CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Lovely Bones Pre-release
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lovely Bones Pre-release

post #1 of 129
11/27/09 at 9:35pm
Thread Starter 
Probably not much point in a pre-release thread for this one, but I'm just finishing the book, and it's quite different than I had anticipated. This movie could really rock some ass if handled well, or completely shit the bed and die crying if things go wrong.

One interesting thing about the book is that the afterlife sequences are relatively minimal. There's a handful of mentions of a perfect world, but nothing on the scale of what the trailer promises. Ladies, that could be a dealbreaker.

On the other hand, the non-Wahlberg cast looks perfect, especially Tucci and Ronan. I'm excited to see their work. And it would be nice if Jackson ended up being a director that will continue to make great films.

Anyone know the word on this? Or seen it?
Reply
post #2 of 129
11/27/09 at 9:46pm
Feel kind of weird inviostexting this, but here's what I read in a write up on Entertainment Weekly:

Susie's death, while vividly described in the book, is going to off-screen in the movie.
Reply
post #3 of 129
11/28/09 at 12:20am
I look forward to this movie... But the PG13 rating gives me pause. I imagine that they ultimately decided to go for something mainstream and, given that the book is read in High School now, it's probably for the best.

But I can't help but thing that some of the book's more powerful and effective elements will be too toned down for my taste.

The story of a 14-year-old girl who gets raped and butchered - only to come of age in death, while her family goes through an emotional rigmarole that includes blood lust and sexual frustration... Well - that just seems like something that should be rated R.

The movie will probably work and be a very good and glossy studio production.

But there are things I would have wanted to see that I probably won't. And I'm not even talking about the more grisly elements.

In any case, Alice Sebold wrote a beautiful book and I'm glad it's being turned into a movie by such talented people. I'm really rooting for this one.
Reply
post #4 of 129
11/28/09 at 12:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Depth View Post
Feel kind of weird inviostexting this, but here's what I read in a write up on Entertainment Weekly:

Susie's death, while vividly described in the book, is going to off-screen in the movie.
The hell? That was one of my favorite parts of the book! Okay, that sounded more creepy than it was supposed to, but the rape and murder is kind of a pivotal moment.
Reply
post #5 of 129
12/1/09 at 2:50am
It's dogshit. Dull, hammy, and hokey, with all the emotional heft of an episode of Ghost Whisperer.

Tucci is amazing, so there's that.
Reply
post #6 of 129
12/1/09 at 3:22am
Oh shit, you punched me in the fucking stomach with that. I was really looking forward to this.

I guess I just need to save my money, and watch that .gif of rage cam Stanley Tucci for 2 to 3 minutes?
Reply
post #7 of 129
12/1/09 at 5:41am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slater View Post
It's dogshit. Dull, hammy, and hokey, with all the emotional heft of an episode of Ghost Whisperer.

Tucci is amazing, so there's that.
That's disappointing. Initially I though 'well, that's no big deal, I think he said the same thing about Revolutionary Road last year', but then I recall that I fucking hated Revolutionary Road.

How's Wahlberg? Atrocious, or just bland? Going off the book, that casting is akin to Steven Weber playing Jackie Robinson.
Reply
post #8 of 129
12/1/09 at 8:01am
Oh Peter. What happened? You should never have lost the weight. Start eating, Guillermo!
Reply
post #9 of 129
12/1/09 at 2:17pm
Wahlberg seems to still be stuck in The Happening mode. He's nasal and earnest and oddly fussy at times, and he fucks up every single one of his big emotional scenes. Weisz is marginally better, but the plot gives her absolutely nothing to do. Same goes for Saorsie, who's terrific in the first twenty minutes, then spends the rest of the movie running through an endless series of CGI fields. (And at one point, a tiny planet that's straight out of Super Mario Galaxy.)
Reply
post #10 of 129
12/1/09 at 2:20pm
Supremely disappointing. Sounds like WHAT DREAMS MAY COME.

Add Jackson to the list of directors that Wahlberg shouldn't be working with, I guess. And that's a long list, given that there's only three names that I can think of on the opposing one.

Really hope Tucci can still grab a nomination here or there.
Reply
post #11 of 129
12/1/09 at 2:25pm
Ha ha. I love how one guy comes in and drops his opinion, and everyone damn near takes it as gospel.

That said... tempered expectations are always a good thing. And it's not that I don't believe Slater; those are some of the fears I have about this thing.
Reply
post #12 of 129
12/1/09 at 2:57pm
Slater's intelligent and generally has good taste, that's why.
Reply
post #13 of 129
12/1/09 at 3:08pm
And let's face it. He's confirming what many of us had already feared.
Reply
post #14 of 129
12/1/09 at 3:08pm
Thread Starter 
Well, Slater generally knows what he's talking about.

Since I finished the book, my expectations for the movie have dipped somewhat anyway. It's just not a cinematic story as written. The trailer suggests that to compensate for that, there's way more CGI and thriller stuff. I think if Jackson wasn't involved, I'd be almost totally uninterested. But he is, so I'm in.
Reply
post #15 of 129
12/1/09 at 3:37pm
I haven't read the book, so I'm curious if some of my narrative problems are because of the source material. And these are MASSIVE SPOILERS for the film:

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER: For example, the focus of the last half is primarily Lindsay Salmon becoming suspicious of Tucci, to the point where she finally breaks into his house and steals his serial killer journal. She gives the journal to her grandma, and then...nothing happens. We never see her parents even learn the identity of their daughter's killer. We never see the cops hunting for Tucci.

The only consequence is that Tucci decides to dump Susie's body into the landfill. At this point, Susie possesses the body of the weird junkyard girl, and we assume there's finally gonna be some payoff to the junkyard girl subplot, right? She's going to bust Tucci at the last possible second. Only nope, Susie just makes out with her high school crush for a little bit, then vanishes.

So her body is never discovered. Tucci apparently gets away without any consequences, only to later get murdered by some magical CGI icicle.

And basically, nothing Susie does in the afterlife (and nothing her sister does in the real world) has ANY consequence on the narrative, other than giving Mark Wahlberg the chance to stare at CGI candles and rose petals with big, watery eyes. END SPOILERS

So I'm wondering: is that faithful to the book? Because on the screen, the resolution is so fucking inert and anticlimactic that it's kind of stunning.
Reply
post #16 of 129
12/1/09 at 3:43pm
Slater, it sounds like it's close to the book, but in the most superficial manner possible. The events you describe occur, but have an emotional depth that the film apparently lacks. I think that this is possibly the result of some literary and narrative tricks Sebold employs that simply cannot translate into film.

Man, I hope you're wrong because the book floored me and it deserves better.
Reply
post #17 of 129
12/1/09 at 3:44pm
^ Yeah, that's in the book. EDIT: Slater's post

I read some pages of the script and thought it seemed awful. The voice over was clearly the words of middle-aged New Zealand women and not a teenager's voice. Susie talks about having "her backside pinched". No American teenager from the 70's would say that.
Reply
post #18 of 129
12/1/09 at 4:33pm
Thread Starter 
I just finished the book, and that is exactly what happens, and you aren't wrong about it being anticlimactic. It somewhat fits the tone of the book, in that the book is in no way a thriller or a revenge story or anything that fits into a crowd pleasing film narrative. There's practically no narrative at all. It's about the lifelong reverberations of loss and grief, and how the way we deal with horrible events define our lives and our relationships to other people. Apparently the wellspring for the novel was Alice Sebold was raped by a man who ultimately went on to kill some other women. It's all about emotion and not story. In a lot of ways, it intentionally confounds story, like with Lindsey breaking into Mr. Harvey's house and stealing evidence, which leads to nothing much.

There's a couple differences in what you mentioned. It sounds like the timeline is shortened, and the dad character is convinced Mr. Harvey murdered her about fifty pages in, and in fact won't shut up about it. But overall, I'm actually really surprised they stayed that faithful to what is very much a literary experience. Well, good or bad, this sounds like one of the more interesting fall films, at least from where I'm sitting.

'Backside pinched' is straight out of the book.
Reply
post #19 of 129
12/1/09 at 4:42pm
Slater,
What the sister does is in the book, but it's only one chapter. Sounds like they inflated the "hunt for the killer" aspect to juice things up.
SPOILER SWIPE-
Tucci does indeed get taken out by a random icicle. But since the book isn't about bringing him to justice it isn't so anticlimatic. Sure there's a sense of being robbed of any kind of vengeance, but that's actually tied to the theme of moving on.
Reply
post #20 of 129
12/1/09 at 4:51pm
Maybe it's my fault for going into the film with the wrong set of expectations. But Jackson structures the entire second half of the film like a standard thriller--there are literally DOZENS of ominous shots of Lindsay staring at Tucci's house, or Tucci watching kids from the shadows--so I don't think I'm going to be the only audience member expecting some sort of resolution.
Reply
post #21 of 129
12/1/09 at 4:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark View Post
Slater,
What the sister does is in the book, but it's only one chapter. Sounds like they inflated the "hunt for the killer" aspect to juice things up.
SPOILER SWIPE-
Tucci does indeed get taken out by a random icicle. But since the book isn't about bringing him to justice it isn't so anticlimatic. Sure there's a sense of being robbed of any kind of vengeance, but that's actually tied to the theme of moving on.
SPOILERS: Is the icicle really totally random in the book? In the movie, a magical CGI sparkle shakes the icicle loose. Sheesh. END SPOILERS
Reply
post #22 of 129
12/1/09 at 5:08pm
LAWLS! I thought they would try some half assed bullshit like that and then thought, "No! Jackson's better than that!"

Totally random in the book.
Reply
post #23 of 129
12/1/09 at 5:09pm
So, I'll avoid the spoilers but it's too bad that the film's so problematic. I was really hoping that PJ would bounce back after King Kong.
Reply
post #24 of 129
12/1/09 at 5:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slater View Post
Maybe it's my fault for going into the film with the wrong set of expectations. But Jackson structures the entire second half of the film like a standard thriller--there are literally DOZENS of ominous shots of Lindsay staring at Tucci's house, or Tucci watching kids from the shadows--so I don't think I'm going to be the only audience member expecting some sort of resolution.
Sounds like the film needs a different resolution to accomodate the change in focus. You can't possibly change that and expect the book ending to work.
Reply
post #25 of 129
12/1/09 at 5:33pm
Jackson has always been heavy-handed but that's generally worked for him as his films so far haven't required much subtlety. But, for example, the scenes in LOTR that I don't like (such as the temptation of Galadriel or the exorcism of Theoden) are ones that could have been down-played a bit, so his weakness in that regard could really show through in a film like The Lovely Bones.
Reply
post #26 of 129
12/1/09 at 5:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slater View Post
SPOILERS: Is the icicle really totally random in the book? In the movie, a magical CGI sparkle shakes the icicle loose. Sheesh. END SPOILERS
Holy shit ahahahahahahaha
Reply
post #27 of 129
12/1/09 at 5:52pm
Man, and I thought the book was overly precious after the first thirty pages.
Reply
post #28 of 129
12/1/09 at 6:06pm
Now I want to see Jackson do a Final Destination movie.
Reply
post #29 of 129
12/1/09 at 6:10pm
Thread Starter 
The ads do promise a thriller. Which isn't the absolute worst thing, but you'd have to change the book. And it sounds like they didn't.

Ed. Or what Clark said
Reply
post #30 of 129
12/1/09 at 7:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark View Post
LAWLS! I thought they would try some half assed bullshit like that and then thought, "No! Jackson's better than that!"

Totally random in the book.
SPOILERS:It isn't completely random in the book, is it? It's at least ambiguous enough to suggest that she may have "helped" the icicle fall down, since she's there watching him. I even think she mentions an icicle as a perfect murder weapon earlier in the book.
Reply
post #31 of 129
12/1/09 at 8:49pm
I don't recall it that way, but I could be wrong.
It seems... uncharacteristic.
Reply
post #32 of 129
12/1/09 at 9:12pm
It's a tad ambiguous, only because of the unlikeliness of the event and the "rules" the book constructs. But that's really all there is behind it, and I think it's contradictory to the themes present in the book.
Reply
post #33 of 129
12/2/09 at 4:53am
Nothing to see here
Reply
post #34 of 129
12/2/09 at 4:56am
Damn shame. I think mentioned this elsewhere, but I thought the book was a bit precious. There's some good stuff in there about grief, moving on and letting go but there are literally tons and tons of contrived language and scenarios in the book. This is an adaptation that really needed to have a director imprint his vision on it, and it looks like Jackson tried to be as faithful as possible to the original material. Which a lot times movies suffer because of.

Oh, and the book is slightly different from your description as SPOILERthere is a cop character who refused to believe the dad's assertions about Harvey being the killer. The journal the sister stole convinced him and the rest of the police force that Harvey is a straight up serial killer but Harvey flees before they can catch him. Then the cop character tries to futilely trail him for years, which goes to the theme of letting go. Oh, and there was a magic Ice Missile (+2) in the book too. I already mentioned that there were contrived scenarios in there.END SPOILER
Reply
post #35 of 129
12/2/09 at 5:26am
Thread Starter 
Yo, Ali, fix that there. This thread went pretty spoilery, but we can at least black it out for everyone else. Like this: The icicle isn't Susie in vengeance form, but it is at least uncanny. As was mentioned, it's 'the perfect murder weapon'. It's a kind of lame bit anyway, in that it feels like a compromise. Oh well, at least Sebold didn't let the fucker live to make her point.
Reply
post #36 of 129
12/2/09 at 7:41am
Apologies, local power outage stopped me from correcting it earlier. Hope not too many people are awake and prowling CHUD right now.
Reply
post #37 of 129
12/2/09 at 12:14pm
i loved the book...and even after reading the spoilers...i will be still seeing this...the only question i have is...does tucci get a oscar nomination...
Reply
post #38 of 129
12/2/09 at 12:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali View Post
Damn shame. I think mentioned this elsewhere, but I thought the book was a bit precious. There's some good stuff in there about grief, moving on and letting go but there are literally tons and tons of contrived language and scenarios in the book. This is an adaptation that really needed to have a director imprint his vision on it, and it looks like Jackson tried to be as faithful as possible to the original material. Which a lot times movies suffer because of.
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly how I felt. I don't hate the book though, and in theory it's a beautiful, emotionally complex story. It just started to lose me when the sassy grandmother showed up.
Reply
post #39 of 129
12/2/09 at 12:15pm
My question is, are you the Mr. Smythe that makes all those robots to kill Spider-Man?
Reply
post #40 of 129
12/2/09 at 12:16pm
why...yes...brad.....i am.............
Reply
post #41 of 129
12/2/09 at 12:18pm
Well you're a mean person.
Reply
post #42 of 129
12/2/09 at 12:19pm
HA...your awesome
Reply
post #43 of 129
12/2/09 at 12:27pm
And a failure too! You're not getting a penny from me, Smythe!
Reply
post #44 of 129
12/2/09 at 12:28pm
well could be worse...i could be tiger woods....what too soon
Reply
post #45 of 129
12/2/09 at 12:33pm
I'm beginning to suspect that you didn't inherit your father's intellect after all.
Reply
post #46 of 129
12/2/09 at 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Floyd View Post
It's a tad ambiguous, only because of the unlikeliness of the event and the "rules" the book constructs. But that's really all there is behind it, and I think it's contradictory to the themes present in the book.
Myabe I refused to believe it in the book because it was just too trite. Now I have to go back and reread that part.
Reply
post #47 of 129
12/2/09 at 1:05pm
I had forgotten about the "hint" earlier in the book but I don't recall anything specifically mentioned in the scene itself. So if the connection is intended at least it's a subtle one. I think we can all agree making it overt in the film is dumb.
Reply
post #48 of 129
12/2/09 at 1:08pm
Tinkerbell should literally murder Stanley Tucci with an icepick.
Reply
post #49 of 129
12/2/09 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Floyd View Post
I had forgotten about the "hint" earlier in the book but I don't recall anything specifically mentioned in the scene itself. So if the connection is intended at least it's a subtle one. I think we can all agree making it overt in the film is dumb.
The thing of it is...
SWIPE!
...the book sets up such an elaborate afterlife that merely killing him is no comeuppance at all. He would just move on to his next stage as every person in world does. It's almost as though he literally gets away with murder because he is never brought to justice in the world of the living.
Reply
post #50 of 129
12/2/09 at 1:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark View Post
The thing of it is...
SWIPE!
...the book sets up such an elaborate afterlife that merely killing him is no comeuppance at all. He would just move on to his next stage as every person in world does. It's almost as though he literally gets away with murder because he is never brought to justice in the world of the living.
Well does the book (SWIPE)even address the issue of punishment or Hell? I don't remember. I mean, Susie was in "her Heaven" but I don't know if that implies everyone goes to "their Heaven".

I suppose there's some narrative irony to draw from the connection--Mr. Harvey gets away with "the perfect murder", and so does Susie?--but I think you're just supposed to wonder a little whether it was coincidental. But yeah, I still think it's trite to read it as directly caused and it raises the question, why did she wait so long to go Final Destination on his ass?(/SPOILERS)
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Lovely Bones Pre-release