If you want to watch a 14 yo murder victim spend eternity in her own personal hell so that you can feel the subject of her death was dealt with seriously enough - if this is what it takes to reassure yourself that her killer/rapist is a monster who has not won - then perhaps The Lovely Bones is not for you. But after what she went through, she deserves a little peace. And for much of the movie, anyway, she is in a sort of desolate limbo (more desolate than in the book, I might add), so I don't know where he got the impression she was better off dead. And it's preferable to think of Susie in a place of beauty rather than in hell or limbo.
#Watch the lovely bones full movie movie#
The movie does not glorify death any more than Christians have been doing for over 2000 years. In my opinion, he was overly harsh and possibly biased. I also want to touch on my thoughts about Ebert's review. But I also liked hearing Susie narrate her story using words from the book. And that's part of why I felt the voice-over was intrusive at times. I thought the movie did well juxtaposing images to convey meaning.
But I liked the way images from Susie's life echoed in her afterlife, lending significance to the mundane in a way that felt authentic to a trauma victim. Though I loved the final scene with the mother.Īnd the special effects were over the top at times as well. Might have contributed to the rushed feeling of the ending. And that, along with the cloying final montage scene, It was a convenient crutch to have Susie tell you what you needed to know. I think some of what was stated in the voice-over was better stated through action shots. The voice-over was hokey and overly sentimental at times. In fact, the movie works best when it remains subtle. These images were as powerful as any words or graphic visuals. And in the fact that we got to view the other victims' bodies, but Susie was reduced to just a bloody sack. In the image of the pitifully small safe that was tossed into the sinkhole.
In the amount of blood in Harvey's bathroom and the shot of that razor blade. In the heartbreaking way Holly and Susie reacted to Lindsey's first kiss. It was in the way Harvey looked at Susie. But Jackson was still able to convey everything you needed to know.
Sebold had more space available in the novel. If anything, it would have been gratuitous because there wouldn't have been much time available to flesh out that trauma so that it enhanced the themes of the story. Stating that Susie was raped wouldn't have added anything to the movie.
And you can't ignore the fact that it's one thing to read about a 14 yo girl having certain experiences, and it's another to watch a 14 yo real-life girl act out these experiences. It's easier to include such details in a book than in a movie. Alice Sebold didn't shy away from including a rape scene and describing, in morbid detail, the state of Susie's remains. And I could feel the parents' heartbreak by just looking at the faces of Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz.Īnother thing I loved was Peter Jackson's minimalist approach to conveying the horror and brutality of the crime. Susan Sarandon broke up the sentimentality with her oddball quirkiness.
#Watch the lovely bones full movie skin#
Stanley Tucci's George Harvey made my skin crawl with a look. Saoirse Ronan is able to say volumes with her eyes. It was a hard task to adapt the novel into a two-hour film, and, in my opinion, Peter Jackson did as well as can be expected while still adding his own personal touch. I knew not to expect the same amount of detail. I watched this movie after having read the book.
0 kommentar(er)
