"Lovely" and "Powerful"
Just as it can be argued that I tend to approach any Peter Jackson film with a guarded attitude (which really isn't directed against Jackson as much as any director who incessantly underlines, over-emphasizes and over-cranks the visual razmatazz element as a way of beating his/her chest and saying "look at brilliant me!...look at what I can do!"), it can also be argued or at least suspected that AICN's Harry Knowles is in the tank for Jackson, and has been there for many, many years.
Knowles has called The Lovely Bones an "incredibly lovely film." He later says it "will be one of the films of the year," adding that "some of Peter's choices in adaptation could very well be hotly debated amongst readers of the book." He also calls it "an incredibly powerful film, masterfully told and captured as only cinema in the hands of a consummate storyteller can tell it."
High praise indeed. Harry clearly liked, admired, was touched. And yet I sense a certain caution in the choice of the word "lovely." I know that on those rare occasions when I see a film that has really knocked me down and turned me around, the word "lovely" never comes to mind. Calling a film 'lovely" is like saying the girl you went on a blind date last night with has "a terrific personality."
A little man inside Harry's chest is telling him, "Go for it, man...you were touched by the film and you should say that. Definitely. Just don't....well, you know what I mean. Don't write a full-bodied ecstatic cartwheel rolling-orgasm flutter rave. Save that shit for when you're feeling it 110% on something really and truly over-the-mountain awesome. We love Peter and Bones is so touching and sad...it is, really...but just, you know, keep things in proportion."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 24, 2009 at 8:33 AM
comment #1
Rich S.
says ...
"Save that shit for when you're feeling it 110% on something really and truly over-the-mountain awesome."
Like when he said he "loved" Attack of the Clones "desperately."
I figure I'll take your pan and Harry's rave and split the difference down the middle.
Posted by Rich S.
at November 24, 2009 9:34 AM
comment #2
squealy
says ...
Isn't it obvious that he used "lovely" because the movie is called "The Lovely Bones"?
Posted by squealy
at November 24, 2009 9:35 AM
comment #3
sumo-pop
says ...
Jeff,
It's a pretty big tank and not everyone who's in it is stupid. For the record, I like LOTR and Heavenly Creatures a lot. The rest I could take or leave.
Posted by sumo-pop
at November 24, 2009 9:44 AM
comment #4
Jonathan Spuij
says ...
Isn't Knowles just the laughing stock of every critic in the world?
Posted by Jonathan Spuij
at November 24, 2009 10:36 AM
comment #5
Edward
says ...
I visit Ain't It Cool, but find Knowles to be a horrible writer.
Posted by Edward
at November 24, 2009 10:48 AM
comment #6
Josh Massey
says ...
Yeah, considering the film's title, delving into his use of "lovely" is not necessary. Of course, it should be a red flag when any real critic tries to get cutesy like that.
Crazy Heart is full of heart! The Fantastic Mr. Fox is fantastic! Where the Wild Things Are is wild!
Posted by Josh Massey
at November 24, 2009 10:49 AM
comment #7
Eloi Manning
says ...
As I said in another thread, the fact he hasn't mentioned that it's one of his all-time favorite movies means it's likely mediocre.
Posted by Eloi Manning
at November 24, 2009 10:50 AM
comment #8
dogcatcher
says ...
With the exception of Terminator Salvation I have never read a negative review from Knowles.
I agree he's the laughing stock of reviewers. I'm not sure why anyone cares what he thinks.
Posted by dogcatcher
at November 24, 2009 11:12 AM
comment #9
Renfield
says ...
Knowles has to be one of the worst movie reviewers in history. Why would you take any stock in his opinion? I sure as heck don't and, judging by talkbacks on his own site, neither does anyone else.
Posted by Renfield
at November 24, 2009 11:54 AM
comment #10
Eloi Manning
says ...
The talkbacks are the sole reason AICN still has a readership. They barely update the front page anymore, and even when they do it's old news. How long ago did the trades have that story about Jackman in Real Steel? Finally today it plops onto AICN.
Talkbacks are an easy way to scan the fanboy reaction. I'm sure Stallone's recent decision to ditch the sci-fi aspect of Rambo V was influenced heavily by the AICN talkback reaction.
Posted by Eloi Manning
at November 24, 2009 12:21 PM
comment #11
Terry McCarty
says ...
Xan Brooks reviewed THE LOVELY BONES for the London GUARDIAN; his major complaint was the softening and/or elimination of some of the novel's more dark elements. But that could also be attributed to Spielberg/DreamWorks.
Posted by Terry McCarty
at November 24, 2009 12:55 PM
comment #12
Astral Weeks
says ...
Brooks found it overly coy,sweet and insubstantial. He gave a two star review.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/nov/24/the-lovely-bones-film-review
Looks like Jeff will be validated on this one.
Posted by Astral Weeks
at November 24, 2009 1:04 PM
comment #13
Eloi Manning
says ...
Xan Brooks is also a moron so I wouldn't read too much into that.
Posted by Eloi Manning
at November 24, 2009 1:16 PM
comment #14
COCO
says ...
Harry is the ultimate fan boy....he does bring up some good talking points from time to time....I plan to see that film anyway.
Posted by COCO
at November 24, 2009 1:38 PM
comment #15
reno rambler
says ...
"it can be argued that I tend to approach any Peter Jackson film with a guarded attitude"
Understatement of the year.
Posted by reno rambler
at November 24, 2009 2:03 PM
comment #16
Gordon27
says ...
Jeff must need subtext really really badly; that explains why he dislikes Peter Jackson movies and why he's over-analyzing a Harry Knowles review, trying to read what he isn't saying out loud.
Posted by Gordon27
at November 24, 2009 4:34 PM
comment #17
The Winchester
says ...
I was just figuring out how Knowles could slip in his "I grew up on ____" that he puts in every fanboy movie "review" he writes. The guy's got a lot of heart, but brains, and writing prowess are not among his skills.
Posted by The Winchester
at November 24, 2009 5:45 PM
comment #18
Yuval
says ...
Gordon, are you saying you think Peter Jackson movies don't have subtext? I think the subtext is usally an over simplified view of the world, but no subtext seems a bit far.
Posted by Yuval
at November 25, 2009 2:41 PM