Features
Headlines
Search
Loading ...
Archives
Speaking of Peter Jackson’s latest, the film screened for the Royals tonight across the pond. The Guardian has doused it:
The screen version, by contrast, is so infuriatingly coy, and so desperate to preserve the modesty of its soulful victim that it amounts to an ongoing clean-up operation…Jackson turns up with his eyes averted, spraying cloying perfume to the left and right.
The Sun, in a clunky example of “writing,” has raved it:
[Jackson] creates something even more amazing than his Middle-earth fantasy. The effects are breathtaking.
Total Film has a rave up:
It deals with loss, grief, rage, familial breakdown and love, most of all love. But it’s also energetic and entertaining, the camera already moving whenever Jackson cuts into a scene and the horror/thriller elements given just enough fizz to recall the director’s early genre forays (minus the splatter) but not so comic book as to undercut the drama.
Harry Knowles, having been spoon-fed another Paramount film, predictably eats it up:
I know what you’re thinking. How can a film about the rape and murder of a beautiful 14 year old girl be anything other than traumatic, but frankly… the film is lovely.
Screen International offers postive words with a few caveats:
[T]he blockbuster film-maker demonstrates subtlety and tenderness in his treatment of the emotive subject matter. But he also almost blows it all with his afterworld special effects, smothering Sebold’s delicate conceit with overblown visuals and ostentatious CGI.
Todd McCarthy saw the film at some point this week or last while the rest of us on these shores were being told “no press,” and is set to pan it (a blurb showed up at Variety yesterday before swiftly being taken down). I assume that review will be posted soon enough.
More as it comes. Post any links you come across here. The film looks to be slightly divisive in the early stages.
55 responses so far
1 11-24-2009 at 2:24 pm
Alfie said...
So the bad review is fine but the two positives are pretty much dismissed as clunky and biased?
Total film magazine gave it four star. So three good reviews and one bad. How is that divisive?
2 11-24-2009 at 2:24 pm
Amir said...
i was really disappointed after last week’s comments on how the ending has been changed and what not.
yet, this remains to be my most anticipated of this year’s films. maybe nine comes close a bit, but frankly, peter jackson has never ever disappointed me, not even with meet the feebles. so why would he this time?
that’s how i like to think anyway.
3 11-24-2009 at 2:25 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Alfie: The Sun and Knowles. Enough said.
Where’s the Total Film review? I’ll link it.
4 11-24-2009 at 2:26 pm
Amir said...
and alfie,
i agree with you. i don’t know why the wording here makes it sound like giving a good review to this film is a bad thing.
5 11-24-2009 at 2:27 pm
Alfie said...
Missed the bit about variety set to be a pan. Sorry. 3 to 2. Fairly evenly split.
When do you see it?
6 11-24-2009 at 2:29 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Found it. Added it.
7 11-24-2009 at 2:29 pm
david said...
I had a feeling this film might be one of the “hit or miss” variety. The Academy has always seemed to respond to Jackson’s work however, even before The Lord of the Rings, and King Kong (giving Heavenly Creatures a screenplay nod).
8 11-24-2009 at 2:33 pm
Alex said...
Screendaily has got their review up and i guess “mixed” would be the word. Cited a lot of good things but the rhythmn is problematic and tone is uneven.
9 11-24-2009 at 2:34 pm
Alfie said...
the total film review is here Kris.
I am not trying to start a fight or anything I just found the tone to be a leaning negative as have most of your bones takes. Have you seen it yet?
http://www.totalfilm.com/the-lovely-bones
10 11-24-2009 at 2:37 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Not a fight, Alfie. Thanks for pointing it out. Also just added the Screen International review.
11 11-24-2009 at 2:46 pm
Alex said...
Weird that TheGuardian has problems with the “real world” elements and found the afterlife elements captivating….while ScreenDaily thought the real world parts were better and far more engaging and didnt enjoy the heaven bits aside from Ronan. Interesting.
12 11-24-2009 at 2:47 pm
Brian said...
The Guardian review is one of the most disturbing reviews I have ever read in my life.
13 11-24-2009 at 2:51 pm
Alfie said...
Do you mean Brian the underlying gist of his review which seems to be “not enough rape and murder”
14 11-24-2009 at 3:02 pm
Seanny said...
I want to know about how good the performances are, especially Ronan and Sarandon.
15 11-24-2009 at 3:04 pm
Brian said...
Yes. I mean, I’m not sure I could even see this movie if those things (plus dismemberment, as the Guardian reminds) were graphically included.
Interesting to note a lot of Imperioli’s part has been cut, it seems. It was definitely in the script.
16 11-24-2009 at 3:14 pm
ninja said...
What is wrong with people? Now that the cat is out of the bag that rape wasn`t even mentioned let alone shown in full detail, book fans are up in arms! And Guardian wants more dismemberment. And weren`t the ending changed in order to pump up violence?
17 11-24-2009 at 3:18 pm
Brian said...
There’s a big difference when the violence concerns a thirteen year old girl, I think.
And the way I read it, the rape is implied, just the word isn’t said. Shivers.
18 11-24-2009 at 3:36 pm
Marlowe said...
I’m sorry, but ***SPOILER*** if you remove the affair aspect, is the character really significant enough to have Imperioli playing him in the first place? I say this in my unending Sopranos withdrawal, but even so…
19 11-24-2009 at 3:55 pm
Morgan said...
I thought the book itself was massively overrated dross – a great premise in search of an actual execution – so I’m not surprised the movie is iffy too.
What’s frightening is the false blue color in Saoirse Ronan’s eyes in the Guardian review photo…
20 11-24-2009 at 4:06 pm
Jim T said...
After learning that Jackson changed the thing he changed, I almost don’t care. I’ll see the film but I don’t think I like it very much or support it for awards although I will probably loce Tucci’s performance. Here is a clip in which he is terrific. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB66_8kKxTc&feature=player_embedded
21 11-24-2009 at 4:09 pm
Brian said...
I imagine they shot all of Imperioli’s scenes, just cut them, sadly.
22 11-24-2009 at 4:42 pm
Jim T said...
Another clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrQCGjBHoh8
23 11-24-2009 at 4:52 pm
Dan said...
From the trailer, Imperioli looked sort of bland, so if it is true he was cut, I am glad.
24 11-24-2009 at 4:54 pm
AmericanRequiem said...
so its really good, and devides critics, my favorite movies have raves and rants, still not worried, unless it goes too far into rants, then ill get worried
25 11-24-2009 at 5:04 pm
aspect ratio said...
Should be interesting to see what the consensus ends up being with these early reviews being all over the spectrum. A fair bet is that it’s probably not going to be a contender for the biggest prizes, though with ten films, who knows?
On the other hand, the films who will end up nominated for BP will have to rank high on the ballots to get in.
26 11-24-2009 at 5:07 pm
MouseRat said...
TIME’s Richard Corliss just raved….
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1942819_1942818_1942815,00.html
27 11-24-2009 at 5:17 pm
Jim T said...
Let’s not forget that reviews are not that important. It is a big drama with shiny stars. Critics must really dislike it to have an impact on the Academy. Good word for Ronan so far. Let’s see what follows.
28 11-24-2009 at 5:36 pm
david said...
I’m quite disturbed by contacts that make everyone’s eyes look like wood elves or fairies. My step daughters contacts are an unnatural blue, so I asked her if she could see better in the dark with them. She seemed really offended, and then proceeded to walk right into a tree.
29 11-24-2009 at 5:48 pm
Brian said...
Variety disliked Jackson’s changes from the book, his CG heaven. In other news, Jeff Wells just had an orgasm.
Hollywood Reporter is mixed – confusing review, as they seem to really like the movie, but wish Jackson had made a different movie.
The one thing to take away from all these reviews is that everyone really, really loves Ronan. I wonder if she can really pull two noms before 18.
30 11-24-2009 at 6:06 pm
Alfie said...
The hollywood reporter one is odd as it reads like a fairly positive review but the writer seems to be concerned about how others will take to the changes and Never really goes into how he feels about it. But all in all his piece is fairly positive. Not a rave but he certainly is not panning it
31 11-24-2009 at 6:10 pm
tc said...
“My step daughters contacts are an unnatural blue, so I asked her if she could see better in the dark with them. She seemed really offended, and then proceeded to walk right into a tree.”
I lol’d.
32 11-24-2009 at 6:13 pm
ninja said...
Ronan has contacts in this?
33 11-24-2009 at 6:19 pm
ninja said...
Where`s Wells`s orgasm? I just went to hollywoodselvere.com and all I see is his mocking Harry Knowles rewviw.
34 11-24-2009 at 6:19 pm
aspect ratio said...
Seems like Ronan is getting high marks even from the negative reviews, both the Variety and HR review seemed to think she’s very good, which should be great praise considering their otherwise lackluster reactions. Tucci seems to be getting good reviews too, the question remains though.. this or Julie & Julia?
35 11-24-2009 at 6:30 pm
todkommt said...
The Lovely Bones gets an early 63% on Rotten Tomatoes… with 5 positive reviews against 3 not so positive.
Greetings from Mexico City.
36 11-24-2009 at 7:17 pm
Alfie said...
Kris, have you seen it yet and if not when do you?
37 11-24-2009 at 11:43 pm
Brian said...
Jeff Wells’ orgasm over the Variety report: http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/11/jacksons_number.php
38 11-25-2009 at 12:19 am
Jonathan Spuij said...
So it’s wildly divided. Too bad. It’s a goner except for tech categories.
39 11-25-2009 at 12:49 am
Anonymous said...
Is it just me, or is a lot of the praise for Ronan based largely on how sweet and pretty she looks? It’s almost as if the reviewers are taking a cue from Stanley Tucci’s character.
40 11-25-2009 at 3:20 am
mark said...
It is looking like vfx,cinematography and maybe ronan who i think will be pushed supporting,I never thought weisz looked strong in the trailer infact she is hardly shown,Sarandon will be lively and well reviewed but not oscar worthy.Tucci no everyone was expecting slam dunk raves and hardly anyone mentions him.
41 11-25-2009 at 3:53 am
Kim said...
“Sarandon will be lively and well review but not oscar worthy”
From what i’m reading, while Sarandon is lively she is also very contrived and overdone. That’s not what i called well reviewed. As for Weisz, most of the reviews say that her character was short change in the script but Weisz does as much as she can with the role. Ronan is getting most of the good praise as well as Tucci, so expect nominations for those two.
42 11-25-2009 at 5:54 am
DHE said...
Well, Ronan can get a Best Actress nod even with a poorly reviewed film because, as we all know, this is a really weak year for actresses…
(ducking and running)
43 11-25-2009 at 6:19 am
The Other James D. said...
Though Ronan’s got praise, I just don’t buy her as a nominee yet. I still see Cotillard, or maybe Gyllenhaal, in the fifth slot. S’okay, there’s always “The Way Back” next year (pun intended).
I hate to be redundant, but I still get the “Revolutionary Road”/over-expectation-type vibes from TLB. It’ll probably fare slightly better though, and I can easily see it snagging a BP nom, sans director/screenplay nods.
44 11-25-2009 at 11:40 am
alfie said...
so jonathan you think its a goner based upon 9 reviews???
5 of which are good??
might want to wait a little before you write it off completely
45 11-25-2009 at 11:44 am
alfie said...
and DHE sorry to go on but this hardly a poorly reviewed film. I am not just saying this as a fan of jacksons work. I stand up for any film that gets written off after a few early reviews. It one of my pet hates – it just drives me crazy when people do this and it happens all the time. I know its just a symptom of the times – hell a film only really has three days (fri,sat,sun) now to be considered a complete failure at the BO so it is just the times we live in but maybe just maybe we should give a film more of a chance then to base our final verdicts off of 9 reviews.
46 11-25-2009 at 11:59 am
Brian said...
I’d only consider three of the reviews to be truly meaningful, and that’s one rave, one positive mixed, and one bash.
I don’t think it’s going to win Best Picture, but it’s going to take a lot more than 3 reviews to make me not predict something a BP nominee with ten slots.
47 11-25-2009 at 12:04 pm
alfie said...
and brian please never use jeff wells name and orgasm in the same sentence every again.
I think it may already have rendered me incapable of having one ever again myself.
48 11-25-2009 at 3:53 pm
Jonathan Spuij said...
Alfie, some of the critics seem to be really harsh on the film. It’s gonna be too much of a fanboy film again to make a real impact on the race. Don’t get me wrong I’ll probably love the film (as I did with all of PJ’s films, hell Rings is my favorite bunch of films ever) but it’s too “wacky” for many of the Academy.
49 11-25-2009 at 9:31 pm
Aaron said...
It’s absurd and slightly awful that some people are already implying that this film is a critical disaster based on, what, maybe 4 or 5 reviews???
Give it a chance people!
50 11-26-2009 at 7:06 am
ninja said...
It isn`t a critical disaster; it isn`t a rapturous success either. And the latter is what late-screened movie needs to be in order to overtake competition with solidly built buzz. The industry has been talking about Precious, Up In the Air and Hurt Locker for months. To change the game, a movie needs to make people talking and who is exactly talking about Lovely Bones except that it is no game-changer? Precious is getting lots of free press thanks to subject matter (child rape) and I don`t think Lovely Bones will get this kind of press despite the book tackling the child rape matter. The movie, reportedly, totally glosses over it, for better or worse. Also, isn`t Up In the Air a contender from the same studio? With stellar reception? I`m talking about real shot at winning, not landing a nomination because 10 Best Picture nominees made it possible to squeeze in.
51 11-26-2009 at 9:38 am
Alfie said...
Empire Magazine just gave it 4 stars.
I just want to see it!!! December 12th cannot come quick enough!
Oh yeah Happy THANKSGIVING!
52 11-26-2009 at 5:33 pm
Me. said...
TO Kris Tapley
WHY DID YOU REMOVE THE LOVELY BONES FROM THE BEST PICTURE, ADAPTED SCREENPLAY, CINEMATOGRAPHY RACES??? MAY I ASK???
Good reviews, buzz around the project, popular director (which means it’ll do really good at the B. O.), acclaimed novel… What did I miss???
Oh, but Julie & Julia is getting nominated. (I don’t think it will to be honest).
Ugh
53 11-26-2009 at 5:49 pm
The Other James D. said...
Contain yourself, fanboy.
There’s a reason for everything.
54 11-26-2009 at 6:00 pm
Me. said...
Exactly… there IS a reason for everything… which is why I’d like to KNOW it!