Posted by Bel. The time is 4.23pm here in Wellington, NZ.


You know what? I had half-written a rather level headed review of Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones. I acknowledged the fractious process of adaptation and the importance of regarding a story within its own medium. But you know what? No. Not even.

The Lovely Bones sucks. It's a sucky movie, made worse because it is a sucky adaptation of a pretty great book.

It doesn't know if it's a crime thriller or a teen fantasy or some kind of melodramatic family drama. The script neglects key themes of the original novel, leaving you with characters who do inexplicable things or who are inexplicably boring.

Hence, it's filled with tedious performances, whilst you only get glimpses of star turns. Yes, I mean you, o wonderous and photogenic Saoirse Ronan, and you, o joyous scene-stealer Susan Sarandon - thank the computer generated heavens. You two did what you could - but it would never be enough to save this film from a terrible fate: mediocrity.

Clockwise: 1) Teenage fantasy romance scene: Susie loves being in The Inbetween and doesn't give a crap about her grieving family.
2) Family drama crime thriller scene: Susie's dad, Susie's dad's wig and Susie's mum grieve very much for their daughter, whilst not doing much each occasionally asking the useless community police constable if there's been any clues. (Spoiler: no!)
3) Fantasy crime thriller scene: Susie's dad freaks out a bit when Susie tries to communicate with him and also he sees his reflection.
4) Fantasy Weta Workshop jerk-off scene: take that, James Cameron!

Things that Peter Jackson can do:

• Sweet special effects. The special effects in this are pretty sweet.
• Tall, skinny buildings. There is a lighthouse in this which looks pretty good and is only vaguely reminiscent of Sauron's tower. Maybe they recycled the model and just made it a bit different? Like they did with Mount Ruapehu/Mount Doom for LOTR?
• Scary bearded men. LOTR had many of them, in The Lovely Bones, the main guy is one. Perhaps PJ was one of those children scared of Santa.

Things that Peter Jackson cannot do:

• Love, romance or sexual tension of any kind. The meet-cute for Susie and Ray is worse than any scene between Aragon and Arwen or Sam and Frodo. It is awful. Excruciating. Cringe-worthy. And not just because of Ray's floating-head inducing skivvy and spiral perm:

Seriously, WTF? Isn't he supposed to be Indian?

This is a bad thing is a movie which is based on a book which hinges on the main character's love and longing keeping her in a state of limbo, unable to let go of a life she feels she hasn't yet lived to the fullest.

Things that managed to happen anyway, despite Peter Jackson's ineptitude:

• Susan Sarandon went 'fuck this, I'm gonna have me a good time' and set about stealing every bit of limelight possible. She then disappears from the third act of the film. I wish they had just cut in a shot of her passed out behind the couch, you totally would have bought it.

Things that annoyed me most about this sucky film (SPOILERS ABOUND):

• They took out the bit about the mum having the affair with the police detective, okay, fair enough, time constraints, whatever. I'm not mad because he was played by Michael Imperioli AKA Christopher off Sopranos for whom I still mourn, no. I'm mad because they then changed it to being that the mum just decides to up and leave her family (wee boy, teenage girl whose sister just got mysteriously murdered, messed up husband) and they have this shot of her fruit picking. And they didn't have the family react to her abandonment in any way. They all carried on just as before! And then she comes back and there is no reaction to that either!!
  I would have thought they could at least have someone kicking her in the shins for being such a selfish bitch.
  
  
• They also cut out or trimmed down a whole bunch of other characters, the "lovely bones" as Susie explains it, those who grow up around the space she left behind. With this script's heavy focus on the isolated serial killer at the expense of those others, it seems it was more the "loathsome one".
  The worst for me was the way they made Ruth into this random 'weirdo chick' with seemingly little connection to the story, occasionally frowning in a psychic kind of way and then showing up as girlfriend-of-Ray at the end. I can't imagine how the whole transdental body swapping thing would have made any sense at all for a viewer who hadn't read the book.
  
  
• The complete lack of any reference whatsoever to rape. No one says it. Not even once.
  
  
• When the weirdo body swap thing happens at the end, how they totally wussed out of making it a proper sex scene. In the book, when Susie turns her back on heaven in order to have a few moments on earth with Ray, her intention is to indulge physically in enjoying her body with him, with the emotional release that this will bring for her. Alice Sebold's text explicits refers to them having sex together (in the shower, on the couch, in the bedroom) and even makes mention of Susie's reclaiming of sex and of the penis as a (not) weapon, moving from victimhood to an understanding of sexuality in a context of love and sharing and what sounds like some hot raunchy fun.
  In the movie, we get to see them gazing into each other's eyes, then it goes to another scene, then when it cuts back, they are lying fully dressed on the bed. We don't even get treated to the standard Hollywood L-shaped sheet.
  This kind of links back to my point about 'RAPE? AYE? WHAT? NOT HERE. NOTHING TO SEE. MOVE IT ALONG.' but in general, I find it weird that they weren't willing to give her a hint of sexuality or adult passion.

Okay. I could go on. But I will stop now. For my own sanity, let alone yours.

I should have put this link at the top, but my Number #2 Film Critic Girl Crush, Salon.com's Stephanie Zacharek has a brilliantly scathing review here which you should have read instead of this. She mentions that Lynn Ramsay (Morvern Callar) was originally attached to this project - oh what might've been!

Posted by Bel. The time is 8:03am here in Wellington, NZ.

When the midas touch of Peter JAckson is extended to a first-time director the world has never heard of, we all sit up and take notice. This is what has happened with Neill Blomkamp and his debut District 9, one of the most anticipated films of the year. (Yes, I would say it is up there with Harry Potter.) (Haha, somewhere out there, a nerd just lost their wings.)

And District 9 has a lot going for it. The special effects are seamless, just mindblowing. If you are even considering seeing this movie, then go now and check it out on the biggest screen you can. The international release of this film within days of the Avatar trailer also hitting our screens signals some of the big technological steps forward the industry is taking.

But filmmaking is not a technologically-driven medium. The purpose of a film should be to tell a story, and this is where I feel District 9 has missed its final goal. It doesn't know whether it's going to be a sci-fi film or a splatter movie or a scathing documentary. Much has been said about the 'social issues' that are incorporated in the plot, however this is so transparent and unfulfilled that it becomes defeatist.

The film is hardly 'The Power of One meets Alien'. It is neither as original or confronting as either of those, but owes a lot to them. Without all the bells and whistles of the latest technology, people would have a lot less to say about District 9.

Posted by Bel. The time is 9:50pm here in Wellington, NZ.

The official trailer for The Lovely Bones is up. You can go view it over on apple.com (click here for direct link) in either small, medium or whoops there goes our GBs for the month.

I'll wait here while you go check it out.

...

Ok what did you think?

Apparently the release was quite a big deal in the States, with Entertainment Tonight doing a screening of a trailer of the trailer. This however resulted in much online mockery, rather than exultant hype, including some speculation on just how awful Mark Wahlburg's wig is going to look.

For me, it was a narrative heavy trailer, blatantly laying out the storyline as opposed to creating a sense of atmosphere. Peter Jackson has been quoted as saying the optimism of the novel drew him to the project, but there are some pretty cliched horror shots in there. It will be interesting to see how this balances out - but I think many people have forgotten how brilliant a film Heavenly Creatures is, and I hope this will be the same kind of mix.

At least we know it won't be as bad as - you know - that other upcoming film. The other adaptation of which we have vowed to never speak. *wipes away a tear*

PS Here is some speculation on why Ryan Gosling was booted off The Lovely Bones back in the early days.

PPS I can't believe I'm the first to put a Ryan Gosling tag in here.

Posted by Bel. The time is 8:01pm here in Wellington, NZ.

So goes the description by Peter Jackson's partner, Fran Walsh, of Lovely Bones.

PJ argues the point that although the book has a pretty bleak subject matter, the main character Susie Salmon "transcends the horror of her murder" (literally as well, I guess) and that the tone of the book is not one of gloom and despair. It is this hope-filled attitude they've taken into the film apparently - however when asked about how faithful they've been to the plot, he concedes: "There are changes, definitely."


You can read the whole interview here, or you can be like me and try and avoid any further contact with any details of the film betweeen now and December 11th.