A 14-year-old girl in suburban 1970's Pennsylvania is murdered by her neighbor. She tells the story from the place between Heaven and Earth, showing the lives of the people around her and how they have changed all while attempting to get someone to find her lost body. Written by
Peter Jackson tried to secure the rights to the book while working on The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) but at that time, the rights were snapped up by a British studio (ITV) with an option to make a film. However, since it was never made, the rights lapsed. During production of King Kong (2005), co-producer Tessa Ross found out that the rights had become available and she and Jackson secured them. See more »
When George Harvey is looking at the scrapbook he has on Lindsey Salmon the first article refers to Lindsey receiving a soccer award on Saturday the 9th of May. The 9th of May occurred on a Saturday in 1970 and 1981 which is incorrect in the context of the film. Furthermore, if one closely examines each of the supposedly different articles they each contain the same exactly phrased paragraphs though in different arrangements, sometimes very incongruously (such as an article about her sister's soccer award containing exactly the same paragraph about a helicopter search for her missing sister as in a previous unrelated article). See more »
I remember being really small; too small to see over the edge of a table. There was a snow globe, and I remember the penguin who lived inside the globe. He was all alone in there, and I worried for him.
See more »
I'd like to preface my review with a comment about the negativity circulating around here about this movie. I don't think it's any coincidence that some of these self-appointed "film-making experts" who have nothing remotely positive to say about Jackson's effort cannot formulate complete sentences. It's not surprising at all that someone obsessed with the wetness of a prop in one scene and its dryness in the next lacks the faculty and capacity to appreciate the many merits of this film. It's ridiculous to knit-pick on 'unrealistic' depictions of this aspect of day to day life or that aspect. If you want a realistic depiction of day to day life, observe the world around you, not a movie screen.
The Lovely Bones is being unfairly hammered as maudlin drivel. Some of the concepts and visuals are on the representational side, but if you take this film as a strange amalgam of a murder/suspense thriller and a fantasy in the vein of a children's book, it all works perfectly. The emotional outpouring is portrayed very well by all the players involved. None of it seemed forced. I became emotionally invested early on and the overall impact of this work struck a chord in me that resonated deeply.
More than anything else, this film is unique. Jackson takes many chances when one considers all the traditionally accepted conventions of film making, but unless you are one of those self-absorbed, self-important film student types who endlessly struggle with the "rules of making good films," you'll get something out of this.
The use of CGI was adventurous to be sure, but if one views this piece as an interpretation of life, love, and death through a fantastical lens, then the effects remain harmonious to the telling of the story. More, the CGI in this case describes 'world's unseen,' metaphysical possibilities existing simultaneously without the bounds of physical space and time. A welcome departure from space ships and crumbling cities. Some of the nastiest complaints about the CGI are coming from people who probably have no problem with giant robots that transform into cars and trucks.
Acceptance of a fictional story, the suspension of disbelief, these events occur in the relationship between a movie and its viewer completely apart from all the rules of pacing, subtext, and all the rigid pigeonholes that don't really apply to the creative process anyway. I did not find the Lovely Bones to be maudlin, and I am a pretty jaded movie-viewer.
53 of 87 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?