Review: The Lovely Bones (2009) ***
Stanley Tucci and Saoirse Ronan in The Lovely Bones
Peter Jackson’s adaptation of Alice Sebold’s The Lovely Bones is hard to categorize. Though the rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl is at the center of the story, it’s not a mystery because we know who did it. There’s a thriller element since we don’t know if the killer will be discovered before he acts again, but that isn’t the film’s focus. Narrated from somewhere between heaven and earth by the murdered girl herself, The Lovely Bones is ultimately an unconventional psychological drama with subtly supernatural overtones. Beautiful, sad and wholly original, it’s about grief, loss and a life cut short while others are allowed to continue. It is far from perfect, but its strengths outweigh its flaws.
At the film’s core, director Peter Jackson strikes a dark, unsettling and slightly phantasmagoric tone from the very beginning. It’s a little elusive and difficult to warm up to at first, but luckily it’s grounded by several of the main performances. Stanley Tucci is especially good as the killer, George Harvey. He’s one of those creepy suburban single men who act sociably but maybe look a little too longingly at young girls on their way home from school. It’s a contained, internal performance that hints at the menace within while only occasionally giving it full voice.
Meanwhile, young Saoirse Ronan proves that her confident, Oscar-nominated performance in Atonement wasn’t a fluke. As the murdered girl Susie Salmon, she’s a bit older now and she settles nicely into that awkward, early teen middle ground that is no longer purely innocent yet is far from adult. She’s present in body and/or in voice for most of the film so the weight of it falls on her shoulders. She carries the film ably.
Finally, in a small supporting role as Susie’s grandmother, Susan Sarandon makes a mark bigger than her screen time. She strikes a comic note as an unsentimental, chain-smoking alcoholic. It’s at odds with the rest of the film, but it’s the key to keeping The Lovely Bones from being consumed by its own leaden ominousness.
Less successful are Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz as Susie’s grieving parents. Their relationship, frayed in the wake of the brutal rape and murder of their daughter, should be the emotional “in” to the story, but Wahlberg especially barely registers. There are isolated moments as he descends into the obsession of finding the killer that feel raw and real, but mostly he’s a cipher. Weisz meanwhile makes the most of little before she disappears for a large chunk of the film. The slightly unfocused script is probably more to blame than the performances.
Though the narrative didn’t seem to make a completely satisfactory transition from novel to screen, the other technical aspects of the film are terrific. Andrew Lesnie’s beautiful cinematography captures rural 1970s Pennsylvania on the cusp between fall and winter. It’s fitting that a film about the places in between – childhood and adulthood, innocence and worldliness, grief and acceptance, heaven and earth, life and death – itself takes place in a transition between seasons.
In addition to the cinematography, the production design and art direction are first rate. Also, though the ample CGI used to portray Susie’s environment between heaven and earth threatens at times to over-exert itself, Jackson always manages to dial it back just so. It highlights the film’s important mood and tone without burying it.
The Lovely Bones is a film that needs to be felt rather than processed intellectually. If Jackson’s mood grabs you and pulls you in early, you might just love it. If it doesn’t, you’ll be left trying to put all the pieces together without fully responding to the film emotionally. I found myself somewhere in the middle. I admire it for being a fairly unconventional big-studio release that attempts to carve out an original vision that is simply true to itself, but I was left wishing it had packed a bigger punch. Good enough that I look forward to seeing it again, it’s possible it will play better unburdened from the weight of expectation.
The Lovely Bones. USA 2009. Directed by Peter Jackson. Screenplay by Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens from the novel by Alice Sebold. Cinematography by Andrew Lesnie. Music score composed by Brian Eno. Edited by Jabez Olssen. Production design by Naomi Shohan. Art direction by Jules Cook and Chris Shriver. Starring Saoirse Ronan, Stanley Tucci, Mark Wahlberg, Rache Weisz, Susan Sarandon, Michael Imperioli, Rose McIver, Christian Ashdale and Reece Ritchie. 2 hours 16 minutes. MPAA rated PG-13 for mature thematic material involving disturbing violent content and images, and some language. 3 stars (out of 5)
Filed under: Reviews
Tags: Alice Sebold, Andrew Lesnie, Brian Eno, Chris Shriver, Christian Ashdale, Fran Walsh, Jabez Olssen, Jules Cook, Mark Wahlberg, Michael Imperioli, Naomi Shohan, Peter Jackson, Philippa Boyens, Rache Weisz, Reece Ritchie, Rose McIver, Saoirse Ronan, Stanley Tucci, Susan Sarandon
Beautifully written review, sir. A fan of the book myself, I’m very much looking forward to this adaptation. It’s interesting that the weaknesses you identified were precisely the elements I was most concerned about, Whalberg in particular. My instict told me that his casting was particularly baffling but I hoped he would prove me wrong. Who knows, maybe I’ll like his performance, but I doubt it very much.
Your thoughts on the remaining elements help keep the film in my must-see list, however. I’m a fan of Ronan’s and Tucci’s, so it’ll be a great treat to see them shine on the screen once again. And God knows I can’t wait for what Jackson comes up with visually for this one.
I wish I could compare it to the book, but I can only take it on its own.
I’m not sure if Wahlberg is to blame but I really wish the parents had made a stronger mark on me.
There’s some stuff with Tucci that has really stuck with me. I’d have to look at the competition in the big picture, but he’s certainly deserving of a supporting actor nomination. Whether or not he’ll get one I wouldn’t care to predict right now.
I’ve heard some complaining about the CGI, but it didn’t bother me. Maybe people with a stronger image in their head from the book will have a harder time with it.
I’m skipping your review for now but the fact that you gave it three stars is a pretty good sign. I was honestly worried it would be a lower rating.
I probably could’ve gone lower or higher depending on my frame of mind. I’d recommend you catch it, but keep an open mind.
Fine review Craig. Although you gave it three stars your appraisal suggests it is more than a routine middling film but one that simply didn’t come together well enough for you and lacked sufficient emotional engagement. Now that the reviews are coming out I’m actually feeling more intrigued about the film. The promise of notable strengths, regardless of accompanying weaknesses, appeals to me more than slick but less ambitious films.
Yeah as I said above, 3 might be a little low. I try not to nitpick too much about the rating and just kind of go with my overall gut feeling. Anything above 2.5 is a passing grade.
Had it moved me more, it would’ve gotten a higher rating. I tend to be more forgiving of imperfections if a movie simply grabs me and makes me feel something. I struggled to get inside Bones, but I admire the attempt and I think there’s a lot about it to recommend. It’s kind of a glass-is-half-full situation.
Craig, your nuanced review suggests to me there’s good reason to see this film despite any shortcomings one might perceive.
Given the Academy’s penchant for nominating performances that stand out from the remainder of a particular film, combined with their tendency to nominate actors who’ve already won an Oscar or have already been nominated, I’m betting — sight unseen — that Sarandon will receive a nod. I’m also guessing that Tucci will get one too — for this film — and that his contrasting work in Julie & Julia will help propel his chances of being recognized for this film. I’m also wondering whether Ronan will get Academy attention. I know you have a certain lack of enthusiasm about so-called Oscar talk, but I’m curious as to what you think.
It’s less a lack of enthusiasm than a lack of knowing what the hell I’m talking about. I think Tucci is a solid pick, but that’s without looking at how crowded the field is and whatnot. Ronan, I’m not sure. Sarandon didn’t seem to make quite the impression on some of the other reviewers I read yesterday that she made on me.
Craig, in Sarandon’s case I don’t think she needs great reviews to get a nomination as long as she strikes a cord with Academy members.
Supporting Actress always feels like kind of a wild card to me. There always seems to be a surprise pick and sometimes they even win. I’m thinking Dench and Tomei.
I read one review yesterday that didn’t care for the tonal shifts and Sarandon certainly was partly responsible for them. To me, her scenes were kind of loopy but you have to remember this is a 14-year-olds’ eye view of the world and I thought the leavening of tone was a relief.
If Jackson’s mood grabs you and pulls you in early, you might just love it. If it doesn’t, you’ll be left trying to put all the pieces together without fully responding to the film emotionally. I found myself somewhere in the middle.
I have to agree with you, Craig. I watched TLB last night, not quite knowing what to expect. Although the film engaged me emotionally, I kept finding myself knocked out of the film’s reality into analytic mode, which isn’t usually a good sign.
At several points I found myself thinking that Jackson clearly is more invested — and more comfortable — with special effects to the point that I thought the more realistic portions were not well done, at least in comparison to the special effects. This leads me to suspect that he has a weakness working with realistic sequences and communicating with actors beyond the basics.
My feeling is that Wahlberg was miscast. Certainly he doesn’t seem to fit the physical type in that his body type is too well developed for the period and for the character. A man that age in that era, with a family and a time-consuming, sedentary hobby (ships in bottles) simply isn’t so physically fit, nor does he move with the precision of a skilled athlete. Jackson and others should have noticed this.
I also understand that, in the book, the Susie character was not just murdered but raped. That’s not clear in the film, and I feel it should’ve been included — not simply to be true to the book but to round out the effect. This easily could’ve been addressed in the script without going into vivid detail.
Of course, Tucci is the strongest in the cast, a true supporting role as opposed to IB’s Landa. Ronan, too, I liked. Regarding Sarandon — an actress whom I adore — this is the second time I’ve disliked seeing her, the first time being her dragon lady queen in Disney’s Enchanted.
The overall effect for me was one of unevenness. Nevertheless, so many of the sequences were so beautifully done that I cannot dismiss the film. I simply feel that Jackson’s talents aren’t well-rounded enough for material such as this to excel.
“This leads me to suspect that he has a weakness working with realistic sequences and communicating with actors beyond the basics.”
I think you’re on to something there. I wondered going into this film if Jackson was up to raw emotion without the protection of a lot of CGI monsters and whatnot. It seems to me he accomplished that with Heavenly Creatures, but maybe I ineed to revisit that film.
I agree with you about Wahlberg, though I also heard he came on to the project at the last minute. As someone else noted (perhaps even in this thread, I’m in too much of a hurry to look) that Wahlberg seems very dependent on the director. I thought he was great in Huckabees and a few other things, not so great here or elsewhere.
I also think the role was underwritten.
At the same time, I think we were supposed to view the parents (and everything) through Suzie’s eyes and sensibility so it’s not surprising everything felt a little off. Part of it I think was intentional.
As for Sarandon, I think I’m pretty much alone in having enjoyed her. I agree that it felt like she was in the wrong movie (was it Jennybee who said that?), but it was a welcome respite from the heaviness.
Anyway, like you I found the movie problematic yet also not easily dismissed. It was a nice attempt at difficult material.
It seems to me he accomplished that with Heavenly Creatures, but maybe I ineed to revisit that film.
That film benefited, I think, from its opening, which made it feel clinical, like a documentary. The central relationship in that film was between two teenaged girls, so interactions between them might seem rather immature and even alien to the viewer. The biggest interpersonal conflict in that film centered on the standard “out-of-touch parents vs. misunderstood, downtrodden teens.”
Though you and I may view individual elements of this film a bit differently, I think our conclusions are similar and that we’d agree that TLB didn’t deserve to be shunned as it has been.
Yeah Pierre it sounds like we’re on the same page.
A noble effort that just didn’t quite come together for me. I still appreciate it though and understand why large pockets of people were really knocked out by it.