What is beyond the invisible line, no one knows for sure, but some ideas about the “i” side of the “i” still developed among the layman. Cinema also contributed to the creation of this image, in which there were quite a lot of different kinds of paintings: both scary (which is still the majority), and funny (Casper, Beatlejuice), and rather sad (a vivid example is the well-known Ghost). But to show a movie in the format of diary records of a ghost girl ... something like that I do not remember.
The brief exposition and the subsequent prologue appear to be typical teenage experiences in which there is nothing extraordinary. First love, the problem of generations, fascination with the art of photography - a standard set of teenage girls. The most interesting thing begins when a suspicious person meets in a corn field.
In the work in which the maniac appears, it is usually customary to kidnap a child, and then save him with the "whole brigade", here this component is almost completely absent, due to the speedy transition of the girl to the local analogue of purgatory. It is visualized, it should be noted, on an amazing level and exactly as a 14-year-old girl would have imagined it. However, with the transition to this stage, the story does not come to its logical conclusion, but only increases the pace.
The protracted investigation, of course, is given a significant place, but still the priority is given not to this, but to the inner feelings of the rest of the family. Someone directs energy to his own attempts to get to the truth, someone tries to abstract as much as possible from everything that happened, even leaving everything and away from misfortune, someone, on the contrary, strives with all his might not to lose face; Suzy watches all these events with his cozy (mostly) arbor, unable to significantly influence the current course of events.
Saoirse Ronan at that time did not yet become a similarity Kristen Stewart (Bell of those same Twilight) - this may mean that the image embodied by her does not seem at all pretentious or mired in love affairs, the slight touch of romance only gives the work more soulfulness.
Some say that Mark Wahlberg is not given serious roles, which is why he has been acting in comedies only recently. But it is forgotten that, firstly, in comedies you also need to have a certain acting talent, and, secondly, if you take a specific film, then the language will not turn to say about the inability of Mark to take dramatic heights (for a moment, let’s take a break from the Departed, about whom nothing needs to be said). Mark's hero - the father of the family - is perceived exactly as he should be perceived - lost his beloved daughter, desperate and completely disappointed in the police, and therefore taking justice into their own hands.
As a result, Sweet Bones turned out to be a cute film adaptation of the novel of the same name (we must assume no less, and maybe more successful in this field), combining elements of a thriller, and a fantasy world, and a touch of melodrama. This cocktail has an unusual taste, but the absolute majority of it is definitely worth trying.
Our planet is sick and requires a complex operation.
The plot tells the story of a fourteen-year-old girl named Susie Salmer, who had loving parents, a young man, as well as a dream to become a professional photographer, but all this gave up George Harvey, who raped and then killed a little girl. But this film does not end, but only begins, because Susan’s soul is hungry for revenge, her parents are trying to get to the truth, and Harvey looks at the sister of the main character in order to turn another girl into “cute bones”.
How many copies have been broken, whether there is life after death or not? If it doesn’t exist, why do we do what we do? And if she is, what is she like? Do we become disembodied spirits that wander the earth without finding rest, or do we go to another world that we deserve? I’m not going to say what I believe, because it’s not interesting to you anyway, but let’s see what the director believes in. And Peter Jackson believes that a person after his death turns into a ghost who must deal with his earthly affairs. A similar move was played in "Fearmen" and the same move is played here. The only difference is that the budget of “Dear bones” was twice as much and this budget was completely put on the visual part and I confess honestly – breathtaking. A great play of light and shadow is especially noticeable when the viewer is shown the bright and bright moments of Susie Selmer’s life, and the gloomy and I would even say Gothic tones of Joge Harvey. This creates a great contrast and shows that look, we have a pure soul, but we have an evil scoundrel who has nothing behind his soul. Nice find, yeah. This is especially noticeable when it turns out that no one will show the characters. It's all about beautiful special effects. But then why do these people need a voice? Wouldn’t it be easier to make a silent movie? In this case, finding a play of light and shadow would be much more justified, and so you expect the characters to start showing character, but they show only emotions, in which for the most part they do not believe. But this is not the fault of the writers, it is rather the fault of the actors who played at a fairly average level and did not even try to breathe life into their characters. The only exception is Susan’s grandmother, Linney. Here she, unlike all the other characters of the picture, showed both character and live emotions. It is a pity that there is very little in this film. What about George Harvey, played by Stanley Tucci? And he's playing a little above average, but he's not really doing anything outstanding. What's the Oscar nomination? Jack Nicholson won an Oscar for his role in The Shining? Nope. Did Anthony Perkins get this nomination for his role in Psycho? Not again. But both the actor and the other coped with their roles much better! Yeah, something's rotten in this world. Very rotten. What about Susan, Saoirse Ronan? Oh, and she's trying to play something, but it looks so cardboard that you want to be shown as little as possible in the frame, because it's annoying. As for morality, it is something like this: “If you are raped, do not resist, but try to enjoy the process.” In other words, the evil will get its way sooner or later, and you don’t even have to make any effort. Really? Is it that simple? That's how Mavrodi got what he deserved. How did the gangster authorities who now occupy senior positions in this country get what they deserved? How did the rapists and murderers get what they deserved, and if they didn’t get it, then you have to wait a bit and everything will change. Bravo, Sir Jackson! You opened my eyes!
Summing up, I would like to say that before the viewer there is a film with a beautiful visual series and very beautiful special effects, but a very weak plot part, average actors and rotten morality. So my advice to you, if you want to see a really good albeit a little cruel fairy tale, then look at the film “Bridge to Terabithia”, and this movie is just a set of special effects. I'm going to say no.
This film gave me a double impression. Images of good sacrifice, forgiveness, wisdom do not fit in my understanding with the story of a pedophile killer. Well, I did not experience bright feelings at the end of the film, I could not “let go” the killer the way Saoirse Ronan did. I believe that the Christian commandments of forgiveness cannot be applied to all actions in this world.
What you can give a positive rating to the film is visual images. Some of the scenes were shot beautifully. For example, when a heroine from the other world looks at her loved ones. Or scenes with the souls of dead children in the field.
Only all the excitement disappears when you realize that all this is just a fantasy of the director, and these cute children are just cute bones in the cold and damp earth. I am not going to say that there is no afterlife. That's my opinion. It's not that. The fact is that even if a person is rewarded for his actions in this afterlife, this will never happen in our “earthly” world. And the director showed it to us in all its glory. In the end, let him still save the punishment for the criminal, let us not deceive - it is insignificant for his deeds.
This movie didn't give me anything. I only became convinced of the helplessness of the weak in the face of real evil. The evil of sadism, lust and ruthlessness. Good will lose to evil rather than win. But, thank you at least for the fact that the story is shown without salvation and happy ending (and so in life most often happens), but the very attitude to evil in this film, I repeat, is wrong in my understanding.
The acting did not cause either disappointment or delight. Perhaps, to see this moment more closely prevented a sharp divergence of my views with the views of the main character of the film. That's why he's been rejected.
Director, writer, producer... I don’t know why Peter Jackson was so interested in this story that he took it so closely, but I think it was a bad idea (perhaps because I didn’t understand everything in this picture). I am not saying that this film is a waste of time, on the contrary, there are many themes. Why a bad idea? Yes, because Peter Jackson presented these themes in very indigestible dishes.
Whatever misfortune happens to you, do not dwell on it, life goes on and evil will not go unpunished. That’s what Peter Jackson wanted us to do in this movie. He showed us what happens to people who can't bring themselves to go on. But he did it very, very unconventionally.
Rachel Weiss looked unconvincing in some places, and Saoirse Ronan, on the contrary, attracted attention with her talent and angelic appearance, although in general I liked the acting. Nice sound, beautiful graphics, although I would like better, especially in the last scene.
I really liked the reflection of the events of the world of the living in Susie’s world. The veiled signs, anticipating further events, simply delighted, but, unfortunately, not all. The meaning of many scenes leaves only guesses, sometimes it is unclear whether it is just Susie's feelings, or connected with the world of the living. The meaning of Susie’s final speech, in my opinion, is at odds with the action of the whole film, her words say very contradictory things, after which the question arises: What about the "cute bones"? This makes the picture difficult to perceive. Changing images of the world in which Susie fell, it is difficult to unambiguously interpret, perhaps Peter Jackson and wanted there to be room for audience imagination, but this is not fair.
I’ve heard a lot about this movie, I’ve read a lot too. The book, alas, saw after watching, so my opinion is only about the film, not about how good this adaptation is. The reviews are only positive. At night, this movie begins on Channel One. Despite the late hour, I sat down to see this picture. With such interest I watched and so waited for the finale, which, it would seem, should impress and surprise me, but it was because of such a stretch of the last hour, precisely because of the distance from the final, and then suddenly approaching a completely different, or to what you were waiting for - the opinion about the film has changed.
The story on which the film is built is quite interesting. One day, returning from school, Susie meets her neighbor, Mr. Harvey, on the field. He invites her to his shelter or house (something like that) which he has built underground. Susie's thrilled! They're chatting, sitting, but time is running out, and it's time for Susie to go home. However, she begins to realize that it could end badly. Trying to escape from the clutches of the maniac, she still fails. Rape and murder. But in the next footage we see Susie running off the field trying to get home. A few moments later, Susie realizes she's dead. What's keeping her here? Now she is watching what is happening from the other side. And the father, meanwhile, tries to conduct his own investigation, printing every month the tapes of the deceased daughter. Maybe that’s where he’ll find the answer.
I really love Peter Jackson. I can call him my favorite director because The Lord of the Rings is the most amazing, most delightful trilogy of all time! He is a true genius, and you can say that after watching movies about Middle-earth. But despite his most famous paintings, I also became interested in his secondary works, such as King Kong and Pretty Bones. Jackson did his job. On his part, again, everything turned out brilliant. He is a master of his craft and I am pleased to see his work.
I had a very important question about the story itself, and this, it turns out, to Alice Siebold, the author of the novel. Why is Susie wandering around in this strange, fabulous world after she dies? Why is it even on display? She didn’t do anything important, she didn’t do anything. I was just watching. I thought it would end up interesting, somehow magical. But I couldn't see the idea or the meaning. Of course, another proof that you can't go down with strangers in your fifties without knowing where. It was a long time ago, but at the time, there was less crime. And cruelty in general. But still, Susie's behavior is incomprehensible. The story is interesting, but very strange. The first thirty minutes are intriguing, exciting. And then the gaps begin. Sometimes the plot makes you nervous, keeps you in real tension. There was one moment when you just sit there and worry terribly about the hero. Sometimes you don’t know what’s going on, what’s going on? The film is beautiful and intimidating, but complex and not impressive.
Saoirse Ronan looks very cute in her funny hat and yellow trousers. She did her part well. There's nothing more to say about her. Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weiss, who played Suzy's parents, were also remembered. I never liked Wahlberg, but in this film he didn’t even push himself away, but rather wanted to feel sorry for him. Weiss really liked it, too. Sincere emotions, experiences + a very beautiful woman.
My favorite actor, Stanley Tucci, plays the maniac. Tucci almost always plays positive, kind characters. It is impossible not to love him, because he is a wonderful actor who in every film knows how to show himself from a new, successful angle. King of supporting roles! Alas, the second, but still truly the king. George Harvey is a strange character. He looks melancholy, unemotional, but all this until he starts talking or doing something. Tucci managed to turn into a real villain, a hidden villain who hides under the guise of a good neighbor. Bravo and bravo again! Even in the role of such a seemingly terrible character, I still like it.
"Dear Bones"A rather strange story that does not fully reveal all its charm. After viewing, there is a strange aftertaste and questions that no one will answer. Overall, I was only upset by the end. But this is a huge disadvantage, because it was the completion of this tragic and difficult story that should have made the strongest impression on the viewer, and I, alas, did not make. The end tells us that everything was completely in vain - there was no idea or meaning in all this. But still, for those hour and a half that were kept in suspense and promised to end as amazing as it began, I bet.
7 out of 10
The main task of the book, in my opinion, was to show the psychological drama, the tragedy that takes place in a family that has lost a loved one (in this case, a child); how the atmosphere changes, what feelings and experiences relatives experience, how their lives change accordingly; and when their world will again cease to be shaky and be reborn from ruins.
From a great, thoughtful plot, made just a beautiful film, missing the key moments and, in my opinion, completely forgetting about emotions (after all, how globally influenced the death of Suzy on the lives of others!).
The key element was the girl’s stay in heaven, beautiful landscapes and secondary features, which almost added to the charm. We removed many interesting details, I will say more – we made a global purge. Even the title of the film did not explain itself or justify itself.
From semantic, deep work made a tape that works exclusively for aesthetics.
Ned.
Magic can appear suddenly where you do not expect it. It slowly fills everything with itself, giving unforgettable moments that will never be forgotten. Memory stores them somewhere in the back so that you can remember and enjoy what you can’t get back. This magic comes not only to people who live happily into old age next to their beloved family, but also to those who left the world much earlier. They may not have lived a year, and magic will knock on the heart door, asking to open it wider to give a little happiness for the rest of existence. It is existence, not life, because the earthly world no longer belongs to such people.
Magic is not looking for someone special, it gives itself to absolutely everyone, only receive it in different ways. Someone puts up with his spouse, returning home, someone finds his soul mate and is going to give life to a little man, and someone just gets peace in order to let go of loved ones who need to continue to live.
The film carries not only beautiful landscapes, but also an instructive story about revenge, for which you can not sacrifice everything. She takes away the most precious things, taking away her heart and letting only darkness and loneliness into it. Revenge is not good; it only brings a painful death. The film shows that sometimes revenge is not an option. Everything will be decided by itself, and those who deserve punishment will sooner or later receive it. Perhaps three times the size, which after a long time will lament, realizing what he did. There may be no repentance, but punishment will come.
Death is too easy for someone who has killed so many innocent souls, but that's not the point. These innocent souls themselves released their destroyer, wanting to reach the long-awaited Paradise. They let go of bad memories, giving themselves wonderful company and a life filled with smiles. Here it is life, not existence, because a person who has left the earthly world can also continue to live.
If Paradise really is like magic, I hope everyone sees it.
10 out of 10
There is something charming, unusual, ambiguous in the film, causing a hurricane of various emotions. After viewing, a feeling is created that you have been bewitched, not only that two hours flashed as one moment, and you are still in an incomprehensible stupor. It’s hard to think about anything other than what you see. But there are no concrete thoughts either. It feels like the world of the main character is in your head. And you don’t know what to do with all this... Sometimes you fall into melancholy and silently look into the void for a few minutes, sometimes you begin to smile for no reason, with a stupid and at the same time sad smile.
I haven’t read the book, so there’s nothing to compare. But maybe it's for the best. Usually the film adaptations are noticeably inferior to their book originals, and so do not want to be disappointed.
I really liked the lead role of Saoirse Ronan. I totally believed her. There is something extraordinary about her... Probably big blue eyes, which combine sadness and secret tenderness. Other actors also gave 100%. I liked Mark Wahlberg, who played the father of the main character. He was completely imbued with father’s grief after the loss of a child and gave the opportunity to empathize with his hero.
Stanley Tucci also struck. Previously, I saw him only in comedic roles, so the killer maniac in his performance became a revelation. He did not come out as a flat negative character, we see a man who, in addition to his atrocities and cruelty, carries unbearable pain.
Of course, a thin, juicy picture deserves attention. Very beautiful graphics, unique images that are also endowed with a mystery inherent in the whole film. I especially liked the boats...
Heavy and at the same time airy, weightless film. It seems that now he will escape from you, covered with a veil of joyful despair. Leaving a special atmosphere for a long time... And you will look at the images, looking out the window, listen to sounds, feel an incomprehensible tension. As if you are not alone, but someone's soul flies by, rushing into heaven to the long-awaited freedom.
10 out of 10
All things in this world are interrelated and any action will return to man in one way or another. This axiom has been confirmed by the course of history many times. The same axiom carries as the main message of this film.
As a person of materialistic mindset, after watching the trailer, I thought I wouldn’t like this movie. Some stories on behalf of the deceased, otherworldly worlds and other metaphysical aspects did not promise me anything good from watching. How wrong I was, the film is amazing!
The film seemed to me unnecessarily long before watching it. Still, few full-length films these days pass the mark of 90 minutes. I have to admit, 135 minutes went by unnoticed, the movie looks in one breath. It is simply impossible to tear the eye off, and interest in the plot was heated with each new frame.
Special compliments to the cast. To the heroes of the film you feel sincere, genuine emotions. You worry about someone, you judge someone, and you imbue someone with fierce hatred. A great choice of actress for the lead role, Saoirse Ronon just perfectly coped with the difficult role. And also I never cease to be amazed at how the uncouth rapper Marky Mark was able to grow a truly great actor Mark Wahlberg.
Impressions from the picture also did not disappoint. This film was exactly what this movie needed. Landscapes of a cold autumn backwater somewhere in the depths of the American province add the right palette to the film.
But the most important thing is the mood that is conveyed with the film. This film made me anxious and somewhat afraid. On the other hand, the film reminded that no matter who and how far away from our lives — he always leaves his mark, always remains with us.
Take care of your loved ones.
A story in which happy ending borders on a feeling of eerie emptiness
I read the book first and then watched the movie. And you know, this is probably the rare case where the movie was even better than the book. Bright, strong, dramatic, it smooths out sharp corners that I did not like in the book, but at the same time conveys the essence, gives a feeling of horror and pain, fear and powerlessness.
The cast plays at the highest level! Despite the fact that many roles are performed by very young actors, they convey the whole palette of emotions of the characters. I really liked Suzy's father, played by Wahlberg, my grandmother Lynn was incredibly liked, and Mr. Harvey gave me goosebumps. It was a very repulsive character.
Otherwise, the film turned out very colorful, with incredibly beautiful nature. I certainly didn’t expect anything from Jackson.
But you know, there are movies where no picture can help you come to terms with the fact that this movie tells us a cruel story. A story where everything inside shrinks and folds into a tight knot. Because these heroes had an unbearable amount of pain. I’m so glad that at the end of the day we have a happy ending. Even if it's so ambiguous.
There are such films that are made specifically to make the audience weep, choking with tears of pity and tenderness. Pretty Bones is one of those movies. Initially, a bad book in the skillful hands of Peter Jackson transformed into a terribly pathetic, sentimental, stereotypical and, most importantly, very stupid film. But all in order:
The main tragedy of the film N1 is the story of the victim of a rapist and murderer, fourteen-year-old Susie, who fell into the clutches of a terrible uncle, and that would be half the trouble, because then (the tragedy of N2) she landed not immediately in heaven, but in purgatory (a creepy, but pretty place). Strictly speaking, the plot revolves around these two tragedies and smoothly flows into tearful melodrama and all would be nothing if you did not have a few frankly stupid and funny moments.
1) How could it happen that (WARNING!) a fourteen-year-old girl without a shadow of doubt and fear descends into a dark cellar dug in the middle of a desert field? Seriously?! Even a five-year-old would not do that. But Susie is a girl, not initially burdened with intelligence, and she certainly goes for it, and naturally dies.
2) Why would a terrible maniac build such a complex trap for his victim, when he could banally lure her into his car? Why do you want to build a whole room in a clean field, and even lovingly decorate it with toys to lure a fourteen-year-old girl there? She's never seen stuffed toys? Is she five years old?
(3) Why so many stereotypes? Absolutely template and banal maniac pedophile who (attention!) chooses victims among his neighbors? How convenient it is, and most importantly, safe. Why didn't he look for a victim in another neighborhood, or did he not know that the police would automatically check on neighbors? The following cliches are extremely banal Susie's family, her father, mother, sister, brother - all as predictable and banal as possible. Next up are the police, again predictably stupid idiots who don't even try to investigate the murder of a little girl.
4) Purgatory is depicted as a beautiful country (alya Oz from a recent film), where Susie has been trying for a long time to figure out what the hell is going on with her. There, she meets other victims of a terrible maniac and then, resigned to her sad share, and in the form of a ghost with the help of a strange medium girl, kissing her lover, she still goes to heaven. The kissing scene is a separate madness. The guy remembers Susie, although he didn’t even really know her, his current girlfriend, a medium, becomes a guide through which a kiss becomes possible. He had only to deprive Susie of her virginity and then she could already with a calm soul go to heaven.
(5) Final. Apogee of the stupidity of this movie. For the death of the maniac was frankly ridiculous, and again, wildly banal, like, higher forces punished him, and the police, as always, are over.
Pros. 1 I liked the scene, which reveals the fate of the other victims of the maniac, it was even slightly scary and very dark. 2 Beautiful picture in the world of purgatory - all these boats and a large (but very stereotyped) tree from the visual side are very good.
And this movie is called touching and strong?
To be honest, I was somewhat confused by the title and the fact that the film is in the genre of fantasy. No, don't get it wrong - they're fun and fun to watch, but I love movies... more lifelike. As we have already written in other comments, there are no unexpected turns in the plot, but you forget about this during the viewing. This is not necessary here.
He's hooking. You know how it's going to end, but quit watching ... that thought doesn't even arise. You absorb it like a sponge. I would say that when you watch it, you open your soul, not your logic. No film has ever made me feel that way.
Next on the list:
It's very beautiful. The eye rejoices in the picture - well, it was sinful to expect otherwise from such a director. I wish I had seen it in the cinema.
It has amazing music. Soundtracks fit perfectly into the film and create a mood.
The actors... almost everyone played [b] well. But some... For example, Rose McIver, despite her young age played amazing, she empathizes with all her heart. Mark Wahlberg ... the last movies I saw of him were Tedd and Blood and Then — that is, quite ordinary comedies that do not require fine play, and I never considered him a great actor (only good), but here ... one look. Just by looking at these few shots of His Look, you’ll see what I mean: Discovery, Cold Anger, Horror, Understanding, Grief is in One Look. I applaud standing up.
Symbolic. They are saturated with the whole film: a rose is a kind of “return”, a garbage pit is a place to hide, and goosebumps get from the phrase “yes, you have a grave in the middle of the house!”
Some do not like where the corpse of the main character lay, many questions arise, but this is part of the symbolism.
And finally: for me, the most important thing in the film is the logic and surprise of the ending, it should break through. And even though it wasn't there, there were goosebumps. More than once. He's hooking. For me, this film is the best creation of Peter Jackson.
I will take a little off for an illogical "coffin", and deserved
9 out of 10
Let me tell you right away, I liked the title, I was expecting something terribly beautiful, something so delightful that it was beyond comprehension and possibility. But... Unfortunately, the film did not meet my expectations.
Mark Wahlberg played his part wonderfully, fully conveying the feeling of hatred, the pain he had to endure during the film. That's the plus. The rest of the actors played poorly, as if they didn’t even try. Plot... What's the story? Ordinary and cruelty of our world, it was visible without the film. Violence and cunning? Maybe. Everything is done in some dirty-dark tones, it is quite disgusting to watch this.
This picture is something moderately clumsy and stupid, not thought out enough. I think I wasted my time, because I did not take anything useful and good for myself here.
The story was led by the main character - Susie. He didn’t make me feel anything, literally. No pity, no compassion, no concern for anyone. I don’t often come across bad movies, but sometimes I have to watch something like that.
Of course, I do not want to say bad things about the work of director Peter Jackson, but I have to, because the film really does not represent a special moral value for each of us.
3 out of 10
It is so sad when children leave before their parents.
Travel is like a dream, with juicy colors, with realized fantasies, there reality has a different form, there are no familiar frameworks and stereotypes, there is even a different horizon - this is paradise. But what is paradise if you are not near your loved ones, what if you can watch them from the sidelines, but you can not hug and hear their heartbeat. And there is no way back, you are alone, alone with your anger, resentment, misunderstanding, bitterness and regrets, which have replaced awareness of the situation and hopelessness. The only questions in my head are: “Why me?”, “What did I deserve?”, “What right did he have?”, “How to reconcile and stop hating?” and most importantly, “How will parents endure this pain of loss?”
This is what a 14-year-old girl named Suzy Salmon faced. She had a normal teenage life, with typical problems, first love, first kiss, petty quarrels with her parents, but, she had a good family, she was very loved, especially her father. Everything was fine and went on as usual, until at one point her life ended. The fault was a neighbor-maniac who ruthlessly killed the unfortunate girl.
My last name is Salmon, which means salmon, and my name is Susie, I was 14 when I was killed on December 6, 1973. (c)
I have not read the book of the same name, but I really liked the film. He was very beautiful, if I may say so. Of course, the story is terrifying, because this is only one of a thousand, but the world of this cute girl is very beautifully depicted. We have few such visually beautiful paintings that would please the eye and not make you look for a flaw. Here everything is perfect graphics, panorama, mood of the film, actors.
Saoirse Ronan (Susie) is a little martyr, a hostage of the situation. She played this role perfectly, emotions were beyond praise, she is believed when she laughs and enjoys simple things, when she cries and hates. For me, this girl is a real discovery in the film, and those bottomless, blue eyes are impossible to forget.
Mark Wahlberg (Jack) is a beautiful dramatic role, a father who so selflessly loved his daughter, she was everything to him. Great game, lively emotions, which complemented the perfect image from the 70s. Honestly, I did not expect such a return from him, as I was more used to seeing him in comedy roles, but I was pleasantly surprised.
"Dear bones" - the story is impressive and shocking to the depths of the soul, it envelops with warmth and for all its cruelty makes you think only about the good.
Life is a series of moments, and each must be lived vividly and with a soul, as for the last time. The body is just a shell, our “suit” in this world, taking it off, we put on another and thereby go to another place, where, apparently, better than here. When we come home and take our clothes off, we don’t cry for them, so we should treat the body, but certainly not neglect them. As far as I know, in countries like Mexico or India, the locals rejoice in the death of a person, on the occasion of a funeral they arrange magnificent festivities, they are happy for him that he went to another world, that he was elected. We’ll never know, we have a different mentality. But the more we cry and sentence, “Who did you leave me for?” the more we prove our selfishness and unwillingness to let go of a person. We need to learn to accept situations that we cannot change. When you begin to realize all this, the soul becomes a drop easier, the pain gradually dulls.
I loved the way photography captures the moment... until it’s all gone... (c)
My advice is to take more pictures! I myself adhere to this principle in life, there is nothing terrible and shameful about it. Photos are the only real memories that will remain after us.
9 out of 10
I'll start at the end. One of the last episodes of the film is reminiscent of 1990’s Ghost starring Patrick Swayze. The scene is almost exactly taken. The only difference is that for the young heroine it was the first kiss in life, which was no longer there.
I don’t know what else to write about in a review of Peter Jackson’s film “Sweet Bones,” assuming it’s 401! It’s like writing a review of “Avatar” or “Lord of the Rings”: it’s hard to come up with something original in the evaluation of the film. But since I sat down at the keyboard, then the film impressed me and inspired me to write this review.
Saoirse Ronan, a 14-year-old girl from an ordinary happy family, tells the story of her murder and what happened after it. The killer-neighbor, played by Stanley Tucci, will not be found, nor the corpse of the girl. This is the meaning of the existence of a girl between two worlds. She cannot leave, her body is not buried, her father and brother feel her presence. The father, played by the brilliant Mark Wahlberg, instinctively begins to understand who the killer is, but can't prove anything. But the sister, interested in the neighbor, tried to find this evidence. All this time, the girl’s soul watches as her sister grows up, she sees her first kiss, which she will never have, she will never have anything in the world of the living. And only after such a belated and at the same time hasty burial, she finds peace and releases her loved ones, in the sense that they have come to terms with the fact that their daughter and sister are now in a better world.
The film is made by the director with a capital letter. For us, Peter Jackson is not just a director, he is the creator of worlds that previously we could only see in the process of reading. Interestingly shown landscapes between the worlds, if you can say so with reference to the previous work of the Director. Removed qualitatively and intuitively clear. Especially emotionally and qualitatively transferred the escape of the girl’s soul from the hands of the killer.
Actors, including Rachel Weiss, Susan Sarandon, Michael Imperiali, played their roles just fine. But in my humble fatherly opinion, it was Mark Wahlberg who outplayed everyone. The bottle-beating scene made me totally empathize with him. Because involuntarily put yourself in the place of the characters of the film and imagine that we feel in this or that situation. And I get terribly sad and painful, imagining the loss of my children, who are not so many years old.
There is no happy ending in such films. But in the eyes of the audience justice still prevailed. No, the murderer has not been caught or imprisoned, but he will fully experience all the charms of existence between worlds, waiting for the hell of fire.
8 out of 10
P.S. Take care of your children, they will give you grandchildren.
It's a very good movie. Good and well done. In this film there is nothing to complain about: the plot is verified, the characters are bright, the actors play beautifully. Separately, we need to talk about the atmosphere of the film. Jackson and the team created a quality movie about the 70s, in which every frame and every movement smells like them. Clothing, hairstyles, objects, colors, cars – all 70’s and it’s beautiful. And what is most interesting, in addition to the overall atmosphere of the film, the atmosphere of each frame is also verified. The feelings of the characters are reflected in the picture, and the pictures in the characters and the movie are just pleasant to watch.
However, for all its quality, the film is not catchy. It is pleasant to see, but you will hardly remember later, you will not say: and remember how it is in “Pretty Bones”. Because there is nothing in the cute bones, there is no intrigue, there is nothing sharp, something bright ... Something that I could have caught up with...
But in general, a very pleasant, well-made film that leaves a bright impression.
To be honest, watching is very hard. Still, not every day shoot a movie, where the story comes from the face of a 14-year-old girl killed by a frostbitten maniac-glasses, because of which she will be the 7th victim in the list of his bloodthirsty crimes.
Suzy Salmon is an ordinary teenager, goes to school, rides a bike, takes photos of the apparatus of the 70s of the last century, argues with her parents and as it should have already found herself an admirer who does not mind giving 1 kiss. But the unexpected bursts into her life: for a fraction of seconds, her young ability to think leaves her, and she falls first into the kidnapper’s underground hatch, and then loses her life, which promises much. So at the 15th year of life, the history of Susie’s existence is interrupted – a curly girl who madly loved her family, life and girl’s dreams.
Throughout the film, everyone tried to understand what moved the writer Alice Siebold while writing such a heartbreaking story – the answer came from a global network: it turns out that she herself in her youth was attacked by a rapist, from whom she miraculously managed to escape. It is this tragic event in her life that will form the basis of her 1st novel “Dear Bones” (2002), although the writer herself will later claim that she took up writing the novel long before those sad events.
E. Siebold entrusted the film adaptation of the novel to Peter Jackson himself ("immersed" in Tolkien's works) and did not lose - it was shot well, on the nerve, beautifully, touching and as always masterfully: the afterlife is replete with colors, the girls killed before Suzy smile and are happy on the eve of paradise, a little humor is woven into the tragic course of events to dilute his despondency, the cast at the level, and the close-up plans of the characters give you to see the degree of their inner experiences so that the heart is pinched ...
So what's the bottom line? Now the 19-year-old talent Saoirse Ronan in the treasury of the 6th role in a full-length movie, at Stanley Tucci (neighbor-killer) a nomination for the Oscar for the role of the 2nd plan in 2010, not impressive, but significant fees in the film distribution and the 1st adaptation of the novel about what almost a child can feel, being between 2 worlds and dreaming at least one more time to say: Mom, Dad, I love you ... Live happily ever after!
Personally, he made me think. Think about the fact that any day I could just die. Disappear.
Here's a typical 14-year-old girl, Susie. She lives, is capricious due to the fact that her mother makes her wear a hat, communicates with a friend, she likes a boy and - "Oh miracle!" - he invites her on a date that she is not destined to go on. She goes home in a good mood and does not know how this happy day will end. The day Suzy was killed.
All in order:
1.Actors: The actors all did well, showed all the emotions that needed to be shown. But especially I want to highlight: Saoirse Ronan, who so wonderfully played our main character and Stanley Tucci - a kind of killer of little girls who tries to behave naturally, and he succeeds.
2.Shooting and special effects: I really liked the scenes of Paradise. Here it is, a beautiful world, a surreal world, a perfect world. I also liked the field where our poor heroine was killed - in the murder scene it is gloomy and dark, and in the scenes of Paradise the same light and sunny.
3.The main idea: is a very good idea, and there is not one in this film. It makes you think. For real. Seriously. About life.
Conclusion: I recommend this very sad, deep film to everyone, which will take my place of honor in my favorites! Look when there are problems, misfortunes - and they will be marked, compared to the grief of the characters of the film.
10 out of 10
Unfortunately, I haven’t read the book, but I’m going to do it soon because the movie was great. Of course, this can not be called a masterpiece, but the film is really worth watching. Not everyone is able to convey all the feelings that Susie's parents felt when they lost her, to convey all the feelings of that cold-blooded killer. Therefore, of course, for the work of the director and acting should put the highest score.
We don’t know exactly what awaits us after death or whether there is anything there at all, and this film gave us a little reason to dream. The director managed to show us all the feelings of a girl who did not want to leave the Earth, who wanted to go back and fix everything. All the feelings of parents, sisters and acquaintances were transmitted really competently.
In fact, there is no point in this movie to think about. We were just like the girl Susie, looking at the world, feeling all the pain and thinking about something of our own.
I would like to celebrate the wonderful acting of Stanley Tucci. So competently to play a maniac-killer, on account of which there are not a few minor victims, not everyone can. Personally, he did not cause any hatred, but only feelings of compassion. This is probably the beauty of acting.
Sweet Bones is a wonderful, great and touching film, but unfortunately it will only take one view. I didn’t want it to end, but I didn’t want to watch the movie again. It's worth seeing for everyone, definitely.
I learned about this movie recently and, you know, I probably didn’t understand it. I am a huge fan of Peter Jackson’s work. The picture is not at all like his previous projects. It can be for the best, you should not drive yourself into a creative framework. But I dare say that adventure fiction, Mr. Jackson was better at shooting. The film has a lot of positive images, which struck me a bit. There are many questions about the film.
What did Peter Jackson want to do? What is it like to be between heaven and earth? Past and future? Or was he just trying to show the life of a family that lost one of their own? It will remain a dead mystery to me.
I want to note the visual effects of the film, everything is done very beautifully, iridescently, brightly. Is it not typical for a film that can be said to be “soaked in sadness”?
As you have noticed, my review is full of questions, I cannot find that interview in which Peter Jackson would open the curtain of the question.
Acting game:
Stanley Tucci This actor was pleasantly impressed in the film, I would call him one of the best actors of our time, recently, and earlier, he was seen in the most interesting films. I hope he continues to enjoy his game.
Saoirse Ronan - I see the actress for the first time in cinema, but there is definitely something in her play, something fascinating. How did you say
Mark Wahlberg - In the picture is presented in the image of an exemplary family man, kindness comes from his face. I would like to see him more often in such dramas, and not in militants, they can definitely drive him into the frame.
Rachel Weiss Her character in the film is given very little time, but the main role of her in the film, I think I understood. It is that someone copes with severe and terrible stress, and someone does not, for example, like her. And her character shows that it is easier to get away from the problem, just not to think about it, because the mental pain is very strong.
In conclusion, I just want to say that Peter Jackson did not disappoint with this picture, and did not please. I am on the neutral side. It's just very surprising that he took on such a project.
By the way, Alice Siebold, the author of the book, wanted an unknown actress to play the main role in the film, this is very interesting, because it is very difficult to break into Western cinema and we can say that the author of the book has discovered a new talent, or a star, as anyone.
And more. It's a shame Ryan Gosling dropped out of the project, maybe someone will understand me.
Well, then.
The film is definitely good, at least in terms of performance. If you put aside the discussion about the plot, heroes and events of the film, then there will be a very high-quality film. Peter Jackson was brilliant in this movie (and I’m not talking about his cameo).
The film is filled with colorful symbols and interesting shots. The whole action develops very precisely. The director masterfully plays with our feelings. Mind you, it's feelings, not emotions. It's very difficult.
It is difficult to describe what is happening on the screen, its plot, some may say that the film is incomprehensible, drawn-out, meaningless, etc. In fact, it is. But it all works on the big picture. Throughout the film, we delve deeper into two worlds: the world of the girl and the world of the maniac. The life of the heroine so suddenly ended, and now, before going to heaven, she has to comprehend the whole life, being a spectator. The maniac continues to sit in his lair, enjoying his secret memories. Both images are very vivid.
We will not talk about the plot, because everyone will feel and understand the film in their own way.
In general, it turned out to be a very versatile, multifaceted and, of course, interesting film that is worth watching more than once.
I'll put
Magnificent director, master of atmospheric transmission, Peter Jackson, known for all his stunning works, such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the modern remake of King Kong, showed the world another of his films called Sweet Bones.
Here he presents us not some fictional world with unusual creatures, but just an American town, a simple American family. The story is told by a little dead girl, Susie Felman, which means “salmon” (?!), who was once not lucky enough to meet her neighbor in a cornfield. Mark Wahlberg, who played the father of three children: the youngest son and two daughters, the youngest of whom is 14-year-old Suzy (Saoirse Ronan), looks very good on the screen. Stanley Tucci, who portrayed a manic neighbor, coped best with his task, but I had the impression that all the characters of the film were unfinished, unfinished, unclear. “Sweet Bones” in terms of duration differs little from other works of Peter, the film runs 135 minutes, and the action is very long. Trying to compensate for this feeling great music and picture screen, then full of different effects, depicting the world after death, then showing the gray and tense life of family members. Peter Jackson, apparently, believes that the more scenes in the plot, the better the penetration of the viewer into the atmosphere of the film. In my opinion, there are enough holes in the script, we are shown so many details, but the questions “why”, “why” remained open (viewers of the series “Lost” imagine what it is). These are the questions.
Those who haven’t seen “Sweet Bones” should skip this paragraph and go straight to the evaluation. Maybe I just didn’t catch something, but I still don’t understand... Why does her brother know that Susie is between two worlds? Does he see her? Is she talking to him or what? If so, why didn't you tell me who killed her? Where and why did their mother go? Why did you decide to come back suddenly? Why would a maniac keep Susie's body safe in his home for a year? How did Grandma react to the maniac's notebook? Where were the police then? Why did my older sister think it was a neighbor? I don't understand... And the scene where the killer from the basement heard a quiet click on the second floor and rushed, that there is urine upstairs, just a poor cliché of cinema.
The film leaves nothing behind, except the realization that Peter Jackson is better off filming real fantasy than real life. Failed to ...
A story full of meaning in every second of reading. I found Alice Siebold’s book on the Internet, but after reading it I fell in love with this little masterpiece! Learning that there is a film adaptation, without hesitation rushed to look, but the impressions were quite different ... Whether you like it or not is hard to say. The screenplay is good at fantasy moments. The pictures are just perfect, you can see that the film is quality. Showing the area also played a plus, some details that are drawn in the imagination when reading are just as interesting to see firsthand.
But what I didn’t like about the film adaptation was the absence of some of the points that caused the distortion of meaning. Indeed, when you just read the book switch to the film adaptation begins “Where is it?”, “Where is it?”. Some conversations, details in the book moved from the end to the beginning, from the beginning to the end, and something disappeared without a trace.
And without looking at the picture, I concluded: either watch the film first, and then read the book, or read, and do not watch the film adaptation at all. The film is decent, but I will return to watching it later, forgetting this exciting story a little.
The film tells us a heartbreaking story. The brutal murder of a loved one, left without punishment and even without the name of the perpetrator, kills more than one person. It kills several at once. And the only healing, the only way to recover and come back to reality, is to let go of the person you loved so much, because letting go doesn’t mean forgetting. This leads us throughout the film the author leads us.
Against the backdrop of the worlds of living people, we open another. Uncharted, like a world on the border. No longer life, but not what awaits us after it.
At first glance, this is an incredible place, full of light and warmth, colors, imagination and fantasy, boundless fantasy. The world is not limited by time or circumstances. The world is full of harmony and joy, where the road is created under the feet of the walker. It's a perfect world.
But is it really perfect?
This is where the other side of it opens up. After all, there is no one to force you to wear a love-related, though not fashionable, hat. There is no person in whose presence your breath simply stops. Here you will not feel the unique smell of a person, the warmth of gentle hands and a loving look. In such an ideal world there is no place for love. Love is not an ideal feeling.
What world do I live in? Are people important to me? Am I still capable of being a loving, loyal, family member? After all, one day, all this may just disappear.
A drama that could be filmed so touchingly and heartfeltly without undue effort; grief at a terrible loss that could be conveyed without unnecessary words; life, the main director of every fate that could be shown without excessive allure pathos. All this could be in "Sweet Bones". It could have been if the crew had been chasing ideas and moral content rather than money.
I am not responsible for the original story because I have not read the book. But to describe the impressions of what I saw on the screen, quite able. You can start with plus.
- Saoirse Ronan. Here you can without long comments, the girl is good, does not suffer from a typical ailment of “Hollywood schoolchildren”, who usually have two extremes: either overplay or not play, which in both cases look nauseating. Smart, good young actress. It is good that she is no longer starring in such nightmarish projects as "The City of Amber", where the original story of the writer was shattered and disfigured as they could.
- color solution. That in the case of the afterlife, “transitional”, bright world of Susie, and in the case of the real, gray world of people, it is appropriate, beautiful, conveys the atmosphere and adjusts to the right way.
Suzy's thoughts and her "irreality" Here it is necessary to say thank you to the author of the book, and not the writers, because, I guess, the vast majority of the necessary and necessary information they also cut out, considering that it is much better to fill screen time with their creativity.
- Stanley Tucci, who is not directly recognized in the image of the vile George Harvey. That’s who, in addition to Saoirse Ronan, the role also absolutely succeeded. Despicable, disgusting Harvey, a mentally ill person, quite rightly arouses the hatred of the viewer. Throughout the viewing, there is no doubt that you, just like Suzy, want him to be paid in full.
And then, dear reader, the path of minuses begins, which, flashing a thin path at the beginning of the film, then everything grows, expands, delving into a forest of shortcomings and stupid cliches. It is a pity that such a story, with a claim to a good psychological basis, was spoiled by the eternal American clichés.
- even the best detective does not go into the investigation of the missing little girl, despite the fact that it is, like, his job and direct duty;
- these stupid, stupid, unnecessary phrases of parents that "everything will be fine" after they got the news of the death of the eldest daughter, are generally shocking;
- It is unknown why the attempted attempt to make fun of its viewer in the most seemingly tragic moment of the family, the first months after Suzy's death, through the appearance in the house of the ever-young grandmother (Susan Sarandon), who smokes around the clock like a steam locomotive, whips everything that comes across and does not know how to farm, hollowing out half the house. A battered, no longer funny theme that looks more than inappropriate and wretched in such a film at such a moment.
Everyone in this movie, except perhaps only pedophile Harvey, has serious logic problems. The mother (Rachel Weiss), whose actions, to put it mildly, can be called more than strange - instead of trying to save her family and overcome the pain together, quite easily solves this question for herself - she leaves alone, leaves her children and husband in a terrible state and cherishes her grief and herself on the plantations of the south. A real mother! As for Susie's father, Mark Wahlberg's performance was pretty good. But again, the complete illogicality of the plot breaks his, more or less adequate, image. It is not clear exactly how, through which such conclusions, the heroes of “Sweet Bones” come to their convictions. Susie's father lived in neighboring houses with her killer for three years, looked for him everywhere, checked every suspicious acquaintance thoroughly - and suddenly one day, when he accidentally glanced at George Harvey's yard and twisted a dried flower in his hands, he was visited by an epiphany. How? Why? Where? Screenwriters mysteriously bypass the topic of his logical thought chains, limiting themselves to showing a parallel metaphor with a safe in the surreal world of Suzy. Moreover, Harvey himself somehow in this completely ordinary scene of a meeting with a neighbor also somehow guesses that he is exposed. What kind of magic? Dear American screenwriters, explain to us, ordinary citizens, not philosophers, your sophisticated psychological delights!
What do you say about the movie in general? This is a good movie, which, I emphasize once again, could become a wonderful and moving film, if not... if not for all that was said above. Of course, this is only my personal opinion, and I do not impose it on anyone – so if you do not agree with me, write about your objections. If, after reading this long review, you still want to see the film, look and make your own impression.
I don’t like movies that don’t fit together. Such a fragmentation of illusions, snapshots of individual good, excellent, and lame episodes. Like a verdict is an uncooked steak when you asked the opposite.
The story is blurry. Director — I must have expected a lot from Jackson, crumbling the Lord of the Rings. But that bar isn't his. It's just not his movie. Yes, he came off on colorful episodes of Paradise, but rather after his sleeves, hulking.
Saoirse Ronan is one of my new favorites, and there is nothing to scold her for. I ripped her off well, but I don’t want to see her in the roles of victims anymore, because in her sleeps a little murderer and a tyrant, whom it is time to release.
Mark Wahlberg in the role of the father is not too convincing, has not yet come out of the role of machistas, and mother Rachel Wise so generally ... I have never seen such dissimilar “parents” and “children” in movies. And this huge loose older sister, who did not flinch a muscle as she leafed through the confessor of the maniac... Stanislavsky would have killed himself.
One of the beautiful snapshots is the appearance in the doors of Susan Sarandon with papyroska, arrows and curls according to the then fashion. I love the '70s, when every day was dyed with disco and hairspray. And Susan delighted me with her cynicism and her shaky walk with a glass of whiskey. Why the hell did the author of the novel need to make such a murky story in this cool time - I do not understand. I would have chosen the 90s or today.
And another important fact for which you can endure a couple of hours is Stanley Tucci. Malkovich has a real competitor. No wonder his role was noted and nominated for the Globe and Oscar. But I always considered him inconspicuous, and the roles were some kind of comedic-stupid. And then the mister spread all the talent. This faded parting, dull rolled eyes, gait ... a hidden but guessable facial expression that makes the heart chill. If I were Watson, I'd be able to spot him right away. Only maniacally gifted individuals can make doll houses, meticulously drinking tiny details.
No, really. Jackson is a great director, and his productions are incomparable. But here... I didn't expect to. It was as if Coelho decided to go into cinema.
Let’s start with the fact that my friends convincingly asked me to watch this work, because it has “a lot of meaning, clever reflections, good soundtracks, chic production moves and blah blah blah.” So, drama. The album was eventually purchased.
But from the very beginning, I was hooked by something that none of them mentioned. This is the naughty face of the main character, played by Saoirse Ronan. But there is nothing more in this Saoirse, since the face itself has no more than three reactions to all situations. Young actress, I understand, but Jackson miscalculated. /-1
I was interested in finding out the identity of the main villain. He did, and he was rewarded. I have long considered Stanley Tucci a great actor, and he didn’t miss it. Where necessary, will cause anger and contempt, where necessary, pity. In contrast to the badly selected actor for the main role, there is a clear plus. /+1
The first 20 minutes of the film did not leave me a sense of esotericism. Which went away after the mega spectacular appearance of the “third world”, the failure of which I will speak. So far, the failure of the unjustified transition from art house to fantasy. /-1
The presented “Purgatory” was extremely disgustingly reported to the viewer. His very idea was passed on to some crippled one. A hint of its meaning simply sinks into the abyss of already annoying special effects, from which the rainbow is sick. /-1
Absolutely incomprehensible, as such, the role of the companion of the main character, who teaches her, although he goes along with her. Comparing, of course, with Virgil in "Divine Comedy", there is confusion. /-1
With the same satellite associated file transmission of the psychology of the hero in the “third world”. The main character had to relive her life before letting go. But she didn't have that companion in her life, and a bunch of other kids who ruined the finale. /-1
The spirit of the time was not felt. It's by no means the '70s. It felt like this was the America of our time. Not even a single hip couple on the street (I'm not talking about school) can be seen. Not "comilfo" somehow. /-1
You couldn't see the passage of time. For the whole film passed as if not a few years, but only a week, no more. /-1
Finally, a couple of positive notes. The soundtracks are good, the music makes you feel exactly what you need at this point in the film. It's always been a joy, and it's a joy now. /+1
And, despite all the drawbacks, the film looks ruminant, in one breath. It was hard to get away. It's not a bad story. Half thanks to the author of the book (which I am going to read anyway), half to Jackson. /+1
According to the most optimistic estimates,
6 out of 10
For Jackson, in my humble opinion, a disgrace. But the main audience (more precisely, girls 12-17 years old) will like it. And I can see I already liked it. That's what Peter was hoping for.
There are films that teach something, there are those that scare, there are those that are just pleasant to watch, and there are those that hurt to watch. Pretty Bones is a movie that fits all of those definitions at once. I recommend watching it and people who are doing well in life and those who have experienced difficult events. Amazingly, this film combines the most powerful forms of love.
The love of parents and children - it is with the father that the little heroine maintains the strongest bond. These touching moments are filled with feelings tangible to the viewer.
Love of predator and victim. The phenomenon is ugly and cruel, but look at the actions of the maniac, his pedantry, his obsession. Stanley Tucci... For me, the image of this actor in the cinema is always associated with kindness and warmth, and then he scared me, made me hate, turned me away from himself. This shows the talent of this man.
The first love between a boy and a girl. In many modern films, where we are talking about teenagers, such things are shown vulgarly, but here you admire and sympathize with them.
Love friends. Attention is attracted by the meeting of the main character with her friends in grief. Girls with adult eyes. Wise little women. Maximum impact.
And finally, the love of the actors and filmmakers for cinema. Music, acting, plot, visual effects - wonderful.
10 out of 10
Peter Jackson’s “Sweet Bones” is a monstrously sentimental picture, as well as a very strange and impressionable one. She literally shocks us from the first minute with her extraordinary approach to everything that is happening. The story comes directly from the first person – Suzy Salmon, melancholy watching from heaven as the search for the maniac who ruined her goes. The main character begins her story with the fact that she was killed when she was 14 years old. Next, we are shown the background of the situation that arose in the corn field, where the tragedy occurred. Susie lured into a dugout, raped, dismembered and hid bones in a safe Mr. Harvey, a neighbor-glasses with an interesting past.
The film, despite its smooth plot, is full of many different events. The film shows a lot of storylines that are not lost sight of, and smoothly go into history. Jackson, incomprehensibly, managed to organically weave incompatible genre features in one film. Also in the film there were amazing actors.
Saoirse Ronan, that dead girl, Suzy Salmon. Not every actress can play so sincerely and purely. Her heroine is a girl whose life was taken from her before she felt it. This is a tragic story.
Stanley Tucci, the maniac killer, Mr. Harvey. With his talent, he could be anyone. In this film, he is the embodiment of horror. He has a piercing look and a terrifyingly calm look, he played a perfect killer maniac, on whom you want to let all the dogs down.
Sweet Bones is a heavy, sad and scary film that leaves behind a feeling of something beautiful and light. Peter Jackson juggled our feelings and shook our brains. He showed us, in the face of a dead girl, how beautiful life is. I will tell you the most severe thrash of emotions.
And lastly...
"I wish you all a long and happy life" is the most banal final sentence, except that it is uttered by a dead 14-year-old girl.
At first, I thought that Peter Jackson’s Pretty Bones, who directed the legendary trilogy, was just a beautiful picture, in which beautiful special effects and a couple of famous actors were stuffed. But to my delight, it's not like that. The premiere of the film was repeatedly postponed, which caused me to be wary and increasingly eager to see it. I decided to watch late at night in order to give the perception of the film a special atmosphere.
I have always been fascinated by life pictures showing the tragic and terrible events of people. Who would know that living peacefully with neighbors would be someone who enjoys his murders by working them out in detail? An actor, and I would say a professional in his field, Stanley Tucci showed such a maniac, whose eyes run shivering all over his body. His eyes were shattered, and he was shattered.
Young Irish actress Saoirse Ronan played a girl who became a victim of a maniac. Everything seemed convincing on her part. And you see what the picture teaches, which is children, is that you don't have to talk to strangers. Whatever they seem and whoever they are, you do not need to trust everyone, and especially go somewhere with them.
The director picked up the cast of the rich. Here and Rachel Vai with Mark Wahlberg, who played parents and an aunt with the sister of the main character, liked everyone.
The other world was unique, changing in Susie's mood. The script was a strong part of the film, and especially I want to focus on the work of composer Brian Eno. The main topic will not leave anyone indifferent.
As a result, Jackson’s painting became the most beloved and respected for me, for which I am very grateful. An instructive, dramatic film that showed the family, adolescent and external problems of people.