ViewGuide

Created Jun 23, 2010 06:47PM PST • Edited Jun 24, 2010 05:15PM PST

1. Quality

2. Summary

   Pretty Bad 1.5

   Tsk, tsk. I guess its true that with every risk comes the possibility of failure. Every director is allowed at least one bad movie. And considering that before this came out, Lord of the Rings and King Kong helmer Peter Jackson had a perfect track record, this is indeed a sad moment for such a talented filmmaker. I had been looking forward to The Lovely Bones for quite a while. I was hoping this was going to be one of the 10 films to receive a nomination for best picture. What I got instead was an uneven cluster of darkness and sweetness.

   The story focuses on Susie Salmon, and I swear if one more reviewer says “like the fish” I’ll…..um….ah, forget it. Susie is a 15 year old girl growing up in the late 70s when she is murdered. Instead of going to heaven, she winds up in this place called “the in-between”, which is, clearly, a mystical land located between heaven and hell. She watches as her family try to solve her murder and cope with their loss.

   Peter Jackson is a brilliant filmmaker. Lord of the Rings remains, at least in my opinion, the best film of the last decade and the Star Wars of our generation. King Kong is easily the greatest remake as it pays tribute to and respects the original film that it is based on. Both films respect their source material. And though I haven’t read the original novel that this film is based on, from what I can gather fans of the book have not been pleased and non-fans are equally unsatisfied. Nothing more than a jumbled mess.

4. Acting

   Good 3.0

   The acting is actually pretty strong. Mark Wahlberg is quite good at playing the father and Rachel Weisz gives an equally impressive performance as the grieving mother. Although I will admit it was hard for me to appreciate the acting as I really didn’t care for/ didn’t like a good majority of the characters. Case in point, the grandmother played by Susan Sarandon. Sarandon was O.K., I guess, but her character was annoying which made her come off as annoying. Many will say that Stanley Tucci was amazing in his Oscar nominated performance as Susie’s murderer. As far as I’m concerned, he was WAY over the top. He came off as a creepy combination of Jimmy Stewart and Matt Damon’s character in The Informant.

5. Male Stars Good 3.0

6. Female Stars Good 3.0

7. Female Costars Good 3.0

8. Male Costars Good 3.0

10. Film

    Pretty Bad 1.5

    ---

    sigh*** Oh boy…

11. Direction Pretty Bad 1.5

    Peter, you are a great filmmaker. But this was just one big “no”. The direction you took the film and the actors in just didn’t work. I know you tried, but this just did not work. If there’s anything he did do a good job with on this one its the suspense. Which, for the most part, had me at the edge of my seat.

12. Play Pretty Bad 1.5

    The dialogue is absolutely awkward and just so weird.

13. Music Bad 1.0

    Oh dear lord, do NOT get me started on the music. The music felt so out of place. I understand they were trying to recreate the 70s and make a soundtrack that fit the era, but this was just dreadful to listen to.

14. Visuals OK 2.5

    The visuals were alright, but they really fit somewhere between amazing and something you would see in a shampoo commercial. The cinematography, however, was very impressive.

15. Content

16. Edge

    Sordid 2.7

    Pretty heavy for a PG-13.

17. Sex Titillating 2.0

18. Violence Brutal 3.0

19. Rudeness Profane 3.0

21. Reality

    Fantasy 5.0

22. Circumstantial Fantasy 5.0

23. Biological Fantasy 5.0

24. Physical Fantasy 5.0