doesn't chance that your daughter was still RAPED AND MURDERED" But I could have just as easily been convinced of all those things if Jackson had a better handle on any of it.
I still stand by Wahlberg and Tucci being totally solid motherfuckers, though.
I also was pretty disappointed with the score... the only high point was the cornfield scene where Eno incorporates that amazing, claustrophobic machine-gun guitar riff from Baby's On Fire over and over... but that shit is nearly forty years old. Find a new riff, Eno!
This was the worst movie I've seen in a long time. It's really disappointing because I like Peter Jackson a lot, and the book was all right (not great, but it had some nice moments and was entertaining).
SOME SPOILERS, BUT YOU ALREADY KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IN THE MOVIE ANYWAY SO WHATEVER
There are multiple moments of incredibly drawn out stuff intercut with other drawn out stuff, making it very tedious to watch. For example, when Mr. Harvey drags the safe to the landfill, it's intercut with Susie finally getting to heaven and then deciding to turn back so that she can mack on Ray through the other girl. It keeps cutting to Harvey maybe 10 times over a course of 5 or so minutes, and he's only rolling the safe about 15 feet. I don't need to see all 15 feet of that. In slow motion.
The movie holds on stuff like this forever, which forces the writers to cut out basically half of the story with all the other characters. They could have fit much more of the story lines in the film, and have the film make a lot more sense. As it is now, it's like a failed exercise in how far you can cut out and still be coherent. Genuinely baffling, considering how economical this team was in adapting The Lord of the Rings. They cut out the fact that Susie's mom runs off with the detective. As it is now, she's sorta gone and then she's back, and you don't even care--you barely remember she left... I think there was just a shot of her going into a taxi, then at the end of the film she comes back with a different haircut and everybody misses her. She had one of the more interesting emotional journeys in the book, and it's reduced to this.
Heaven/The "In-Between" doesn't even look very good! There's really bad CGI in this movie, which is so strange considering that it's from Peter Jackson! Was the post rushed or something? I don't just mean the stuff that could be argued wasn't supposed to look real, but also, for example, Mr. Harvey falling to his death. CLEARLY a CG body!
And as martinthewarrior said, the tone is completely mishandled. The editing is pretty bad, with way too many cuts and a strange pacing, rushing through certain parts and dragging other parts on forever. It's also kind of hilarious when Susie finally gets to heaven and is surrounded by all these young girls that Harvey killed (do they go to a special chamber of heaven and have to live with each other forever or what?) and that song from Lost Highway plays. Super distracting.
Every character is two-dimensionalized in this adaptation. Mr. Harvey is just a green-eyed, almost supernaturally creepy guy, and that's it. The family members are all character-less, except for the dad, whose hunt for the murderer is almost played for laughs ("Oh I think it's this guy. No wait it's this guy. I have his address, maybe I should just swing by his house. Would that be bad?"), and then he all of a sudden remembers that his neighbor is a total creep, so it must be him.
Susie's narration is also pretty lame. It's breathy for no reason, and has this faux wisdom that she never had when she was alive. Her relationship with Ray is pretty dumb. Rather than having it be anything like a real first romance, he is just reduced to being a perfect British prince. I seem to remember in the book, he was sort of awkward, which made the romance kind of charming. Now he just shows up at her locker and effectively says, "Girl, you fine," and thus is borne a romance that transcends Susie's death.
The only things that I liked about this movie were parts of Seoirse Ronan's performance (she's a really good actress and gives it her all, but can't always overcome the bad direction. She also pulls off a perfect American accent) and the repeated imagery of the super-close-ups on fingers, which I thought was an interesting choice of a repeated image to link up certain parts of the film. It evokes a sense that sometimes you have to handle things very carefully, and/or absorb feelings or an understanding through your fingers, which I thought was an idea that was appropriate for this film. Everything else, though: bad.
Quote from: matt35mm on January 08, 2010, 12:25:53 AMHeaven/The "In-Between" doesn't even look very good! There's really bad CGI in this movie, which is so strange considering that it's from Peter Jackson! Was the post rushed or something? I don't just mean the stuff that could be argued wasn't supposed to look real, but also, for example, Mr. Harvey falling to his death. CLEARLY a CG body!
Yes, the CGI at the end was TERRUBLE. It just felt lazy.
SPOILERS
That particular CGI was terrible because it was done late in the game and Stanley Tucci wasn't available to come back to film after audiences demanded a more violent death.
And a good directorial decision would have been: no, I will not let some Homer Simpson Falling Down The Gorge bullshit into my movie.
There are also some other bad CGI shots that I noticed, but I can't remember specifically what they were now.
Man, I have really low expectations now. Better or worse than Transformers 2?
Seriously, my gf is DEAD SET on seeing this movie and now I'm not so much wanting to......
haha, honestly, i owe her since i was responsible for dragging ourselves thru Nine for our Xmas day movie..... so, i'm surprised she didn't do the honors then.
"yeah, no no, it looks really good!" :ponder:
Hello. I haven't posted here in... a few years. The last time I posted was probably when I was about fifteen years old. Please don't judge me based on previous posts, as they are most likely dumb. In this situation, I would essentially ask that you pretend this is my first post. Since I was fifteen, occasionally I've lurked on this website, as there are definitely some opinions floating around here that I trust, and recommendations I'd like to follow up on. And I wouldn't have the urge to post something, except that I had a complete opposite reaction to this film than it seems almost anyone else did, or anyone else I've seen with a presence online. I was so surprised by the incredibly negative reactions that I became sort of distraught, and wanted to discuss the ideas present in the film. Last night at 3:00 am, I wrote out some of my ideas, and why I think the film is worthwhile, simply to get them out of my head. They are the following.
I find myself in the minority, and a vast one at that. Upon leaving the theater of The Lovely Bones, I felt enthralled and enchanted, for I had seen something that moved me on a deep level, and something that had provoked a lot of thought. Imagine my surprise when I found, out of curiosity, that almost no one else shared my feelings.
I think I am reacting most violently to Roger Ebert's review. Ebert is one critic I have found that, more often than not, I can trust. I feel he has an open mind, and a certain modesty, maybe, that makes his reviews not only more readable, but more sensible. In this case, I was not only proven wrong in my feelings of his criticism, but also offended.
This film tackles a subject that is becoming increasingly prevalent in our society, but as the film points out, it is not necessarily more relevant. The very topics of pedophiles and child killers are so taboo and disheartening that we both refuse to talk about it, and also yearn for so-called "justice." I feel like this film tackles the question of justice maturely and thoughtfully, through the means, mostly, of nature and faith.
One of the biggest questions we are forced to face in society, and a question that is uncomfortably essential for us as human beings, is that of the deserved death. What deserves death? When does a person's life need to be taken away from them, revoked? And when do we start to become killers ourselves, trying to dish out our own justice? These questions have been raised before in the cinema, and at certain times in The Lovely Bones, I was reminded of that past. There was a line I can't quite remember, but at some point someone (I believe it's the mother) asks what the point in hunting down the killer here is, as it won't bring Susie back to life. This harkened back to Lang's M, and its haunting last line. It is a question well worth asking.
What may have offended me most deeply about what Ebert said is that he made the claim that The Lovely Bones, by some slight of hand, advocated child molestation and murder, that Susie was treated to a better afterlife than anyone could dream of, and that if that's what it's like, we should all be raped and murdered today so as to move on. Such a statement could only be made by someone who paid the film no mind. First of all, what we see Susie in is a sort of purgatory, the "in between," and it is a place she does not want to be. Natural beauty, of course, means nothing if all you want is what you've previously had. I don't understand how someone can watch this film and see Susie as at peace with her situation.
Maybe Ebert was reacting to the enjoyment that was had while in the "in between," and maybe he's right. Maybe we can fault Peter Jackson for including shots of such pleasure in the midst of pain. I wouldn't, though. Those segments hint at what remnants of a theory of God have made their way into the story. Susie's purgatory, or in this case, pre-heaven, is made up of an ever-changing background of nature, and a side of nature that seems to be continually beautiful. This nature changes with Susie, maybe suggesting that we are all tied into this nature, or this God, and that every action we make has a consequence, and that nature, or God, will react. After all, (SPOILERS) it is nature that kills the murderer in the end, not the police, not the family, not the courts. He gets away, yet nature, or some associated force, won't let him continue.
There is no reason to make a film to simply regurgitate ideas. To make a film that is simply dark and downtrodden out of this material would be retreading territory that has not only been covered before, but perfected. When dealing with painful topics, even the most painful topics, I don't think we need to display them as needlessly hopeless. After all, what good does it do us to declare evil the victor? We must deal with our wretched world, and dealing with it in optimism, I don't think, is necessarily unproductive or futile.
I think Jackson has provided us with a film that is both enchanting and sad. I say this because it moved me on a personal level. I was near tears for almost the entire film, which a very subjective, unexplainable reaction. I don't know if The Lovely Bones' conclusions contain any revelations, nor do I know if they aspire to. I do know that, to me, its pieces held such potent human truths about grief, life, and the way we deal with tragedy and death that I was compelled to, for my own good, write out my feelings, at least those in opposition to the people who I feel missed some major points.
Good, very good post. I had written off this one from my ''to-see-before-jan-31-list'' but I've put it back on now.
man Xixax is doing good: great new blood (well, not really new per se but whatever), good long posts with actual meaningful stuff, some film discussions, the Xixax 2010 coming up. :bravo: love it!!!
'Lovely Bones' does about-face
Paramount revamps the marketing campaign for the Peter Jackson pic to go after young femmes.
Source: Variety
When a film opens poorly, it's usually impossible to stop the bleeding. The natural reaction is for filmmakers, producers and studios to begin assigning blame.
The case of Peter Jackson's"The Lovely Bones" is an exception.
Adapted from Alice Sebold's best-selling book, the film opened in several theaters to dismal numbers on Dec. 11. Paramount had positioned the movie as an awards contender, targeting adults. Few bit and the title seemed doomed.
But with Jackson's support, Paramount was able to do an about-face and completely revamp the marketing campaign and go after young femmes. The studio abandoned plans for an awards campaign and decided to wait until after Christmas to begin advertising in earnest.
Initial release plans called for "Lovely Bones" to add as many as 40 theaters on Christmas Day. But Par and Jackson's team decided to hold at only three theaters until expanding nationwide on Jan. 15, the beginning of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend.
It worked. "Lovely Bones" stunned box office observers in coming in No. 3 for the four-day weekend, grossing an estimated $20.5 million from 2,563 theaters for a total cume of $21 million.
Of the audience, a full 72% were female, while 40% were under the age of 20.
"I think they did an amazing job of changing gears from trying to sell a pre-sold literary title, to selling a film that appeals to younger females. Kudos to them for recognizing their weakness and turning it into a strength," one rival studio topper said.
There were several turning points: In early November, Jackson called Paramount vice chair Rob Moore to say he'd seen 20th Century Fox's "Avatar" and that "Avatar" was going to suck up all the oxygen at the box office once it opened Dec. 18.
Jackson suggested that they not open the film nationwide on Dec. 11, but just go out in a few theaters.
Around the same time in November, Paramount began surveying people in shopping malls about TV spots for the film. They fully expected to get the best reaction from adults, particularly older women.
How wrong they were. Instead, it was younger women and teenagers -- the "Twilight" crowd -- who were the most enthusiastic. Moore arranged for a test screening with this audience in Kansas City on Nov. 19 (coincidentally, Summit Entertainment's "New Moon" opened in midnight runs on Nov. 20).
Ken Kamins, Jackson's longtime manager and exec producer of "Lovely Bones," was at the screening. "The results were tremendous. That night was when the campaign began to change," he said.
If that's when the change began, the film's disappointing opening on Dec. 11 made it abundantly clear adults were no longer the target demo. And there was furious debate among critics as to Jackson's use of special effects in portraying heaven.
Yet it was the film's spiritual themes, and the father-daughter relationship, that younger females responded in particular to, Moore said. Par cut ads playing these up and began airing spots on female-skewing channels, including Lifetime and Lifetime Movie Network.
Studio also quickly attached a trailer of "Lovely Bones" to "New Moon."
"Lovely Bones" began as a DreamWorks project, when DreamWorks was owned by Paramount. When the companies divorced, the film went to Paramount.
"Paramount really put effort into developing a relationship with Peter, even with the awkwardness of the DreamWorks dynamic," said one person close to Jackson.
It also helped that Paramount brought on board former DreamWorks production head Adam Goodman as the studio's production prexy.
"We feel like we have a really good path with that audience," Kamins said, who also manages Jackson's producing partner, Fran Walsh.
"Lovely Bones" cost roughly $60 million to produce after tax credits. It's grossed $6.8 million at the international B.O. for a worldwide total of $27.8 million. Now the question becomes how well the film holds in its second life.
Yeah, lots of new members (new to posting frequently at least) have shown up and it really bodes well for this place going into the 2010's.
I stand by my criticism of this film but it is interesting to read Ebert's review and his take on the child molestation angle.
Over a year ago, I was reading the book, and some girl told me, "That's a great book." To which I replied, "Yeah, I wanted to read it before they ruined it with the movie." And while that remark at that time was said in jest, it turned out to be kinda true.
The film immediately deviates from the book, and it just felt wrong. I had hope after the death scene, where the film nicely sets up Suzie's inbetween world and the people she left behind. But the film dedicates far too much attention to the killer. And that wasn't the point of the novel. There's a scene where Suzie watches her sister's first kiss and she remarks how she would never be able to do that. That was the point of the book. And it's moments like that, and the relationship she has with her father, that the film gets right that are moving, emotional and perfectly captures the essence of the book's story. But those moments are few and far between. We never get a complete picture of how her family reacted to Suzie's death, coped with it (if they did), and moved on. What we do have is contrived and lazily explained with voiceover. The music (source and score) felt off, too. But what kept me interested throughout is Ronan. Jackson struck gold casting her, and she completely brings Suzie to life (pun intended) and makes the character her own.
I really wanted to forget the book and immerse myself in Jackson's version, but the book was less about To Catch A Predator.
Easily the worst film I've seen since The Happening. In all honesty I don't understand how PJ and team fucked this one with such epic solidity.
It's one bad choice after another. Full of illogical gigantic holes in the story, both narrative and emotional. I was particularly pissed off by Susan Sarandon's supposed comic relief and the girl's love interest. That guy was so bland and boring. "A Prince", really? Sarandon gets to do nothing but show up. Every other actor is wasted. This is a huge cast of people abandoned to their own devices. I guess I'm echoing what everyone already said but it's just weird that the film came so badly all over the place. The special effects are horrible, it's like you are living inside a screensaver.
Marquee:
Quote from: Alexandro on May 31, 2010, 07:43:28 PM
The special effects are horrible, it's like you are living inside a screensaver.
i don't think you understand the marquee..
great review tho.
i think PJ was high on Boyens' shrooms when he made this.
He was probably distraught over Guillermo Del Toro sleeping with his woman. It's nice to know from everyone's reactions to this that there's one more movie I don't have to bother seeing. Really takes the load off.
"Like you're living inside a screensaver" is a good marquee line by itself.
no mushroom trip I ever had looked like this, or avatar for that matter, that I'm only realizing is the first film I've heard someone (I think it was david faraci) say the "i'm looking at world's most expensive screensaver". What I'm sayin is a mushroom trip doesn't look like a screensaver.
And what i'm saying is the mushroom trip was impairing his decision making, not his visual style. :/
just like when guillermo del toro decided to walk away from a billion dollars for the same reason, and ended up talking to a garden gnome. Remember that, ppl? :/