tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post7768781578250947113..comments2024-01-30T04:32:47.585-05:00Comments on The Cooler: Weekly Rant: Why Hitch Would Have Hated The Lovely BonesJason Bellamyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-35843829949302736292010-02-14T17:25:13.465-05:002010-02-14T17:25:13.465-05:00Daniel: It would be like Spider-Man riding a bike ...Daniel: <i>It would be like Spider-Man riding a bike through midtown Manhattan as he chases down a criminal.</i><br /><br />That killed me. Well said! (P.S. Not only have I never seen a second of <i>Lost</i>, I've only watched 20 minutes ever of <i>Survivor</i>, and maybe only 2 minutes of <i>American Idol</i>. So much popular TV that I haven't seen. When there are commercials for "America's favorite X," it's almost certain I haven't seen it. Not that I'm complaining.)<br /><br />Hokahey: <i>Jackson is so explicit about details that don't make sense.</i> True. But in many ways it's the nature of film that makes him so explicit. For example ... that stupid icicle at the end? Well, um, it's in the book. But in your mind, you make it work. On screen, as simple as Jackson makes it, it's just an absurd image. And I'm not sure anyone could have made it otherwise.<br /><br />Craig: I need to go back and watch <i>Heavenly Creatures</i> again. It's been a long time. As for your book review: I think you had reason to be hopeful. Interestingly, there's a shot described in the book where the father is breaking all these bottles with model ships in them and Susie momentarily projects her face into all the little pieces of broken glass. Now <i>that</i> would be a great moment for using CGI, right? And yet that shot isn't in Jackson's adaptation. Odd.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-2707311324756186042010-02-12T23:03:15.010-05:002010-02-12T23:03:15.010-05:00Very interesting review and discussion. When I rev...Very interesting review and discussion. When I reviewed the book, I had high hopes for the movie, since the subject matter seemed on the page right down Peter Jackson's wheelhouse (the one that made "Heavenly Creatures," that is). The overwhelmingly negative reviews have scared me off until the DVD comes out, though I was intrigued by the marketing strategy, which began by hyping PJ and his special effects only to switch to trailers indicating that this is a Mark Wahlberg suspense thriller.<br /><br />As I mentioned, I can't comment on the movie. But I did think that the story about the family was actually the most compelling element in the book. (I kind of agree with the critic who didn't like the New Agey aftertaste in Sebold's narrative.) Jackson is such an erratic filmmaker that I'm more astonished than ever at the self-discipline he displayed in the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. He certainly didn't follow Tolkien's narrative to a "t", so I'm not sure, based on what I've seen in the previews, that he was too beholden to Sebold; to me, his "Lovely Bones" looked less interested in the family and more interested in trying out some groovy special effects. I'd hoped that the gigantism from his overwrought "King Kong" remake would be scaled down for this story, but it looks I was mistaken.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-76795842438545244142010-02-12T20:46:42.280-05:002010-02-12T20:46:42.280-05:00This was a fun rant! One could rant on and on abou...This was a fun rant! One could rant on and on about the abysmally bad <i>The Lovely Bones</i>. I like how Sebold leaves a lot up to the imagination. Instead, Jackson is so explicit about details that don't make sense. Like all the knick-knacks down in the hole that had to be carried out after he killed the girl.Richard Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12397053921647421425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-27030163908240085572010-02-12T16:05:30.395-05:002010-02-12T16:05:30.395-05:00I see you picked up the conversation where we left...I see you picked up the conversation where we left it in the comments of my review. Predictably, you have given it an outstanding treatment here.<br /><br />Not having read the book, what bothered me most of all in thinking about the bunker depiction was the very question of why Harvey would have created one in the first place. It not only defies logic, but goes against all of the characteristics we later learn about his prior crimes. It's just bizarre to present us a character like this and then have them act, well, so out of character. It would be like Spider-Man riding a bike through midtown Manhattan as he chases down a criminal.<br /><br />Also, is it possible that you and I are the only remaining humans never to have seen "Lost"?Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05222052132452709301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-25653795963035092772010-02-12T13:57:12.885-05:002010-02-12T13:57:12.885-05:00lol. That was a post I copied from one of my own p...lol. That was a post I copied from one of my own posts over at IMDB... so that one part where I refer to you as "Ndirsch" is actually me talking to somebody else, haha.Adam Zanziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-28316082654403858882010-02-12T10:20:37.884-05:002010-02-12T10:20:37.884-05:00Now that is a rant. Nice job, Adam. And thanks for...Now <i>that</i> is a rant. Nice job, Adam. And thanks for weighing in.<br /><br />I wasn't as moved by the ships-(in-bottles)-at-sea image, but otherwise I agree that the film had some difficulties with tone. It couldn't seem to decide where it wanted to be.<br /><br />As for Tucci's character: I was disappointed to see that most of his "performance" meant sitting still while Jackson cast shadows across his face. (This disappointment came well before his Oscar nomination, just to be clear.)<br /><br />As for movies set in the afterlife, I recall hating <i>What Dreams May Come</i> (I can't remember why), but at least it was interesting to look at. Stunningly, <i>The Lovely Bones</i> is not.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-43764816289542825452010-02-12T03:08:06.373-05:002010-02-12T03:08:06.373-05:00...the filmmakers should have fulfilled the promis......the filmmakers should have fulfilled the promise that they give to the audience, which is that Susie can somehow redeem this man, get rid of her wishes to see him "dead" and (wishful thinking) maybe even encourage him to confess his crime. Instead, Jackson, Walsh and Boyens chicken out, and they reduce this character to a one-dimensional villain. I wasn't in a crowded theater so I cannot be sure, but I'll be there were loud applause on opening night when he falls off the cliff and dies at the end.<br /><br />I guess what I'm trying to say is, if a movie wants to be about a raped girl going to Heaven, it ought to just stay up in Heaven. If it wants to be about the family's grievances, then it should be more realistic. If it wants to be a story about vengeance and its consequences, the moral of the story shouldn't be: "Don't kill the antagonist because he's gonna die on his own, anyway".<br /><br />There are good things about <i>The Lovely Bones</i>, yes. Saoirse Rona's performance is exceptional, and she has those rare kinds of green eyes that really transfix you. Brian Eno's musical score is still playing around in my head. The image of giant glass bottles sailing on the ocean is as unforgettable as any of the sequences in Jackson's filmography. But at the end of the day, the film lacks the labor of love in the filmmaking of <i>The Lord of the Rings</i>, the surrealism of <i>King Kong</i> and, especially, the serial killer insight of <i>Heavenly Creatures</i>. It made we wince to see Peter Jackson's name at the end of this film, and I was even more uncomfortable at seeing Spielberg's name moments later. As two of our best living filmmakers, they should have collaborated on a project more suited to their intellectual sensibilities. Perhaps they will- on something that's nothing like this.Adam Zanziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-55813541576279035192010-02-12T03:07:14.513-05:002010-02-12T03:07:14.513-05:00This is the first Peter Jackson film that I have e...This is the first Peter Jackson film that I have ever disliked intensely. I literally was walking out of the theater in a furious mood- never before has he directed a film so irritatingly cynical, so manipulative for all the wrongs reasons, and so wrongheaded in its approach to mature themes like "vengeance" and "criminal justice".<br /><br />If I had made this film (or had written the book instead of Alice Softley), I'd have the entire narrative set in the "In-Between" world that Susie Salmon goes to after she dies. That's the only way Jackson could have made an innovative film. Rarely do films about Heaven offer a pure visual experience- Vincent Ward's <i>What Dreams May Come</i>, with Robin Williams, is a great example. Or, other filmmakers try to deconstruct the genre as a means for witty comedy, as Albert Brooks did with <i>Defending Your Life</i>. And I do appreciate what Spielberg did with <i>Always</i>, only because he kept Richard Dreyfuss' Pete ghost focused entirely on the future of his girlfriend and never went beyond that.<br /><br />Jackson's film is a much more voyeuristic experiment, and there comes a point when the experience- I'm sorry to say- is just as ugly as Gilliam's <i>Tideland</i>. Like Gilliam, Jackson is trying to tell a hallucinatory narrative from the point of view of a little girl, and like Gilliam, he makes the same damn mistake: he intertwines the girl's story with a stupid, pointless subplot surrounding adults who we could care less about.<br /><br />All of the scenes involving the Salmon family are horrible. Who cares about these people? If Jackson were to live up the ambitions of his project, he wouldn't keep taking us back to the real world. This family is obnoxious. The scene in which Mark Wahlberg storms into a cornfield with a baseball bat is done so badly that it's neither suspenseful nor interesting. Susie's younger sister proves to be a lackluster heroine, and we have no reason to cheer for her when she calls a detective "pathetic" to his face, when he is clearly just doing his job. Susan Sarandon's grandmother character provides a lot of unnecessary comic relief to a story that should have been taken a little more seriously. And isn't it a little random when the mother suddenly leaves the family and goes off to work in a vineyard? Since when was she that disturbed by her daughter's death? Certainly she seems more sane about it then her husband, who spends the whole night breaking kitchen glass bottles in some over-the-top rampage.<br /><br />What I hated most of all about this film was its approach to the Stanley Tucci character. I had the same problem that you did, Ndirsch, with Jackson, Walsh and Boyens' refusal to allow us to understand this character better. He is quite obviously a sick, mentally unstable man who needs help. He's raped and killed a handful of little girls and older women, but it's only because he can't help it: Susie even echoes this in a voiceover describing how he suddenly feels the urge again long after one girl has already been molested.Adam Zanziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.com