The Lovely Bones

Stunning sfx but there's a lot wrong with the film. We could be here all day discussing the major flaws. Like for example how did
the killer get the safe onto the back of his pick-up truck alone
??? A decent watch but unsatisfactory.
 
he has been woeful in everything i have seen him in. of course if he is any good in it i will take back what i said.

i imagined someone like Greg Kinnear as Jack Salmon. I don't know why but he just popped into my head.
 
This film is truly one of the best films I have seen for a while. It was just brilliantly shot and paced.

I am now half way through the book, and although I can see the differences, I still think this film deserves to be seen, and really stanRAB up well on its own.
 
I think the last 2 comments of this film is typical of some of the reviews as its a film one will love or hate ..the film has many omissions from the book but adaptions are like that and i think Peter Jackson has made a good job of book to film ! in any case ..films are personal .....what annoys me is that one can view the film online for some reason long before its out at the british cinemas!!.. another case for saying why is it so far behind the usa australia and new zealand for its main viewing at the cinema ..so im not suprised if the film doesnt take at the box office ..as much as it should !
 
just saw this , it's very annoying , very repetitive .

Jackson really gets in the way of the story , every scene has all these fancy camera moves and cross-cutting , slow-mo etc..
and it repeats things over and over

and why mark wahlberg keeps getting work is beyond me .
 
She didnt get away. She was raped and murdered in the book but they chose not to show this onscreen. Obviously she was murdered, which is why she's in some kind of purgatory.
 
This film has leaked online, 100% perfect copies so last night i decided to watch it.


Wow is so rubbish!.

There is such a thing as too much CGI and in the scenes where she is is stuck in between heaven and earth she just runs around doing nothing much at all.


The CGI distracts from the actual story and is pointless , also because its so badly done (they dont want to show how she is murdered) it takes about 3 mins to realize she has actually died.


Even tho she is a victim you feel nothing for her plight as its so poorly done, now that sums up for me how bad it is when a 13 year old is murdered and i feel nothing.
 
I tell you something the scenes in the bathroom and underground den are unsuitable for under 12s and if my daughter was that age i wouldnt let her or advise anyone s daughter to see the film.....!!!if PJ had been braver and made the film at least a 15 he perhaps would have made a longer or more adventerous film...again its the film companies greed in trying to get a wider and younger audience for the films they release !
 
A 15 rating would have been a good compromise but the studios want to make as much money as possible which is why so many films are rated 12A now. I'm still horrified The Dark Knight got a 12A rating - fantastic film but not remotely suitable for kiRAB.

Film ratings are all about greed.
 
thanks. I figured this out straight after posting:o

I thought that scene was in the film because of something someone said on here, comparing it to 'the killer inside me'...can't remember the direct quote.
 
I am sorry to be going against the trend - I think this is the most abysmal film I have seen in ages. I have read, and enjoyed the book. Went to the film with a couple of frienRAB who had not read the book. We all felt it was utter garbage.
I said that if i had not been the driver I would have walked out, my frienRAB said they wished I had as they would have come with me!!
The only saving grace for me was Susan Sarandon's mint performance as the Granny from Hell - she deserves a comedy award. Other than this, total waste of an evening and the price of the tickets.
 
I was really dissapointed after looking forward to it for quite a while. One case where I should have listened to the many reviews panning it.

Only Peter Jackson's cinematography and Stanley Tucci's performance elevated it over some random made-for-TV Lifetime movie.

Some terrible scenes (2 minute comedy granny montage out of nowhere :confused: ), cringey dialogue and awful acting (hello Reece Ritchie)

4/10
 
Ryan Gosling was originally cast but I think he's too young.

I don't know who I'd like to play the role, but neither Gosling or Wahlberg seem to fit ... I'll be happy to be proved wrong though :)
 
He was awful. It also didn't help that he was far too old to be paired with Saoirse Ronan and as a result had a creepier vibe to him than Stanley Tucci's paedophile character.

In the book Ray is a lovely character but since the movie miscast him horribly and cut out everything to do with the character that gave him any depth at all (Ray being suspected of Susie's murder), he seemed shallow, creepy and pointless in the movie.

There must have been some unknown actor in need of a big break who could have been given the role because this is one of the worst cases of miscastings EVER.
 
Have to agree with this totally. I think Mark Wahlberg was woefully mis-cast for starters and Susan Sarandon was criminally underused.

Susie's killer, although well acted, was nothing more than your run of the mill loner weirdo. Can't say I was overly keen on the book, but it was certainly better than the film.
 
this is a beautiful, moving story. and i think that peter jackson will capture the feel, he has been wanting to make this film for so long, i expect it to be a labour of love for him.
 
I thought this was one of the worst book to film adaptations I've seen. The book was so complex and I never thought it would translate well to a movie and Peter Jackson just made it about his own ego in the end. Too much style and not enough substance. Some horrible casting choices and a few cases of terrible acting too (Reece Ritchie in particular).

I still can't believe they cut out the whole storyline of Abigail's affair, which was so vital to all the characters. It's a total joke it was allowed to be cut, and for what? More pointless scenes of Susie hanging out in the Inbetween? Yes, the special effects were gorgeous but too much of the story was sacrificed to make way for them. Rachel Weisz and Susan Sarandon could have brought so much to the movie and the characters they were playing, but Rachel Weisz's scenes were cut and Jackson turned Grandmother Lynn into a cheap joke and made it so she was pointless and didn't fit in with the rest of the film.

I'm still really disappointed by how this turned out. I did TRY to be open minded because I knew it would be a very difficult story to get even close to being right, but Jackson butchered it. The only truly bright spots about the sorry mess were Saoirse Ronan and Stanley Tucci.

One of the biggest wasted opportunities ever, this film. :(
 
Back
Top