The Lovely Bones review

Every now and again I'll see a trailer for something and I won't have that thought was 'wow, I've gotta see that now' or 'that's something that's gonna be kick ass' or something along those lines. By the way I tend to think that a good bit no matter what genre it is; my mind is like an 80's G.I. Joe figure with two catch phrases. Sometimes I see something and I think on it for a good while and then see what the vibe strikes me as and what not. I subtract even who is involved in the picture, which is 95% of the time is a big deal to me and I just see what's the vibe I get from it. Peter Jackon's "The Lovely Bones" was one that hit me down the road and I kept it in my head that 'this seems like something I'm gonna love'. Granted I've thought this before and been dead wrong, but in this case I wasn't. I watched it yesterday morning and much of what was in the film is still stuck in my head, running around and around.

I've never read the book, although now I very much want to and from what I hear there are things taken out, which isn't surprising; although the biggest one is the lack of the rape scene. I'll get back to that later though. The first thing I noticed and hooked me into the picture was the 1970's look and feel of it. I mean this is down right 70's to the nitty gritty and it looks perfect. The feel however comes from two sources; one is cinematographer Andrew Lesine, who gives the film that slight grainy, glowing Bob Clark look and the other is all Jackson. What a lot of people don't know is that Jackson's real style isn't how "The Lord of the Rings" was shot. I'll say that the final installment had some in it, but that was much more restrained. "King Kong" had a good bit of his style in it (probably why I loved it so much), but really his old splatter films and his dramas speak of his true blue style. Jackson loves a lot of camera movement, sometimes normal and sometimes these irregular pattern shifts. His lenses provide a global scope on things at times and it all feels like films I've seen made in the 70's and 80's.

As most people do know the film is about little Suzie Salmon who at age fourteen is murdered by one of her neighbors and from her own piece of heaven watchers her family during the aftermath. Saoirse Ronan, the young Oscar nominated actress who stole the show in "Atonement" again displays range and great depth. She makes you like this character and in many ways identify with her as well. In fact there's such great deal of that and done so well that I imagine several people would've walked out had the rape and murder scene been in the film. Make no mistake about it those is no way you can make those things not ugly and horrible in this situation and then easily recover the film you had before that despite the better things that follow. Granted you know what happened and are given more than enough clues to back it up, to show it would've been horror for horrors sake. It's the same reason for some of the restraint Del Toro had at the end of "Pan's Labyrinth"; somethings you don't really want or need to see.

The aftermath with the family is equally interesting as you see the various ways in which people deal with grief. For her father (played by Mark Wahlberg) it was hope and later obsession with the case and the people around him. Her older sister felt the same way and her mother (played by Rachel Weisz) went through heavy depression and goes as far as to leave the family for a short time. All the while Suzie's killer, Mr. George Harvey continues his life and is getting comfortable with little to no suspension on him. Stanley Tucci plays Harvey and this is really an impressive and key role for him. When you see a character actor like him in a dozen films you start to see the same dude everytime. Not here. Tucci is completely invisible in this guy down to the voice. This is the only supporting acting work I've seen that actually rivals Christoph Waltz performance in "Inglorious Basterds".

The depiction of heaven was something that many were concerned about after the trailers. I admit was a bit put off by some of it then too, but within the movie it's something much bolder and much more interesting and this is why Peter Jackson is a fantastic film maker. He has created a movie that not just is set in the 70's and 80's, but could be right out of that time period as well. In several ways this is a film that's directed towards teen audiences as much as adults and has subject matter that's identifiable to them, but isn't bullshity. It's also a fantasy film in many ways which is very much how rough subject matter was covered in films then and often illustrated its point better than regular dramas about similar subject matter. And there is bits of dark humor within it all was well which points away from the darkness of the picture, but only for it's moment and despite how grim it all sounds, the film is quite beautiful. Not just in the fantastical elements, but with the family dynamic and seeing their progression as times passes.

"The Lovely Bones" interestingly enough isn't being pushed as hard as other awardy movies. For Paramount and Dreamworks their big dog is "Up in the Air" (which I'll see soon) so this has fallen by the wayside. My hope however is that people do go out and see this film, awards or not and see how they feel about it. As much as I do love it, it does strike me as a film which could divide people, which is understandable in certain ways. I do urge those who see and like "The Lovely Bones" to see Jackson's other drama/tragedy "Heavenly Creatures" which is slightly more brutal, but equally as fantastic and inspired as this. A brilliant piece of work.

"The Lovely Bones" **** out of ****