Peter Jackson’s stylish adaptation of The Lovely Bones had its gala premiere last night, as a Royal Film Performance the Odeon Leicester Square, London. The first reputable reviews come from UK critics:
Sensitively cast – Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz as Susie’s parents, Susan Sarandon as vulgar Grandma, a bewigged, bespectacled Stanley Tucci as Harvey and Atonement’s Saoirse Ronan as poor, hurting Susie – Lovely Bones is a touching, at times distressing film. It deals with loss, grief, rage, familial breakdown and love, most of all love. But it’s also energetic and entertaining, the camera already moving whenever Jackson cuts into a scene and the horror/thriller elements given just enough fizz to recall the director’s early genre forays (minus the splatter) but not so comic book as to undercut the drama.
Likewise the emotion, Lovely Bones teetering along the thin, thin line that separates genuinely affecting from schmaltzy. How can it not, with colours popping from heavenly vistas (cornfields, lakes, mountains and more, the picture postcard views forever morphing to reflect Susie’s emotional state) and Wahlberg’s wide, earnest eyes rimmed with tears. Some will label it What Dreams May Come 2, and even those plugged in might experience a short circuit splutter come the 12-hankie denouement. But many more – the book’s fans, certainly – will exit exalted.
Jackson captures the grim essence of the novel even while compressing much of its character development and plot detail. And if the rhythm is problematic, his film-making bravado is constantly in evidence most notably in the heart-stopping scene when Lindsey breaks into Harvey’s house.
The down-to-earth sections are far more engaging than the afterlife and indeed the first 20 minutes before the murder are the film’s best. Ronan leaves a strong impression during these sequences, and they are enough to make her the film’s emotional anchor, even after the character becomes more abstract in her surreal heaven.
Tucci is a perfect foil for her winsome beauty; his chilling, complex characterisation of the serial killer earmarking him for awards attention.
And first impressions from Harry Knowles at AICN may help ease concerns about the delicate handling of the novels more gruesome passages: [SPOILERS]
At this point, my hands went up to my face. I was scared to death about what Peter Jackson was about to assault me with. You remember the killing scene in HEAVENLY CREATURES. Peter can be vicious when he wants to, and I was terrified. I literally couldn’t stomach anything approaching a graphic rape and murder of Saoirse Ronan. I was in knots. Peeking through parted fingers. Once the tension got excruciating, right as I was about to shut down and hate the screen, Peter goes impressionistic, ethereal and haunting, rather than the obvious brutal ugliness that is in the mind of every viewer at these moments.
In the book, we read about Mr Harvey’s drooling, sloppy kisses. We’re spared, thank god. Once you see Tucci’s Harvey, your mind can imagine – and you’ll hate your mind for the images it could create. Peter knows this. So he didn’t need to show the horror to you. Instead he leaves it to you, lets your stomach knot up – and even though he doesn’t show it to you – the knots remain. The sick sharp knife of disgust is twisted, via the emotion of the family when a knit cap in an evidence bag is plopped upon a family dinner table. They have hopes, the detective crushes them, when he mentions how much blood was found at the scene. The knife twists as the Salmon parents’ eyes well up.
…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.
After the film, my wife and I began discussing the movie. As I started talking about how much I loved Saoirse Ronan’s Susie. How vital and how alive she was – Yoko’s eyes welled up and through blubber speak, she talked about how much she wanted to see that character grow up, and how she just thinks of everything she missed. Everything that was taken away. And I had to comfort her.
This is an incredibly powerful film, masterfully told and captured as only cinema in the hands of a consummate storyteller can tell it. LOVELY BONES will be one of the films of the year.
And from a more prestigious voice stateside, Richard Corliss, TIME:
Like Susie’s father and her murderer, Jackson builds models — the imaginary realms of the Lord of the Rings trilogy and King Kong — and invites children of all ages to share his obsessions. (This time, he re-created rural Pennsylvania in his native New Zealand.) Into these landscapes a filmmaker puts characters, whom he may kill off at whim; so many splatter-movie directors do just that…
There are horror-movie elements here — imagine a suburban Psycho — and echoes of Heavenly Creatures, Jackson’s 1994 study of a girlhood crush that blossoms into murder. But essentially this is a story of loving and mourning — about how, with Susie gone, her family carries a tumor in its collective heart. The film is also an affecting daddy-daughter romance, pre- and postmortem. As Susie says of Mr. Harvey, “He didn’t understand how much a father could love his child.”
The plot has a few pitfalls. Jack, who fingers dozens of men as Susie’s potential abductor, takes ages to notice the strange guy across the street… But the movie is packed with privileged moments, like Susie’s glimpse, from the in-between, of her younger sister’s first kiss — an ecstasy Susie was so close to experiencing before she entered Mr. Harvey’s lair.
(More from Corliss in comment #11 below)
62 Responses for "The Lovely Bones, first UK reviews"
Luckily, I was one of the few who loved “What Dreams May Come”. Sure, it’s *extremely* melodramatic, but it’s visually stimulating and surprisingly poignant. The first time I saw it, I had never heard of it, so my mind was completely blown. Watching it again last Summer on my good friend’s big-screen t.v., we all agreed it was great. One of my favorites from a great year for movies.
So yeah, I’m really looking forward to this. Of the top 4 touted as the frontrunners, this is the only one I think I’ll actually like. Who knows, Avatar may rock my socks.
I’m SO excited!
Ryan, since you’ve read the script and liked it, I am curious what you thought about the rthyhm problem noted in the screen daily review?
So I guess Ronan is for real.
So happy for Tucci!
I think it’s fitting that the UK reviews shall be followed by Harry Knowles.
After all the quality of the reviews from the country with worst journalism in the world can only be matched by the stupidity and shallowness of the AICN “critic”.
I’m only glad that it’s not the morons Guardian/Observer who first got to give verdicts on this seemingly fine film.
Uh, Kad…..Ryan hasn’t posted the Guardian review yet, but it’s out and it’s a big pan.
I believe!
But… Ryan Gosling, as I miss you here!
AD reader ‘lop’ already linked us to the Guardian review earlier tonight.
I think this is the first time in 3 years that I’ve linked or quoted from a review by Harry Knowles. I’m less interested in his scholarly analysis and more engaged by how he and wife had a personal emotional reaction to the film. Harry doesn’t pretend to be James Agee. He’s just a very instinctive movie lover and I don’t apologize for including his thoughts — which I call ‘first impressions’ and not a review.
At this stage aren’t we open to hearing first-hand reactions to a much-anticipated movie, after months of baseless speculation?
Ewww, Ryan, I get that you want this to win and up its rave review score but linking Knowles review is really ridiculous. Everyone on AICN Talkback and elsewhere on the Net is poking fun at that crap. Seriously, one of the worst reviews ever and not even that mad-about-the-movie. Repeating “lovely” 50 times is not McWeenytis (which is,like,the highest level of digging a movie).
Varietys review is up and McCarthy pans it pretty harshly. He does say some good things about Ronan and Tucci. It’s a disappointing early start for one of my most anticipated of the fall… But it is just that, still early. Looks like it might end up being a love it or hate it film, and not one of the frontrunners like many of us thought. We shall see.
I’ll see your Variety review and raise you Time’s review by Richard Corliss:
Excellent Ryan! I hope we get many more reviews on par with the Time review. Isn’t variety notoriously hard to please, or am I making that up?
McCarthy’s taste rarely jibes with my own. Sometimes he’s easily pleased by movies that make my eyes roll back in my head. I’ve always had the feeling that Variety knows its role as the industry’s Private Dancer… “She keeps her mind on the mo-ney…”
The Hollywood Reporter did not like it aswell.
Pretty much, those who think the book is the shit, hate the movie, those who didn`t read it or think it`s piece of shit, love the movie. I guess I`ll totally love it now. It even have only a one-year-jump into the future instead of many years. So awesome (because that means no possession sex, yes!).
Fuck nerds who loved the book. They whine how the movie is all effects and no substance. No shit. Where was substance in the book in the first place? All gimmick and shock for the sake of shock. Effects >>>>>>>>>> possession sex, dismemberment,etc(aka what Sebold considers to be deep).
“No dismemberment” = Next “No Squid”
Linking to Harry Knowles isn’t stupid. Each reader here is capable of making their own mind up about his review. But we can’t if we don’t know it’s there.
Interesting that the link has been made to What Dreams May Come, another film directed by a New Zealander.
“Pretty much, those who think the book is the shit, hate the movie, those who didn`t read it or think it`s piece of shit, love the movie.”
I was just about to say the same thing about the Hollywood Reporter review. Maybe not in those words.
It’s obvious Kirk Honeycutt doesn’t like that the adaptation wants to do something different than recite the novel like it’s scripture.
Why do I have a sneak suspicion Honeycutt loved Columbus` Potter and hated Cuaron`s? LB is basically getting Potter reviews aka “let the bitching over omissions and changes begin”!
(All the same, Rotten Tomatoes is giving the HR review a ripe red tomato.)
Here’s an idea for people who worship the novel word for word: Go read it and enjoy it again. Everybody’s concept of heaven is different. I’d like to assess several options before I sign up.
“(All the same, Rotten Tomatoes is giving the HR review a ripe red tomato.)”
Lmao, Honeycutt is (honey)pulling his hair now!
ha, bambi.
“What if I threw a snit and nobody noticed?”
Bad luck for the next movie he decides to dump on. We shall feel the full force of his wrath.
Whew! Glad I switched my BP hopes to SHERLOCK HOLMES! I’m sure I’ll still love THE LOVELY BONES personally but without a rave from either trade it’s uphill work from here. It’s up to Sherlock or Jim Cameron to give us a movie worthy of Best Picture, ’cause there’s nothing out there right now that deserves the Oscar…except UP, and that’ll get sidelined by the snobs.
Variety and HR are usually down the middle with their reviews. I may not always agree with them, but they are rarely out of the mainstream in their responses to a film.
I doubt we will see a Jackson nom for director, and as far as the BP race goes, whether or not TLB is one of the ten, it’s out of the running for a win, IMO, failing a very big response from the general public.
Well, Stephen Fry liked it.
“The Lovely Bones absolutely riveting and brilliant. Then on to Damien Hirst party, Caught up with Mick Jones (Clash) and other old friends”
link
The reviews are not bad enough to take it out of contention but it isnt great. Picture is still likely as is adapted screenplay. Ronan and Tucci are still likely, but weisz and surandon are probably out. Wahlberg could still score a globes nomination.
But Fry is currently rumoured to play a dwarf in the Hobbit. And he`s writing Dam Busters for Jackson. Not really unbiased (though nothing tops Jackson writing the invitation to Knowles wedding).
btw… as far as I’m concerned, Oscar picking aside, PJ has to explore heaven with this material. It would be an absolute waste of his particular talent if he didn’t….
“a little perch in an abstract heavenly gazebo”, my ass! What the hell is McCarthy thinking?
This is TLB bt PJ not TLB by Clint. For my nine bucks, I want to see Jackson let loose.
UGh, yet another Pothead, I mean, Bonehead, lamenting deviations from the book:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1230700/The-Lovely-Bones-Lacking-gentle-touch.html
But it should be right up your and my alley, Bob! :deal:
I was half joking posting Stephen Fry’s tweet review to be honest. It was the rest of it that tickled me. Just another evening for him. Making the speech at the premiere of Peter Jackson’s new movie on behalf of the charity beneficiary at the royal premiere in front of the future King of England. Then hanging out with one of the most collected and famous modern artists in the world at a party. Then on to meet his old friend, the guitarist of one of the greatest rock and roll bands of all time. How the glittering people live. What a dude. That is called big pimpin’.
“Jackson cuts out a vital storyline involving Susie’s mother and an affair she has with the policeman who is trying to find out what happened to her daughter.”
oh no, your favorite part, bambi. The Desperate Housewives subplot.
Well, I dunno about the Oscars, but given what I’ve read so far, I think I can already probably tell I’m gonna love this film. LOL.
Lol, Ryan! Michael Imperioli = Tom Bombadil 2009.
I’m so glad they cut the mom-cop story line, definately not my favorite sub plot of the book. By the way I really liked the novel, but now I’m thinking I will LOVE the movie. I hate how critics get stuck on things like book vs. movie. The early “Brothers” reaction also appears to just be comparisons to the Danish original which 99% of the American public haven’t and won’t see(whether that’s right or not). It just makes critics reviews even more irrelevant to people who haven’t watched the book or seen the obscure original movie. It’s no wonder so few people care about critical reaction these days.
I’m a little disappointed about the exclusion of the affair as well – it was one of the better parts of what was an extremely weak book. I’m also not surprised that the graphic violence isn’t in the film when it really was hardly in the book – besides a body part being found here or there.
Total Film is a good magazine which most of the time I trust their reviews so it’s nice to see a 4 star review.
Does anybody have the running time of it?
Peter Travers writes on Twitter;
“Can’t write about it yet but just saw one of the big year-end movies and it left me cold. Happens every year with the last-minute stuff.”
he doesn’t say which movie it is but good chance it’s this one.
Meh, Mccarthy and Honeycutt didn’t like “Where the Wild Things Are” either, so I don’t really count those. They both sound a little pretentious for my tastes.
And Jordan, I’ll bet you the movie Travers is talking about is “Nine”. Just a hunch.
I was thinking “Invictus.”
There are screenings for a lot of the unreleased movies this week. Just because this is Lovely Bones night at Awards Daily doesn’t make it a national holiday.
Exclusive from Guardian:
Sebold wants Gibson
The acclaimed writer of The Lovely Bones weighs in on Peter Jackson`s adaptation of the beloved novel:
“I sold the right to Jackson on the strength of his performance in Bad Taste. Do you know that scene where he cuts through alien ass with a chainsaw? Holy shit, that`s perfect man for my story about dismemberment, I thought! My very own George Harvey! And what that lawnmower did in Dead Alive? Just incredible. But, fuck, was I wrong! I don`t know what happened, he got married, mellowed down,whatever. Now I wish I sold the rights to Mel Gibson.”
But the original Hans Landa and father of the torture porn may not be far off helming Sebold property. Guardian has exclusively learned that Paramount is planning a prequel to the movie with the focus on Mr Harvey`s dismemebering skills.
“Main criticsm of the movie has been that it “needs more dismemberment” (see Guardian review, page 3 or visit our website) and we are hotly pursuing Mel Gibson to take the helm of the prequel”, chimes in an executive officer who wanted to stay annonymous.
With Jackson out of the picture, question that remains is: will Stanley Tucci come back?
“Kane Hodder and Tobin Bell have already expressed interest in taking over the role shall Tucci become too expensive post-Oscar nomination. We are certianly thrilled for both actors have just the right experience to embody Mr Harvey” continues the high-ranking insider.
Meanwhile, dismembermania is becoming the New Twimania. Newly launched pro-dismemberment.com has already seen 500.000 hits since this evening.
“There is Pro Life and now there is Pro Dismemberment” says the leader of the movement who goes by the Internet name of Headsaw.
AICN Talkbacker Gorehound Bloodbath concludes:
“`Needs more dismemberment` has become the catchphrase like “Lucas raped my childhood” and “Sexiest tomboy beanpole on the planet.”
The line that you found here first.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sebold-gibson-dismemberment/
OMG
And they call it the “first world” and us the “third world”. Man…
Personally i think the movie will be pretty divisive in the Oscar race. If it wasnt an adaptation all the reviews would be great.
The real deal gets when the film is released in the US and Canada.
Anyway, remember The Reader. Not so great reviews but got to the top 5
bambi, that was brilliant! Did you write that?
Early Rotten tomatoes score is 63 with a MEH 5.9/10 AVG. Peter travis was talkong about TLB. Why would he wait until tonight to post something like that if he was talking about another film he saw another day.
Why would he not be allowed to write about it, though, if other reviews are out? I’m guessing Invictus or even Nine.
I’m puzzled by how THR’s take is deemed ‘fresh’ on RT. Key words include: “disappointing,” “regrettably,” “abandoned,” “mawkish.”
And an other one of these shitty adaptations of melodramatic novels for young kids, or old kids, wich keep Hollywood going.
Going where ? Nobody seems to know.
Long live Inglorious Basterds, long live Mr Tarantino.
The novel was terrible, so if the film is great, Jackson really is a miracle worker.
# 41
Holocaust.
#42
Yes.
#46
Review that praises the movie for being just like the book = automatic rotten, review that trashes it for being nothing like it = automatic fresh. That`s how things should be.
Why does the post only list the positive reviews? The Guardian, Variety and Hollywood Reporter all gave it less than enthusiastic reviews, and they certainly hold more clout than Harry Knowles.
As I have said, I am going to see the movie regardless of reviews good or bad, because I won’t let others dictate my opinion of the film. Just like Precious and the White Ribbon or any other movie I want to see.
I do pay attention to how they review the actors though and even with the bad reviews people gave great reviews for Tucci and especially Ronan.
Sky News did a little red carpet thing calls Ronan the real star of the film.
Ouch, I really rooted for this movie. I mean it’s not DOA or anything, but certainly dissapointing for a start.
It’s a good thing that the reviews are at least praising one or two cast members because that combined with the fact that the film will potentially have several technical nominations, could really help it to get into the best picture category even if the reviews won’t get better. With 10 potential nominees in the main category, films don’t really need raves anymore, just a respected director, good cast and stunning visuals.It could also get Nine a bp nod, although that film’s early word is much better.
With Variety & THR pans, no one from this heavily dissed movie will get an acting nom. This pretty much kills all nominations.
Stanley Tucci could still get nominated for “Julie and Julia” but I wonder…
Jackie Earle Hailey got a Supp. Actor nomination for a similar character in “Little Children” a few years back, but “Little Children” was an acclaimed movie.
It looks like TLB is gonna be, er, unacclaimed.
Could someone please take the thorn out of Bambi’s palm? Enough already – we get it!
Stephen,
“Jackie Earle Hailey got a Supp. Actor nomination for a similar character in “Little Children” a few years back, but “Little Children” was an acclaimed movie.”
LC an acclaimed movie?
All i know is that the book was good, and Jackson is a great director.
[...] Via Awardsdaily. Share and Enjoy: [...]
empire magazine just gave it 4 stars as well.
My question is how can a film that so far has had more good reviews then bad be written off?? after like 10 reviews most of which are positive??
and why would travers not be allowed to say it was bones if reviews are already coming out? my guess is its nine.
“My question is how can a film that so far has had more good reviews then bad be written off??”
And an excellent question that is, gary. Especially when most of those 10 reviews are from UK critics. Not that they don’t know their arses from their elbows, but I would imagine expectations would be cranked to the max at a formal gala Royal Film Performance.
“…my guess is its nine.”
Except New York screenings for Nine were more than a week ago. Why wait 5 days to say you can’t say anything?
good point – but why would he not be able to say what film it was? there doesn’t seem to be an embargo on bones reviews. or are only certain people allowed to release theirs?
No, I agree with you, gary. It can’t be Bones, and it would be a slow reaction to Nine.
Avatar? Invictus? Holmes? Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel?
Congratulations, Mr. Travers. You have people more interested in what you can’t tell us than we normally care about what you do.
One thing that has become apparent to me that I was not aware of is that the academy apparently consists of 11 critics – most of which are from the UK.
I never knew that ;P
Leave a reply
All comments should respect the Awards Daily House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.