The Lovely Bones

[picolas]

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.

[pete]

I read the book and that part of the book is hardly pivotal.

[03]

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.

[MacGuffin]

[MacGuffin]

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.

[MacGuffin]

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."

[MacGuffin]

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.

[john]

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.

[Stefen]

Wahlberg 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.

[john]

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.

[modage]

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???"

[Pozer]

Wahlberg? what..? no!  

[martinthewarrior]

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.

[picolas]

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.

[Stefen]

This movies a mess. The last hour makes no sense.

PJ needs to get fat.