I have not read the book, so my viewing is purely on the movie alone.
It was good, but not as good as it should have been. In fact, I think there was a way better movie in there, perhaps the best of the year, but it got chopped up too much in the editing room.
For once, I wish a Peter Jackson film was longer.
Anyway, I felt that the movie was quite effective and it did make me and my wife quite emotional at parts. It’s true that they cut away when Suzie gets killed, but it is actually rather effective the way it is handled.
I’m in the opposite position of you. Read the book - and hated it - so have no expectation of seeing the film. Having said that, a part of me thinks it might be a decent film. What bugged me mst about the book was the number of folk who said it had so much meaning within their belief system. Whereas I thought the premise - dead person hangs around earth and seeks vengeance - was pretty disgusting. Are “believers” finding similar comfort from the movie?
But, like I said, as just a thriller film diversion, it could have merit.
Can I ask where you were able to see it? Any sort of premiere? I’m in Chicago and haven’t been able to track down an opening date for it here. Thank you!
I don’t think it’s reasonably debatable that there’s a difference. Moreover,
She wasn’t seeking to impose any punishment of her choice. In the book, and possibly in the film, it is implied that she did eventually settle for meting out her own punishment, but that’s not what she sought to do in the course of the movie.
We caught the film yesterday - pretty full theater for that time of day.
Having never read the book, we went in with no expectations and liked it - although it did seem a bit long in parts.
However, in talking about the film afterward, we both said it was sort of like watching a “very special episode of Ghost Whisperer” and several times we wanted to yell to Ms. Salmon, “Go into the light! Go into the light!”.
I think the other problem was the fantasy world - probably looked pretty good while they were creating it, but now with Avatar out and fresh in peoples’ minds, the fantasy world looked pale in comparison.
Still - worth the money to go see Lovely Bones in the theater.
I saw the film two or three weeks ago. Never read the book, and it’s not really my sort of film in any case; I probably wouldn’t have gone if there hadn’t been the local connection.
But for all of that – I thought it was a powerful film, and I enjoyed it.
Saw it Friday and agree entirely with his review. I’m told it’s faithful to the book (according to a friend who was with me) so I’d probably hate that too.
I liked it. I agree that it might have been too short because it was obvious much was cut out. I haven’t read the book, and I’m an atheist who doesn’t believe in an afterlife, but the thought of one is very comforting and I don’t blame people for liking the idea. I don’t see why Ebert has such a hard time with the writer wanting people (young girls in this case) to go to a beautiful, wonderful world after dying (in this case, being raped and horribly murdered).
If I hadn’t known that was Stanley Tucci, I never would have guessed, not in a million years, and I’ve been a fan for ages. I’d seen him several times before 1996’s Big Night, but that was when I said “That’s Stanley Tucci” and always knew his name after that whenever I’d see him. He was unrecognizable in this!
That’s not what happened!They just kissed. They were interrupted before they could kiss at school, so this was the kiss that Susie missed. And that girl wasn’t her friend. I don’t know that they’d ever even interacted prior to Susie’s death.
It opened in Chicago on Friday. I saw it at River East 21.
Even if the movie had been terrible, and I don’t think it was terrible, it was thrilling to hear the voice of Elizabeth Fraser (Cocteau Twins, This Mortal Coil). Twice! First “Alice” (by Cocteau Twins) and then singing This Mortal Coil’s version of Tim Buckley’s “Song To The Siren” in the meadow/tree scene.
(Thought I’d dig up this old thread since the film just came out on DVD last week.)
What a load of mediocre that’s already been done to death.
I wondered why they even bothered making a movie so cliche’ 90s. If you’re going to make a ‘murdered person communicates from beyond the grave to bring their killer to justice’ type movie at least give it an angle (love story: Ghost, thriller: Stir of Echoes, horror: The Ring).
This thing didn’t know what it wanted to be. You’d get the whole tense/tragic mood going of a rape-murder then they’d have a montage of wacky mother in law Susan Serandon attempting to clean house. wtf?
And the cheesy f/x of ‘in-between’ land that looked like a cross between What Dreams May Come and Spy Kids 3D.
It had some decent tense moments (second daughter rumaging through killers house) but even that felt low budget thriller.
I guess it was watchable but (borrowing from an online review) felt like an exteded episode of the Ghost Whisperer.
I found it to be interesting and moving in parts. Not a super great movie, but good enough.
Ebert’s review is bizarre in it’s wrongness. He seems to have some sort of problem with how the afterlife is shown. He criticizes what he calls heaven for the very attributes that makes it obvious that it is not heaven but instead a pre-heaven limbo. And his comments about how the afterlife can’t have colors WTF!? Give me a break. I think Ebert is starting to go senile. The movie might not work for other reasons, but not for the bizarre reasons he gave.
I liked the book quite a bit, in spite of some of the aforementioned spoilers. Even if the story is somewhat banal, the lyrical quality of the writing was enjoyable (IMO).
I felt the movie lacked any emotional depth whatsoever in favor of often-cheesy special effects, and the casting was weird and distracting (Stanley Tucci, Susan Sarandon and the lead girl were all fine; Marky Mark and Rachel Weisz were way off.) I also think they skipped over some important parts of the book.
