Despite it's fragile face-paced story that emotionally repeats what it's trying to say, Peter Jackson's "The Lovely Bones" is a well made fantasy movie...at least from a technical viewpoint here.

Very beautiful and moving film. Love it lots, especially Saoirse Ronan, who is simply the Best.

A little slow in parts, but a beautiful crafted film with terrific cinematography. The cast is excellent. Just the right combination of touching and suspenseful.

NOTE: I have not read the novel in which this movie is based. In my not-so-humble-opinion, this is Peter Jackson's first misstep as a director and Fran Walsh's first stumble as a writer. This movie was quite a disappointment. The script never gives us a chance to truly get to know these characters and truly feel their grief at the loss of Susie. With the exception of Saoirse Ronan's character, we are presented with a bunch of cookie cutter characters. I did not connect with any of the family members. Their suffering is glossed over. The actors did their best with what little material they were given. Especially Susan Surandon - I'm not even sure why she was in the movie - her character added nothing to the plot. Too much time was spent in Susie's "world" as she ran around a CG landscape. The special effects used to show Susie's "purgatory" were horrible. They looked very low-budget, as if they were designed for a made-for-TV-movie. I can't believe this came out of the same effects house that did Avatar (Weta). If you truly are curious to watch this film, I would wait for DVD. Or better yet, spend the money on the book, which I hear is excellent.… Expand

This is the worst movie I have ever seen...ever. About a third of the way through I found myself hoping that it would just end. There is little to no character development and many scenes are drawn out and incoherent. This movie could easily have forty to fifty minutes cut out with no loss in continuity. Save your money and your time. Read the book.

Although I found the script a little weak in places, and the cgi spiritual a little obvious and unnecessary I was still engrossed from start to finish and consider it one of the best entries into Peter Jackson's back catalogue. Watch Heavenly Creatures for reference. These other reviewers don't get the film because they're expected either a typical Hollywood family film or thriller. This film is neither. Its a unique and imaginative fantasy drama. Its subversive and feels like an independent film made with a mega budget. Perhaps the film would have been received more positive if it was marketed in a less Hollywood way. Keep it up pete, you the man.… Expand

Beautiful portrayal of the abtract and ethereal consequences of tragic loss - an amazingly accurate portrayal of a unique and thought provoking novel.

Saoirse Rohnan leads The Lovely Bones to victory with a mind blowing performance, and Peter Jackson doesn't do a good job by differing visual beauty which it has and utter horror where the whole story is, but it is actually a well made film. I give this movie a 72% of a good one.

The worst movie ever. It's attempts to be original and creative develop into a spectacular mess. Fans of symbolism and imagery will try to make excuses for the film, but do not be fooled it is pathetic. I know the theater agreed with me because they all starting booing, talking and leaving 34 through the movie. Don't waste your money,your bandwidth heck dont waste a second of your life on this film.… Expand

I thought this movie was very moving and beautiful. Ronan and Tucci give incredible performances. The horror of Susie's death drives this movie throughout. You feel sympathy and remorse for her and her family and you want something good to happen for her and in the end it does. This film reminds us all how precious and brief our lives are and the hole we leave for others when we are gone. Jackson did a terrific job.… Expand

Beautifully rendered vision of the book. Gripping and moving. A pleasure to watch.

I did not read the book but this film makes me cry all the way through. I will recommend all parents with teen age daughter to watch this film. I am against all critics and believe Peter Jackson did another master piece after Lord of the Rong and king Koun.

I have waited over a year to watch this move, the reason you ask: well after reading and loving the book, I couldnt wait for the movie and with baited breath caught the first trailer for it on tv, it started well enough with Susie salmon declaring she was dead and then the next scene was of a massive ship breaking out of a even bigger glass bottle and trees turning into birgs...WTF...So I gave it a miss!! So after a year of walking past it countless times at the video shop I finally gave it a go...and I wasnt wrong to wait for DVD!! Peter jackson in all his incredibleness (yes that is sarcastic) has fallen into the biggest directors trap (ahem...Steven Spielberg and A.I.) and that is, "just cause you can do something...DOESNT MEAN YOU SHOULD!!! The whole heaven concept is ridiculous and a simple voiceover would have sufficed and focused more on the real story, that of her family and longings!!This movie could have been magical and fantastical had it trusted our imaginations, as the book did. Mr Jackson has taken out all its magic and force fed us with fantasy scenes that belong more in Disneys fantasia than in a tragic story such as this!!! What kills me is that this movie could have just been so good...oh well, lets wait for the swedish to remake it!!!… Collapse

Peter Jackson is not as good as he was in the lord of the rings,but this movie has good performances,amazing visuals and a script that touches the heart.

42... emm.... what the heck!? Maybe it is not a masterpiece, but it is a very good film and not a movie of 42 score... OMG and films like Breaking Down has more score...

This movie was just NO. Honestly, try as the actors may to save the film, the plot was pretty damned from the start. WHOLLY predictable, which isn't all that bad when the cast do a good job; HOWEVER, the ending Peter Jackson gave this film ruined it for me. I felt so dam FRUSTRATED at the end of the film. An insult to the brilliant mind of Peter Jackson, who must have tried directing this in his sleep. Clap the cast for a good job though.… Expand

Great film. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE CRITICS THIS IS A GOOD FILM. This movie deserves more respect, all in all this movie is underrated.

Just awful. So botched by Jackson. Silly at times, ridiculous CGI and poor development of characters. The whole heaven idea and the people there was just laughable and detracted from the movie. Only saving grace for me was Tucci was creepy and obviously the best actor here.

It such a beautiful and emotional film that give movie real power, ronan performance was perfect, peter Jackson the greatest director of the decade show he can visualize the perfect heaven and the ugly human world of the killer

I love it when the universe aligns itself. A horrible book is now an even more horrible movie. Jackson let the hype get to his inflated head. This is one of the most blatant show offy films in a long while and I've seen Nine. 2009 might have been one of the worst years for film. Everything was forgettable!

Awful movie. Only gets 3 because of Saoirse Ronan. Wahlberg was terrible.

Rather boring then thrilling. All the big flowers and pretty colors are neither beautiful nor entertaining. The acting is absolutely horrible. Let's just put it this way. 'The Lovely Bones' is a total mess that fell out of the sky. I am going to have to say that isn't a bad movie. Though it is pretty lame. The storyline isn't good, but it's not terrible. So it's just an-a-okay story. The beginning isn't very bad, but then it just goes to flaw after flaw after flaw after flaw. Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz (who play the parnets of Susie Salmon) are the ones with the worst acting in the movie. Also Stanley Tucci does a poor job with his acting as well. There mostly the whole cast of the movie aren't very good with their acting. Oh and all the girls in the 'In Between World', don't get me started with their acting. With the cast awful acting also makes 'The Lovely Bones' not very thrilling. I don't even understand how a movie with bad acting like that could be called thriller at all. All the pretty stuff in the 'In Between World' does not make you want to go 'Whoa!' with all of the acting and random things happening. I also should bring that random things happen and come out of nowhere. It's almost to painful to watch.… Expand

Wow, this is the first time I've actively not-enjoyed a film in ages. It was almost refreshing to realise I still have a sense of taste and opinion!

First, the book. I think Alice Sebold is a bold and clever writer, only not good enough to sustain the interest through to the end. The idea of writing from afterlife should be suspenseful and powerful, in which case I think its much debated comparison, Forgiving Ararat by Gita Nazareth, to fare better in terms of quality and the flow of plots. Movie-wise, it deteriorates further. The big ideas that were present in the book, albeit poorly constructed, were altogether absent from the movie. If you only care for the extra effects, then by all means go watch the movie. But if you're after something deeper and more substantial, well... choose another book to read.… Expand

The problem with "The Lovely Bones" is that nobody jumps anybody's bones. The filmmaker didn't have the guts. Six years earlier, Lynne Ramsey owned the rights to the Alice Sebold novel, but she bailed around the time that this literary novel unexpectedly found its way into the hands of readers more used to Nicholas Sparks-type fare than a New York Times Notable Book. The Scottish filmmaker, with two highly regarded films to her credit("Ratcatcher" and "Morvern Callar"), both gritty in the best indie tradition, probably wouldn't blink at the prospect of shooting a rape scene involving a minor. She's an artist, after all, not a moralist. Obvious to fans of the 2002 literary sensation, "The Lovely Bones" begs to be smaller in scale, and with Ramsay at the helm, there would've been a deemphasization on visualizing the Salmon girl's realm, which is nothing more than a timekiller. The story is supposed to be about the living. Since the Salmon girl is dead, arguably, all the moviegoer needs is her disembodied voice; the moviegoer will surely find the panoramas of the "In-Between" quite pretty, but inert, like all spectacle, all CGI effects, even the good ones. Worse yet, "The Lovely Bones" chooses the wrong person, the father(Mark Wahlberg), to serve as our entry point into the unconsolable grief felt by the left behind. Lindsey(Amanda Michalka) should have been the one to carry the film, but Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz are big stars, so the younger Salmon girl is reduced to being the catalyst for the film's wrongheaded foray into suspense. (Just like Richard Eyre's adaptation of Zoe Heller's "Notes on a Scandal(What Was She Thinking?)", the film is a lot more suspenseful than the source material.) "The Lovely Bones" needed a woman's touch. Ramsay would have depicted unflinchingly the Judy Blume-esque details of Lindsey's physical relationship with her boyfriend, despite both participants being underaged. It was important to show how the sister's death forced the younger Salmon girl to grow up fast. The sex was a coping mechanism. But, no. The filmmaker tried to outdo Vincent Ward's "What Dreams May Come" in trying to render the best heaven ever. Unfortunately, the blockbuster approach will ultimately disappoint the book's fans. In a nutshell, the filmmaker is afraid of the vagina, even though the female anatomy as depicted in the Sebold novel isn't meant to be the least bit sensationalistic or tittilating.… Expand

The Lovely Bones is a good solid film. There are aspects of the film that are great, and there are other aspects that do not work so well. Overall, the film is entertaining, suspenseful (and a little scary), emotional, and it offers something genuinely different than most of the garbage that goes to theaters. Do not get me wrong, this film has flaws, and truthfully, I'd give this more of a 7.5 rating, but it is absurd that this film has as low reviews as it does. It is a well-made, ultimately compelling film that I will concede is not as moving or powerful as it could or should be. It is not a failure at all, but, again, certain aspects do not work as well as others. But, to me, it's a lot more interesting to watch an interesting "failure" than another rote by the numbers thriller or tired raunchy comedy. Again, The Lovely Bones is not a failure, but I can appreciate the film even when it slips, because the overall vision is admirably ambitious (elements of domestic drama / thriller / fantasy collide together) and generally well-done. I say this not to provoke, but I frankly enjoyed The Lovely Bones much, much more than Avatar. Avatar was an experience, yes, but as a film, I found it formulaic, cliched, predictable, and pretty cheesy. I just find it too bad that critics can fawn over Avatar, which is pretty empty when you remove the bells and whistles, and then many of the same ones shrug or sneer at The Lovely Bones. Again, TLB is not a GREAT film, but it is good, and deserves much better reviews than it is getting.… Expand

Without knowledge of the book, I found the film to be moving and suspenseful, with an attention to craft that alone merits watching.

Honestly, after seeing the film the audience will know why critics gave such low scores. It is a film based on a brilliant emotional book, but failed to make full use of it. When you watch it you will notice that Peter Jackson does a fantastic job with revered, complex source material the same thing he did in the lord of the rings. The film can be emotional to some people, as the very idea of a young girl dying and seeing her family from heaven is a sad seen. But the film could have been a lot better. The only thing in the film is up to the expectation is Stanley Tucci's performance. He truly shows both mental and physical behavior of a killer. Overall this film can be watched for time pass. Don't watch if you are expecting something like Lord of the rings-The return of the kings.… Expand

This movie has to be the worst of the decade! Pointless, boring, poor acting and script! You'll feel "taken" after spending the money to see such a failure. Hollywood doesn't get it! Movies like this give the industry a bad name.

Awesome film, u'll either love it or hate it.... reminds on the Pan's Labyrinth days where everyone hated it, yet its one of the most glorified movies of the decade... GO watch Lovely BOnes and decide for yourself... excellent interpretation of the book.

A good film, very touching at moments, the acting is superb and certain scenes are directed masterfully. Certain points I didn't like, though.

Great movie. Some great acting. Good message. Could watch again with friends.

Disappointing. The initial setup is good, and the cinematography luminous, the acting mostly top-notch, and it seems like it could have been a very interesting look at the way a family responds to a terrible tragedy like a child murder. But apart from a few brief moments I didn't see any of the inner and interpersonal conflict that would come from something like this. Instead Jackson blasted me with his trademark cgi and changed perspectives often enough that I never had a chance to connect to anyone or invest in it. With that emotional backbone missing it came across as a rather campy catch-the-creepy-killer, a very expensive Lifetime movie. It's like Jackson and his other writers were so enthralled by the story they forgot to tell it.… Expand

At times difficult, at times moving, at times rushed, and at times beautiful. The Lovely Bones is a daring film that reaches near perfection but, hits a couple bumps along the way. Much criticism has been thrown at the visuals for taking to much time away from the characters. This is not so. Other than a fleeting seen of 70's psychedelic visionary when Susie accepts that she can enjoy herself, the use of visuals is very inspired. It is not the way I would have pictured it from the book but, in a way it is better. And the use of the gazebo as the place where Susie is in limbo, watching the world, is much better than placing her in the room as I did in my head. There has also been criticism about a lack of emotion in this film. Nothing could be further from the truth. I broke down in tears at least 3 times in this movie. The moment when Susie says, in her perfect voice over narration, that "he could not know the love a father has for his daughter," I was moved in ways that the book could not quite get out of me. This of course is partly because of the performances and that amazing voice over but, it has largely to do with the technical side of things. The lighting, editing, Andrew Lesnie's cinematography, Brian Eno's wonderful score, and Peter Jackson's visionary direction all combine to pull the emotion out that I only really felt once in the novel. As a matter of fact, if I was to judge this film by the first 45 minutes to an hour it would be in my top ten films of the year. However, this is where the movie reaches it's issue. The events that take place once the movie settles on the fact that Susie is dead are quite a bit rushed. Scenes are shortened and montages created in order to get as much of the story as possible in there. This is not because visual effects are overbearing the film, it is actually becuase of the perfect hour that preceded it. In the book, we start right off the bat with Susie's murder. The movie takes it's time and develops the family before creating the huge ripple in their lives. This works much better than the book did in creating an emotional connection to these characters. This is extremely well done in the connection the movie creates between Susie (played perfectly by Soairse Ronan) and her father, Jack (Mark Wahlberg in one of his best performances). However, without stretching the movie to well over 3 hours, the movie needed to make some tough decisions on what to cut from the novel. It could be argued that he cut to much but, I would argue that he may have needed to cut more to leave room for some of the scenes he has to grow. I think that Mr. Harvey is so perfectly played by Stanley Tucci that I did not really need to go to deep into his past and see the other victims. I think shifting some of that time back over into the other side of the story could have fixed this problem. This is not to say that these pieces do not work to bring together a coherent whole but, in there rushed state the uplifting transcendance that may have been achieved in Susie's acceptance of death is slightly lost. And the kiss she so longs for is not quite as moving as it could have been. These are all minor issues that prevent an outstanding film from becoming a masterpiece. Things that are usually forgotten in repeat viewing or sometimes enhanced. I believe that I will enjoy this film more a second time as I will not feel any need to wish for different sections to fill out as firmly as they did in the novel. A film can never be a book. At times it can be better. At times it can be worse. The Lovely Bones exists in the middle as a singular vision from a brilliant director who loved what he saw in their pages.… Expand

An incredibly touching, horrifying and visually stunning film. Suzy was perfectly cast, but I can't say the same about Wahlberg, who continues to be rotten.

I thought that this movie was below average. It was bland, and even confusing at times. Don't watch.

Not bad. A little strange and silly at times yet brutal and shocking at others. The message is a little confusing if there is one. Acting and casting were both good though.

The Lovely Bones was a truly awesome event. I felt that the way Jackson transitioned between the events in the real world and Susie in the in-between really showed the emotional connection between the characters. Also I've noted that many critics are citing the exclusion of the highly graphic rape scene and Jackson's indirect portrayal of the murder as being a bad thing. Um...no. I'll put it this way: Hitchcock would be pleased with how it was handled. I also feel that the exclusion of Rachel Weiss' character's extramarital affair with the investigating detective only helped to keep the film focused, especially considering her performance was arguably one of the weakest.… Expand

Why Avatar is considered 'meaningful and beautifully shot' and this is considered 'badly written CG-wank' confuses me to no end. As chilling as it is heartwarming, The Lovely Bones is something that you rarely see in movies nowadays; New.

Dire, sentimental and very ugly, so much for the great Oscar hope. Only Saoirse Ronan saves this from complete catastrophe.

i think that this film was very emotional it adds a lot of drama especially for the kind of story that it is. the cast performed very well and convincing especially Saoirse Ronan. for those who have read the book it adds suspension knowing what is going to happen and knowing the events that are building up in the movie

Entirely too long. Entirely too stupid. Entirely too boring. There was less drama in the OJ Simpson trial. I'll never get this time back. I would have gladly chopped off one of my own lovely bones to forget I ever saw this movie.

A really bad film! the characters had no depth, the scene seemed to go from bad to worse and dragged on and on. Coupled with a lack of realism and what looks like and LSD job, the movie fails to deliver completely.
There's instances where you feel drawn in, but then the story just throws you out again, even the end doesn't seem to be a conclusion, just something left cos the director had his pizza delivered. A real hack job of a movie, although I hear the books isn't much better.

Something to watch while you're having a lobotomy, cos it'll feel like you've had one after watching this.… Expand

I saw the Lovely Bones sometime last year and went in expecting actually a boring chick flick, what I got was actually a intellectual and visual appealing and exciting thriller about a child serial killer and how it affected a family. This film was very well done. Kept all likes of people interested I feel. You had the guys being taken care of from the aspect of the thriller, girls by the character's short lived romance as well as the family dynamics, some comedy was thrown in as well, and the visuals for the people who care about such things. I definitely suggest watching this if you want somewhat of a thriller but...a different kind. Not gory or anything just suspenseful and shocking. 3.5 out of 5.

http://mashupmash.blogspot.com/2010/10/lovely-bones.html… Expand

Whether or not it may be positive or negative, Peter Jackson will be remembered as one most prominent directors of the 21st century - I am not of course discounting his work in 1990's Heavenly Creatures. After directing perhaps an unsurpassed trilogy of Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings, Jackson once again attempts to recreate literature, but now approaches a work that is more contemporary with The Lovely Bones. But unlike the success in which he recreated the Lord of the Rings to near perfection, Jackson completely misses the mark on this one.

The Lovely Bones is a film adaption of Alice Sebold's novel of the same name. Bones is a story of a teenage girl, Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan), who is killed and watches her family from heaven, where she must let go of her past in order to achieve true nirvana. While the movie and the novel seemingly share the same premise, the message of "letting-go" that was conveyed in the novel was evidently lost in the film. Peter Jackson fails to recreate the true essence of the book, only emulating the exterior of Sebold's work.

Besides the off-target plot, The Lovely Bones is undoubtedly a mess. There are so many transitions between Salmon's heaven and the 'real word,' that an attempt at being stylish turns into a muddle of confusion. The film is a CGI nightmare, as it possesses an endless amount of effects that is incredibly unnecessary. Originally simple in the novel, Salmon's heaven seems as if it comes from a laughable cartoon. Additionally, the film creates an uncanny amount of uncalled for instances of suspense and drama. While the film does succeed at some points, most of the melodrama employed fails.

The only redeemable aspect of the movie is the acting. Stanley Tucci, who plays the spine-chilling murderer, plays his character in an aptness manner, creating a sense of uneasiness within the audience. Saoirse Ronan (who played the strange sister in Atonement) does an adequate job in narrating and reprising a role of a common teen. While Ronan and Tucci excel, Mark Wahlberg performs a less than average job acting as a disgruntled father. I do not expect much from Wahlberg's acting (does anyone remember The Happening?), so I do not feel the need to expand on my opinion.

The Lovely Bones is downright disappointing. People watching the film without any knowledge of the novel will question the thousands of readers who have. Even though the adaptation does recreate some of the novel's finest moments, it really should have stayed on the bookshelf where it belongs.… Expand

My opinion is that the film started very good, it kept me tensed and interested but then got in the idea of heaven and how it was described was very bad. First you think that her fathers investigation will lead to the truth, but then somehow she sends him signal from heaven and he starts to suspect him, although it was emotional which i was i gave it 5, the movie needed more scenes like the one when her sister finds the book in the neighbors house… Expand

Just when you start to feel sad- BOOM THERES A DOUBLE RAINBOW!!! Sorry I couldnt be helped. But yeah, the contrast between grief and giant rainbows and butterflies is pretty nicely done. I actually enjoyed this movie. I love Mark W's constantly confused-looking face, it warms my heart. There was too much time spent in rainbowland, I agree with most people here, but one thing i disagree with is: Character development. This was decent enough, for the time spent in the real world. The father goes from obsessive ship builder to crazed obsessive maniac daddy from hell, the sister goes from being an extra to an active character (did she have any lines at all??), and the son, went from almost suffocating to a half mentally challenged cild, hooray. I did not like the mothers character. Waah, im portraying the familys grief, and im gonna go abandon my kids... Its not deep, but when you cut out all the rainbows the movie is rather short, and there wasnt much time for them to develop more than this. Definately worth a watch (or a stream) at leat once. Its great for someone like me, who lacks emotional capacity and is easily distracted by bright shiny rainbows ^^.… Expand

After watching this movie I wanted to through it out the window, all of the characters seem brain dead, I mean come on you've got the proof of the murder TELL YOUR PARENTS DON"T JUST STAND THERE LIKE A RETARD!!!! and it's just an unenjoyable movie, I mean it's a good concept, that if improved upon could make a great movie, but for now it sucks.

When I went into this movie, I was expecting nothing but the best because Peter Jackson was directing. After I watched it, I was disappointed, because the only thing that was wrong with the movie, was the directing... He attempted to make a movie that represented two completely different ideas: a thriller about getting justice on the murderer and a fantasy film about the family moving on with the girl watching from an area between life and death. Because he had so much story to tell with these two ideas, he left certain aspects unexplained and weak, while focusing too much on others. Even though I'm ashamed of this movie, Peter Jackson is still a legend (Who could forget the fantastic directing of Lord of the Rings?)… Expand

THE LOVELY BONES based on a best-selling novel written by Alice Sebold. The story about a girl named Susie who has been murdered and her vacillation between earth and heaven. If you watched the trailer, the movie offers tremendous images of heaven. But, after I watched it, substantively I did not find surprising element on that description. The heaven images have similarity on what we seen in WHAT DREAMS MAY COME (1998). But in the other hand, I think the movie was successfully delivered the drama in a romantic and beautifully way. The essence of the story is simple, but we can feel clearly sorrow and confusion around the characters. The narration and glimpse of the Susie past in the beginning of film brings us sufficient mood to build sympathy. The Scene was involving Suzie and her boyfriend, Brian (Jack Kebel) is a scene-stealer on thiz movie. Thiz is a recent movie directed by Peter Jackson, one of the greatest Directors in our era (LORD OF THE RINGS Trilogy (2001-2003) and KING KONG (2005)). Susie Salmon played by Saoirse Ronan. Ronan made her promising debut on great drama ATONEMENT in 2007. Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz played as her parents and Susan Sarandon as her grandmother. The villains played convincingly by Stanley Tucci. I think Saoirse Ronan has a potential skill to become a great Actress in the future, even greater than Dakota Fanning.



Visit My Blog on JONNY'S MOVEE: http://jonnyfendi.blogspot.com… Expand

I wouldn't say I enjoyed The Lovely Bones because saying I enjoyed this film would sound rather disturbing. I would say I found it interesting. The best part in this film for me is the acting. The acting was great. The special effects were good too. The story was okay, a little touching, a little creepy and a little happy. The thing I didn't like about the story was the ending. The film was good and interesting.… Expand

With Peter Jackson at the helm, and an star cast (including Rachel Weisz and Mark Whalberg) this was looking promising. The story line stems around the death of a teenage girl, and the journey through the various human experiences of existentialism, love, grief and karma - with the story following various character paths. All good so far; unfortunately all the promise that could be seen 'on paper,' falls short to live up to the all-star cast, with even the talisman that is Jackson at it's helm, it cannot be rescued from a mediocre status; a movie full of an inflated sense of self importance, semi-broken plot lines, which are just barely rescued by the talent at hand.
That said, it was certainly not a poor movie by any standards, and still a worthwhile watch - just don't expect to be enlightened, or have an inimitable urge to re-watch 'The Lovely Bones'.… Expand

I'm not sure why people haven't learned that most movies aren't going to be like the book. A book is meant to be cut in you own imagination and interpretation. That's the beauty of a book. A director and writer are going to have their own view along with what will score at the box office. Accusing a movie for not being like the book is like accusing a garage band for selling out. Eventually they gotta feed the family. No I wasn't a big fan of the fantasy land but I liked the stark reality of her death. I think it speaks to the harsh realities of our time that you can't let your 14 year-old daughter travel by herself anymore. Yeah Walberg had his usual hushed voice and confused looks but again that's the movie. Picture him more intelligent when you read the book if you like. I haven't read the book but when I do like with The Time Travelers wife I'm going to seperate somewhat.… Expand

Peter Jackson was from a far than ideal position when making The Lovely Bones. Receiving both audience and critical acclaim for his Lord of the Rings Trilogy, then braving an ambitiously epic remake of his own favourite film King Kong, audiences were expecting something spectacular. In making The Lovely Bones, Jackson has the unenviable task of depicting the afterlife on film. No matter which direction he went in, he was bound to be chastised by somebody. In my humble opinion, not having read the book the film is based on, I feel Jackson has made a film of both numerous successes and failures. All scenes grounded in reality, dealing with Susie Salmon's murder and the aftermath are superb. They are dark, and emotional to the point of heartbreak. You really feel for Susie, a young and optimistic dreamer full of potential, whose life is cut tragically short. Mark Wahlberg also impresses as her father, who is unable to let go of his daughter's memory, and who is driven to investigate her murder himself. Wahlberg once again proves himself to be an extremely competent and versitile actor who deserves far more acclaim than he has thus far received. While these moments are truly memorable, when attention shifts to Susie in limbo, Jackson appears to lose focus. This is a world populated by jarring visuals and half-baked ideas. You despair every time you have to return to this world - it's not only unfocused and ill-defined, the afterlife is really boring! Give us more of Stanly Tucci's creepy child-killer and Susie's family's heartache, we want no more technicolour philosophical ramblings! Jackson had an almighty challenge to face, and he had a degree of success, but not nearly enough to make a lasting, impressionable film.… Expand

People expect this movie to be dark and gloomy, but it is not, is it a happy and moving film. Yes, this movie is sad, but it is a very inspirational film, Saoirse Ronan is an amazing actress, one to watch! :D

The Lovely Bones is a frustrating experience but it compels and embraces the imperfection and flaws that it makes. It isn't like your typical drama and its probably one of the few that you'll ever find this decade. The story is an adaption to Alice Sebold's 2002 The Lovely Bones (which is by far the honest and most inspiring novels of our time) but with Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings Trilogy and King Kong) behind the helm for the big screen. He has his own ways and (if you've seen him direct his other movies) he loves to put in some CGI effects but never full overload. However, I must say that he did make the heaven scenes look all that clichÃ… Expand

A beautifully crafted film that resonates with evil, love, vengeance, and the devastating effects of the death of a child at the hands of a serial killer. The critics who pan this movie must be bereft of sensation. I thought it was mesmerising!

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Coming to this long after the critics had mauled it, I was surprised and impressed with how good it is. I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on its fidelity to source material, but Jackson creates hyper-real worlds where saturated seventies garish and the usual unforgiving close-ups he adores somehow endow genre stereotypes with a peculiarly hallucinogenic depth. Oddly, the spacious landscapes of the afterlife somehow feel more real than the suffocating scenes of suburbia and the household, but perhaps that's wishful thinking!

I can't help thinking that what was expected was a satisfying moral fable, and the unexpected conclusion will have disappointed those wanting earthly justice rather than just desserts. I wonder if that's why critics like Roger Ebert ("a deplorable film") could be so thrown off balance that that they don't even follow the plot (the "lovely bones" do not belong to Susie) and obsess about whether the heaven presented is factually accurate! The fact is that the ending is truer to life than Ebert gives it credit. As a fan of Brian Eno, I guess I'm biased, but I thought the climax of the film, accompanied by his "The Big Ship" had more emotional draw than either of the big endings of KK and LOTR. Tucci was fantastically creepy (though he seemed to have based his style on Dustin Hoffman's tics and murmurs) and anyone who thinks that Jackson shied away from the horror of the murder has just become desensitised by graphic violence, failing to sense the evil in even the most mundane encounters with George Harvey.

My only caveat was that some scenes seemed a touch too long, but perhaps brisker editing would have turned it into the thriller that some thought it should have been, and it would have lost the lyrical, elegiac quality that made it so absorbing.

Now, back to my Eno collection and 'Small Craft on a Milk Sea.'… Expand

Great film. I hadn't read the original novel, but reading the critics reviews of that and a synopsis Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens did a marvellous job adapting it, not sure whether I would now want to read the book though. I loved the imagery in the film and how it plays emotionally and that is the key to this, it is magic realism, and if you like that genre both in novels and films this is a must see.
I'm surprised at Roger Eberts reaction. He claims not to have read the book but begins with a fact that changed from novel to film. There is no rape or suggestion of rape in the film. The "heaven" or rather "between place" was I thought well done, it was the young girls memories, places she had been, like being in a dream, and it's seasons changed with her emotional tone.
The acting by the way is superb. Tucci as the killer is very creepy, in an understated way. Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weitz are convincing in their roles as the grieving parents, and Siarose Ronan as the murdered girl is brilliant and will go very far.
I really did find this film moving without being mawkish, and it did everything very well. It reminded me more of Pan's Labyrinth (again magic realism) than the last heaven based film What Dreams May Come which was frankly awful. On this one I think the critics were way off the mark.… Expand

The cast, the soundtrack, the production design, and the cinematography are excellent, but little by little the film is losing its axis, and the viewer's attention, it's like three movies in one. Anyway as I said before, this film technically is really beautiful, and a girl called Saoirse Ronan is stunning.

vzdfdffrrgrge

Peter Jackson has finally screwed up. Though not terrible, the movie was a disgrace compared to his other films. The problem with The Lovely Bones was that Mr. Jackson blurs reality and with non reality and the movie loses your interest because of that.

It really is quite a beautiful movie. It is rather unique. Acting is great along with the pace. The ending is sad but a spectacle at the same time. I didn't know what to expect from this movie but it certainly pulled through.

Great film actually! It make me think a bout revenge and let think go for greatest good.Beautiful portrayal of the abtract and ethereal consequences of tragic loss - an amazingly accurate portrayal of a unique and thought provoking novel.

The film 'the lovely bones' is really moving as it brings you into the life of the girl and her experiences- you really get to feel what she does. I also loved the supernatural element questioning what happens between life and death and whether you still have a connection with the real world. The film also made you think about how other peoples minds work and what goes on in the minds of psychopaths as well as presenting relationships between the girl and her family after she dies. I would not say it has a great storyline or has lots of action, if that is what you are looking for, but it is great for making you think and is a film that you will definitely remember for the right reasons! The acting is also brilliant… Expand

A depressing tale of the young Susie Salmon, whose life is cut short by her serial killer of a neighbor. This film had good actors, but something was missing. Susan Sarandon's role brought some humor into the story, where many parts were sand and gloomy. As I've heard, some points of the novel (that the film is based off of) weren't well translated from text to screen.