Wow, I thought I was harsh on The Lovely Bones. Read what Roger Ebert has to say and learn the meaning of harsh. Here's a bit that recalls something I wrote in my own review though:
"It's based on the best-seller by Alice Sebold that everybody seemed to be reading a couple of years ago. I hope it's not faithful to the book; if it is, millions of Americans are scary."
Ha! I like Roger have not read the book, so I don't know for sure, but I doubted my ability to connect to the material from the start. Shimmery heaven nonsense usually leaves me cold. I thought maybe Peter Jackson could make it not so... but I was wrong. The last line of Roger's review about sums it up why. Just a fundamental disconnect with the entire idea of the story.
.
Posts
2 comments:
Pity that you didn't like it, since I did. Ebert not liking it doesn't mean much for me.
POTENTIAL SPOILERS: I don't think this movie is getting a fair shake. I concede fully that the tone is all over the place (I don't mind) and that the fantasy interludes could have been toned down. However, I think it's unfair to assert with authority that the point of the movie is that Susie is now off to frolick with the other victims for all eternity. We don't know what comes next for her. She was in the "in between." The spirits of the other victims (to the extent that's even who they REALLY were) were simply there to guide her through the process of accepting what had happened to her and making peace with the earthly delights she'll miss or never even got the chance to know. Who knows what comes next for her. The reception this movie is receiving reminds me a lot of the reception I've read about for another movie with an inconsistent tone and with a unique perspective on how a child might view the world -- Night of the Hunter. The scene of Susie in her killer's bathroom was just as haunting as the scene of Shelly Winters underwater. I wonder if people will be re-evaluating their opinions of TLB in teh future, just as they did with NotH. Just my two cents.
Post a Comment