A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Oscar
Pic not from Q&A
You know, we have become far too dependent on the early word of a handful of people who see movies early. It’s really as simple as that. What is the need to be so quick on a judgment as to whether a film is good or bad, thumbs up or down, in or out? It’s a sick process and it will do to the Oscar race what finding a great President has done to the political system; we should not be looking at films that can win, but rather, films that are brilliant. Of course, we’re not going to agree on those films. The one we all can agree upon is usually your winner. However, with ten nominees, there should be some great films represented in the mix. Successful films, artistically daring films, comedies, dramas — with ten slots, this group can reward the kind of movies that keep the industry in stead, and it can reward the kind of films that have the audacity to be original, whether they are “Oscar movies” or not.
I’m thinking specifically of the unusual, unforgettable Lovely Bones, which I saw last night. True, it helps to have the whole cast on stage answering questions, with Peter Jackson and my own personal hero, Fran Walsh, but I could have been at a multiplex in Tarzana and had the same reaction to this movie: it was unlike anything I’d ever seen before, and yet, it was a faithful rendition of the book.
I am seeing a possible Scripter nod for this film and I hope the WGA acknowledges what a challenging adaptation that was – to hover between worlds in the 1970s, to visit the “in between” – which may or may not be real, but is a fairly good imagining of what might happen to the soul (I say this as a proud non-believer).
Peter Jackson doesn’t have to prove anything to anyone. Like Jim Cameron, he has already made billions. He has won Oscars. He is now where he was at the start of his career, in the zone of creating artful entertainment – bobbing in and out of different genres at will – only now he has better technology to express his vivid imagination. My first thought watching the Lovely Bones, and Invictus for that matter, is that Oscar season is where great films go to die. Why do we kill them off because they don’t fit the mold of we all expect an “Oscar movie” to be? I wasn’t expecting anything from Jackson except, perhaps, lowered expectations from some of the reviews I’d read. It’s a mess, it’s all over the place, it’s not a great movie, etc. Wrong, wrong, wrong. To me anyway. But, full disclosure: I say this as a Peter Jackson fan. I loved King Kong too.
If you’ve read the novel, you know basically how The Lovely Bones plays out, one unbearable detail after another as a vibrant seedling of a young girl is plucked violently from the earth. The murdered girl still hovers in her home town, still aches after the boy she almost kissed, still reaches out to touch her father, who can’t let go. The murder tears apart her family, turns her mother catatonic and sends her father on a hopeless quest to find her killer – he is among them, he knows, but at some point every man starts to look guilty.
Not much is required of Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz and Susan Sarandon – they are all very good in their parts. But this film is all on Stanley Tucci – who has never been fucking better as the serial killer, and the breathtaking Saoirse Ronan as Suzie Salmon. The thing about a good film is that it can be forgiven for its minor missteps if it doesn’t screw up in the key moments (as a screenwriting teacher once told me).
What Peter Jackson does, working with a great sound team, is create the perfect wail of a desperate, helpless child. If you are a mother you will recognize it right off and it will haunt you, as it undoubtedly already has in those fragile moments when a child moves too close to danger – when fear takes hold, everything else strips away and there is that scream, level 10 fear. Ronan does it perfectly and when you hear it, if you’re a parent, it will make your heart skip a beat.
This isn’t a film about crime solving, and it isn’t strictly a fantasy about “Heaven,” (“No, it’s Iowa”). It’s a film about the tragedy of life. Some people are lucky enough to live it. It’s also about giving life to the victim when their identity becomes one line in a news story about a murderous pedophile. You hear the details of it, you feel the anger rising, and yet – there it is, another dead girl. Or boy.
Someone asked me on Twitter whom they felt this movie was for. Another said it made him want to blow his brains out. And still others were excited to hear that I thought it was great. I can’t speak for anyone else – and I figure, it will have a tough time in the Oscar race because the Oscar race is, pretty much, judged by those who are limited by their inability to use their own imagination anymore. It is no good to bring something to the film –a participatory brain, for instance. It all must be handed to you on a platter. So of course most of the movies coming up for Oscar, especially if they are artistically daring and step outside the box, will fall short. But remember, the brain is one’s most useful organ. Right up there with the heart.
Finally, two filmmakers have used this song – David Lynch and now Peter Jackson. How can one not be moved.
Alex in Movieland says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 9:58am
finally something good!!!
I’m sure I’m gonna love it.
not my intention to trivialize it with an Oscar question, but: what are Saoirse’s real chances of getting a nom?
and is it also a threat in the Costume Design department?
Ibrahim says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 10:04am
I can’t tell you Sasha, how relieved I am to read your thoughts on this film. Even though I have been reading all these negative reviews, I still feel that I will enjoy this film. Peter Jackson hasn’t faulted in my eyes yet and I know he will deliver some good things with this film even if it isn’t a masterpiece like LOTR. At this point I really don’t care if it doesn’t do well with the Oscars. All I want is to watch a film that will move me, make me feel something special and stick in my mind long enough to want to revisit it numerous times.
Eric Arvin says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 10:07am
Great review!
Karl says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 10:12am
Amazing assessment Sasha! I absolutely cannot wait to see this. It’s so true that to often Oscar predictors end up boxing films in. If The Lovely Bones doesn’t fit the so called Oscar mold, all the better!
I also really love that song Desert Sex!
Nick Plowman says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 10:16am
Yeah, colour me honestly *excited* to see this, which I can’t truly say for the majority of the other “contenders” left that I have yet to see.
Ken says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 10:45am
That song is a cover of Tim Buckley’s “Song to the Siren,” I believe.
And yeah, you’ve renewed my interest in this movie.
FromChelseaManhattan says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 11:08am
Sasha, you put it very well by saying “it will have a tough time in the Oscar race because the Oscar race is, pretty much, judged by those who are limited by their inability to use their own imagination anymore”
If that family-value (!) based mediocre movie Blind Side gets nomination over Lovely Bones that would say a lot about the abilities or inabilities of those Oscar voters!
Sasha Stone says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 11:09am
I don’t know about TLB and Oscar. I can’t really speak to that, honestly, because the Oscar race amounts to such middling choices very often – figure if your taste isn’t like 5,000 other people’s then chances are it won’t make the cut. If I were voting I would give nods for TLB Best Actress, Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adaptation (in a big way, but you have to know the book to appreciate it, I think), Best Cinematography (holy cow), Best Visual Effects, Costume, Art Direction and of course, Best Supporting Actor – hell, Stanley Tucci should WIN this.
ORDINARY COW says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 11:19am
OSCAR NOMINATIONS, The Lovely Bones:
1. Picture
2. Supporting Actor
3. Cinematography
4. Film Editing
5. Sound
6. Visual FX
7. Sound FX
8. Score
9. Art Direction
Paddy M says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 11:23am
Although the negative buzz which is already surrounding TLB might just be too much to get Tucci that nom, Sasha. I think that, considering the acclaim which has greeted his performance in Julie & Julia, it might win out. If TLB absolutely nosedives, voters will probably be quick to overlook his performance in it, in favor of drumming up as many votes as possible for his performance in J&J.
But I, like you Sasha, wouldn’t underestimate TLB just yet. This very post is another piece in the puzzle of its road to the Oscars; whether or not that turns out to be a successful road, this is a positive piece nonetheless.
And on your point about middling tastes meaning that it probably won’t make it, think back two years…remember when you said that you didn’t think There Will Be Blood wouldn’t make it? That it would go the route of Children of Men the year before? I know TLB isn’t quite on the same route as those two, but your point then was similar to your point now, imo: that the film in question just won’t be to AMPAS’s tastes. TTWB made one hell of a splash in the end…
Mony says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 11:33am
Agreed, I don’t let critics views affect my thougths on a movie., if I want to see I film I am going to see it, esp since I am so picky in the movies I choose to see.
I am glad you liked it. I have been hearing a lot of good things about Saoirse and Stanley’s performances. So you think Saoirse could go in Best actress race? Cool. I love that at such a young age, critics love her performances.
You are right, Hollywood doesn’t use their imagination anymore, everything is a remake of old movies (some that should stay as a classic), or a sequel of crappy movies that shouldn’t have been made.
Candice Frederick says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 11:41am
ah, i am really psyched to see this film! if abigail breslin can get a nod for little miss sunshine I truly think Saoirse can for this film as well.
Stanley Tucci is a great actor so I can see him knocking it out of the ballpark in this film. i would love to see the enture film represented at the oscars.
daveylow says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 11:41am
Sasha, When you really, really like a movie, I usually agree with you. So I am so excited to hear what you had to say about The Lovely Bones.
I won’t be seeing it until it opens but I can’t wait now.
And you’re so right about Oscars and choosing middling choices. Otherwise, films like Bright Star wouldn’t be on the sidelines.
Well even if this isn’t an Oscar success maybe Bones will become a cult favorite.
Sarah El says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 11:57am
I’m so glad to hear a positive review for The Lovely Bones. I read the book for the first time nearly six years ago now and stayed up until 9am to finish it and cried crazily – it was just so touching. And then when I saw the preview, it brought me to tears again it just reminded me so strongly of how deeply I loved the book. Unfortunately, what has come after have been mostly mixed reviews that make me worry that it won’t live up to what I wanted it to be, but the way you’ve phrased it, this review, has reinstalled faith in me that I will still love the movie, even if not everyone else does, even if it does get snubbed at the Oscars.
I think those are the best films, personally, the ones that aren’t being raised up on a platform, that aren’t being awards-talked to death, that don’t have straight across the board good reviews. Not to say those movies aren’t also often great. But no matter what the reviews told me, I was going to see The Lovely Bones anyway, and there are unfortunately not enough movies I decide are worth that chance.
Mike says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 12:04pm
I’m excited to this this at a screening this afternoon and even more so after reading your thoughts.
I find it slightly disturbing too how there tends to be this increasingly anxious hope that this big year end films like NINE and THE LOVELY BONES fail. Why?
Is it because of our innate desire to see the underdog win? Or are we as Oscarwatchers (and probably more often than not, “aspiring somethings” in the biz) just relieved and less threatened when films that somehow typify the projects we all really dream of working on go to the wayside.
Its a bizarre mentality – and one I also see in the theatre business (the delight by the other members of the theatrical community when a new production ‘flops.’)
Its so twisted of course because when these projects fail it only makes it more difficult to produce something similar, in the process denying work to a lot more potential artists than a lot of the smaller films that ultimately get championed.
Seems like there should be room to celebrate both — and I too am hoping that the 10 nominee set up allows for a bigger ‘celebration’ of all examples of the year’s craft.
Jesse Jackson says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 12:17pm
I saw this in a screening of 400+ people and nearly everyone hated it or was indifferent. It’s the kind of film that might move 1 in 10 people but its such a hack-job editorially and so overdone by Jackson that, despite the subject matter, it really fails to resonate emotionally. I really think Sasha’s screening experience would’ve been quite different were PJ and co. not there.
bambi says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 12:33pm
Main criticism about this movie is that it doesn`t connect emotionally and it`s a CGI overkill. This doesn`t bode well for anything other than CGI and Tucci in BSA since we aren`t supposed to connect with him anyway outside of hating his evil character (which apaprently works hence the ending change where he suffers more because test audience demanded it).
LB`s main problem aren`t mixed reviews since The Reader thought that they don`t matter. It is that ridiculous $100 mio budget and marketing on top that they have to earn back in North America (Oscars really don`t give a shit about New Zealand opening weekend which must be stellar since people over there have patriotic duty to watch Jackson movies or something). And the WOM is mixed among people who didn`t read the book and downright awful among fans of the book. In short, they shot themselves in the foot with such ludacris budget that the story itself really doesn`t need. I mean, hello, District 9 was made for $30 mio, why is this thing $100 mio? Who bought a new mansion?
I have a feeling that defenders have bigger soft spot for Jackson and co than the movie itself. It`s like, Oh, no, such nice people cannot get bad reviews, not fair. Whatever. Book was shit so the movie couldn`t be a masterpiece thanks to that flaw alone. I`m sure it`s much better than the book but it isn`t saying much.
qwiggles says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 12:39pm
“I figure, it will have a tough time in the Oscar race because the Oscar race is, pretty much, judged by those who are limited by their inability to use their own imagination anymore. It is no good to bring something to the film –a participatory brain, for instance. It all must be handed to you on a platter.”
Come on — that “pretty much” is a bit too broad, isn’t it? Just last year they nominated Benjamin Button, which, whether you happened to like it or not (and I know you specifically did), was nothing if not a win for the imagination. The year before we had both No Country and TWBB among the nominees — both set in superbly realized, fully formed worlds, and both daring films with thought-provoking, bold endings that handed nothing on a platter. And ROTK got a nice big awards hug for its expansive vision.
Your TLB love might be rewarded with serious Academy consideration, but I don’t know that if it misses, it’ll simply be proof that the Academy has no “participatory brains.” Pedestrian as the overall group might look, very year, they surprise SOMEwhere. If TLB strikes out, it could just as easily be because they weren’t affected by it as much as you were, as because they had some sort of imaginative deficiency.
Dave says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 12:58pm
Thank God! I’m so excited now. Love you Sasha
Brian says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 1:32pm
The first paragraph of this article contains a bulls-eye of insight into the “Oscar Mindset.”
I’d be interested to hear you elaborate even more on the ideas you present there.
*Oscar Worthy vs Just Simply Brilliant
*Quick to judge as good or bad, thumbs up or down, in or out
*The Oscar Race turning into a political campaign
*There’s something for everybody, and that’s a good thing : )
One of the best pieces you’ve written..
Bravo
Keep it up…
bambi says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 1:46pm
I find the defense of Jackson misfire to be hilarious. You know that the movie doesn`t work when it`s viewer`s “fault” for not getting it or liking it. If LB doesn`t get a BP nom (since win is out of question), it won`t be because it`s too smart or ahead of its time or whatever. It`ll be because something`s lost in the communication. It didn`t click, Blind Side did. It didn`t emotionally connect, Blind Side did. Simple, easy to understand.
Oh, and as much as some defenders want to believe this is some kind of masterpiece that will be recognized late in life like Blade Runner,etc, lol, but doesn`t sound like it. Sour grapes. Just acept that everyone stumbles once in a while. No big deal as long as one learns from mistakes. Looks like King Kong tought Jackson that overlong is wrong so LB has reasonable length. Now all he has to do is tone down the budget and effects and go back to story-telling.
Joe C. says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 2:08pm
The reviewer says that the movie is great. I’m glad that the film fine tunes the nitty gritty of the horrors of life and what life can be when you lose somebody. It’s quite touching article.
Joe C. says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 2:09pm
Jackson is certainly a visual learner as well as a audio learner, making him the finest of the decade.
Bob Burns says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 2:42pm
The afterlife is one of the greatest and most difficult subjects since man began creating art. I’ve been studying Baroque architecture for months and have been immersed in the visions of those artists – already half unintelligible to most of us.
I can’t think of a convincing cinematic portrayal – one that did not have quotation marks of the type Jackson dispensed with for the fantasy world of LotR. I look very much forward to seeing this attempt….
Dominik says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 2:46pm
So you are saying, Sasha, that the critics who dislike TLB have lost their sense of imagination?
Truly??
Your review reads like the “ultima ratio opinion” about this movie – that leaves me sceptical.
menyc says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 3:04pm
The song deserves to be credited properly:
Song To The Siren by This Mortal Coil
vocals: Elizabeth Fraser (of Cocteau Twins)
It is a Tim Buckley cover. TMC was the 80s “house band”
for the English label, 4AD (which still is going strong).
If anyone likes this: TMC and Cocteau Twins are STRONGLY recommended. I have not seen TheLovelyBones, but have read that other Elizabeth Fraser song(s) are included.
menyc says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 3:08pm
bambi:
ludicrous is a word
ludicrus is a hiphop artist
Leone says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 3:17pm
I agree with your thoughts on THE LOVELY BONES, Sasha. It was breathtaking and totally original in every way. The film should make a showing at the Oscars despite divisive reviews. Other films have – like THE READER, and that’s when there were only 5 slots. Critics vote on top ten lists, not the Oscars, and there are some movies that can transcend mixed early reviews. I think THE LOVELY BONES is one of them because it satisfies and impresses on every level for me. I was at a SAG screening and most of my peers seemed to agree.
brad says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 4:07pm
Sasha – i think your review was very fair having seen the film myself. The Lovely Bones/film is Jackson’s interpretation of the book. Anyone that has read the book would know immediately that this book isn’t an easy adaptation nor is it one that will please every reader since the majority of book takes place somewhere none of has been! What I had in my head when imagining “the in-between” is what I had in my head. Peter Jackson is a director, not a mind reader. He directed what he had in his head and I think its kind of genius.
Pablo (Col) says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 4:33pm
I definitively love the way you write. Utterly inspiring what you think of Hollywood in itself and of movies. I cant be more agree with you. The ignorant who tinks Oscar winners and nominees are the only masterpieces, or that those are all masterpieces, have to open their eyes and see that the planet is much bigger than what they thought it was. Feel before seeing, feel before judging. I think.
John says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 5:27pm
This is why I don’t understand the idea that critics ALWAYS influence what get’s nominated for BP.
The Reader got in. I don’t think that a majority of the elder voters and Winslet lovers gave 2 sh*ts about reviews.
And with ‘The Lovely Bones’. It is going to get mixed reviews (plenty of bad).
But do SAG, PGA, DGA, WGA, Editors, Cinematographers, Art Directors, Costumers, Sound, FX, Music care that critics didn’t like it?
No. They’re gonna vote for what seems best of their craft(s), and overall.
It’s rare that a film gets lots of noms but doesn’t get in BP (especially with 10 slots). The most recent example I can think of where this happened was ‘Dreamgirls’, 8 noms but no BP. But you know in a year of 10, that would have gotten in; as would have ‘Cold Mountain’, ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind’ etc. etc..
This is why I still think that ‘The Lovely Bones’ has a shot for Top 10. I think. I hope. We’ll see.
(The Real) Dan says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 5:30pm
I’m so thrilled Sasha loved this! She has great taste!
But I still don’t fully understand how opinions can be so different of this film. It’s SO weird.
John Villeneuve says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 6:10pm
What a treat that you posted this Cocteau Twins song Sasha…I have not heard it in ages. For me when asked what my favorite songs of all time are, I always say, Joy Division’s, Love will Tear Us Apart, and Song to the Siren. I think the lyrics are worth sharing with everyone (written by the father of the hopelessly beautiful, Jeff Buckley):
On the floating, shapeless oceans
I did all my best to smile
til your singing eyes and fingers
drew me loving into your eyes.
And you sang “Sail to me, sail to me;
Let me enfold you.”
Here I am, here I am waiting to hold you.
Did I dream you dreamed about me?
Were you here when I was full sail?
Now my foolish boat is leaning, broken love lost on your rocks.
For you sang, “Touch me not, touch me not, come back tomorrow.”
Oh my heart, oh my heart shies from the sorrow.
I’m as puzzled as a newborn child.
I’m as riddled as the tide.
Should I stand amid the breakers?
Or shall I lie with death my bride?
Hear me sing: “Swim to me, swim to me, let me enfold you.”
“Here I am. Here I am, waiting to hold you
Go 4AD
mark says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 6:13pm
There have been some positive reviews namely Empire and Total Film in the UK. both giving the movie 4/5 stars. the negative reviews seem to focus on the wrong point of view. some have called the heaven sequences ‘coy’ and ‘child like’ – well its the heaven of a 14 year old girl! as for people bemoaning jacksons use of cgi – its peter jackson and unlike other big name directors, he uses cgi better than most. and he uses it to add and to round off scenes all the time. i am eagerly awaiting the lovely bones, jackons ability to get the best out of difficult source material.
menyc says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 8:27pm
John V: I’m crazy for you, but it is NOT a Cocteau Twins record, it’s a This Mortal Coil record with CT vocalist Elizabeth Fraser).
Sorry, but I know you like accuracy and detail orientation. So had to do it. Cheers.
Sasha Stone says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 8:54pm
Yes, This Mortal Coil!
unlikelyhood says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 10:09pm
ludicrous is a word
ludicrus is a hiphop artist
Someone has to say it: Ludacris is a hiphop artist. Ludicrust could maybe be a Ben & Jerry’s flavor?
Well-earned praise Sasha – I mean for your writing, I haven’t seen the film. You know, the voters seem to need a sentimental in, a place to feel forgiven and good about themselves for trying – even trying avant-garde if that’s what it is. They didn’t have that with, say, The Woodsman (Kevin Bacon as pedophile). It’s a shame particularly now that indie film is on life support.
To Bambi says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 10:32pm
Spoiler Alert:
I agree the book is a piece of shit so the movie only could be better. The movie will be better if they take out the part in the book where she takes over a body of a girl who she barely knows but intstead of first going to her family to say goodbye or to tell someone where her killer is to help catch him before he kills again she decides to have sex with a boy she hardly knew. This is the same 14 year old girl who was brutally raped and murdered. The book was alright up until that point when it became one of the worst books i have ever read.
Mickzilla says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 10:41pm
I hope I agree with you and you had me until you said you were a fan of Jackson’s King Kong. For one thing, it needed to be shorter. Every action scene seemed just long enough (or more) to start thinking about how implausible they were. But I like PJ and am hoping to like Bones.
ladylurks says:
Monday, December 7, 2009 at 1:24am
Great writeup, Sasha. So glad you loved it.
On a different note, now that nearly all the BFCA scores are in (though some are still bouncing around), maybe it’s time to revisit the top Oscar contenders.
Me and Orson Welles – 100
Up – 100
Up in the Air – 97
An Education – 95
The Hurt Locker – 93
Star Trek – 93
(500) Days of Summer – 92
Inglourious Basterds – 91
Precious – 89
Julie & Julia – 88
Crazy Heart – 87
District 9 – 87
A Serious Man – 86
The Blind Side – 85
The Messenger – 85
The Informant! – 83
Invictus – 83
The Last Station – 81
It’s Complicated – 80
Nine – 80
Brothers – 79
The Road – 79
Sherlock Holmes – 79
Bright Star – 77
The Young Victoria – 77
The Lovely Bones – 76
A Single Man – 75
Where the Wild Things Are – 74
Sasha Stone says:
Monday, December 7, 2009 at 8:15am
Ladylurks, can you write me privately? I’d like these updates to be main page pieces if possible.
Rafaela says:
Monday, December 7, 2009 at 11:11am
I’m very excited to watch this film. Hope Saoirse still has a change at the Oscars. She’s so intense… very promissing actress.
John Villeneuve says:
Monday, December 7, 2009 at 10:54pm
@ menyc
You are correct, of course. And I should have known better, considering I was a DJ, during university, in an alternative bar at that time. I’ve always found, though, that the first album (?) of This Mortal Coil was pretty much a compilation cd. Every band who contributed were, in essence, just offering a song that was conceived by themselves under the appellation, This Mortal Coil. There was no collaboration with other musicians or bands. In fact, Cocteau Twins have released cd’s since then with Song to the Siren on it, with no mention of This Mortal Coil. Nevertheless, there is always some niggling detail that, in my haste, I forget. Mea culpa.
Dominik says:
Sunday, February 21, 2010 at 3:30pm
Ouch, I´m way too late with this! Probably noone will read this, but 1. I just saw “The Lovely Bones” this afternoon (didn´t open before in Germany), and 2. I like to soliloquize!
I found the movie much better than the very harsh reviews it especially received in the USA. OK, the afterworld-fantasy of Suzie is a bit over the top for me, pretty kitschy, but other scenes were really heartbreaking and suspenseful as hell – watch out, Hitchcock!
And Saiorse Ronan? Marvelous, honestly! My favourite performance by a leading actress this year.
But I know, this is too late, she´s not even nominated and this movie and topic are already forgotten, sadly. But not for me, cause this movie – though not flawless – stays with me.