Review: The Lovely Bones (2010)

The Lovely Bones (2010)

2.0

DRAMA
U.S. Release Date: 01/15/10
Running Length: 2:15
MPAA Classification: PG-13 (Violence, Profanity, Sexual Content)
Theatrical Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Rachel Weisz, Mark Wahlberg, Susan Sarandon, Stanley Tucci, Rose McIver, Michael Imperioli, Nikki SooHoo
Director: Peter Jackson
Screenplay: Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens & Peter Jackson, based on the novel by Alice Sebold
Cinematography: Andrew Lesnie
Music: Brian Eno
U.S. Distributor: Paramount Pictures

Review by: Carter Moulton

01/30/10

I figured The Lovely Bones was in trouble when Paramount Pictures pushed it out of last years award race and into the bowels of January—why then am I holding out hope for Shutter Island? Still, any director and writing team that creates The Lord Of The Rings and King Kong is worth watching in my book. Now, after seeing The Lovely Bones, I think it’s safe to say that in this case, the studio got it right.

I've never read the novel by Alice Sebold, so, upon entering the theater, I disregarded the “Jackson chose an unfilmable book” argument I had heard from a few critics. As I walked out of the theater I concluded: This is essentially a splattered canvas: all at once serene, messy, enchanting, boring, cliché, and original.

The story (1970's America) is about Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan, best known from her Oscar-nominated role in Atonement), a 14-year-old girl who is raped and murdered by her neighbor George Harvey (Stanley Tucci)—somehow this is rated PG-13. She then finds herself in “the in-between,” halfway between heaven and Earth. She sees a beautiful world before her, in which she can look in—in a sort of voyeuristic way—on her family as they live their lives.

After Susie’s death, her parents, played by Mark “The Happening” Wahlberg and the elegant Rachel Weisz, respond differently. Wahlberg, who is very good in certain moments and very true to the nickname I just gave him in others, can still feel Susie’s presence and is determined to find the killer, while Weisz’s character insists that it’s time to move on and forget about the incident.

Jackson’s dream-world is at first magnificent to look at—fields, mountains, and stars stretch as far as the eye can see; ships in bottles crash against the shoreline; the moon doubles as a grandfather clock. But then, Jackson loses control of his creative grip, and a scene showing Susie in her new world features her modeling in a photo-shoot, dancing on a rainbow-infused record player, and playing the part of a Barbie-doll: it’s hokier than you can imagine.

The same duality can be said for the visual effects. The “in-between” visuals are wonderful for the most part, but CGI is overused in the scenes back on Earth. For instance, Peter Jackson felt the need to computerize the garbage dump where Susie is buried, and the fate of killer George Harvey is shown via CGI. That's called excess.

Stanley Tucci is the luminary of this film. Harvey is the type of killer who plots, methodically, each murder with blueprints, models, and bare-hands labor. Harvey hides behind a blond mustache and glasses to play the part of charitable neighbor, a nervous tick uncontrollable. Through Tucci’s performance you can literally see layer after layer of Harvey’s personality peeled away, revealing psychosis and madness at the core. It’s one of my favorite performances of the year.

But, where was I? Jackson continues his paradoxical crusade. A scene that takes place inside of Harvey’s house is perfectly shot, substituting silence with suspense; a scene only minutes before it, where Susan Sarandon (playing the redundant role of the drunken grandmother) takes over the Salmon house, is ripped straight from a mid-‘90s family comedy.

I don’t think The Lovely Bones is necessarily bad; it’s just disappointing. Jackson and his writing team of Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens will rebound I’m sure, I hope. A film about a 14-year-old being raped by a psychopath and finding herself trapped halfway between heaven and Earth is bound to be all over the place anyway. Maybe this novel is, after all, “unfilmable.”