The Lovely Bones

Richard J. Johnson said:
I do agree with Jack, King Kong could have waited, It was just too much following LOTR. Although I liked it, LOTR set the bar way too high for Kong to climb it.
Click to expand...

I loved PJ's King Kong. I didn't expect it to come close to LOTR though. I never understood why the majority of the audience expected it to leave LOTR in the dust, considering the source material for both. Not saying that you had bloated expectations or anything Rich, but a lot of people acted like it was The Phantom Menace.
 
I'm surprised nobody has commented on this movie on here since it went back into wide distribution.

It's pretty much been savaged by the critics (36% on Rotten Tomatoes). I saw it today and I don't really understand the strong dislike.

I think it's actually a pretty good movie if you can accept it for what it isn't (Murder Mystery/Crime Drama). I really found it to be a touching little family story with a big name directory and a lot of CGI.

I think the director's name and the expectations of a CGI laden movie may be largely responsible for the disappointment people are feeling. What do you guys think?
 
I thought the movie made far too much of the "in-between."

http://www.filmeveryday.com/?p=104

I wasn't expecting CGI just because it was Peter Jackson. He made a bunch of films (some really good ones) before he ever touched a computer. I was hoping for something more like Heavenly Creatures, but here, I think Jackson never got below the surface emotions of any of his characters.
 
I saw it last weekend. Peter Jackson just didn't tell the book quite well on film. I didn't like it at all. A little too weird as well. There was a lot of scenes that just didn't make sense.

Now he really made Mr. Harvey look like a creeper. I was actually pretty creep'ed out by his character. His scenes were the most I enjoyed.
 
Last edited:
this movie is a mess. it was like he was trying to get back to his roots and still be new peter jackson. didn't work... also busted effects and i saw green screen matte issues in this... i guess he had weta working on D9 and avatar too much to focus on this.
 
Regarding King Kong

I don't feel it was too much too soon moreso than it just sucked. It was played out like some 12 years old idea of what it should have been. The dinosaur battle duel sequence, the bug sequence, the military destroying NYC with reckless abandon ... The complete miscasting of every character sans Watts.

King Kong was a bust for simply bad filmmaking and not keeping it real. It's like okay too watch and entertaining, but just almost silly and way over the top.

I have not seen The Lovely Bones yet, but I do want to. Jackson is at his best with darker material.
 
Nektonic said:
I loved PJ's King Kong. I didn't expect it to come close to LOTR though. I never understood why the majority of the audience expected it to leave LOTR in the dust, considering the source material for both. Not saying that you had bloated expectations or anything Rich, but a lot of people acted like it was The Phantom Menace.
Click to expand...

I didn't like his King Kong. Too many visual aspects of it felt like a stylistic hangover from Lord of the Rings, and the story was bloated and overcooked. He indulged in too many subplots, like in LOTR, only there it was warranted. I didn't need to see the full arc of Jimmy the Cabin boy. In the original Kong they were on the island in less than 20 minutes. In PJ's Kong it took over an hour. They made a simple, muscular story more complicated than it needed to be. Also felt it was miscast. Jack Black was too goofy for his role, and Adrian Brody just didn't have the charisma to carry the lead. Only Naomi Watts lived up to her role. I also felt the cinematography was too pretty. Would have preferred a grittier Kong. LOTR was even grittier compared to Kong, probably because they shot on more real locations...Haven't seen Lovely Bones, but just a question for those that have, did what you see warrant a 65 million dollar budget, which is what boxofficemojo lists it at?
 
Batutta said:
Haven't seen Lovely Bones, but just a question for those that have, did what you see warrant a 65 million dollar budget, which is what boxofficemojo lists it at?
Click to expand...

I'd say sure, why not? The digital effects were, for the most part, beautifully done. And since a good part of the film takes place in the "in-between" there are plenty of effects.

But for $65 million, I would have much preferred a better movie, regardless of the effects.
 
stephenmick said:
I'd say sure, why not? The digital effects were, for the most part, beautifully done. And since a good part of the film takes place in the "in-between" there are plenty of effects.

But for $65 million, I would have much preferred a better movie, regardless of the effects.
Click to expand...

It just seemed like a smaller movie to me. Some budgets make me scratch my head, like Almost Famous was listed as having a 65 million dollar budget and that was some years back. Seemed odd that it would have twice the budget of District 9.
 
Bones should probably have been a smaller movie, but I'd say there's $65 million on screen, give or take. It's just not the more "typical" effects work you generally see (big action, sci-fi, etc.).
 
Batutta said:
It just seemed like a smaller movie to me. Some budgets make me scratch my head, like Almost Famous was listed as having a 65 million dollar budget and that was some years back. Seemed odd that it would have twice the budget of District 9.
Click to expand...
Almost Famous is FILLED with classic rock songs. Doesn't it even have Led Zeppelin? I bet the royalty budget on that one is an unusually large chunk of those 65 millions.

I watched The Lovely Bones when it screened at BNAT this december, and I liked it.
Not as much as Always or What Dreams May Come, but I liked it.
 
JavaExMachina said:
Almost Famous is FILLED with classic rock songs. Doesn't it even have Led Zeppelin? I bet the royalty budget on that one is an unusually large chunk of those 65 millions.
Click to expand...

But it also did not have a single a-list star in it. Wherever that money went it wasn't on the screen. Not saying it's a bad looking film at all, but when an FX laden film like District 9 can be made for half its budget 10 years later something isn't right.
 
Batutta said:
But it also did not have a single a-list star in it. Wherever that money went it wasn't on the screen. Not saying it's a bad looking film at all, but when an FX laden film like District 9 can be made for half its budget 10 years later something isn't right.
Click to expand...
I would think District 9 is kind of special though.
It's Independent, shot in Johannesburg (I can imagine it's A LOT cheaper to shoot there than in the US, what with unions etc), Jackson and Blomcamp made it because they didn't get to make Halo so maybe they cut a few corners to create something sparse but badass on a budget that was as low as possible.
Doesn't Jackson still own weta? So he's got the equipment to do something like that. I bet Lucas could too IF he wanted to.

A better comparison to District 9 would be Sin City imo. That was shot for 40,000,000 according to imdb, had a TON of A-listers and special effects.

Here's the big revelation of the day: You don't NEED $200,000,000 to make an FX laden film. You need equipment, people and time.
 
I hated it. I watched about 45 minutes of it, fell asleep, woke up about 20 minutes later and felt as though I missed nothing. I found it very uniteresting. Although Rachel Weisz is really something to look at.
 
This film couldn't figure out what it wanted to be. It started great, I loved the whole capture in the den. Then all of a sudden the mother arrives and it turns into a sit-com farce. Then it turns into a kid's wonderland and then back to an adult film.

My consistent tone'o'meter was going nuts. I didnt buy it and I normally like Jackson. Some great moments though.
 
I thought this movie was going to be cheesy (as I saw some of the trailers for it) but it turned out to be a pretty decent flick. In all fairness, Darkline, I think this movie was exactly what Jackson wanted it to be. Not to get all deep or anything but this movie was partially told/shown from the viewpoint of a 14 year old girl from 1973 (where girls didn't grow up quite as fast as they do today). The heaven she travels too is her own personal take on heaven... and since she can't quite comprehend why she was raped, murdered and dismembered for no reason at all, she's created this heaven to hang on to the innocence and purity of her youth. Call it flowery, unnecessary and perhaps overdone, Jackson did an incredible job pulling from the book and then, with technology, bringing these beautiful scenes to life.

It's supposed to go from a kid's wonderland back to the grittiness and dark adult world, that's what the whole movie was about... the viewpoint of a murdered 14 year old girl.

No one should compare it to Always, Ghost or What Dreams May Come... these are totally different movies altogether. If you read the book, then it will make much more sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top