The world-famous New Zealander Peter Jackson decides to suddenly shoot not at all what we usually imagine, thinking about the creator of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. Does this picture deserve our attention?
I first watched Pretty Bones when I was 14 and, of course, I was incredibly impressed, accompanied by Vermilions of Tears. However, reviewing it now (after 4 years), having a different system of assessments and perceptions of cinema, I look at the whole story from a slightly different angle. Let’s find out why my Vermilion turned into a drying puddle.
We are presented with a not very intricate, but, admittedly, an interesting story not so much about the murder and rape of 14-year-old Susie, but about human souls and, perhaps, the power of love. But everything in order.
Traditionally, I will start with visualization, which is the basis of beauty, which amazes many viewers of “Sweet Bones”. Andrew Lesney, who has already directed the beautiful Lords of the Rings, does his job as well as he used to. Sometimes beautiful, sometimes not very plans are collected quite quickly editing (fast = gluing of many individual pieces), although I would like to see a smoother, more poetic and sublime shooting, which would fully convey both the being of the soul after death and the stuffy weight of the earthly life of Susie’s relatives. I can’t help but mention one beautiful feature that was hardly accidentally used in the film. Pay attention to the colors of the tape. It all starts with very warm and pleasant shades with soft tones and semitones. However, when the main character meets in a cornfield with her future killer, the colors from predominantly yellow turn into cold shades, mainly blue. And in all the further narrative, for the most part, cold colors and their shades dominate. From this we can clearly judge the main mood of what is happening. If in the beginning we see the idyll of a beautiful family, every day of which is sunny and kind, then when a girl is killed, everything changes radically. Warm colors are the colors of life, cold colors are the colors of death. Everything is in absolute color logic, which I consider very competent and important when making movies.
Departing from the creative and technical part, it is impossible not to say about the fundamental element of any film - the script, and more specifically - the catchy story. Peter Jackson asks, “Where does a soul go after death?” In my opinion, this question was not next to the really exciting themes of the director. Undoubtedly, one of them is the experience of the parents of the passing of children from life. Personally, I genuinely felt empathy for Susie's parents, because in my opinion, surviving the death of my child is simply impossible. Jackson shows more less realistic, close to reality, albeit somewhere played feelings and states that go through the parents of the main character. The character of the grandmother of the family seems somewhat ridiculous and inappropriate. She somehow profane both the general story and the death of her granddaughter separately. She is clearly added to the script to defuse the situation, support her daughter and care for the other two children while the parents are in search of imaginary ataraxia. However, it does not always succeed. Also sometimes there are silly phrases that make viewing boring, but there are many quite strong dialogues that open the very thoughts that excite the creators of the film.
It is not superfluous to say about the acting game. Or rather, about the play of one actor – Stanley Tucci. In my opinion, he is a very underrated professional in his field. Most of Tucci's roles are so different that it's amazing how he manages to hide his real self behind all those mustaches, wigs and crazy looks.
“Sweet Bones” is not a guide to the places of souls after death, it is a beautiful story about the severity of awareness, hatred and love. Little Susie's penguin is in a perfect world. The girl herself grew up in a complete idyll, in a happy, covered with love and grace family. But, alas, idyll always leads to collapse. In order to show the whole family the real pain of losing a child, and, accordingly, every idyll, the Universe takes away from them this red girl who will never become a naturalist photographer. The earth swallows everything over time. So the pain, like the onion of a rose, will slowly sink into the ground, from which one day a small sprout will look out, symbolizing only tender memories of the once withered flower.
What have you done with her? What did you do to my daughter?
This is a very strong, deep and emotional film that does not leave indifferent, on the one hand it is very painful, on the other hand everything was shown very beautifully and naturally.
Suzy Salmon’s story was very interesting and exciting. It was very interesting to watch the life of this girl, the play of Saoirse Ronan is amazing.
If you do not touch the details of the plot, then the film itself is very beautiful, the picture is striking in its beauty, the footage after Suzy's death was very striking, then as it was shown between the two worlds, then how paradise was shown there are simply no words how beautiful.
No one notices our departure. I'm talking about the moment we decide to leave. At best, you will hear a whisper or feel a breath blowing away.
It looks like a movie in one breath, it’s made up of several genres, but for me it’s probably more drama than anything else. Suzy’s story turned out to be very dramatic, this girl could have a great future, she was very different from her peers, she was warm and cozy, she was very sweet and cheerful, but life ordered otherwise, the best leave early.
Peter Jackson managed to shoot an amazingly beautiful film, which has an interesting plot, a strong ending, an interesting maniac, a loving father and a lot of interesting things.
I found a world in which I was not. .
I would never have thought that the role of Mr. Harvey was played by Stanley Tucci, honestly, I did not recognize him at all, he has an interesting image here, coped with his role just fine.
It is impossible not to mention Mark Wahlberg, his fatherly love for Suzy was felt throughout the film, he was perfectly able to portray all his feelings and emotions, the same can be said about Rachel Weiss, well she was probably a little more emotional than Mark.
There are a lot of interesting moments in the film, in some places it breaks to tears, especially the ending was very touching, it was interesting to watch Suzy when she watched her relatives, how her sister changed, how her father loves her, how she hates her main enemy, she had many completely different emotions.
Watching Saoirse Ronan play was a pleasure, for some two hours she fell in love so much that it is impossible to break away from her game, in 2009 she was 15 years old and how great she got into the role, how great Suzy played, I am completely delighted with her game.
Of course, other actors and actresses also looked decent, but the performance of Saoirse is just great.
I really liked how old Mark tries to investigate the disappearance of his daughter, how he takes the initiative, how he moves to the solution, but unlike other roles of Mark, he is not called some cool guy, he just loves his daughter very much.
Throughout the film, the music was pleasant.
The denouement with the maniac turned out to be unusual, probably many would like to see how he gets what he deserves from certain people, and I am not an exception, but the finale with him turned out to be unusual and very unexpected, personally I was once again convinced in this finale that God exists and he sees everything, somehow so for me.
I had a lot of fun watching, there were moments that really hurt and moments when you realize you have to forgive and let go and come to terms with certain things. We love you, Suzy Salmon!
10 out of 10
P.S. No one notices our departure, I mean the moment we decide to leave, at best, you hear a lone whisper or a wave of voices that immediately subside. My last name is Salmon, which means Salmon, and it's Susie. I was 14 when I was killed on December 6, 1973. I stayed here for a moment and then left forever. I wish you all to live happily ever after!
It just so happened that in the square of my communication, no one saw this picture, but everyone heard about it. It seems that there are no illusory reasons for this.
The beginning of the film is extremely exciting, but the circularity of the plot (this is not a reference to the “Lords”) is felt immediately. Repeating the lines at the beginning and end of the narrative is a typical dramatic technique when filming novels, however, only Quentin and only he can successfully interpret it in the plane of cinema. Naive attempts of the rest of the "famous directors" cause at best a disparaging "5 for trying, 2 for performing" or, as in the case of P. Jackson and "Pretty Bones" - the desire to shoot a shotgun in the face of the damned incompetent.
I humbly endured the plot cleavages in the first third and half of the film as the insanity grew stronger, as GG's new abilities emerged, backed up by frankly mediocre CGI scenes. I watched with interest the infantile antics of adults and the deliberately mature actions of children, the painfully leisurely narrative, its straightforwardness as if hinting at my mental inferiority. And all these sacrifices, for the disappointing, disgusting, soulless, idiotic-naive ending, which is nothing more than a sacrificial altar on which common sense was crucified and dismembered in the name of an era of marketing-faith sentimentalism.
I don’t know who the scum is in this case: P. Jackson himself (after all, everything is fine with The Lords) or the production staff (as a rule, this kind of spit in the faces of the audience is their fault), but I have not felt such perplexingly blind rage since... but never, in general.
___
I have this movie on my DVD collection. I recently decided to look at something and came across it. The brief description seemed interesting. The film is so unrealistic that, to my taste, it deserves a negative assessment. I don’t usually review movies, everything looks so implausible, but there was an interesting topic, and I think that if this work had more realism, it would look decent. And so, the work does not leave a serious impression.
At the beginning of the film, the main character at the age of 14 at all times rushes to the hospital by car. At that age, she would somehow reach for the pedals, and there can be no talk of feverishness. The one with his father's sudden epiphany is devoid of logic. His guess is based on the fact that in the photo he sees his daughter against the background of red flowers belonging to the maniac. Further, while visiting the maniac, he discovers that the flowers are faded. What's the connection between the flower scam and his daughter's death? There's a mystical sensibility involved, okay. But why would it be necessary to associate this with flowers that change their color? After all, the father chases the maniac and, in the heat of the attack, accidentally runs into a girl in the field. After her boyfriend beats the girl’s father half to death, although he only pushed the girl without trying to undress. Beating on this occasion looked exaggerated, not in the case. Further, unrealism only intensified, which is characteristic of films, in the director depicts a kind of parallel reality, in which the laws of our lives are not written. The younger sister of the murdered, who is 16-17 years old, decides to find out what to do and begins to search the maniac's house with the skill of a professional detective. Hiding from the maniac, she falls on her back from a 2-meter height and after 10 seconds rushes home with all her might. After such a shock, she would lie much longer than 10 seconds. The apogee of this tale was the death of a maniac as a result of a fall from a plumb within a residential area. I doubt that in a civilized country the plumb would not be fenced with any fence. Well, the fact that the maniac - a creature in a heightened sense of danger, extremely cautious, could stand with his back close to this plumb and back down due to the fact that he was disturbed by an icicle behind a spine, suggests that by the end of filming, the director lost touch with reality.
Despite the complete lack of realism, the film liked the idea of connecting the spiritual body with the material world. It was especially bright when the maniac threw the necklace of the murdered girl into the river. The maniac's reactions to stimuli are transmitted correctly. However, usually maniacs look more suspicious (their photos are in the Internet) and the actor should be picked up with a non-standard face. The film looks easy and, despite the fabulousness of the episodes, thanks to the camera work and the work of the artist, I watched without difficulty.
I have read half of the negative reviews of this film, but not one of them did not see a reproach for the lack of realism in the film. It is clear that these are bad. techniques, but in this tape they crossed all boundaries. Does the viewer, watching what is happening, not appreciate how everything would look in the real world? I just see a lot of movies with fabulous twists and turns where it's not condemned.
The only thing I want is to forget this film and watch it again.
Of course, I haven’t read Alice Siebold’s Pretty Bones, and I can’t judge whether it was a good adaptation. What I can note is how Peter Jackson skillfully combined the thrilling story of a murdered girl and a family movie, a fireworks of colors in the frame and music. The music in the film is important, it makes it clear what the characters feel and what we should feel.
We initially guess who the killer is and that doesn’t stop the film from being interesting and exciting. Here is the main question: Who and how will expose the killer maniac? I was struck by how, without the vulgarity and details of the murders, liters of blood and severed limbs, the film caused me fear, disgust and cold on the back, especially in the episodes where there was a neighbor. There was an exciting scene where a neighbor was chasing Susie's sister. Here you can note the skillful and bold camera shooting. Yes, most of the episodes are fiction and created by computer effects, but it pleases the eye!
I would put this movie in the category of horror stories for children and as an example of what you need to be careful and obey adults, because they are not in vain afraid for their children and even if a person lives next door, it does not mean that you do not need to be careful.
Of course, this film will fall into the list of my favorites for evoked emotions with the help of camera shooting, special effects and soundtrack .
Suzy Salmon - a girl of 14 years - grew up in a friendly family, was a happy child, with a sparkle in his eyes and certain plans for life.
Suzy Salmon is a girl who has just begun to enter adulthood. Oh, how much she liked the boy from school, he was older than her, but she admired him whenever she could, she was scared when she caught his gaze, and when she talked, her voice trembled and her knees bent - yes, first love. Touching and gentle.
Suzy Salmon. She has a sister a little younger than her, you can not say that they were good friends, no, they have very different views on life. Sister and sister, what can you think of? But family ties are not empty words.
Suzy Salmon. She has a younger brother. He had a misfortune, and she did not hesitate to take his parent car and with a terrible squeal of his wheels and wheels squealing in different directions cars brought him to the hospital.
Susie Salmon is her father’s eldest daughter, they love to spend time together, and her father teaches her his hobby – ships in a bottle – which he got from his father, and she likes it. This is so romantic, and a ship straightening sails in a bottle is akin to a miracle.
Suzy Salmon is her mother’s naughty daughter. It’s not that she’s a bully, it’s just that she’s so wilful that she’s snapped all the tapes given to her for her birthday in a very short time and expects them all to be printed. The mother is simply outraged at the misunderstanding of her daughter, how much it will cost.
Suzy Salmon is a cheerful and cheerful girl who has the misfortune to awaken animal feelings in her inconspicuous neighbor, who carefully prepared her trap and slammed it at the first opportunity. Her body could not be found.
Susie Salmon is a soul who has never been able to move to another world, she wanted to be with her family. She does not let go of hatred for the killer, craving for a guy with whom she was about to have a first date, love for her father, who finds no place for himself from the inaction of the police and the suspicion of everyone she meets.
Suzy Salmon is a girl with incredibly expressive eyes, facial features that can convey such a range of emotions that you do not often meet now. You believe in every moment of the movie. Every one. Yes, it’s just a role, but I’ve never seen a film in such tension and sympathy with the heroine.
Lovely Bones is a film in which there are practically no bloody scenes and cruelty, but there are feelings and emotions of five people, the loss of a loved one, atrocity and misunderstanding why this happened to her.
Lovely Bones – The film touched my soul and I still relive it, even after the end.
7 out of 10
The first detail in all the movies that is really worth paying attention to is the soundtrack. Even at the very beginning, where the curtain has not yet been raised, where the highlight, plot and all the details of the film have not been given out, the first into battle, bearing on his shoulders the responsibility of the “first” comes the soundtrack. It is the sound accompaniment that is responsible for the correct presentation of the dish, with all its juices and details. It is like a menu sauce, without which it is possible to do, but at the same time having the risk of losing all the taste and advantages.
The film “Sweet Bones” is a perfect example of this combination. At the beginning, when the chef-director did not give out his main, main course, because of the dark curtain of subtitles and incomprehensible frames, the first echoes of the film appear - his music. And the music was prepared by the chef just perfect: precisely selected, composed composition is perfectly combined with the main dish, side dish, film.
Following the further development of the film, you can already safely see the handwriting of the director of such a loud and box office trilogy as “Lord of the Rings” and his brother “The Hobbit” – the director’s handwriting, shooting fantasy. Does the afterlife in this movie world have to be exactly the same as the fantasy life of Peter Pan? No one, of course, knows what is happening on the other side of the world, but in “Sweet Bones” shows all the possible scenes. These same scenes are fueled by demonstrated strong fatherly love, which is shown to us throughout the duration of the film, which, incidentally, goes beyond the supernatural. If the film has already shown scenes of some already supernatural things, such as the afterlife, then the predictions, guesses caused by love, go beyond all limits. Before these scenes, the film seemed more real detective, after which the movie looks like a drama with losses and experiences. There were, of course, a couple of breathtaking moments characteristic of the detective genre, but these moments were limited to a couple of times and then fueled by the unreal.
After all, the sauce was better than the dish. And the dish was not worthy of it.
There are works that become popular for a short time, then gradually subside and subside until they completely disappear from conversation.
Sweet Bones never attracted me. It was all about the title: it seems as if some horror movie is hiding behind it (and I don’t watch them).
Anyway, I'm glad I saw this movie now, not when I was 14. I was fascinated by Masha’s description of him, and I didn’t hesitate to include him. Those two and a half hours passed unnoticed, except for how much I wanted to die, watching some of the fragments (the desire to die I have about those moments when normal people cry).
I liked everything. The idea, its implementation, the play of the actors – did not disappoint. The only thing is that some images of the background were too “painted” and caught the eye.
The meaning of the film is both incredibly simple and terribly complex.
It is like an illustration of a phrase that is repeated over and over again – “he will be better there.” Here are the brightest colors and the fulfillment of desires, but what is the point if you died at fourteen at the request of a pedophile?
The actors are so used to the role that you believe each of them.
Alice Siebold, the author of the book taken as the basis of the film, really wanted an unknown actress to play the main role in the film. The role of Susie went to Saoirse Ronan and I was ready to just admire her beauty.
The same was true of Mark Wahlberg, who became Suzy’s father.
It was the family scenes – the conversations between father and daughter became the most intense and best in the film for me.
Another great actor is Stanley Tucci. It was impossible not to believe him. In the image of a maniac, he caused hatred, probably, in everyone. There was not a single moment when I wanted to show him any sympathy.
This film is not for mandatory viewing. Not everyone will like it, and not everyone, judging by the reviews, will understand it. But if you have ever had a desire to see this amazing story – do not regret two hours – they will not be wasted.
9 out of 10
After my death, lovely bones made new connections, sometimes subtle, sometimes at great cost, but always surprising. It all happened after I died, and I looked at the world in a new way, and I saw the world without myself.
The film tells about the experiences of a fourteen-year-old girl, raped and killed by a maniac neighbor. Watching the life of households from heaven, the heroine dreams of simple teenage joys and longs to catch a murderer.
The film made an impression. Very interesting, slow, thought-provoking. It shows the experiences of an early deceased heroine, and I think it was done very, very well.
Saoirse Ronan, Mark Wahlberg and of course Stanley Tucci played just great, as well as the rest of the cast. The magical soundtrack, pleasant camera work and directing by Peter Jackson have done their job.
Having assessed the negative reviews, I understood only one thing, if you read the book, you will not like the film, even if you take into account all the work done by the director, but if you did not read and do not want, then you can safely take up the film (judging by my experience).
7 out of 10
All along, we've all seen movies that make us think, get a little depressed, get hurt, and realize the value of being. But this film looks deeper, albeit in a slightly childish and naive style. This impression on me can only be a film with Robin Williams ' What do dreams lead to' because in one way or another they are similar in something. And yet I must note that unlike the above-mentioned film, there was an extremely striking contrast between too blinding solar graphics and dark drizzling reality. And all the magic here in the difference of perception of this picture. Everyone here can see something of their own. First of all, I was offended by the philosophical message concerning the life and continuation of the existence of everything around me, except you, after death.
I think this is a rather unusual turn in the career of Peter Jackson, because this is not a film from his usual genre. There is nowhere to turn expensive effects and beautiful graphics, although even here he found a small application.
The plot revolves around a little girl, Suzie Salmon, who lives her happy teenage life in an ideal family and dreams of a first kiss with an attractive Hindu a little older than her, named Ray Seah. In life, nothing is perfect, and therefore on the way home she stumbles upon a neighbor, George Harvey, whose role was played by the incomparable Stanley Tucci, who lures her to the so-called ' children's club'. This 'club' turns out to be a 6 x 6-meter hole in which Harvey soon kills little Susie. Some people may come at me with the fact that I’m spreading spoilers, but I can reassure everyone that this all happens in the first 10 minutes of the film and the death of the girl is stated in the first sentence. In the future, there is a very beautiful realization that a minor girl was killed for no reason by an unbalanced person. All this time she is in her 'perfect' intermediate world before entering paradise. Also in the background (and yes, the main story I see as the image in the background in the narrative) we are shown the search for the killer and, most importantly, how the whole family comes to terms with the bitterness of loss. Then look for yourself, because there is no point in describing it.
If we talk about the cast, it is selected perfectly. Stanley Tucci, which I mentioned above, looks extremely natural and make-up as a kind of quiet maniac-pedophile is just great. It's even a little scary how makeup artists are so aware of what child-killing maniacs look like. In general, the character struck with ingenuity and perfectionist traits, which can be seen by his doll houses. Saoirse Ronan with her boundless blue eyes and the role of a beautiful defenseless little girl with her role coped perfectly. All the other members of the team played naturally and concisely, except, in my opinion, one actor - Mark Wahlberg. I like his acting, and in principle he looks quite interesting on the screen, but rather in some crazy action films or just in films where he plays a cool guy. The role of a dramatic actor simply does not suit him. Again, this is purely my subjective opinion. But it really seemed to me that he overplayed a lot and caused a certain contrast in such a gloomy picture.
In closing my short review, I’d like to point out that I found the film a bit heavy and that I thought about life and death and its consequences in our world for a while. I loved the movie and watched it in one breath. I think it was a little underestimated by the masses, because the world’s critics tore this film to shreds. I'm going to give you a solid
7.5 out of 10
I will say right away that when you re-watch such violent emotions, the film did not cause.
They say that if a person is talented, he is talented in everything. I’ve always liked Peter Jackson’s films. No matter what work this director undertakes, it always turns out a powerful and memorable movie.
"Sweet Bones" is a terrible tale that captivated me from the first minute. Before this Jacksonian movie, I loved King Kong, but after watching Pretty Bones, everything changed.
This film masterpiece combines several genres at once: thriller, fantasy, mysticism, drama and detective. Susie is the main character who talks about her life and how she was brutally murdered. She wants revenge, the murderer must be punished.
Jackson's film makes you nervous, anxious, lipstick, freeze, smile, cry, regret, sadness, joy and admiration. Probably, this is one of the few films in which a whole constellation of beautiful actors and actresses was involved. Their names can be listed without stopping, but still dare to highlight the best, based on personal feelings.
Saoirse Ronan delightfully played the main character, subtly, vividly, naturally and convincingly. This girl became very close and dear, for whose “cute bones” and soul it was impossible not to worry.
Mark Wahlberg showed true fatherhood, spiritual and mystical connection with the deceased daughter. Bravo! Maybe it's a good thing Susie's dad was played by him, not my favorite Ryan Gosling. Everything happened as it should have happened. A bright and memorable role in the piggy bank of Mark Wahlberg.
Susan Sarandon is the most eccentric role in the film. A reckless, living in her own world, a grandmother who, perhaps, alone coped with the loss of her granddaughter. Interesting and unforgettable image, causing a smile and affection.
Rose McIver is an actress who played Susie’s sister, whom I was very worried about. She is associated with the most dangerous, scary and sharp moments in this film, not counting the scenes of meeting Susie with a maniac neighbor. Great acting and good looks!
Stanley Tucci is a brilliant actor who perfectly coped with his role. This “non-human” caused disgust, hatred and dislike. I wanted to point to his ugly face with a finger so that the killer would be recognized as soon as possible. This is a beautiful image.
“Sweet Bones” is a film that is not recommended to watch in the evening and at night for impressionable and emotional people. But it is better to see once than to hear a hundred times.
The film follows Susie (Saoirse Ronan), a 14-year-old girl who falls in love with a boy named Ray. One day, he confesses to Suzy in reciprocity. That same day, Suzy was raped and killed. Susie ends up in "heaven" to go to "heaven," but Susie is not ready to abandon her family. Suzy never got the priceless kiss she had been waiting for. Being in “heaven”, Suzy sincerely wishes the death of the killer.
The “message” in this film is that you have to treat life as if you’re living one day, as if you don’t have any chances and you have to do everything you wanted to do in your life. Motivating film, which for the viewer will not remain indifferent.
The quality of the image in the film is remarkable, which attracts attention and affects the impression received both when watching and after it. Such a high-quality picture makes you believe in the fairy tale that the director is trying to show us.
The cast is amazing! All actors play exactly as necessary so that the viewer perceives the film exactly as the director intended.
Saoirse Ronan played the main role, in which she revealed herself completely. She played a girl who after death realized how precious life is. She showed an exemplary game, which indicates the high talent of the young actress.
Stanley Tucci played his character, Mr. Harvey, evil, merciless and purposeful. He will do anything for his purpose when he wants new flesh. Stanley played Mr. Harvey in such a way that the audience sincerely hated this character. He did his best in this role, for which he was nominated for an Oscar.
Mark Wahlberg perfectly played the caring and loving father Suzy (Jack). Looking at Mark's performance, I believed Mark could feel Susie from heaven, even though I knew it was fantastic. Mark showed an exemplary father who does not forget about his daughter and tries to find out who killed his beloved daughter.
The film deeply hurts the feelings of the viewer, immersing him in his own atmosphere. The film does not leave the viewer indifferent from the plot, from the script, from the actors’ play and from the director’s work in the end.
The plot in the film is matchless. There are several storylines in the film, with the help of which the actors fully reveal their characters. The characters develop after the death of their loved one. The film clearly shows the experiences and pain felt by the loved ones of the poor girl.
In parallel, the story of how the girl Susie was killed tells about how she wanted to kiss the boy with whom she fell in love during life. The film tells the story of teenage love and dreams of a 14-year-old girl.
Peter Jackson once again amazed the world with his film, in which he brought an interesting idea of the afterlife. A colorful and at the same time dark film. The film causes a storm of emotions and a lot of reasons to think.
Watching "Sweet Bones" began with the fact that I postponed the book of the same name, unable to withstand either the manner of narration or the manner of writing. I sat down for the film with the hope that it would enter my personal list of wonderful adaptations of primitive works. Judging by the color background of the review, you can guess that my hopes were not met.
In "Sweet Bones" outraged even the timing: a picture that lasts more than two hours, must be interesting. This is a kind of conceit of the director, crossing through which he must be confident in his own talents. Peter Jackson missed this time. Everything seemed tedious and unnecessarily stretched, and the main goal of the film was clearly not a message for those who want to see a unique meaning in Sweet Bones, but only a desire to show as many effects as possible - well, at a point, we look with our eyes.
From what is left in memory and is directly related to the visual series: with bitterness I am talking about the periodic sharp change in color filling of the frame. Here I see the warm footage of the streets - here I see the cold and gloomy shootings at home, and this could be justified if not just a different approach to color, but a different approach to the style itself. Everything is mixed up here, from romantic melodrama to some failed horror. Although there is some beauty in the changing backgrounds of the afterlife - the feeling, you know, like watching the screensaver Windows.
However, being quite frank, I will say that I found the selection of actors very attractive. Stanley Tucci, if someone did not know, much more than the person on the team Miranda Priestley (" The Devil Wears Prada) or the husband of Julia Child (Julie and Julia: Preparing happiness by prescription). Here he is really a maniac and a really high-quality maniac. As well as Mark Wahlberg here is a good father who will not rest in search of the murderer of his daughter.
Perhaps, if this film was played in IMAX, the viewer would at least feel the beauty of the vast expanses and wonders of nature that the main character felt, but this did not happen. As did not happen and what I expected to see in the picture at least exciting and soulful fantasy, as a maximum – a thriller.
3 out of 10
Such a complex novel by the writer Alice Siebold as Sweet Bones is certainly difficult to film and convey all the power and drama of this tragic story. The film was not banal, shot qualitatively. The filming was excellent, but the essence of the novel itself is only half-transmitted, so this adaptation was so controversially accepted by film critics and viewers.
We see the ghost story of a girl who was murdered and raped by a pedophile. We see her ghost watching her living, close people and dreams that her killer will be punished. We see an amazing story of unlived life and a terrible reality.
The cast of this film, of course, was excellent, so the movie and attracts attention. Saoirse Ronan plays the main role of the dead girl, and it is with her heroine that we go through this incredible story. Her parents were played by such beautiful Hollywood stars as Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weiss. In the role of grandmother it was nice to see Susan Sarandon. The most difficult role was in Stanley Tucci. His character was a terribly nasty and disgusting person, and the actor conveyed all his low essence to the screen very convincingly.
This fantasy has great special effects, they are very beautiful, and make this picture more vivid. The film was far from banal, but I think it could have been much deeper and more dramatic. When watching something was missing, some depth and greater drama, which is in the novel.
"Sweet Bones" - the film adaptation of the novel of the same name Alice Siebold and loud, fantasy 2009. The film is exciting and memorable, but the book is definitely better.
7 out of 10
The novel of the same name by Alice Siebold, based on which New Zealand authors Philippe Boyens and Francis Walsh wrote the script, is mistakenly considered a kind of autobiography of an American writer who was brutally raped at the time of her 18th birthday. However, it is impossible to exclude the fact that such an experience, experienced by Mrs. Siebold in 1981, somehow helped to correctly convey to the general public in the language of fiction all the horror, all the pain and all the inhuman that often falls to the lot of defenseless women and gullible children.
Despite the strange hysteria towards the creators of the film adaptation from the audience, before the film was rented, director Peter Jackson (“King Kong”), cameraman Andrew Lesney (“Rise of the Planet of the Apes”), composer Brian Eno (“The Jacket”) together with a team of creative craftsmen from Weta Workshop under the leadership of Richard Taylor (“Avatar”) were able to correctly transfer the text of the book to a self-sufficient, emotional, beautiful and intelligent canvas. Indeed, the visual and auditory components combined with decent acting work:
- a resident of the Irish county Saoirse Ronan ("The Grand Budapest Hotel") - Suzy Salmon;
A real British Bond girl (Daniel Craig’s wife) Rachel Weiss (“Oz the Great and Powerful”), Abigail Salmon
Recognized American "Universal" Mark Wahlberg (“The Perfect Storm”) – Jack Salmon is amazed by the genuine sincerity, deep saturation and colorfulness of what is happening.
The edges of the real world, in which there are relatives and friends, as well as the killer Susie, and the landscapes of the intermediate, in which she remains until a certain time, are sustained in different stylistic directions, but at the decisive moment they are intertwined with each other, forming a single atmosphere.
In addition to the above, the review deserves a separate mention:
Susan Sarandon ("Stepmom"). How virtuoso did not change the actress make-up artists of the film “Cloud Atlas” for three roles at once, but the grandmother of the main character Suzy Salmon named Lynn is a character outside the categories: such a wacky and wise one should still look for;
Stanley Tucci ("The Terminal") Possessing a talent to reliably perform both negative and positive roles, the actor combined within himself the already revealed characters of good-natured, cynical, psychopathic citizens and betrayed the nauseating Mr. Harvey.
PJ's best cameo. The director from Pekerua Bay symbolically appears with a camera in the bookstore, where J. R. R. Tolkien’s three-volume “Lord of the Rings” is honorably exhibited in the window, involuntarily causing nostalgic feelings among fans about the “passed path”.
This project, however, is significant for the Jacksonian film company WingNut Films (“District 9”, “The Adventures of Tintin”, “Jack Brown Genius” and “West of Memphis”), a return to the origins – the production of not large-budget and large-scale blockbusters, but independent and ambitious cinema – in the days of the original “Heavenly Creatures”, the multi-genre “The Frighteners”, the sensational “Forgotten Silver”, the bloody “Braindead”, exposing “Meet the Feebles” and “Bad”. Therefore, after watching The Lovely Bones, one must be a real fool not to stop considering the creative and technically savvy team from New Zealand as the slugs of only one story, ineptly hinting at the adaptation of the works of a professor at Oxford University.
I was very interested because I saw the trailer. The film did not disappoint, but left a double feeling.
First of all, the extreme contrast of the film scenes pleases. Peter Jackson correctly portrayed hell and paradise in the person of the maniac Mr. Harvey and the victim of 14-year-old Suzy Selmon.
The world of the murderer is ugly, to look at it disgusting. This man is a mad animal, hiding under the mask of a pleasant man and mired in low needs and vices. Killing and raping is his way of life. Harvey is the bottom of life, a little man with one monstrous aspiration.
Suzy is a cheerful child who just enters life, unaware of its dangers. She is just beginning to enjoy life. There is love in her life, but she is killed by a crazy maniac. So Suzy gets a complete picture of life and she can’t figure out if life is a good thing or a bad thing.
The script is built very competently: there are many unexpected turns, a thoughtful story with an intense plot, but alas, it is not completed to the end. Because the ending is decided by a ridiculous accident. It shouldn’t be like that at the end of the movie, because the ending should be unexpected, but it stems from previous events, and that ending leaves a sense of understatement.
Nice bones - a mixture of action detective, drama and thriller. I recommend it.
A cheerful, bright, kind film about a killer maniac.
Saoirse Ronan plays Susie, his victim. And it does it unusually well, charging the screen with positive, some awesome "sunshine". For her character you worry until the very victorious end, despite the fact that the end of the heroine fell in fact in the first quarter of the film and was very premature. Peter Jackson is a great visionary, visual from God, who, importantly, can work with computer graphics, without turning into a plot, semantic and artistic incompetence obsessed with green screen. He is beautiful and talented. This movie is going to be my favorite of Peter. More to my heart than the Lord of the Rings and Kong. I like stories with overburdened creativity, lightness and at the same time – not superficial.
After "Sweet Bones" and die is not terrible. And those close to you are drawn once more. And it doesn't seem like anything heavy, despite having a killer maniac. A positive film from all sides. You will not like only the opponents of the “sweet” on the screen, those who need stories of this plan necessarily in the form of a jolting hard drama or something gloomy (as Hollywood likes). This film from the series is about the difficult - easy, about the heavy - pleasant. A thriller about a maniac in the style of “Big Fish”. Or an existential tale. And this is a film-man, here even “Othello” with Olivier mentioned. All in all, talented. Ratings say the film is not for everyone. And the film is smart – how many different interesting things are affected here (from fate to the afterlife, astral).
Having given us such beautiful things as “Lords of the Rings”, “King Kong” and having eaten (hopefully not forever) staged movies, Peter Jackson decided to take up the mind of the audience. The first film of its kind was District 9, where he acted as a producer. The film collected a huge cash register, with a meager (as for Hollywood) budget, and gave the viewer a reason to think about what is happening on our sinful land.
But we are not talking about this film, but about “Sweet Bones”, the last movie of the “beginning” master.
Gathering under his wing such big actors as Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weiss, Stanley Tucci and Susan Sarandon, he was able to also open a new face. And the name of this person is Saoirse Ronnan.
Saoirse Ronan was approved for the role without trial. She encouraged everyone by sending an audio cassette with recorded dialogues from the book. She inspired me, too. So masterful to play at 14 years old!!
It was very important not to be like “Where Dreams Lead” because there were prerequisites for it. After all, in the course of the film, the hero found himself in a wonderful fantasy world. But it seems to me that Jackson coped with everything he wanted and gave us a wonderful film.
I was afraid to watch it, because the topic of child abuse is very difficult. But Jackson's negative hero was different from other heroes like him. He wasn’t so disgusted, he was just part of the picture. The film is not about him, it’s about his family. The subtlety of Jackson is striking, he made a very good movie, he was not angry with anyone. He just told a story like this.
I love movies, after watching which something remains in your mind, makes you think, worry and immerse yourself with your head, forgetting about the existence of a thin screen between you and the unfolding action, immerse yourself exactly as long as the film lasts, overshadowing real life.
First, I would like to mention the intertwined worlds. Peter Jackson managed to recreate two universes. The first is the real America of the 70s, a small city in which a real thriller, a maniac hunt, unfolds. The second is the world of fantasies and illusions of Susie, the main character, a space of inexpressible beauty, endless fields, the quiet surface of the sea. The world between heaven and earth.
“Dear Bones” tells us the story of loss on the example of an individual family – mom, dad, three children: 2 daughters and a young son. How unlucky a beautiful girl who had her own plans for the future, who wanted to live, love and be loved. And one man cut it off. There is no turning back. Loss you don't want to believe. Parents grieving and not knowing if their daughter is alive. The younger sister, who has to go through everything that Susie will never be able to go through. The girl’s soul rushes between two intertwined worlds, from where she watches her family and friends, as well as the murderer, whether the maniac soul-dead who deprived her of everything overnight has been caught.
Acting, directorial and camera work at the highest level, no claims. Not really liked only one, a little unsuccessful ending in relation to the maniac.
The film teaches that no one is immune from losses, that you need to take everything from life, and of course, that you should never talk to strangers and go anywhere with them.
"Sweet Bones" is a masterpiece. An exciting and very deep film. A film that changed my inner world. It's worth seeing for everyone, definitely.
One of the favorite themes for such films is to try to answer the eternal question: what awaits us beyond the mysterious line that separates life from death? Directors show their vision of the so-called afterlife in different ways. Jerry Zucker in the film "Ghost" showed that the soul of the deceased can not go to the other world until he finishes business on earth, Alejandro Amenabar in "Others" created an almost identical world where the dead exist as well as during life, side by side with the living. In one way or another, each creator and viewer has their own opinion on this matter. The eminent director of the series “Lord of the Rings” approached the issue of revealing his attitude to the world in his unique way, which will be discussed in the review.
It all begins with the sweet voice of a sweet girl, the main character of this cute film. In general, amazingly, literally everything in the film is filled with this immediate grace, each scene causes tenderness, despite the fact that the subject is extremely painful and terrible in its essence. The director seems to be afraid to scare the viewer, so all sharp corners smooth out where necessary and where not necessary. From the first shots it becomes clear that the main character is dead and communicates with us straight from Paradise. The main plot of most of the film fits into a couple of words Susie I was 14 when I was killed, and right up to the middle of the film, we are shown what it was like, while moving the audience to heaven and showing the beautiful and vast world of Susie.
I love special effects very much, as probably everyone does, but not when they are the primary objective of the film and plug the script flaws with visual influence. Visually, the film is good. Golden shade of the frame, dizzying landscapes, interesting shots that the most meticulous viewers will be able to understand in different ways. All this in the film is, and this "only" a lot. Peter Jackson knows how to shoot beautifully, which he has repeatedly proved. The question is, does a movie need visual beauty? On the one hand, yes, because the afterlife “terrible” world of the child is shown. There are no monsters in it, Susie left her main monster on earth. It's like trying to tell kids what the other world looks like. But on the other hand, you unwittingly open your eyes from the most beautiful graphics and think about the plot. How many serial killers do you know who specialize in pedophilia? How many heartbroken parents have buried their children just because some lunatic needs a short pleasure? You must remember someone, the same Chikatilo. Can this serious subject be shown in this way? What became a huge disadvantage of the film for me personally is the lack of suspense and unusual plot twists. Watching what is so predictable is not interesting. The first hour you admire the graphics, and then willy-nilly pay attention to rolling into the abyss, like a safe Mr. Hardy, the plot.
Characters are not written, their character is not clear, and scenes where this character is revealed are so logical that they simply do not believe. What is the wonderful appearance of a cheerful grandmother, at a time when the house mourns for the murdered child? And not just killed, but passed away in such a terrible way. You have two children, aren’t you afraid? And how easily she says, "Then Susie must have just died," in between. I expected to see the deep suffering of the parents, any memories, the search for the killer. The only one who needs it is Susie's father. But what is most striking is how quickly the director summed up the results. It felt like he was pulling and pulling and pulling and then he came to his senses and noticed that the film was running out, so we had to film the end. The terrible story was “resolved” so that after watching you arrive in a state of shock. Surprising and the main idea – everyone should be forgiven, well, he killed your child, cut into small pieces, deprived of the future and everything in the world, but this is not a reason to take revenge! Let him go, God will decide how to punish him. I am sure that most of us in this situation, God forbid, would behave differently.
Needless to say, the acting did not impress me. Rachel Weiss is quite ordinary, her role could be played by any actress. Mark Wahlberg, as usual, never liked this actor, so I can’t say anything specific about him, it would be better to take someone with a brighter charisma and talent. Stanley Tucci was good, he really looked like a simple single man who creates doll houses, and a maniac killer. Most of all liked the young talented actress Saoirse Ronan, a very sunny and memorable girl.
Summing up, I can not but say that, again, visually the film is interesting. Personnel, plans, editing, graphics - all very good. And numerous allegories please, make you think about each frame. But the plot frankly sags, the main message is clear, but it is expressed sparingly and crooked, a crumpled narrative, illogical, and most importantly - non-life actions of the heroes. It does not show the horror of losing a loved one. No, I don't want to see him kill her, and I don't want a lot of blood. But the main idea of the film - do not trust, children, uncles who do not know well enough, alas, not disclosed.
5 out of 10
This movie is deep in my soul. Even now, just flipping through the trailer, I feel some otherworldly awe. The feeling that this movie really opens the doors to the other world, makes you hear the voices of those who have left us, lost but loved ones, with whose departure we can not accept.
The film is atypical. Accustomed to the story of the maniac suspense, here destroyed in the trailer, everything is known in advance. Because it's not about intrigue. The director was not going to make a horror or a detective, the main task was to convey to the viewer a simple idea of humility, that tragedy can always happen, and no one is safe, but revenge is meaningless, and love is eternal.
The viewer is removed from the story, as well as the deceased Susie. He dangles between worlds, not getting the opportunity to fully feel neither real life nor the afterlife. Many people call this the minus of the picture, but it seems to me that this is the only possible view. The feeling of not being involved in events creates a void that begins to slowly wander in consciousness for a few more days, and then bursts with the desire to see the film again. See the beautiful Saoirse Ronan, fascinating fantastic landscapes, shudder at the terrifyingly cold face of the maniac.
And what do we get out of it? A dark story about the rape and murder of a minor, permeated with light and calm. Justice here is done exclusively by extraterrestrial means, the director offers us to trust in the highest court and not to accumulate anger in the soul, because life continues and it is worth appreciating every moment allotted to us on this earth.
Starting watching the drama of Peter Jackson "Pretty Bones", I did not yet know what mark this film will leave in my soul. "Pretty Bones" I watched quite by accident, not knowing what the plot was about, not seeing the trailer and not reading the book on which it was shot. So I'm subjective.
So, for me, the film was divided into 3 parts . The first : short, colorful, bright, funny, describing the life of the Salmon family. About all the viewer tells the main character Suzy, a 14-year-old girl. In the life of the family everything is fine, they are friendly, cope with all the troubles. The second part is also short: dark, mysterious, sinister - the murder of a girl. And the third, the longest: Susie's wanderings in her own intervening world and the suffering and pain of her family. Despite the fact that Suzy was killed at the very beginning of the picture, the narrative is still in some way conducted on her behalf.
"Sweet Bones" describes the tragedy, loss, death of a child at the hands of a maniac. But, it would seem, such a sad and cruel theme of death and the search for a killer should turn the film more into a thriller detective. However, "Sweet Bones" is a drama that shows all these nuances from the other side. It touches the viewer's feelings. The attempt to show what a person, a child, feels after death, watching the grief-stricken parents, the carelessly living and still unpunished killer cannot but cause the deepest sadness and sorrow when watching. The unreal, unknown, otherworldly world of Suzy at this moment for the viewer looks quite real. It's a drama that completely absorbs and leaves its imprint after watching; it's not an ordinary movie you'll forget in a week's time. The action takes place in the 70s, in the era of bright screaming costumes and the whole film is as bright and striking. You sympathize, empathize, get angry, but at the same time, the director adds scenes (e.g., kissing at the end) that bring smiles and joy.
Little Suzy played Saoirse Ronan, at that time still unknown young actress. She did it talentedly and at the same time simple. After this film, I began to recognize her in other films and follow her creative success. I think it's not just me. In this film also played a fascinating role Suzan Sarandon. The image of the 70s is very much in her face, but she does not occupy talent and professionalism in her business. And, of course, Stanley Tucci as a cold-blooded killer was great. On a subconscious level, you begin to hate him. The actor was very convincing in his role.
So, “Lovely Bones” in brief can be described as a sincere, heartfelt film, describing from an unusual side a tragedy that you do not want anyone to experience. It’s a hard movie with meaning for sensitive people. But everyone should see it at least once. The atmosphere of “colorful sadness” will not leave indifferent. I can’t judge how much the content of the film reflects the essence of the book, but if the film is a masterpiece, the book should be just a bestseller.
One of those films that from the very first frames make it clear what they are. And if the very beginning of the film did not catch, then you should not look further - you will not like it and will cause irritation. I got hooked.
From the very first shots, I realized that this movie could not be better suited to my mood, and watched it in one breath.
I am sure that not everyone will like the “Sweet Bones”, although the rating on the KP is happy in this regard. The fact is that he is not quite what he seems.
The narrative is conducted at a rather calm pace, but the film itself can not be called so calm. And although there are no heart-wrenching scenes and obvious tear-squeezing, there is always a certain tension, which in some moments is very correctly reduced to the maximum degree, as well as a sense of injustice and sadness. After all, it is so unfair to die so young, only on the threshold of real feeling.
Many people reproach “Sweet Bones” for the lack of meaning. This is strange to me, because for me it is primarily a philosophical film, and not about a dead girl who does not want to go to the other world, but about feelings, human feelings that are sometimes not so easy to cope with – despair, thirst for revenge, grief and unwillingness to accept loss. The consequences of these feelings... And about how important it is to live here and now, to seize the moment, because it may not happen again.
Play actors on a level, except that Rachel Weiss a little did not last. Mark Wahlberg made a very good impression. I never imagined him in this role, but he was just the perfect father. In the game of Stanley Tucci, I did not see anything special, although, undoubtedly, he managed to play a maniac. I liked Saoirse Ronan very much - nothing superfluous, and at the same time very authentic. You look at her and you can guess what the heroine is feeling right now.
Special thanks to Susan Sarandon for the bright image of her grandmother, eternally young both externally and in the soul. I also liked Rhys Ritchie, who played the first love of the main character - coped with the role, and was very fitting.
Special effects, of course, wonderful, incredibly beautiful and conveying the feelings and thoughts of the main character, but this “perfect world” is a little ill-conceived, in my opinion. At some points there were bewilderments and questions that interfered with the perception of the film. For some reason, I think the reason for this lies in the book itself, on which the film was made. So I did not understand what it was for the world in which the main character was stuck.
And except for that – a beautiful bright film with good acting and the right message.
I will end with a quote attributed to Lao Tzu and which I remembered after watching: “If someone has hurt you, do not rush into battle and do not rush to take revenge, just sit on the bank of the river and wait for the corpse of the offender to swim past.”
9 out of 10
I don't know why, but for a long time, I've been postponing watching pretty bones. No reason. This movie is good. It has a really strong atmosphere, good acting and most importantly, this picture has a strong super-task.
The plot of the film adaptation, as far as I know, does not repeat the book of the same name in 2002, which I unfortunately did not read anyway, so I can only judge the film. The story of the “cute bones” revolves around a very cute fourteen-year-old girl who once died at the hands of a psychopath living next door. Left between the worlds, the heroine tries to come to terms with her death with her family. This story is well told.
The actors in the film are perfectly selected and their play is amazing. Saoirse Ronan is really amazing. It was a pleasure to see Wahlberg in a dramatic role after years of staying in one genre. And of course, you can not forget the magnificent Susan Sarandon, who somehow made you smile for a second even in such a serious film.
The atmosphere in the film is transmitted to all 100. Some scenes are so tense that the heart just starts to burst out of the chest. And some make you stop breathing. Heroes really empathize and it is important.
As a result, we have one of the best paintings of the last decade, and perhaps even a century.
10 out of 10
Pretty Bones is a very strange title for both the book and the movie, but it fits this movie. The film is as mysterious, beautiful, exciting as its title.
The director of this film is Peter Jackson, the man who created such masterpieces as King Kong and the Lord of the Ring trilogy. In my opinion, he lacked just such a film to prove to everyone that he can not only shoot action, but also, and... . But what kind of movie style is this? Drama, fantasy? I think it's a vinaigrette of all this. But in this case, all the ingredients of this vinaigrette fit together as well as possible. Every ingredient is in its place, and that’s what Peter Jackson did in this movie.
This film is more about death than about life and what it entails. The film tells the story of a girl who was killed at such a young and beautiful age - 14 years. We are told about the path she takes after death, how her parents experience it and demonstrate how beautiful and fragile human life is.
Saoirse Ronan played perfectly for a young age as young as 14. Mark Wahlberg, I think he's a perpetual rocker, but he didn't leave that feeling here. Stanley Tucci played a cold blood killer. A special word in this film deserves music. Here she's amazing. At every moment when music appears, it creates a terribly correct atmosphere, and the music itself is easily perceived and pleasing to the ear. It is also very well shot, landscapes of paradise, etc.
The film is sure to appeal to thriller lovers, but this film has a vitality, everyday challenges that we all have to face day by day. This movie is really worth your attention.
After the worldwide success of “The Lord of the Rings” and overnight becoming the main director of the planet, Peter Jackson realized that now he can do anything. And this permissiveness, in my opinion, played a cruel joke with him.
Already on “King Kong” it was obvious that Jackson is great “carrying” and there is no person next to him who can somehow control the process. The film came out beautiful, powerful, even colossal in scope, but at the same time it was absolutely unemotional and empty. A similar story is observed here. “Sweet bones” touches on an unquestionably difficult and burning topic. The fact that Jackson took on such a project certainly does him credit. But whether the novel Alice Siebold turned out to be very difficult to adapt for cinema, or the director did not completely decide what kind of film he should succeed in - the mosaic resolutely refuses to fold into one whole. Instead of a clear story about the tragedy, remorse and retribution, the viewer receives a strange mix of either fantasy, teenage drama, or psychological thriller. The actors have almost nothing to play, and if Mark Wahlberg still somehow tries to "bloom" his character, then Rachel Weiss and Susan Sarandon seem to just read the text he proposed correctly. About the performer of the leading role Saoirse Ronan, unfortunately, to say nothing definite, because the role she got surprisingly boring. The only way she could prove herself was in the first half of the picture, but Ronan somehow missed this opportunity. It remains to admire only Stanley Tucci, who, unlike his colleagues in the film, was really lucky with the character, and who looks surprisingly similar here to Bruce Willis from the “black” comedy Robert Zemeckis “Death to Her Face” and Andrey Myagkov from “Office Romance”. Unfortunately, there is nothing more to highlight in the film. Except for the beautiful visuals. But still, such tapes are clearly removed not only for them.
And that's not true. He can't be the saddest. This is the first thing that comes to mind after watching.
There are a lot of films that awaken the brightest emotions in us. There are films that at the heart of their plot are horror, tragedy, but something separates their films of a frightening genre.
Lovely Bones tells the story of a family tragedy. A young girl was murdered. She was killed brutally, dismembered into a number of parts, and hidden in a safe.
It will not be easy for a normal person to understand that such a large amount of time is spent searching for a criminal, when it is no longer difficult to guess who is who, especially from the strange behavior of some masters. Nevertheless, the creators of the film, deliberately do not resort to the “pattern happy ending”, although it can not be here, and defeat evil, in a completely different way at first glance.
Evil is conquered by finding harmony, the one who was killed, who would still live and live. It goes to heaven.
Evil destroyed itself. So what's the fun? Forgiveness-like enlightenment? For the incomprehensible ending
Looking through the reviews of this picture, you can see how polar the reviews are: some were delighted with the picture, others were extremely disappointed. I’d rather put myself in the second group, as the film made no impression on me. At the same time, I was surprised by some critics who criticized the film’s message, saying that such a topic should not be presented in such a positive way. The problem with this film is not the message, but how it was performed.
From the very beginning, the film brings boredom, and it is noticeable how the creators are trying to delay the moment of the meeting of the maniac and the girl. The scene in the basement and the way Stanley Tucci tries to lure the girl to him was pretty good (as it turned out, it was the best moment in the whole film). Here I expected that the plot was finally unfolding, and all the most interesting is yet to come. Alas, I was wrong. The place where the girl ended up after death is very strange. But you can put up with it, everyone has their own opinion, what the other world looks like. But why the Asian girl who accompanied the main character was shoved there, I did not understand. Yes, they were linked by one killer, but why is she there and not the other victims? In my opinion, there is an obvious flaw in the script.
Perhaps the film’s weakest and most incomprehensible episode is the part where the heroine’s grandmother comes to the house. I understand that the grandmother was supposed to bring humor to the picture, but the effect was different: her role looked grotesque and absolutely does not fit into the film. Besides, after that, the director seems to forget about her, and she appears only in a couple of episodes.
The acting was not bad, and it was clear that the actors squeezed the most out of their roles. But if Saoirse Ronan, Mark Wahlberg and Stanley Tucci had the opportunity to turn around and show their talent, as their role allowed, then for Rachel Weiss and Michael Imperiali I was just offended, because their characters are absolutely gray and passable. Compare Imperioli in the role of inspector in the far from the most successful series “Detroit 1-8-7” and here, and immediately understand in whose favor you need to make a comparison, and also which director could not squeeze anything out of the actor. I would like to pay special attention to the sister of the heroine performed by Rose McIver. She played well, but I couldn't believe she was playing Susie's little sister. Then I found out that she was seven years older than Ronan in real life (Makiver at the time of writing my review 26). In other words, at the time of the film, she was 21-22 years old, and she played the younger sister of 14-year-old Susie. Comments are superfluous.
In general, it is not that the film is terrible, but it can only be described as an unfortunate use of the talents who took part in the creation of this film.
6 out of 10
I'll be subjective! For me, Jackson is one of the most controversial directors, but one thing is for sure: Peter loves special effects! But the place of these special effects in his projects is very different. In an exemplary example of a movie about zombies Living Dead naturalistic scenes of gutting broke the template and sincerely pleased fans of the genre with the depth of black humor. Doomed to success from the beginning, the Lord of the Rings was packed into tons of computer graphics to create the extraordinary epicity and monumentality inherent in Tolkien’s light pen. But with the picture Cute bones everything is far from clear ...
Immediately subtract from the overall picture of special effects - it's always just the cherry on the cake, decorating what is delicious in itself, right? So let's look at the dry residue. We don't have much leftover. If you (like me) have not read the book, then the plot is likely to seem gray and boring, if not dull and absent. Personally, I never stopped asking myself: why is this here, and why is this? And the only comfort for me was the thought: "That's what I need from the book." Because otherwise to answer questions like “What role in the narrative plays a stubborn grandmother?” or “How long did school abandon the use of buses?” is simply impossible. Well, to hell with him, let's drop the story! Let’s try to think of cinema as an arthouse novel, for example. What is the central message it conveys to us?
And the most trivial and invariably popular among the masses of the population. The idea of the immortality of the soul and the presence of the dead in our world, on the fortieth day (or after the completion of earthly affairs) departing into another supernatural reality. God, this is new and unusual! My world will never be the same again.
Even the ancient Egyptians built pyramids to well guide the pharaohs and their wives directly to those cherished heavens, which, as Agent Mulder would say from X-Files, probably "somewhere near." But here is the paradox - films about souls and their migration / journey are filmed immeasurably, and about the ancient Egyptians - a ball of kachi (horrors about the revived mummies do not count). And until now, this plot will not outlive itself, to which religion obliges (at this stage of the development of civilization - Christianity, in the countries-producers of the considered tape existing in the version of Protestantism). Here lies, in my opinion, the weakest point of the film Dear bones - it is imbued with populism to the bone. Do you want a beautiful picture of ships crashing ashore and gazebos falling into tartara in the Elvish forest? Nate! You want a story about universal justice that gives everyone what they deserve? Here you go! Need hope that your personality will continue to exist even after the death of its bearer, that is, the human brain? Oh, please! The door to the nearest church is not far away. My personal opinion is that religious propaganda is always bad.
The Matrix taught us to seek the truth. V stands for Vendetta—to fight for our ideas. Seeing everything and 1984 - not to believe in anyone or anything. Equilibrium - to be yourself, and even in Never give up we were encouraged to be warriors ready to fight for their loved ones. And what do we learn from "Sweet Bones" besides fatalistic submission to fate? Belief in a happy afterlife? A worthy message, you can't say anything...
P.S.
Where was universal justice before the maniac killed the first victim? Dear filmmakers! Make an alternate ending! Let the maniac continue to kill, while everyone around enjoys life, including after death. Then you will finally show us the true essence of cinema for hamsters (" live, learn, work, die and get to the coveted paradise forever!), which in the original picture is somewhat ironed out by pleasant music, bright colors, dozens and hundreds of frames with computer graphics and pretty faces of actors, for which I still put this idealess chewing gum for the mind modest.
4 out of 10
When I found out that Peter Jackson was working on Pretty Bones, which will be on screen in November 2009, becoming the first Hobbit-like New Zealand storyteller after a four-year hiatus, I was surprised. What's that weird name? Horror? Of course, Jackson began his career with very black comedies, but now it’s not.
When I read the synopsis, I was even more surprised.
Of course I downloaded Alice Siebold's book. I read it in good faith. And now there was no limit to my surprise - for the story was clearly not the most suitable material for Jackson. The fact that he knows how to make blockbusters, there is no doubt - but to shoot such a chamber story, and besides on such a slippery topic ... Something will happen.
So the movie came out. And I watched it one night, when the silence and darkness of the empty apartment pressed on my nerves.
I was very impressed with it.
Careful father-accountant, collecting boats in bottles. A loving mother raising three children. Stupid grandmother Lynn, never parting with a cigarette. Little Buckley, middle Lindsay, big Susie. Happy family. They're fine. Nothing terrible could have happened to them, just for nothing.
But a single man living in a green house across the street decided otherwise.
"The good girl Susie lives in our city." She dreams of becoming a photographer, snapping everything in a row, in a matter of months putting out all the films; sulking at parents who itch about how much it will cost to print it all; counts every eyelash of her pretty dark-haired skin while he is sitting in the library; dreary stuffs a tied hat into her mother's bag - God forbid who will see it in this ugliness! - quarrels with her sister and generally just lives.
And does not know that the neighbor with whom her parents once talked about the amazing flower garden on his plot, the neighbor, carefully, carefully and patiently making stunning doll houses, is the same neighbor, with the same methodicalness with which he cuts a toy dresser with a blob, sets a trap for her.
And no one but him knew that when he went to school one morning, Susie wouldn't be coming home.
The scene of rape and murder, described in moderate detail by Siebold in the book, from the very beginning caused me some apprehensions - how would this be put to rest? Of course they won't, but... But Jackson found the same graceful and beautiful way out as everything in the movie. Something reminiscent of the “Sixth Sense” – but here it is not the main intrigue, so accusations of plagiarism will not roll.
In general, what is the main intrigue? Maniac? So here he is, we know him. And the Salmons soon, not soon, but guess. Capture? No doubt, the game of "cat and mouse" in the style of retro does not relax. And I bow to Stanley Tucci with my hand on my heart, and I swear that Mr. Harvey, a maniac, was the first cinematic assassin who made me crave “that this scum should not just be caught, but ... something.” The right maniac. Usually they are made in the wrapper of “charismatic Evil”, and therefore they did not cause such a violent reaction in me – and some even liked it. But this one...
But that's not intrigue. No, don't think it's intrigue, viewers, please. It won't work out like most - who find themselves disappointed with how Mr. Harvey ended his days. I wanted more, too, believe me. But this is not my favorite Ghost with Swayze.
There is no intrigue in this film at all.
What do you got?
And there is the incredible in its colorful surrealism beauty between the world of Suzy, her dreams and the pain of the family, who are trying to collect their fragile world, after her death disintegrated like a house of cards.
Salmons are an incredibly painful topic. Maybe that’s why I was so offended, because I was imagining myself as Susie, and when I looked at Father Jack as Mark Wahlberg, I saw my dad. I just know he would have lived on, too.
A father who refused to put up with the fact that the man who took his daughter from him lives and walks around with impunity. Who prints one film of Suzy's photos a month, shouting "print everything, one a month - madness!" answering "but Suzy and I had such an agreement." Who refused to admit her, his best friend, dead -- no, knows she's dead, of course -- but doesn't try, doesn't want to try to forget the feeling that's so hurting now. And for him, Susie is really alive. After all, a person truly dies only when he ceases to live in someone's heart.
Abigail's mother. This is who tried to forget, to push pain to the margins of consciousness, just not to talk about pain, thinking that then it will go away ... to hide his head in the sand. No wonder it didn’t last in the end. However, with their own methods, they also got out of the situation. But Rachel Wise, alas, by and large, got the role of a pale shadow - in comparison with the rest of the family.
Lindsey's sister, Rose McIver. And how did such a girl grow out of a cheerful fat girl with two light tails? Athlete and just beautiful - well, just not Komsomol. And in the representation of “all the lighthouses to come out of the Twilight”, she played her solo part brilliantly.
Grandma Lynn, Susan Sarandon is something. It's something. Makeup, cigarette, drink. The Iron Lady who gives everything in life. One of the most colorful characters I have ever seen.
And Saoirse Ronan runs the ball. Suzy in her performance is the fading of breath and a pinch in the heart. Suzy's feelings, which were described in detail in the book at times in six or seven pages, I read in her eyes in a few seconds. What to say is the hope of Hollywood.
You're really beautiful, Susie Salmon. And the movie is beautiful with you. He's beautiful, damn it, just beautiful. Actors, picture, soundtrack from Lennon to Cocteau Twins, original music by Brian Eno. And also - the main idea, which is quite different than you might think, learning the title and plot.
I saw things in a different light: a world was opened to me where I was not. The circumstances caused by my death, the very bones, promised someday to become flesh, to become one body. The price of this magical body was my life.
Susie Salmon will never be able to live, love and breathe again. Suzy Salmon is a girl who will never grow up and never grow up.
“Dear Bones” is a sad version of the fairy tale “Peter Pan”.
When you watch this movie, you remember that you are alive. So enjoy your life. You know, it's a fragile thing.
10 out of 10