“Sweet Bones” by Peter Jackson is the multifaceted work of a huge, very experienced team. The result didn't fail. In my opinion, they managed to create a special film that you can review and find something new for yourself.
Okay. At first glance, this is a slightly mystical, very romantic and dramatic story of the murder of a child. But the point of course is not in this, you will find the essence yourself. For me, as a psychologist, this film touches softly and deeply on the subject of loss, goodbye and finding new meaning.
We see the experience of grief in different people. And, thank you to the director, this experience is very well revealed. At the very beginning, we plunge into a happy family life, not without turmoil, quarrels, but a quite strong family, where there is a lot of love, mutual understanding, community. And this family is struck by grief - a child dies.
And it should be noted an important detail: the girl is lost completely, we will not see the body, the grave, nothing. It's an incredible pain not being able to say goodbye, but there's nothing to say goodbye to. This event tears the family to shreds, and each begins to live his grief in a special way, guided only by him.
The father, who saw in the reflection of the window the trembling flame of a candle, for a long time finds himself in captivity to the idea of struggle, the search for a killer, throwing and hope. It's neither bad nor good. It's just that. We're human and we live the loss we can. So he finds meaning in the development of the daughter films, every time looking at the photo, as if communicating with her, following their last contract: "One cassette per month!" This contract, this candle on the window, helps him find the strength to keep looking.
The mother lives this pain in a completely different way, cementing her feelings inside. She yells at her husband to stop because the wound is too big. So much so that the woman leaves the family, crosses the child out of her heart, saying that she has only two children.
The hardest thing is the remaining daughter, she has no one to help, she has to cope on her own. But it is she who, left in her loss, will find the way to the killer.
Even a quirky and always mistaken in her predictions grandmother here plays an important role of witness to human pain, remaining still the same unkind, but loving her family woman.
And if the first part of the film we are immersed in how grief tore the fabric of relationships, divided and almost killed the spouses, the second part of the film we meet with the very man who did it with his own hands.
Surprisingly, it went unnoticed for us, as it did for Suzy at the beginning of the film! We become fascinated by human feelings, breathless, seeing the faces of our parents, watching Suzy in the afterlife. But then, at some point, we realize how this grief has turned people over, and at that moment, when the gazebo collapses, when the candle fades, we begin to realize the person who did it.
And the image of the killer will not become clear to us to the end, as the image of a monster that can never be comprehended by man, but nevertheless, we understand who he is. And this understanding is enough to be horrified.
In general, the film uses an amazing metaphor that allows us to very powerfully and deeply feel how people experience grief. Because Susie is the metaphor. It reflects all the feelings of her relatives, from denial and disbelief in death, struggle and hope, hatred and the desire to punish the guilty to humility and finding peace.
This film is unique in how carefully and tenderly it deals with death and human loss. He does not tear the soul with pain, he creates without embellishing the plot, without giving us temporary hope, but also without depriving us of it. And most importantly, helping us to see love behind it all!
During one of the breaks I took while watching Pretty Bones (and I had to take a lot of breaks because after a certain moment I lost interest in what was happening on the screen), I was surprised to read that the director of the film was the great Peter Jackson. I was surprised, because until now, Jackson was associated with films of a very different scale and quality. Even when he did not shoot epic paintings of the level of “Lord of the Rings”, “The Hobbit” or, to a lesser extent, “King Kong”, he almost always produced projects of the highest level: to recall the same beautiful “Feared” or black humor classic “The Living Dead”.
'Sweet bones', although the movie is not hopeless, but the level of performance is quite average. No, there are strong components, but I counted them only two and a half.
The first is visual. The world in which the main character falls is beautiful. It can be admired even in isolation from the plot, and the fact that it is metaphorically connected with the real world makes it doubly interesting. My respects to the artists.
The second is Mr. Harvey played by Stanley Tucci. Here, those who worked on the appearance of the character, and the actor himself, did a great job. Maniac turned out to be memorable, realistic, unpleasant and attractive at the same time. I would say that this image is a reason to get acquainted with the film in principle.
And half for Grandma Lynn, played by Susan Sarandon. This character is not something that moves the plot or is an important component, but Susan turned it into a focus of charisma.
The first half of the film looks pretty good, and I honestly thought I would define the film in the green zone. But then it happened - an episode with a rose blooming in Mark Wahlberg's hand. After which God came to the cinema from the car and completely ruined it.
When the real world and the afterlife existed in the film independently of each other, they both aroused interest. In the real world there was a murder investigation, the afterlife attracted beautiful pictures. Their intersections were easy and unobtrusive: here Susie screams in the afterlife, and his father in the real world seems to hear her - as an example. As a result, the film developed partly as a detective thriller, partly as a fantastic drama.
But when the hero of Mark Wahlberg understands everything by clutching a rose in his hand, and the logic of the plot begins to obey only the forebodings and guesses of the father and sister of the main character - which, of course, turn out to be true - the whole atmosphere immediately flies to hell. And when the connection between the viewer and the world shown in the movie breaks down, small shoals inevitably begin to grow and climb into the eyes almost constantly. Here is the mediocre performance of most actors, and the fact that Susie’s younger sister is somehow played by a girl who is five years older – and at this age it is very noticeable. And there are a lot of passing scenes, and just ridiculous - also enough.
As a result, you watch the film, just so as not to throw halfway, in the hope that the ending will smooth the impression at least a little. But no: a completely stupid, far-fetched denouement crowns the wretched second half of the film. And Suzy’s final monologue does not produce the effect that the director certainly expected. In the end, only
5 out of 10
___
Deus ex machina is an unexpected, deliberate denouement of a difficult situation with the involvement of an external factor that had not previously acted in it, for example, a miraculous rescue of heroes.
Sweet Bones has been on my watch list for a long time now, largely because I was familiar with the Internet memes associated with it that flashed through the early work of blogger BadComedian. However, I only got to him very recently. And it turned out to be an incredible disappointment for me; not even just a disappointment - it pissed me off.
It's been a long time since I've been so irritated after watching a movie. In general, the audience’s assessments of “Sweet Bones”, both on “Kinopoisk” and “IMDB” are gentle, but now I rather agree with the opinion of critics who tore the picture to dust, leaving no stone unturned.
Peter Jackson, the director of the film, as if simply denied the sense of taste. Everything is bad here. Acting is disgusting. I don't know, maybe it's just the dubbing, and in the original version, the actors drag, but all the actors in the film look gaggy and even, as if, out of place. Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weiss don’t believe it at all when they try to pretend to be suffering for their parents’ missing daughter. Although we know that they can be very good in dramatic roles, if they are led by a talented director with a vision.
But the film's biggest disaster is, of course, Harvey. Stanley Tucci turned out to be just a phenomenal mystcast for the role of a pedophile, that I think he became a hero of memes because of this.
But, in principle, the script does not save. Here Harvey behaves absolutely like Pennywise from the latest film adaptation of It. I mean, as suspicious as possible, he wouldn't have been able to get the attention of the police at the first interrogation. As no child would have approached him by a mile.
Verdict: Apparently, “Dear Bones” is definitely not Jackson’s story, and he took it for nothing. The potential of the film, however, was, and the tape could be obtained with a different, more “thriller” approach to the story and other casting.
Pretty Bones, an adaptation of Alice Siebold’s bestseller, is a minimum of five films in one. This is a very unusual story where a terrible reality is intertwined with a fantasy part. We are told about a girl who goes to school, loves her parents, dreams of a first kiss, but the irreparable happens... she is killed by a maniac neighbor. From the very first minutes we know the fate of Susie, but we are shown moments of her life. And in this short time, you will like this girl so much that you will not want to let her go... as well as her parents and everyone who knew her.
When running through the caste, do we celebrate everyone? In the role of Susie, still very young Saoirse Ronan, quite copes with her role and causes empathy. Suzy's parents were played by Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weiss. Here the main accompanying emotion is experience. Parents lose their child and can’t even bury it. Throwing, grief and memories - the tandem looked great. Well, the characters are spelled out. Stanley Tucci played Mr. Harvey, the same killer who killed a large number of girls. This is a secretive villain, but so unpleasant that goose bumps from just looking. The villain is out!
In some amazing way, Jackson turned out to be a film at the same time very leisurely, and very rich: events, plots, forms and meanings.
The most amazing thing is that the seemingly incompatible genre elements in “Pretty Bones” are combined very organically – and nothing is forgotten or pushed: no storyline breaks off and goes nowhere, and almost all the characters get their portion of screen time to reveal the character.
And in some incomprehensible way, "Sweet Bones" - a scary film, a sad film, a heavy film - leaves behind a surprisingly bright and joyful feeling. After all, justice triumphs, albeit not always in the way we would like.
Cinema is primarily art, and if it is beautifully presented, then the viewer may fall in love not even with the plot, but simply with the picture. That's what happens with this creation. Behind the beautiful visual hides the controversial idea of the director. Rather not even controversial, but fantastic, fabulous.
Operating work, editing, working with graphics, all this makes you immerse yourself in the film and 2 hours do not break away from it. Banal, but at the same time colorful first show of the villain, when we see everything in the villain, his deeds, his behavior, but do not see the most important thing - his face. Colorful display of the “portal between worlds” A non-standing camera that covers many angles. Working with color. While the heroine is still in the living world, everything is bright, colorful, beautiful store, communication with her father, ships, even the villain’s house, his flowers. However, after that, everything in the villain changes, even his eyes, which initially were not so gloomy.
The visual can be enjoyed endlessly, but the movie is also beautiful because it conveys the vision of the director, his thought, views. This is more difficult, because the director tries to embrace the theme of heaven and “life” after death. He does not give any new reading, also showing Paradise beautiful. However, his very idea, with the fact that after death, you can’t let go of your life for a long time, is fascinating. The heroine cannot believe that she has been deprived of everything, and tries to interact between the two worlds. Indeed, any man would have behaved this way if he had valued his life. The thought, as stated earlier, is quite interesting, but behind all this good and beautiful, where even death is the beginning of something else, lies the main problem of the work. It is incredibly fabulous, fantastic, it is difficult to believe, after watching the impression that this does not happen. Death is always terrible, especially at a young age, and it doesn’t matter that after it people move on and build a new life. This phenomenon cannot be embellished, especially given the circumstances of the death of the heroine.
The villain is also the problem of this film. Of course, Stanley Tucci's acting is good, but behind it is a faceless villain. From all the pictures where there is a villain, it is necessary to justify the motivation of this villain. It's vague here. He just enjoys the moment of the murder. The audience simply does not believe him, because they do not know him at all and his motives. As strange as it may sound, it is necessary to show what exactly makes a maniac do his murders. Here it all boils down to the fact that he is a maniac, because the maniac and gets pleasure from it. The villain is also interesting in terms of staging. The maniac sits in the center of the room and picks up the key fob in his hands, thinking what to do next. But why would he kill for what purpose? What gives him pleasure? The murder itself can either be the behavior of the victims before they die, or also the adrenaline it gets when it's almost uncovered. The answer to this question remains unclear. It feels like he's killing to kill. Maybe maniacs really are, but in the movies everyone should have their own motivation.
The film simply entices the viewer and tries to convey a rather controversial view of death. Immersion in the colorful thoughts of the director is really very exciting, but if you discard the entire visual, the thoughts raise many questions. Emotions from the film can get a huge amount, only if you then start to think about what happened, there is a misunderstanding.
6 out of 10
Only for the beautiful visual that almost led me into the unrealistic fairy tale of this film.
There are two types of photos: cold and insensitive studio photos created to hide flaws, photoshopped smooth digital skin that you will never see in reality ... and the second type – random live shots filled with emotions, moments as if snatched from the inexorable clutches of time and captured in eternity, but alive enough that you want to touch. I gave this allegory for a reason, because “Sweet Bones” is a photoshopped soulless heap of female fantasies about the abduction of children by maniacs and life after death. Throughout the entire screening, I felt like I was watching a film adaptation of some female story or book. When the credits went, my fears were confirmed: the film is based on the novel of the same name by Alice Siebold.
Absolutely unrealistic characters, you can see with the naked eye that they are fictional. An ideal boy who picks up the main character like a macho, but then does not have time to kiss her, because the girl like a slut is led to the simple tricks of a maniac, which in fact would be unlikely, because it is impossible to be so stupid and trusting at fourteen years old as if she was six ... but what is there, even at six years old children are smarter and more alert, especially in America, especially in relation to mustachiose uncles in suspicious places? Maniac appearance is a separate topic. As if descended from the pages of a textbook on forensics, possessing all the external features of a maniac, not to mention his hobbies and place of residence relative to the victim, for some reason does not cause any suspicions of a moronic detective, as the main character of the series Lucifer would call him.
Cool actors who are nice to watch don’t make a movie. Rachel Weiss, who is always very well given the roles of a woman in depressive and melancholy, is not depressed enough in Pretty Bones, because the film is not about this. What exactly is this movie about? About the unproven theory, they say, in the afterlife is good and beautiful, and there is also an astral from which spirits watch us, and we need to accept the death of our loved ones? The idea is not new, and the implementation in the worsened version of the film “Where Dreams Lead” is a seam. The main character broadcasts her story, telling what is happening on the screen. Wait, are we here to read a book? Wait, a book movie. Well, that explains it. Where is the adaptation, even a bit of realism? Nothing. We watch, or rather listen to history, like an audiobook for the night. Neither longing nor melancholy for the last, the tear also did not break, although the child, that is, the actress Saoirse Ronan (could see her in the films “The Host”, “Byzantium” “Lady Bird”) was very trying to cause a feeling of tenderness and tears of joy in the viewer. Mark Wahlberg felt himself in the unnatural role of a law-abiding and decent, you can say the perfect dad... however, his character lasted only half of the film until his fists began to itch to kick someone’s ass, because it’s in his, Wahlberg, acting repertoire.
To sum it up, we have the perfect father, the perfect guy, the perfect ghost, the perfect maniac and the emasculated, unrealistic fictional story, which for some reason decided to film. The film is about the serious problem of abduction of children with their subsequent rape and murder, which calls not to be saddened by what happened, because the children allegedly get into the surreal world, where pink ponies gallop along the mussaic shores, and cute snowmen walk along the plains of sweet cotton, where there are no evil astral entities and rushing in despair lost souls who have not completed earthly affairs, where you can not only watch their living relatives, but even inhabit the bodies of some especially impressive special, for the sake of satisfying their most cherished desires! Moreover, this always polite and gallant young man will not be at all surprised by such an event, not inferior in essence to the Resurrection of Christ, because it is so simple - to take and rise for a minute, and then again to forget in the illusory world of pooping rainbow butterflies. In a world as if created by the mind of the killer maniac himself, because only his victims live in it. I won’t conclude that the film justifies the maniacs who kill children (by the way, the murder itself is not shown in the film, from the word at all) because the magic icicle of Evil Fat seems to refute this assumption. Evil should be shown to be embellished as it is, realistic and repulsive, not naive and sweet. “Sweet Bones” is a vivid example of how not to make films about the astral / limbo, and even more so as not to make films about maniacs-killers of children.
1 out of 10
An incredibly emotional film that leaves a feeling of catharsis for a few days, after which the soul cries in the spring rains. Everybody watch. It was the first time that the film made me remember the actress and ask about her other roles, which, however, were not nearby.
This film is something very personal. And I understand that such paintings are for an amateur. When my friend and I first played this movie, we weren’t really counting on anything. And -- how we cried! I don’t remember ever howling so much and almost in unison. Especially the last sentence:
My name is Suzy Salmon, which means salmon. I want you to live happily ever after.
From that moment I have a very obsessive feeling: my chest is squeezed by the bonds, I hardly remember this film. And I'm sad and scared and hurt.
Afterwards, I revisited several times, and in each of them I asked myself the question: Why is she dying again? I know movies don’t change, I know it’s a matter of my inflamed mind, but I always ask it and still hope for something.
But it's not about my feelings. Let’s talk about the movie at last.
This film is a very complete picture. every detail, shown or voiced, has an impact on the development of the plot and plays a role. We are not shown anything by chance: whether it is a cap, an icicle or a large pit. I could call it guns, but those parts don't shoot. The whole story is so gently and unobtrusively woven from them.
Beautiful shooting, beautiful special effects, a beautiful view of life after life. The story of a fourteen-year-old girl, her first love and her murder is told in simple and understandable language. All this is woven into a whole picture, consisting not only of pain, loss and injustice, but also of hope. Again, everything is saved by Dumbledore’s power of love, it is her creativity that grows the very “cute bones” that glue the family together and return the light to the forever empty house. Life doesn’t end when someone leaves, it just changes.
I love this movie, even though I cry all the time. I love the voiceover, the acting (by the way, the maniac came out so cool that when I saw this actor in another film, I did not even admit that he played the same Mr. Harvey), his soulfulness and hope.
I’ve read a book and it’s no worse, but this movie is one of those rare occasions where I say, ‘You can only watch a movie, you won’t lose anything.’
And a lot is lost in the film: the unlived lives of girls, the poems of Moor, hundreds of ships enclosed in bottles. Let Susie tell you herself.
“Sweet Bones” is a film that tells the truth about the tragic fate of a teenager. To penetrate and believe in what is happening in the film, help the emotions of the characters, atmospheric music, dialogue, angles, good editing and sound, as well as the story itself.
Horrifying footage in the film is not shown directly, which adds interest when watching.
The concept of heaven and life after death is shown here unobtrusively, this place the director managed to give an important connecting role, it unites and assembles the entire film as a puzzle.
After watching the movie, the feeling was mixed. I felt joy and sadness and disgust at the same time.
Of course, the situation described in the film is very scary, but how beautifully thought out and executed.
This is one of those films that carry a lot of meaning. There are a lot of things and phrases that are worth paying attention to and listening to. This film will not be out of your mind for a long time.
The film does not target an audience younger than the stated age limit. It will be heavy and incomprehensible to those who are not yet ripe for the serious problems raised here. But I still recommend watching the movie.
New day, new movie. Today's film is based on a book I read a year ago, Pretty Bones by Alice Siebold. The film was directed by Peter Jackson.
The plot is visible from the front pages and is interesting because it is told from the perspective of a girl named Suzy Salmon, who at the age of 14 was raped, killed and dismembered by a man who lived next door. The film does not have all this cruelty of the book Calm down!
I cried over the book once when the girl was killed. I cried over the film almost constantly. The visual image that Peter Jackson showed was amazing. For the first time, my fantasies on the book coincided with what I saw.
Why read books and watch movies like this? It was hard for me. I'm a mom of two girls. I cannot imagine my life without them. I wasn't scared. I was in pain. All the horror of the heroine described in the book in the film, you will not see it. There are allegories.
The film is very close to the book. One of not many. The picture is incredibly beautiful. I wish it were. Beautiful and painless. Let this deception be a little comforting. After all, in dry stationery photos everything looks not so beautiful.
Why read or watch? It shows how people try to come to terms with circumstances, about the continuation of life and after the tragedy. About release.
Love your children, tell them “I love” every day because you don’t know which one is the last.
There is nothing bad to say about this film, especially close to the hearts of those who have experienced the loss of relatives. Peter Jackson’s film certainly lacks social specificity, and it certainly isn’t about the victims of the sex carnival of the 1970s, as I imagined when I wrote a review of Heavenly Creatures. When you watch “Sweet Bones”, you often remember “Ghost” with Demi Moore – a film related to Jackson’s picture, similar in many ways, but more sweet. I must pay tribute to the director that in the era of militant atheism and materialism, he made a picture about the immortality of the soul, about the connection of the world of the dead with the world of the living, unfortunately, never mentioning God – the Lord of life and death.
And let the descriptions of the afterlife of the soul give Hollywood popsovnost: visionary in form they seek to simultaneously delight the viewer with colorfulness and surprise the flight of directorial fantasy, all this is necessary in order to show the experiences of loved ones, their loss and restlessness of the soul after death, until justice prevails. “Sweet Dies” is a movie, of course, Hollywood, not only not devoid of sentimental cliches, but literally stuffed with them, but this does not annoy, and as the plot develops, it increasingly contributes to the audience’s sympathy for the heroes. One of the first roles of Saoirse Ronan in a big movie did not require anything extraordinary from her, but the aspiring actress coped well with her modest psychological tasks. Also, Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Wise (for the second time in their career after “Fountain” living grief on the screen) are very tolerable.
As for Stanley Tucci (in makeup very reminiscent of Peter Stormare from “Fargo”), no matter how terrible and disgusting his character is, you always catch yourself thinking that the actor plays perfectly. Susan Sarandon is beautiful in the role of a plastically tuned grandmother, she is associated with memorable few comic episodes. “Sweet Bones” is not only not a masterpiece, but also not a particularly talented movie, all the novelty of which, apparently, is from the filmed book. However, one cannot but admire some episodes shot by a nervous parallel montage, focused if not on Intolerance, then at least on The Clock, Short Editing and Magnolia. And no matter how spoiled the impression of what the director took from his head and fantasized scenes of “paradise”, this film of Jackson becomes not much not a little parable of justice on the other side of life and death, which cannot but come until restless souls wait for proper revenge.
I write reviews for movies quite rarely. It's only the thirteenth. In most cases, I try to be a cold-blooded critic, presenting facts, associations, and impressions. With a minimum of emotion. But this isn't going to work. Whatever you want.
I repent: I met the film “Sweet Bones” recently, I had not even heard of it before. And not only about him, but also about films with Saoirse Ronan in the title role. I guess he didn't get to that level. To the highest level.
I want to tell you right away. For those who are not familiar with this film, do not watch it in the mode “short the evening”. Do not try to evaluate it with the usual criteria like “like – do not like”, “bad – good”, “sad – light”, etc. He's totally special. If you feel it the way it deserves, you’ll know what it’s about – words can’t explain it.
The plot seems to be very simple and very realistic. Suzy Salmon returns home from school and is spoken to (note!) by a neighbor. Taking advantage of her credulity, she is lured into a kind of “shelter”, raped and killed (don’t be afraid – there are no scenes of violence and murder in the film, they are not required). Enough of the episode of conversation in this “shelter” and Suzy’s attempts to escape, from which the heart simply freezes. But then a picture so incredible unfolds, a story so profound psychologically true, that it just cuts forever into memory, into consciousness, touches every cell of the body that is still capable of feeling and every corner of the soul. Susie’s soul, unable to leave this world for good because of her love for him, watches her family grieve as they try to find the killer. Susie has no influence on what is happening, except that on a certain sensual-mystical level contact with his father. She watches her brother and sister grow up, as her father almost goes mad, as her mother, unable to withstand the horror, leaves her home. And she is not angry (except for one small episode), she is not jealous of her sister. Suzy's soul is clean. Shortly before her death, she is invited on a date by a boy, she dreams of the first kiss, which for her will never come. Well, it almost won't come...
Let’s get away from the emotions and look at the aspects of making the film. Let's start this time with music. Anyone who understands elementary theory will notice that the composer uses completely extraordinary harmonies. It seems like basic functions... but a lot of non-chord sounds make them absolutely fantastic. In most of the themes accompanying the scenes in the intermediate world of Suzy, calm, light harmonies, triads without a terrace tone, but with a bunch of auxiliary sounds are used. It gives the impression of elusive flight, airiness, infinity. There are, of course, dramatic themes, such as one of the most powerful episodes of the film, the scene with the black colors of Harvey and his father. They are also built on fantastic harmonies, with a strong bias towards introductory septachords. It is a deep despair, a tragedy of the soul.
I mean, this scene, and not just her. Enchanting pictures of Suzy’s world make an incredible impression, especially in those moments when they alternate with scenes from “real life”. They should not be viewed as, God forbid, special effects or computer graphics. Nope. You need to think about every little thing, every symbol that appears there. Immerse yourself in this world. The meaning of the symbols will not always be obvious.
And then finally, the actors. Honestly, I was afraid of the moment when I would get to them in the review. It is very difficult for me to describe the game as Saoirse Ronan, her parents, and even maniac Stanley Tucci. Words are probably superfluous... but you can’t say anything with them. Saoirse has a mystical ability to burn his image in memory. After watching films of this level with her (not only “Sweet Bones”, but also “Atonement”, “How I Love Now”, for example) it is worth closing your eyes as she immediately appears before the eye with her huge blue eyes and incredible talent to create a deep, sincere, strong and all-pervading image. The rest of the actors are in perfect harmony with her, even the maniac in some sense struck. Of course, he does not cause warm feelings, but Stanley Tucci plays great - his image of an externally absolutely unremarkable person with an unpleasant and complex inner world can not help but hurt.
When I first watched this movie... No, don't think. I didn't. I couldn't cry. Just two hours looking at one point. Thoughts rushed frantically in my head, my heart broke with feelings. Most of all, I wish that never happened. So Susie could be saved. But that will never happen again.
And finally. You know, I've been keeping a watch list for a long time. If you do not take into account the episodes of the series, then there are already about 12,000 films in it. And let it sound pretentious, infantile or something else - call it what you want. But this movie is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen in my life. And there's unlikely to be anything more beautiful.
One of the most influential directors of our time + a beautiful, stellar cast = must be something very grandiose and very exciting.
But in fact, the film leaves behind an unpleasant aftertaste.
First on the pluses.
1. The picture, as expected from the master of fantasy, is simply flawless. The footage is bright, colorful and sometimes unreal.
2. The acting is decent. I especially want to highlight Stanley Tucci. Very well played in the role!
Well, I guess the pluses are over. The rest is just terrible.
The biggest drawback is in the story. The film describes a terrible tragedy as a completely normal life event. The main character Suzy, an ever-smiling girl, dies after being raped and finds herself in an intermediate place between heaven and earth. At first, she talked for a while about hating the person she was there for. I wanted revenge on the rapist. But after a while she was forgotten. Forgotten in this imaginary world. Started running with butterflies in the meadows, having fun with other children. Sometimes, of course, she remembered her past life, life on earth. I watched the family, whose life after that completely slid downhill. But in general, Suzy did not care much.
I mean, what happens? Such a terrible problem as the rape of minors, and also with the subsequent murder, the author decided to reveal this. They're fine. Don't worry. They are in a bright world and await their place in paradise. And it does not matter that in this world they did not have much time, no matter that they left this world so terribly, no matter that parents will not recover from grief. Well, it will be a little sad, but in general it is not so bad. You can have fun here.
Sweet Bones isn’t just a movie about the complex, it’s a story told incredibly truthfully, through characters’ emotions, through music and light, without showing the horrific footage and events directly. History and dialogue, angles and pictures, editing and sound – all this is done so that you do not notice that you are watching the film and every minute you dive deeper into it.
Each character is written and played for real, the line of good / bad does not show and give it to the viewer at their discretion, demonstrating people with their desires and deeds. Characters want to worry, which is a great merit and actors. The film did not seem to be long, just as long as it was necessary for the story. I looked literally in one breath, and forced to tell everything else - not now, all thoughts during the viewing were about the picture and its characters.
I do not always like the concept of heaven and life after death in literary works and films, but here the creators have managed to show and play in such a way that this idea does not seem obtrusive and unnecessary, on the contrary – it acts as a link and plays the role of a narrator who unites and collects all the pieces of the film. With its help, it was possible to tell and show the emotions of the characters and the story itself in great detail.
You can see that the picture was made not just by people who like to make movies, but who like to make a good movie, and they did it perfectly.
10 out of 10
Dollhouse with beautiful details and disgusting events taking place in Germany
Feelings ambiguous. On the one hand, we see a beautiful play of visuals, beautiful actors, landscapes and shots, and on the other we get a complete emptiness in the form of the main characters, who are saved only here and there by grand pianos leaving the bushes and corn.
Pleasant:
- Very beautiful, pleasant in appearance and often in the game actors, perfect for the setting. Even the antagonist turned out to be even sweet, and you do not even know for sure whether it is good or bad.
- Excellent visual, perfectly conveying the mood and not devoid of the bases of symbolism like emphasizing the dark and light sides. Views of the afterlife are especially beautiful, albeit sometimes empty and stereotyped, and the film itself has long been cut into pictures for all sorts of quotes.
- Symbolic. He's everywhere! Therefore, attention to detail is also observed with hurrah.
Unpleasant:
- Swish pianos. Thousands of them! Bulky and bright cherry hue. Half is taught for nothing that originally wanted to become something. Sometimes you come across frank nonsense like a couple in corn who decided to beat one of the heroes to death from scratch.
- And you have a family that is crazy, and half of the characters and scenes are useful at the level of a colored pencil in the sea. My grandmother has the most questions, just like the mother. Although the logic of movies is sometimes quite different than in life, this is not a reason to remove characters with extremely stupid excuses, simply because they are no longer needed and arrange completely inappropriate scenes that spoil the impressions of the previous and the whole film. A vivid example - the sister of the main character stole the diary to show it to the family, where the reunion is already in full swing.
- Empty characters. This is especially true of the main character, who fails to sympathize and empathize. We hear the story of her life, we perceive her thoughts and feelings, but we never feel any kind of emotional response in her direction. I was only happy with the pictures at the end. By the end, Suzy begins to just annoy, especially against the background of her competently prescribed father and a slightly less interesting antagonist. Which, by the way, also consists of nothing and "ooh, I'm hooked by little girls!!!"
Well, in general ...
Beautiful doll house with no less beautiful dolls inside. It is a pity that behind this visually pleasing cardboard and plastic there is only morality for already dead people and a huge amount of emptiness. The logic is also quite dollish and here it is far from the viewer. Almost every action can be described as “inexplicable, but fact.” A movie for once and no more.
An amazing film from director Peter Jackson. A screen adaptation of Alice Siebold's book. This fictional story tells about the unpredictability of life. It would seem that the main character Suzy Salmon has an ideal life, which can be a teenager, the first love, the desire to taste an early kiss, a dear hobby. But the unpredictability of fate pits a young girl against a man of evil, whose appearance may seem pleasant at first sight, and his inner part is shrouded in sinister perverse desires.
The author wanted to show us the other side of our world. If we look closely, we will find everywhere the relationship between good and evil. Each of us has had to go through pain, and those with a big heart will understand the plot of the film like no other.
In my observations, there is a great emphasis on demonstrating the space into which the soul enters after death, while there are unfinished business. This otherworldly world adorns the film, giving it charms, but still the dirt and cowardice emanating from George Harvey seeps through vivid images and pictures of another dimension. All this resembles an intricate tangle in which the whole spectrum of emotions is collected.
The naivety of Suzy Salmon, even after her death, only convinces the viewer of the purity of her soul. And the disgusting part of neighbor George, at first, demonstrates only impunity, which is not called a drawback of the film, but rather another plus, since in the real world everything happens.
In general, the film is wonderful, confusing storylines allow even more powerful insight into the essence. In conclusion, I would like to note that each of us can draw our own conclusions and think. I suggest you look!
Have you thought about life after death?
The film tells the story of a girl killed by a maniac neighbor. After death, she is between the worlds and watches what is happening.
You know, until I became a mother, I didn't get that much information about the deaths of my children. Yes, of course, I always felt bad about such news, madly sorry for the parents and victims, but today when watching I realized that now my goosebumps are the size of a walnut, that my hair stands on end in all possible places, that because of the thoughts of the painful death of a child, I literally vomiting, and the horror overflows.
The movie itself. To be honest, it is not clear why the film about such a tragedy is made so easily, romantically and somehow vanilla. The subject is difficult, frightening, extremely painful.
The whole plot fits into one phrase, said by the main character at the very beginning: "My name is Susie Salmon." I was raped and brutally murdered when I was 14.” The first half of the film keeps in suspense, then begins the frank thrust. The arrival of my mother-in-law at the Salmen house was absurd to me. A loving grandmother who lost her granddaughter, very out of place fills with enthusiasm and fun the drooping house. It feels like she doesn't care about the girl at all.
The actions of the heroes cannot be explained. Well, the apogee of madness was the finale of the film. It's just a handkerchief, really. For me, the ending seemed unconvincing.
Undoubtedly, the film touches, makes you worry, sometimes cry, but it is so disposable, so strangely shot that it flies away to mediocre.
5 out of 10
A general impression: This is a very unusual story where a terrible reality is intertwined with a fantasy part. We are told about a girl who goes to school, loves her parents, dreams of a first kiss, but the irreparable happens... she is killed by a maniac neighbor. No, it's not a spoiler. From the very first minutes we know the fate of Susie, but we are shown moments of her life. And in this short time, you will like this girl so much that you will not want to let her go... as well as her parents and everyone who knew her.
The first plus of the film is the director. Peter Jackson is known to us for such films as "The Lord of the Rings", "The Hobbit", "King Kong", he was able to gather his audience of fans. And if he does, it won't just be a trivial story. As for this film, it does not have a specific genre. There's drama, and thriller, and fantasy, a little horror. Sometimes it is scary, sometimes it is scary, and sometimes the heart freezes from the first kiss. We are shown the childlike carelessness that Susie is engulfed in and how quickly she matures when she dies. Of course, no one knows what's on the other side. But the world you see is extraordinarily beautiful only if you want it. The majestic landscapes envelop, immersing even more into the film. Undoubtedly, Susie’s story touches to the depths, all the mysticism that revolves around the film is actually much more real.
When running through the caste, do we celebrate everyone? In the role of Susie, still a child – Saoirse Ronan. He is very good and shows a variety of emotions. It's certainly gratifying. Susie's parents were played by Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weiss. Here the main accompanying emotion is experience. Parents lose their child and can’t even bury it. Throwing, grief and memories - the tandem looked great. Well, the characters are spelled out. Stanley Tucci played Mr. Harvey, the same killer who killed a large number of girls. This is a secretive villain, but so unpleasant that goose bumps from just looking. The villain is out!
Cinema carries a semantic load, it has a lot of phrases that you want to listen to. Such a movie does not come out of your mind immediately, no, you remember it for a long time until you stumble upon it again. Of course, I recommend it.
P.S. The film is based on the novel by Alice Siebold “Pretty Bones”.
The film gave us the opportunity to feel the value of life, as if from the inside. It is to feel, not to understand, because such truths are unlikely to surprise anyone.
Man is not merely an entity that has appeared once and disappeared once, no. A person has a rare opportunity to realize, to feel the world around him, to try to understand how it works, to see its beauty, to enjoy it – a person is reasonable. He is able to understand all the pain that the world can cause.
Susan's dead. Her corpse is not found and lies, probably, somewhere twisted, in an unnatural position, and a terrifying grimace is twisted on her face. Only Susan isn't there, and the grimace isn't hers. Suzanne recently fell in love with one boy - pretty. They almost kissed recently - not the first kiss. There was so much to feel. A world full of possibilities and passions, loving people and incredible events. But there was only a memory, only an intangible memory of the past, of joys, of experiences, of a person. The world ended abruptly for Susan.
But for the world, Susan is not over. We live as long as the memory of us lives.
Screening books is a time-consuming and interesting process. After all, you need to convey the essence of the book, but at the same time it is talented to wrap it. Peter Jackson took up one of these adaptations, and as a book he took the work of Alice Silbold “Sweet Bones”.
The plot is based on the book of the same name. Susan's a normal teenager. She is fond of photography, she likes a beautiful boy, discusses all sorts of nonsense with her friends and lives in a happy family. Any girl can associate herself with her. Susie had big plans for the future, but meeting with a fatal person for her changes everything and the girl will fall into another reality.
The film is very beautiful. In particular, I want to note a kind of interworld in which the main character is located. The visualizers did their best. But the real one's pretty good. We have successfully selected angles and colors.
Acting play pleasant. Saoirse Ronan perfectly got used to the role of a dreamy, cheerful girl in love with a beautiful high school student. I also liked Mark Wahlberg and Susan Sarandon. From the second came a good grandmother, but from the first suffering from grief father. And Stanley Tucci perfectly played a nasty maniac-pedophile.
“Sweet Bones” is a film that is missing stars from the sky. But it has a good acting and a beautiful visual.
Generally unusual film, director Peter Jackson continues to surprise – how managed to combine the thriller, melodrama in the spirit of “Ghosts” and something like a fairy tale. The film starred famous actors Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weiss and Susan Sarandon. The main role was played by a little-known actress Saoirse Ronan. The plot is filled with subtle psychologicalism, drama, as well as the constant struggle of the girl’s parents aimed at her search.
I like how the otherworldly connection of Susie and her relatives and friends is shown. Honestly, after watching the film, I teared up more than once, despite the fact that I do not differ in sentimentality. The film has a bit of humor associated with the heroine Susan Sarandon.
Of the additional pluses of the picture, bright palettes show an invisible world in which souls who have not yet fallen into paradise live.
All in all, I recommend everyone watch, great drama. The plot is not beaten, an excellent cast, interesting dialogues, the idea of the film is interesting.
I really liked this movie. He touched me both with the super cast of the actors and their great acting. The film looks on one breath, it is almost impossible to come off.
After reading the reviews for this picture (after watching the film), I agree that Saoirse (the main character of the film) appeared very little in the frame. However, this did not prevent you from fully enjoying her chic game and admiring the beautiful Irish eyes.
The disadvantages of the film can be called only oversaturated visual effects that haunted the heroine in a parallel world.
In addition to the above, I wanted to say that this film is to some extent instructive for those who have not only lost their child, but also for those who have lost their loved one.
In conclusion, I would like to say that this film should be in everyone’s “best films”. Because it has everything to get there.
Since this is a film adaptation of the book, the first thing I did was read the book. This rule does not always work, but often books are better than movies, the plot is more complete and whole. And the book, to put it mildly, I didn't really like it. Therefore, I naturally assumed that the film would not be very good.
This is definitely a case where I was wrong.
The general idea of the plot remained unchanged, it was preserved in its original form: the main character Suzy was killed when she was 14, and now she watches from heaven how her relatives, her friends, her killer live. Although, of course, the film is not just a detailed retelling of the plot of the book. Something was thrown away, something changed, and in my opinion, it only benefited the history.
So, for example, I liked the strong "compression" of time frames. It's been about 10 years and the maniac hasn't tried to kill anyone else? I don't know, but it doesn't spin very well. But in the film, everything is more logical. This is not the only time where something has changed. Of course, this added its share of confusion to what is happening on the screen, but in my opinion, better confusion than huge sagging in logic.
However, it would not be fair not to mention that the reworking of the plot led to the fact that the film turned out softer, and, perhaps, very teenage. I do not think that this is a clear minus, but the book in turn contained more serious points, more serious messages, until it slid into insanity.
But this is a film, and in addition to the plot, there is also a visual part that I really liked.
Firstly, the color scheme, secondly, transmitted by the atmosphere of the 70s, and thirdly, the visualization of Suzy’s life in heaven.
As for the latter, we should not expect that there will be special effects of the cosmic level. In this case, it means a little different. The book presented its own idea of what the heavens look like and how they live there, but from a movie perspective, it would probably be a bit boring. The film has its own idea of the sky, and I liked the way it is presented, not the quality of how it looks.
As for the acting, Mark Wahlberg, who plays Suzy's father, was the most impressed. In the book, this character became the most alive, I was imbued with a sincere sympathy for him, and it turned out to be 100% to transfer the character to the screen.
Mr. Harvey, performed by Stanley Tucci, also turned out to be quite colorful, it was not pleasant to look at, and you expect some trick, slipperiness, stabbing in the back.
The other actors on their background did not shine much.
In total, firstly, the plot was slightly changed, which in general was more beneficial to the film, and secondly, the film has its own charm, which in my opinion appeared due to a good visualization. Compared to the book, the film is definitely better.
But if we consider it as a separate, independent work, then this is an ordinary film for one time, no more.
5 out of 10
Strange thoughts came to me in 2009, after seeing the film for the second time and the novel that followed. The great world literature, that which is called "classical," is the foundation for the great house of our mind. Having laid the foundation, each person wants to have his own room, smaller in size, but not inferior in importance. “Sweet Bones” by Alice Siebold, could well become the head of an epic family saga, part of a multi-volume narrative about a passing era or a prologue to the acutely social work of an outstanding author. Without the “foundation” it is impossible to imagine a thinking person, while the volume or unevenness of the foundation sometimes loses the opportunity to project the story on yourself as a reader. We still choose a certain hero, one of the narrative lines or the closest time to us. Going to your room, a huge house.
Looking into the small room, Peter Jackson was unable to leave until he pushed the walls and cut through the window. He did not let go of an itch comparable to that which haunted Harvey. Only the essence of the two manias differed. If the resident of the green house was driven by a thirst for destruction, Jackson could not find peace until he brought to the world the interiors of his new obsession.
Covered with eternal snow, the sharp peaks of the mountains, between them roaring waterfalls, celestial rivers carrying a stormy stream, endless meadows illuminated by sunlight, bright colors of embodied desires and unfulfilled hopes. Jackson, using the entire palette of his imagination, created a magical world separating the living and the dead, viewers and readers. Realizing yourself, the only way you can reach a wide audience, squeeze every drop of those lines that hooked him.
The film, both now and then, left me with a feeling of understatement, as if something had been cut off, cut off in the most interesting place, wasting years with one editing glue. They did not allow the bleeding wound to heal into the scar, because the viewer does not have time to feel the pain stretching day after day, corroding the heroes, breaking their lives. I had to sacrifice the dramatic intensity of the Salmon family relationship, turning a rather chamber story into a beautiful action. At the same time, it is impossible to reproach Jackson, he still managed to adapt the story as much as possible for two hours, making them fly by in an instant.
Mark Wahlberg - as in the book, he gets the most attention in the film. It is he who does not let his daughter go, and Suzy clings to his father, causing him mental and physical suffering. At the same time, it is not possible to perceive him as a self-sufficient figure, respectively, to evaluate Wahlberg's game. It seems to be smeared throughout the picture with a fuzzy image. But for the format chosen by Jackson, Mark fits perfectly. If he were a more powerful actor, it would skew the focus on his father. In this case, he is only a connecting thread and connects Wahlberg properly.
Rachel Weiss is amazing how Siebold treated this character in the first place. It is literally pushed aside, not really revealed. Jackson uses the existing image and actually removes it from the film, while presenting it in a more understandable light. Few episodes that got Rachel, especially the moment when the detective brought the hat of the missing daughter, more than overlap the small screen time.
Susan Sarandon - and here's the hit. One of the two best roles in the film. Her praises are unexpected and weight in gold, grandmother Lynn is reliable as a rock, substituting her shoulder in the most difficult moment of a disintegrating family, replacing her mother. Sarandon is simply magnificent in this role, every phrase knocks you down, all the scenes with her participation give faith in the best and form the very dear bones with which the emptiness began to grow.
Saoirse Ronan - she didn't need much. A happy or sad look at the earth, but a voice behind the scenes. The main thing in her, the luminous face of an innocent child, she coped with it. The moment in which Susie wishes the death of his killer is not bad, but it absolutely could not take place. Susie didn’t want anyone to die, not even Harvey, so she ended up in this limbo, along with the other innocent children.
Harvey, that's Stanley Tucci. Here's the top diamond. He's like the Joker from The Dark Knight, turning a good movie into a great movie. Tucci is incredible, a real horror hidden behind the guise of a respectable citizen, a vile slug that you can even crush. Tucci plays as if starring in a documentary about a real maniac, every movement, look, pedantry in approach to the case, in a word frost on the skin. It's amazing how Harvey didn't win an Oscar.
When will the dead release the living? This question is asked by Peter Jackson, the answer will be Susie’s words “I found a world in which I was not”, so she lets her loved ones go, allowing them to move on. But it didn’t happen right now, years passed before the loss was reconciled. So heals time and distance. Unfortunately, the director failed to show the flight of time and natural humility, and it turns out that the characters come to justice only when Suzy herself decides to let them go. In fact, it never disappears, always being close.
The feeling of understatement I mentioned above forced me to fill in the gaps. After that, the film is not so impressive, because it highlights the visual perception, not allowing you to feel the story. Everything shines and sparkles, but it does not save from annoyance. I like to think it could have been better, but then the beauty would have vanished and the room I looked into thanks to Peter Jackson would have remained behind a locked door.
7 out of 10
No one notices our departure. I’m talking about the moment when we decide to leave. At best, you will hear a whisper or you will feel a breath blowing away...
"Sweet Bones" is an amazing film in many ways. It is amazing how easily it combines, seemingly incompatible. Surprisingly, it evokes perhaps the full range of emotions, from fun to sadness, and from admiration to horror. Surprising ending, quite unexpected, but at the same time completely logical. Well, what is most surprising is how fearlessly the main breeder of New Zealand hobbits, an experienced rider of giant gorillas and a master of working with a living dead man Peter Jackson undertook a re-foray into the territory of celestial creatures - a dramatic romantic mystical thriller.
However, trying to give “Sweet Bones” genre definition is completely pointless, in fact, the film goes far beyond any genre. Using the murder of the main character and the search for a maniac by members of her family as a starting point and the main driving force of the plot, he manages to be a romantic story of first love, and a family drama, and a mystical-religious parable, and a story of self-discovery, and comedy, and even a surreal experiment. And in all cases cope with “excellent”.
When "Sweet Bones" play on the thriller field, the tension and suspense simply go off the scale - not least thanks to the powerful game of Stanley Tucci, not in vain received his Oscar nomination. His Mr. Harvey came out and believable to the eerie, and some completely beyond beyond the otherworldly: goosebumps run on the skin literally every time he appears on the screen, so powerful aura of evil surrounds the murderer. And when it comes to “business”, it becomes natural to look at Mr. Harvey – and even in moments of peace, when the pervert is engaged in daily activities or quietly makes plans, you regularly catch yourself thinking: “I hate you, bitch, since childhood, ever since you kidnapped St. Bernard.”
However, all the other performers of the key roles also failed. Prettier since the “Atonement” Saoirse Ronan easily and naturally shows love, embarrassment, joy, and absolute horror. Mark Wahlberg is arguably the best actor of his career, portraying a loving father and an avenger obsessed with seeking justice. Susan Sarandon in the role of a heavy drinker, smoking like a steam locomotive, but kind, wise and sensible grandmother Lynn, who became the only linchpin of a crumbling family, is funny and natural. Not distinguished except that Rachel Wise, who simply had too little screen time.
As for the other – non-thriller – genre components of “Pretty Bones”, the story of the first love turned out to be bright, beautiful and romantic; albeit not the most original, but in places very similar to “Ghost” with Patrick Swayze. Not the worst comparison, is it? The comedy episodes Susan Sarandon is responsible for are truly funny and surprisingly pertinent. The family drama came out heavy and tense - in places no less than the episodes with Mr. Harvey and his victims. Watching loved ones and trying to shout at them, a ghost girl evokes associations with David Goyer's "Invisible," which is also not at all bad. But the most interesting thing is, of course, the “perfect” world of Susie Salmon and everything connected with it.
Susie’s first hit in the “interworld” is set in the spirit of “Silent Hill”. And further suggests the idea that if Alessa from “Quiet Hill” was not betrayed by the closest person, if she was not offended by the whole world, do not cherish her hatred and do not suffer for decades from unbearable pain – it is possible that a small foggy town would be like a wonderful world lived a short, but full-blooded and happy life by everyone beloved Suzy Salmon. Landscapes and scenery here replace each other, obeying the wishes of the girl, corresponding to the mood and movements of her subconscious – sometimes indulging in whims, and sometimes leading to important questions and pushing for difficult decisions. And yes, words do not convey it, it is necessary to see.
In some amazing way, Jackson made the film at the same time very leisurely, and very rich: events, plots, forms and meanings. The most amazing thing is that the seemingly unconnected genre elements in “Pretty Bones” are combined very organically – and nothing is forgotten or pushed: no storyline breaks off and goes nowhere, and almost all the characters get their portion of screen time to reveal the character.
And in some incomprehensible way, "Sweet Bones" - a scary film, a sad film, a heavy film - leaves behind a surprisingly bright and joyful feeling. After all, justice triumphs, albeit not always in the way we would like. Purity and innocence are not tainted by the most vile abuses. Life does not end with the passing of loved ones. And death is not a sad end for them, but only the beginning of a long journey to a beautiful far.
7 out of 10
I don’t know who this film is intended for, for lovers of the book, or maybe for lovers of stretched half-hour stories for two hours?
The special effects in the movie look disgusting, they just kill him! It feels like the film wasn’t made in 2009, but in the late 90s, so miserable, oversaturated. Frequent slowdowns cause a desire to rewind.
The imagery of the film corresponds to the category of viewers of the age of the main character. All these scenes with the other world, the tree lost leaves, the gazebo with the curly dude, the wilted roses. How can you see it and immerse yourself in history?
Epicity is just ridiculous and absolutely out of place. The endgame is hellish stupidity.
The actors are well-developed, especially the girl and her relationship with her father. The maniac is too obvious, but a great toy house! The basement in the field, the destruction of evidence and the stupid police, of course, overstated.
I have always avoided films about maniacs-pedophiles, because of excessive concern for girls who have experienced such humiliation. I saw this movie for the first time in 2012 when I was 16. After watching this movie 3 times. Then I forgot about him. And now that I'm 21, I've decided to revisit it, consciously in my brain, so to speak.
Well, what to say... I really like the story.
Poor Susie is madly sorry, but when the parents’ eternal admonitions “Don’t talk to strangers” come to mind, I begin to think that she is to blame for everything. Although, if this psychopath had the intelligence and patience to build such structures for his victims, then I have no doubt that he would have dragged her by force.
As for the maniac himself ... he got so well into the role, played the maniac so well that after this film I hated him. I have been avoiding movies with him so far. That's how I got into his game. This hero causes me absolutely no pity, only hatred, contempt, antipathy. He's very disgusting, with his glasses and his hair. Brr... and goosebumps ran as he appeared on the screen.
As for the other actors, I really want to mention the role of grandmother and father. My mom didn’t really impress me in this movie.
I was very worried about my sister when she entered my neighbor’s house. I was hoping and cheering for her to the last.
After this movie, it gets scary. Why is it scary? Because it seems that in the next apartment, in the next house, a similar maniac can live. When I saw this movie for the first time, I walked the streets alone. I tried not to walk around in crowded places late. That is, the film is quite instructive.
The one thing I didn’t like at all about this movie (maybe I’ll be the only one) is how Suzy’s transition, her world, was shown. It's all too fake and painted. This is why I put 6 out of 10.
I don’t like Peter Jackson as a director. Mainly because of the frankly weak film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, I believe that this book should have been shot differently, or better not at all.
But this particular movie I really liked. Very beautiful and powerful drama. Here, at least Jackson didn't step on the same rake as Lord of the Rings, it's a casting. All the actors are in their seats. They play great. Mark Wahlberg played his heartbroken father well. The main character herself, too, although it would seem a child, did not study theater. The main villain without any comments, it seems that this is not an actor, but a real killer.
Very beautifully and qualitatively shot. There are good effects.
The script is wonderful. The film is about ordinary people who have faced such grief in life. Dramatic scenes are very strong, and personally I almost blew out a tear, although the person I am absolutely not sentimental.
If there are negative sides to the film, then you do not even want to look for them, because the film takes by heart and does not let go to the credits.
10 out of 10
At the place of the emptiness that arose with my death, sweet bones gradually grew and connected: some fragile, others paid for by considerable sacrifices, but for the most part dear to the heart.
I have to admit, as soon as I came across this film, I was immediately interested in it: a catchy title, an intriguing and slightly intimidating description, and reviews ranging from “terrible” to “must see.” So,
Pros:
Saoirse Ronan - the main character, played well, not "wow", but liked, especially at the beginning of the film, well showed both fear and teenage love for a high school student, and I relate to my parents.
Stanley Tucci is very unusual to see him as a villain, after all, I associate him with “The Devil Wears Prado” and “Julie and Julia: Preparing Happiness by Recipe”, where he played positive and pleasant characters, but it should be noted that he coped with the role and really looked like a maniac.
Mark Wahlberg played the father of the deceased girl, played very well, despite the fact that he often plays roles in action films, managed to show feelings and emotions. By the way, Ryan Gosling was originally planned for this role, but it is difficult for me personally to imagine him in such a role.
The musical accompaniment was very well selected, completely complemented the atmosphere of the moments of the film.
Cons:
I have a double impression of the film. I liked the beginning: phrases, flashbacks, landscapes - everything kept in suspense! But then... for me personally, everything was drawn out, not really explaining what was going on. The whole middle of the movie is like “Where Dreams Come” (whoever sees both films will understand). The idea is clear, but in my opinion it was not possible to show it beautifully and clearly. I watched the end of the movie without much attention. But that’s where things start again.
I didn't quite understand the role of grandma. If at the expense of it they wanted to show that they need to continue living, it turned out somehow too contrasting and simply ridiculous. There were a lot of things like that for me.
In general, I have a neutral attitude to the film, I am glad that I saw it, but I will not review it. In my opinion, Peter Jackson did not manage to fully preserve the genre of the film and the style in which it was written. Here turned out a thriller, and drama, and fantasy, but all very separate “pieces” that the whole picture is not.
Therefore