The Lovely Bones (2009)

Juxtapose a dingy, early-70s Pennsylvania suburb with a bright, vibrant and pastoral "heaven," and you have what is perhaps the most fatal mistake of Peter Jackson's THE LOVELY BONES. Arguably in the hands of the wrong director, Alice Sebold's chilling and semi-autobiographical novel is too special effects-heavy, too beautiful, too emotionally flat and on the surface. There are stunning pieces, but no satisfying whole. Ultimately, THE LOVELY BONES is a poster child film for "the book was better than the movie."

There had been lots of talk leading up to the film's release that Jackson had changed too many things from the novel, and that's never been something that's left me uptight because I can separate film from source material. And truthfully, from what I can remember from having read the book years ago, I can't say that any changes were so flagrantly disrespectful that the film is worthy of my scorn for that reason. What I can say is that the scenes in the film don't flow well. It feels like Jackson and his wife/co-screenwriter flipped through the book and, every five pages or so, jotted down a sentence. The pieces don't connect well.

As book readers know, THE LOVELY BONES is the story of a family coming to grips with the loss of their 14-year-0ld daughter at the hands of a neighbor who rapes and murders her. While Susie, the murdered girl, looks on from a more-heaven-than-purgatory place Sebold dubs "the In-Between," her mother struggles under her grief to remain a contributing member of the family and her father becomes obsessed with the ongoing criminal investigation to discover Susie's killer and bring him to justice.

While all of these plot points do transfer from page to screen, Jackson's film version so heavily tips in favor of the special-effects-laden In-Between that the earthly terror seems, at times, inconsequential. Actors Rachel Weisz and Mark Wahlberg give perfectly competent performances as the parents but are entirely unmemorable because Jackson edits the film to favor shots of Susie ("Antonment"'s Saoirse Ronan) exploring the In-Between, often with the assistance of another girl who suffered the same Earthly fate as she did. Ronan is a good young actress but it seems clear to me that she was mis-directed by Jackson. So in awe of the mysterious beauty of the In-Between is she that we're almost made to think she's crazy for hanging on to the Earthly world when it's clear that something much more beautiful and peaceful awaits her and it's just up to her to move on and let go. But this is not "Ghost."

Another problem is Stanley Tucci's turn as the rapist/killer (though the film avoids discussion about the rape part) George Harvey. Tucci is excellent insofar as he's in full character actor mode here. His Harvey is so undistinguishable from Tucci himself in almost every imaginable way that the performance almost begs for award recognition. Taken in the context of the story, however, no other member of the family's town even seems like a likely possibility as another potential killer. Tucci plays Harvey as the only potential neighborhood pedophile. I like what Roger Ebert said in his review - that if only it was this easy in real life to pick out these guys. Here in this film, there shouldn't be any problem.

For all of my bashing, it's worth noting that Peter Jackson does some things incredibly well. The moments of Susie's entrapment by Harvey are tight and tense, with dread hanging invisibly in the air. And Jackson's decision to avoid any graphic depictions of Susie's killing (not even glimpses like those shown when Precious Jones is raped by her father in "Precious") is a decision I agree with. I, like Jackson, don't believe that it's a requirement to show these moments. Our imaginations can do far worse, anyway.

In addition, Susan Sarandon appears as the drunken grandma in a deliciously-70s performance: the emotionally-detatched matriarch who swoops in to pick up the pieces when her daughter shuts down and is unable to care for the family. I'm not sure that Sarandon isn't a little too campy, but because Jackson is so off with what I believe the tone of the film is supposed to be, I didn't seem to mind the chance to have a little fun watching Sarandon work here.

As for the In-Between, the setting that pulls far too much focus in the film version of THE LOVELY BONES, it is a wonder to look at, and as special effects-heavy as Jackson's Lord of the Rings films or the green screen world of "Avatar." But, returning to my original comments, here is the film's problem. THE LOVELY BONES is so dependent on these special effects that the gut-punching domestic drama that should have been brought to the fore in this story is placated, misplaced, lost and downplayed. A wide-eyed Susie watching the leaves flying off a tree as birds is the dominant image instead of the anguish on the ground, on Earth. You get to feeling like Susie got the better deal by dying. What message does THAT send?

I hate to jump on the bandwagon of "it was the wrong director for the film," because Peter Jackson is a fantastic filmmaker and a true artist, and I think the directors should decide what kind of films they make by example of their choices, not the audiences who want to pidgeon-hole their favorite directors into the genres they most enjoy them in. That said, it is difficult not to notice that Jackson brings little more to THE LOVELY BONES than what is firmly within his wheelhouse. One can almost sense a slight degree of directorial paralysis here, like Jackson is resisting the urge to be as edgy as he is wont to be and is trying to make a movie for teenage girls, an audience that is neither his to begin with and, I'd have to say, one that this film should not be for.

To say that THE LOVELY BONES is a terrible film is, I think, a bit of a mistake. There is certainly worse stuff out there, and I did experience moments of great tension. But there should have been devestating sadness here, and I didn't feel that. In tone, this film should have most closely resembled "Precious" but comes nowhere close to that film's level of exhausting devestation. This movie is too pretty, too emotionally flat. THE LOVELY BONES is, indeed, lovely. But it shouldn't be. The book is better than the movie.

2.0 out of 4