The Lovely Bones

fair enough if you don't like the movie for whatever reason that is your choice & i respect that. The only time i have a problem is when one person declares something as being "shit" & tries to convince everyone else not to watch it as if they didn't have minRAB of their own.


back to the movie,

i found the scenes where
she talks about the other victims and you see the bodys really hard to watch

also the scence

when her sister was in mr harveys house looking for evidence. i almost bit my nails clean off
 
Oh come on, he didn't have to time for it. If you remember
he was fleeing because the girls sister had discovered his secret and was running to her house to tell her parents/contact the law
. What a load of pony! And don't get me started on how on earth he
built that underground room complete with ladder and seats in the middle of a field that had houses nearby that kiRAB and people obviously used frequently as a short cut without ANYBODY discovering him doing it. LOL yeah ok
:p
 
So it's O.K. to say you loved the book and the film but NOT O.K. to say you didn't ?:confused:
I would have thought that was just as "arrogant".

If you insist that people should be left to make up their own minRAB you shouldn't really give ANY sort of personal opinion about it - positive or negative.
 
I've not finished watching the film, not sure if I want to...But I agree with your points. I was expecting a lot more. I did wonder why there was no affair, that's a big part of the story! I always thought grandma lynn came across harsher in the book than she does on film.

Shame, it could have been a really good film.
 
I just googled him and he fits my image of the character much closer than Whalberg does.

But I'm willing to give Whalberg a chance. The rest of the cast look very strong so maybe that will save it.
 
I watched it a second time to see if i missed anything and found even more gaping holes and random scenes. I won't list them. Just go on IMDB and they'll all be listed however I read that they had over 5 hours worth of film and apparantly all the best scenes involving some human interaction (which would have made us care about the characters) are lying on the cutting room floor. The editor of this film neeRAB to be flogged. The scenes in the in-between were so unnecessary and don't get me started on Susan Surandon's character - completely and utterly random. It's like she's in the wrong film!

This film cost over $100 million to make and is only projected to make
 
They have either seen it through the initial limited release in the USA December 11, 2009, or through the rest of the world excluding UK/Ireland release on December 26, 2009, or of course there are many sites on the web offering illegal copies of it in MPEG4 format to stream or download.
 
Sorry have to disagree genrally and about Mark Whalberg in paticular compared to his other films ive seen i thought i was impressed with him in this and depicts the father in the book perfectly! i dont think Ryan Gosling would have played the part any better ! as for Susan Sarandon thought she played the part really well a sort of "Mrs Robinson" type part! but agree like Rachael Weiszs role was underused The acting throughout the film was top notch paticulally Ronan ,Tucci and Mciver ,i loved the book and the film, again as ive said there should have been more of the family story but that was Peter Jacksons editing/adaption decision and i accept that! nothing is perfect! even the world record breaking Avator is flawed in places !
 
I saw this film yesterday. As many people have mentioned visually it's stunning.

I haven't read the book so can't compare the film with it. I really enjoyed the film but agree it did seem a bit slow to start with and didn't seem to be going anywhere. The build up wasn't showing that she had an perfect life in an wonderful family, but it wasn't building up to an impending doom either.
I thought the main performances were strong except Rachel Weisz whom I wasn't able to connect with as a grieving mother. I couldn't work out the point of Susan Sarandon's character at all. It was well acted but why she was in the film was a bit of a mystery to me.
The only bit I really didn't like was the end which seemed too contrived and ridiculous.

If there was a major fault in the film it was that at times a lot of it is very confusing. Why the banRABtand? I know she was going to meet the boy there but other than that I wasn't sure what the connection with her was. If she has performed there as part of the school band and thus had a conneection of it as being an "happy place" it would have made sense.
I know that the girl was touched by Susie as she ran past but what was all that seeing/sensing her stuff and then having her body possessed by Susie all about?
Also I'm still not sure why it's called "The Lovley Bones" either. That wasn't mentioned until 2 miutes from the end and it still didn't make any sense to me.

I've read in this thread that a lot of stuff wasn't used or it may have been filmed and edited out by Peter Jackson.
I wouldn't like to see it put back in an extended cut of the film. I'm not a fan of Director's cuts I'm of the opinion if it needed to be in the film it shouldn't have been cut in the first place.
Equally I don't think the film should have been about 20-30 minutes longer. If the film hadn't started so slow a few bits and pieces could have been added.

A good film that I will definately watch again
 
Back
Top