Better Bones Than Expected

email this story
read comments (38)
post a comment

Last night's viewing of Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones was a fresh experience, as I've never read Alice Sebold's book, and a guarded one given the conflicted (i.e., leaning negative) advance word plus my own resistance to Jackson's tendency to over-saturate and over-flourish his films with visual imagery that always seems to say "look at what I'm doing!" But I have to say that I wasn't all that unhappy with The Lovely Bones, and that it even got me at times.

Lovely Bones costars Rose McIver, Saoirse Ronan at last night's after-party at the Plaza's Oak Room.

Was I jumping up and down after it ended? No, but I wasn't feeling too badly about it either. As Jackson films go it's a fairly decent sit, at least for the novelty of it. I felt at the very least diverted by much of it, and it has some passages that are very affecting (especially the way it conveys the poignancy of Saoirse Ronan's Susie Salmon being simultaneously involved with and forever cut off from the lives of her mortal family and friends) and even brilliant at times. I was reasonably impressed for the most part, which is a significant admission for a longtime Jackson disser like myself.

The Lovely Bones is not restrained -- far from it. It would have been better, I feel, if Jackson had dialed himself and the film back about 20% or 30%. Art isn't easy, but the final canvas always seems grabbier if you've stepped back at the last minute and not gone whole-blitzkreig. And yet Bones does enforce a certain discipline at times. ("At times," I say.) It seems in fact like the most intimate and exacting and emotionally expressive Jackson film since Heavenly Creatures, even with the full-spigot digital effects that overwhelm the delicacy and etherealness of the story and themes.

Jackson will always be Jackson, but this time the visual flamboyance makes sense as it conjures Susie's afterlife experience after being murdered by a neighborhood creep. The otherwordly compositions tie in with certain bits and real-time echoes and memory fragments from the real world so at least there are underlying connections that lend a certain cohesiveness.

And Ronan's performance is vivid and bold and open-hearted -- she's really quite the natural presence, and not incidentally a natural and well-chosen component in a world of Jackson's feverish composing. And it all sort of comes together in a way that feels fairly novel and provocative -- it's like nothing I've seen in a long while, and a good deal more transporting than What Dreams May Come, for what that's worth. It's also very Jacksony in 40 or 50 different ways, of course. But that's okay. It's not a hate film -- it's "hmm, yeah, not bad" thing.

I loved that Jackson chose not to show Ronan's murder -- I really, really didn't want to go there, even glancingly -- and particularly his decision to show her escaping from her own death, running away from something that has happened but is so horrible that she instantly imagines or wills herself into a fantasy-escape mode. I got that right away and quite liked Jackson's way of showing this sudden transformation.

Stanley Tucci's fungusy life form is interesting in a kind of nerdy and peculiar way that feels mostly right. It's a contained performance that he doesn't have a big "this is why I am who I am" moment -- thank the Lord. The underserved are the adult actors and performances -- Rachel Weisz's mom, Mark Wahlberg's dad, Susan Sarandon's alcoholic chain-smoking grandmother, Michael Imperioli's investigating detective. I don't know why Jackson bailed on Seebold's subplot in which Weisz would have had an affair with Imperioli, but I guess there wasn't time. Rose McIver stands out as Susie's willful younger sister. I know I didn't have the slightest problem with Wahlberg's '70s hair wig. The period flavorings ('70s cars, haircuts, home furnishings, wardrobes) are completely authentic.

There's a moment near the end when a certain party doesn't reveal that she's gotten hold of an incriminating piece of evidence, and I must say this quickly drove me insane. "Why is she hesitating?" I screamed to myself. Very irritating, a serious misstep.

Will I find myself doing a down-the-road turnaround like I did with King Kong ? I doubt it. The Lovely Bones doesn't feel overly long, although my ass was telling me it should have been more like 115 or 120 minutes rather than 136 minutes. I know I'd like to see it again, and that in itself is another significant admission.

Ronan, Jackson during filming.

It is an unusual film, and obviously a disturbing one with all kinds of different tone shifts and movements and burrowings and whatnot. I went in presuming there would be a show-offy quality to the after-life compositions, and it is a bit overbaked and over-cranked, but I was able to roll with it. I know what it is to be moaning and coughing and slapping my leg through a Peter Jackson film, and I didn't do this last night.

It may be that The Lovely Bones will slip into the Best Picture running after all, especially given the general view that Invictus is a shortfaller.

Keller Plugs Freeman<< previous | next >>Festive Bones

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on December 3, 2009 at 7:00 AM

comment #1

adam1214 says ...

What wine goes good with crow?

Posted by adam1214 at December 3, 2009 8:46 AM

comment #2

Eloi Manning says ...

If that photo of Ronan doesn't help LexG out of his existential funk, I don't know what will.

Posted by Eloi Manning at December 3, 2009 8:55 AM

comment #3

berg says ...

the sequence that culminates with Imperioli and Tucci looking at each other through the doll house windows was aces

Posted by berg at December 3, 2009 9:05 AM

comment #4

Jack South P.I. says ...

Wells, you should really check it out the book since I get the feeling you're going to be writing about the movie so much in the coming months. It is really wonderful. Not Jackson-y in the slightest. It is very clean and subtle and quietly devastating. I bet you'll prefer Sebold's telling of the story over Jackson's.

Posted by Jack South P.I. at December 3, 2009 9:06 AM

comment #5

Eli Glasner says ...

Jackson needs to step away from the CGI. The colour scheme reminded me of TOYS at times, and that's not a good thing.
Saoirse Ronan was great, certainly worth keeping an eye on but I can't believe Tucci's charting as a best supporting actor for this part. He's done better than this grunting guy with bad glasses. Terrifying sure, but not Oscar-worthy.

Posted by Eli Glasner at December 3, 2009 9:08 AM

comment #6

Circumvrent says ...

Eloi - she's 15!

Posted by Circumvrent at December 3, 2009 9:15 AM

comment #7

GKLondon says ...

Wells was fixing to immolate The Lovely Bones, recognised his preconceptions were incorrect, and admitted as such. No crow needed. It's called a grown up response to being incorrect.

And I'm not in the bag for Jackson, his films are very "of the moment" for me, and the hype is half the fun. I'll see The Lovely Bones, but aint doing a jig for it at all. 'Kong' is one of the most overwhelmingly underwhelming films I've seen in a long time. Hope Avatar doesn't steal its crown.

I hope, for his own sake, that LexG seeks professional help.

Posted by GKLondon at December 3, 2009 9:19 AM

comment #8

Vaudezilla says ...

@ adam1214: It doesn't seem productive to throw a comment like that into the mix. Everyone knows how Jeff feels about Peter Jackson. So I thought it was rather interesting to hear Jeff's thorough and complex take on the film. He's willing to admit that there were things that worked for him in the film, and he certainly didn't go into it determined - come hell or high water - to trash it.

Beyond that, Jeff may feel very strongly against Jackson's visual tendencies, but it's not like he has been saying "I know this movie will be awful" before he saw it.

I don't think there's any foundation to suggest that he has to eat crow. I give him credit for a very fascinating review. And for making me interested in seeing a film that I was pretty much indifferent to up until this point.

Posted by Vaudezilla at December 3, 2009 9:30 AM

comment #9

LanceMc says ...

I'm surprised to read this type of reaction. Not what I was expecting. Also gives me some hope I'll enjoy this as well, considering how closely Jeff's and my own views align regarding Peter Jackson as a filmmaker.

Posted by LanceMc at December 3, 2009 9:42 AM

comment #10

Travis Crabtree says ...

It was nowhere near as good as the book, which I've read.

- Pretentious Guy Who Always Claims The Book Was Better

Posted by Travis Crabtree at December 3, 2009 9:42 AM

comment #11

Eloi Manning says ...

Agree with Vaudezilla - Jeff's misgivings about the film in advance were based on his opinion of previous Jackson films, the trailers/advanced material for this film, and the opinions of others who'd already seen it. He wasn't simply saying "THIS IS GOING TO BE SHIT!" like he is with, say, Sherlock Holmes.

Posted by Eloi Manning at December 3, 2009 9:43 AM

comment #12

CameronIsHMFIC says ...

I told you I had a hunch you`ll like it, Jeff. I haven`t sene it but given all the details that reviewers have given, jackson was right on the money to cut out stuff from the book. I really think the movie improved over it. Very much so.

Posted by CameronIsHMFIC at December 3, 2009 9:44 AM

comment #13

Emmanuel_Goldstein says ...

Ronan looks like she's going to be quite the woman in a few years... She's only 6 years my junior, so I'd say I have a 6 x 10^-18 chance of landing her...

Posted by Emmanuel_Goldstein at December 3, 2009 9:44 AM

comment #14

Vaudezilla says ...

@ Travis Crabtree: Aw, don't be so hard on yourself. Most of the time, you're right!

Posted by Vaudezilla at December 3, 2009 9:50 AM

comment #15

sumo-pop says ...

I'm still made wary by your "down the road" reassessment of Kong. So for now, I reserve judgement on your judgement.

Posted by sumo-pop at December 3, 2009 10:04 AM

comment #16

Rich S. says ...

"Will I find myself doing a down-the-road turnaround like I did with King Kong?"

I'd say that kind of depends on its Metacritic rating in a month or two, doesn't it?

Seriously, though, nice of you to recognize your tendency ahead of time. Your willingness to actually give it a fair shake bodes extremely well for it. If Jeffrey Wells can find things to like, the Eloi will eat it up with a spoon.

Based on this review, I'd say it becomes odds-on favorite for Best Picture.

Posted by Rich S. at December 3, 2009 10:15 AM

comment #17

MrTribeca says ...

Fair play by admitting you liked it, Jeff - your thoughts after seeing a second time further down the road would be interesting.

What I think is required from yourself is some kind of apology to Drew McWeeny. I'm sure you'll admit now that his review came from an actual appreciation of the film's qualities, rather than being "in the tank".

Posted by MrTribeca at December 3, 2009 10:19 AM

comment #18

Eloi Manning says ...

"What I think is required from yourself is some kind of apology to Drew McWeeny. I'm sure you'll admit now that his review came from an actual appreciation of the film's qualities, rather than being "in the tank"."

I think McWeeny's over the top reaction to Wells' post means McWee should be the one apologizing. And if you doubt McWee's history of being "in the tank," check out his review of The Real Cancun.

"I'm still made wary by your "down the road" reassessment of Kong. So for now, I reserve judgement on your judgement."

Nothing wrong with changing your mind down the road. Lots of films have an immediate sensory impact that leaves you on a high, but the more you think about them the less you like them. I was indifferent to Kong after I saw it, but started to actively hate it the more I thought about it. Similarly, I thought all the Star Wars prequels were quite fun after the first time I saw them. The space ships, the lightsaber fights, the music; then I thought about them over time and realized they were mostly shit. It happens. Better that Wells admits his thoughts can change than stubbornly cling to his initial view to save face.

Posted by Eloi Manning at December 3, 2009 10:25 AM

comment #19

Colin says ...

Lots of films have an immediate sensory impact that leaves you on a high, but the more you think about them the less you like them. -Eloi

I feel the same way about Where the Wild Things Are initially I liked it walking out of the theatre, but when I sat down to write the review it significantly diminished.

Posted by Colin at December 3, 2009 11:11 AM

comment #20

CameronIsHMFIC says ...

NBR just snubbed Bones but Jeff liked it! It`s all that matters (NBR is in Eastwood tank anyway)!

Posted by CameronIsHMFIC at December 3, 2009 11:12 AM

comment #21

Mickey says ...

Apparently, Saoirse Ronan is growing up into Evan Rachel Wood. I, for one, find this unfortunate.

Posted by Mickey at December 3, 2009 11:23 AM

comment #22

CameronIsHMFIC says ...

Marilyn Manson. Unfortunate indeed.

Posted by CameronIsHMFIC at December 3, 2009 11:31 AM

comment #23

Eloi Manning says ...

Wasn't Wood revealed to be the subject of that Ed Norton/donkey-punch blind item doing the rounds?

Posted by Eloi Manning at December 3, 2009 11:33 AM

comment #24

LexG says ...

Evan Rachel WOOD is one of my favorite actresses... she has that sexy but unthreatening, angsty, pliant, sensitive, zero body fat quality that I love -- see also K-Stew, Jena Malone, Alison Lohman and ERW. They seem like the kind of women are too cool and smart for men their own age.

Ronan's too young to comment, but she's already on The Countdown List with Dakota and AnnaSophia Robb.

Posted by LexG at December 3, 2009 12:32 PM

comment #25

LexG says ...

And Taylor Momsem from Gossip Girl, who's of course "jailbait!!!!" and we're not allowed to comment upon, even though as part of that Sodom and Gamorrah cast and show, has likely already seen more sordid, debauched shit than 1972 Dennis Hopper.

Posted by LexG at December 3, 2009 12:34 PM

comment #26

LauraReeling says ...

Read the book - the family was sacrificed for the serial killer and heaven looks like the inside of a Mac via Robert Zemeckis's "Contact" (although that "Heavenly Creatures" vibe came - and went - with the penguin topiary).

Posted by LauraReeling at December 3, 2009 12:41 PM

comment #27

adamx says ...

I love the book, so hopefully the movie would be just as good, even with the cuts that Peter Jackson did.. I hope.

Posted by adamx at December 3, 2009 12:50 PM

comment #28

DeeZee says ...

Travis: What about Clockwork Orange and the Shining? 'Cus I know the books were better in those cases.

Posted by DeeZee at December 3, 2009 1:23 PM

comment #29

gazer says ...

Interesting review, Jeffrey.

"... it's like nothing I've seen in a long while"

Perhaps you could elaborate on this, since other reviewers seem to point "something different" or even original about the film as well, something they haven't experienced in quite a while. What is this otherness about the film - the overall tone, a stylistic choice, the editing, structure..?

Posted by gazer at December 3, 2009 1:58 PM

comment #30

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Oh, DeeZee you silly bastard, stop pretending you actually read books. You can't even be bothered to sit through most of the movies you attempt to "discuss" here.

I would say "all of the movies," but I somehow actually believe you sat through Boondock Saints 2 in the theater. Alone.

Anway, um, isn't sitting alone watching BS2 kind of a lame cash-in and rip-off metaphor for your entire life story?

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at December 3, 2009 3:59 PM

comment #31

Mr. F. says ...

See, Wells? Now all that's left is for you to change your mind on Afghanistan!

Posted by Mr. F. at December 3, 2009 4:06 PM

comment #32

DeeZee says ...

"Anway, um, isn't sitting alone watching BS2 kind of a lame cash-in and rip-off metaphor for your entire life story?"

Not as much as so as the people who sit through Transformers 2.

Posted by DeeZee at December 3, 2009 5:42 PM

comment #33

Noiresque says ...

I hope it does not contain a particular daft, climactic sex scene that made me laugh and laugh before hurling the book across the room.

Posted by Noiresque at December 4, 2009 6:20 AM

comment #34

aris says ...

Thank you for share it

Nulis Pena Kehidupan

Posted by aris at January 31, 2010 11:40 PM

comment #35

jimb12345 says ...

This was so amazing to see. The director did an amazing job with this movie. You do not get any better then this.
jacksonville porcelain veneers

Posted by jimb12345 at March 6, 2010 12:22 PM

comment #36

free online games says ...

Amazing article. I've saved it witout a doubt.

Posted by free online games at March 18, 2010 1:56 PM

comment #37

dd says ...

This was so amazing to see. The director did an amazing job with this movie. You do not get any better then this.

Designer handbags

Posted by dd at May 10, 2010 8:19 PM

comment #38

mbt walking shoes says ...

Inspired by the Masai tribe of walking habits, the researchers designed a MBT walking shoes. They found that Masai tribe can go long distances and very long day. MBT shoes sale strengthens the core muscle, strengthens and decides the melody foot and the ankle, the calf, the hamstring, upside and the intrinsic thigh, the buttocks, the stomach and behind. Women's MBT chapa sale including you should not miss the stunning style. These shoes by the wonderful full or split grain leather, knee high top made. You will become strong and toughness through put on the cheap MBT womens shoes to carry out your daily activity.

Posted by mbt walking shoes at June 7, 2010 8:48 AM