First of all, I have hesitated to watch this movie for a long time. Not so much because of the plot, as I thought: probably shot another nonsense. And they did.
In the film there is a picture, sometimes even pleasant to the eye. The acting didn't impress me. There was some sort of playful hopelessness. Some of the footage seemed pretty lifelike. Not harmonious moments violate the general concept.
The killer is a crazy master who gives himself away. I was surprised that he could not be caught. When missing Susan's father helps a neighbor with a cage, it's hard not to see him as a suspicious type. And the energy itself. Tucci's game didn't convince me.
The finale drowned everything that had been at least less afloat from an objective point of view. The main character could not leave in peace.
The relationship between father and daughter's spirit. The atmosphere of grief, some heavy routine and visions. I think it was superfluous to show fantastic moments of Peter Jackson's afterlife. The plot of the closely intertwined circumstances of death and life is unconditional, but antirealism can mislead the viewer. There's a serious issue here. Perhaps this seriousness served as the idea to dilute the scenes with a sugary fiction. There are films that also use the technique of unreality in their plots, but meanwhile, you feel full after watching and the picture is generally addictive. There is no doubt. But this is not the case.
Sometimes life is very expensive, but it is beautiful.
I don’t like watching a film adaptation of a book until I read it, but it just so happens that I saw the movie first. And he didn't disappoint me at all. Peter Jackson, who perfectly shoots films in the genres ' fantasy' and ' adventure film' perfectly conveyed this story.
My name was Susie. On December 6, one thousand nine hundred and seventy-three, when I was killed, I was fourteen years old.
Susie is very cheerful, not yet an adult girl, but not a child. She has her whole life ahead of her, plans for the future that she would like to implement. She goes to school every day and lives a quiet life with her beloved family. And now she's gone.
When the skin collided with cold metal, Susie remembered her whole life. How she built ships in bottles with her father, how she spent time with her sisters, and even how she saved her brother. He stopped breathing, swallowing a twig, but she managed to bring his brother to the hospital and thereby saved his life. A brave act, the reward for which was the happy eyes of parents. “They say that if someone saved someone’s life, they will live a very long and happy life,” she said. And Suzie, I thought she was like always... My grandmother was always wrong.
Suzy remembered her love, her dreams, and herself. I thought about it. Drowning in her thoughts, she encountered many things: misunderstanding, pain, sadness, loneliness. None of this was as scary as the fact that she had to stop being human and walk the road leading to heaven. But Susie decides to stay in a place where she can watch other lives every day because she still hasn't forgiven. She wants justice and punishment for her killer. But then he goes over himself, calms down and realizes that in the end everyone dies.
This story carries something more than others, so it is worth watching a movie or reading a book and finding your meaning in these words:
At the place of the emptiness that arose with my death, sweet bones gradually grew and joined: some fragile, others paid for by considerable sacrifices, but mostly dear to the heart. And I saw things in a different light: a world where I was not. Circumstances, the cause of my death, those very bones, promised someday to become flesh, to become one body. The price of this magical body was my life.
I will immediately say that the film caused a lot of emotions, the most diverse. This is definitely a movie unlike anything I have ever seen. The title of the film is as strange as the film itself. I went to the film exclusively because of the director , who became my favorite after the masterpiece Lord of the Rings and the largest King Kong. In my opinion, it is very strange why such a significant director liked the story of a 14-year-old girl who was killed by a maniac – a neighbor. Perhaps Peter just decided to take a break from large-scale projects and just make a soulful film, and I want to say, he succeeded!
The first 15 minutes of the film I just relaxed, completely immersed in the atmosphere of the film, watching the happy family Suzy Salmon. Then I would unwittingly gnaw my fingers as I watched the film’s further tense atmosphere, then empathize with the Salmon family. Peter showed what a father who lost his daughter could do. What emotions are felt by loved ones who have lost a loved one; that ideal world of Susie perfectly showed. The special effects are beautiful, but not directly breathtaking, rather they are perfectly and harmoniously blended into the film.
I really liked the actors. Almost everyone, except Rachel Weiss isn't very convincing. The others just played great. I wanted to note Saoirse Ronan, played her role very well, and Stanley Tucci simply no words, good here and Mark Wahlberg (although after Max Payne, he disgusted me).
I think Peter Jackson wasted the film in 2009, because everyone was waiting for Avatar, and Peter’s film was recorded in the list of passing films. I think that’s why the movie made such a small box office. After watching the movie, I came out of the room a little bit confused and devastated, the mood was kind of sad, but rather it was a kind of light sadness. I think that’s what Peter Jackson did, and he did!
For the most strange, kind, bright and ambiguous project of the great director (I am more than sure that in the future Peter Jackson will make films that will be talked about and admired for many decades to come).
7 out of 10
I love how photography captures the moment before it disappears.
This movie is hard to talk about. It's hard to describe. It needs to be watched.
It's made entirely of images. It shows the world, which is between heaven and earth, shows a paradise in which there is everything from each world a little bit. And these worlds are directly related to the subconscious, to thoughts, to past lives. Whatever is there, all this is the psychological component of the heroine. For example, the gazebo represents the girl’s childhood, her first love, that is, the place where she never met the boy she loved. And when the gazebo breaks, it means that her childhood is over, that she must let go of everything in order to go on, to go to heaven. And there are many such multifaceted images in the film: a dried rose, water, the house of the victims, a tree standing in front of the entrance to paradise. Watching this delicate, fragile matter begins to look at things differently. The world where the girl was specially shown so beautiful. The world is the girl herself, very young, clean, kind, sincere, she could have a long and happy life. I really liked these images, these metaphors. This is just magical.
The real world is shown in contrast. Here are ordinary people alone with their grief. There's a killer waiting for a new victim. My veins got cold when he appeared on the screen. I think Stanley Tucci brilliantly conveyed the image of a psychopathic killer. I didn't believe him, I hated his character. Truly colossal work is such facial expressions, gestures, but the most terrible thing is the eyes. How he conveyed his role through his eyes! Other actors were also on top: Rachel Wise, Mark Wahlberg, Rose McIver, but especially pleased Susan Sarandon. I've never seen her like that. She looks amazing! Saoirse Ronan has played a very sincere role. I really liked that.
Overall, very delicate work. No words, only emotions. This has not happened in American cinema in a long time.
Talented.
“Sweet Bones” is one of the rare films I’ve been waiting for since it was announced in the press. Peter Jackson never ceases to amaze and embody his multifaceted directorial talent. Comparison of “Dear Bones” with the famous Tolkien trilogy, or “District N9” is simply inappropriate. Here, even Mark Wahlberg, who is not particularly likeable to me, who always seemed to be an actor of exclusively negative roles, perfectly appears in the image of a suffering father. But the real discovery is, of course, Saoirse Ronan, the lead actor. She is one of those fair-haired and white-skinned “non-standard” girls who fascinate and do not let go of the screen for a second.
It is impossible not to mention the insanely beautiful and fabulous landscapes that so strangely harmonize with the gloomy picture of the murder and death of the main character.
In general, only warm and sad emotions remain from “Sweet Bones”. And despite the colorful and large-scale special effects, fans of “popcorn” should not expect from the film “Wow”. After all, first of all, “Sweet Bones” is not just a multi-colored picture, but a deep story in which every hero experiences a tragedy that has happened, whether it is Susie’s father, her sister or her neighbor-killer. The “tragedy” in this case, everyone has their own. This is Susie's lonely monologue in the afterlife - in her "own ideal world," which, in the end, is not so perfect when a crime committed on earth goes unpunished.
10 out of 10
It is quite difficult to make a film of this genre so that it eventually turned out to be convincing and not repulsive. Drama, mysticism, thriller, detective. After all, often the filmmakers either overdo it (and in the end the film is too dark, heavy or frightening) or not at all (and the film eventually catches up with its predictability).
"Sweet Bones" is a little repulsive with its name, because there is something terrible in the title itself. But after the first minutes of watching the film, you begin to realize that your eyes are completely focused on the screen, whether you want it or not.
Actors' play.
The young talent was very pleased - the lead singer Saoirse Ronan, who managed not only to convey the feelings of the murdered girl, but also the optimism, first love and faith inherent in the young fourteen-year-old age. Watching Susie, you involuntarily empathize with a young teenager in all her trials and experiences. This is the main thing when watching a movie.
Pleasant emotions caused Susan Sarandon, which is unusual to observe in the role of a rampant starlet. Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Wise have also excelled in film acting, and I think they have captured many of the hearts of parents who live their entire lives with concern for their children and the hearts of those who have lost someone. It was unexpected to see the courageous and sexy Mark Wahlberg in the role of a household member and an accountant, moments even forget that he plays this role.
Well, the most important character who personally hooked me. This is Stanley Tucci's character. I did not recognize him under his unusual for his usual role, greasy hair and mustache. Only at the end of the film decided to see who still played the role of a serial maniac. I was surprised that I didn’t expect this role. Yes, they say that a real actor should be able to play everything, but after “Burlesque” and “Maid’s Lady”, the role of George Harvey, a teacher obsessed with minors and those who just got caught, just does not fit. But, nevertheless, despite the negative emotions associated with this character, the role succeeded more than plausible (I even had to force myself to reconsider the positive roles of Mr. Tucci, so that his image in my head again acquired a positive character).
But the main thing, in my opinion, the property of the film is small things. Barely perceptible, which can be seen when you look closely (for example, the moment when the heroine Rachel Wise leaves the house, and Mark Wahlberg reads a farewell note from her: he has a wedding ring on his finger, very expressively shows the nuance that there is no ring on it). Thanks to these nuances, you notice more than the story itself shows. The next nuance is the color scheme of the film. If you imagine the 70s, they look exactly in such a golden range of shades. Bright colors. This made the film even more authentic.
A perfect description of the world beyond. No darkness and emptiness, but only a bright fairy-tale world of a teenage girl.
Plot.
The plot can be ordinary - a neighbor's girl, a maniac neighbor, inconsolable parents. But that's not even the point. Not looking for the instigator of all troubles. Not in justice. Not in pain and sadness. And in a small child's soul and her experiences.
P.S. Every film is meant to teach something. What do "Sweet Bones" teach? Don't trust your neighbors? Not walking alone? “Sweet bones” teach to cherish their loved ones and what we have.
10 out of 10
The highest score for a clear example that heavenly punishment overtakes everyone. Jackson and Spielberg didn't disappoint.
“Oscar” films are basically always long, hours-long dark dark dark dark deep dramas, because of the drowsiness of which you want to quickly finish the film, or even quit watching.
But the two-hour "Sweet Bones" I watched in one breath, and like a drama, the film was just brilliant. One of the best dramas I’ve seen. It seems to be slow and at the same time dynamic. It is not boring to watch, and it is not at all possible what the turn of events will be in the next scene.
The girl Susie from the beginning of the film warned the audience that she would die. She told me in advance who killed her. Why was the tension so intense as she, still alive, approached her neighbor in an autumn cornfield? It's going to be the Titanic effect: you know it's going to collide and sink, but you always hope it's about to dodge the ice.
When Susie came to another world, between Heaven and Earth, there was a whole bunch of beautiful images. I especially liked the boats in bottles floating on the sea - a fascination of Susie's dad, which he taught her during his lifetime. By the way, it was from this film that I learned how boats put in there. When Susie was already dead and Susie's dad was desperately throwing these bottles around the room, in Susie's world, bottled ships were crashing against rocks too, and it was very beautiful.
Unsurpassed was the sea-field, in which the main character began to sink. And so many amazing things that I even felt sorry for how many clips would be enough of all those ideas, if they were “shattered”: so it would be many, many masterpieces, not one. Maybe one great masterpiece is better than many small ones.
No horror movie threw me on the couch like the drama Pretty Bones. The last scene in which Susie's sister broke into her killer's house made me literally run from worry on the couch I was watching the movie on. The blanket was spinning like a freak. Probably was not ready that there will be action, which is always ready before watching the thriller.
As an actor, I was delighted to see Rachel Weiss, who I respect for the first two Mummies.
Susan Sarandon, who played Susie's grandmother (who promised the girl many earth years in her lifetime) - almost the only one who was very similar to the era of the '70s, in which all these events unfolded.
Susie was played by an unknown girl, Saoirse Ronan. The whole movie she played dead. The last shot, where she takes pictures of herself, and the resulting picture is replaced by a “pre-titer” darkness, is quite scary, given that the person she is alive. I'm a picture of the dead. Jennifer Lopez strained in The Jersey Girl. They're all just actors, of course, but for Heather O'Rourke, the Poltergeist trilogy ended badly. I want Saoirse to be okay, because I like her here.
My name was Susie, whose surname was Salmon, which means salmon. On the sixth day of December one thousand nine hundred and seventy-three, when I was killed, I was fourteen years old.
With these words begins one of the most tragic novels of the second millennium. Popular all over the world, translated into more than 30 languages, made millions of readers cry. Alice Siebold, like no other, was able to convey all the emotions, the pain of poor girl Susie Salmon. Anyone familiar with her biography knows that the writer was in a similar situation described in the book. Without a doubt, sooner or later, a film based on the book should come out. Why motives? Because in the book a lot of small but important details and fit all of them in the proper format is simply impossible.
Unfortunately, I only read the book after watching the movie. As a result, I could say that both works differ from each other in both storylines and atmosphere. Now in order.
A small, quiet town in Pennsylvania, a happy family with no grief. In this family lives a 14-year-old girl with blue eyes and, as she puts it, mouse hair. He lives with his parents, younger sister Lindsay and brother Buckley. He wants to be a photographer and photograph wildlife. Susie is a happy child, she has everything a girl her age can want: loving family, loyal friends. What else does it take to be happy?
A few blocks later, there is a green house with scarlet roses at the porch. The house is inhabited by a certain Mr. Garvey, a man who has ruined many things, including Susie's life and the fate of her entourage.
On that day, December 6, 1973, Ray's boyfriend, with whom Susie is in love, asked her out on a date that, alas, would never happen.
Susie Salmon is dead, brutally murdered by Mr. Garvey.
Instead of uniting the family, tragedy began to destroy it from within.
But Susie is not dead, she is not gone, she lives in her ideal world high in heaven and watches the lives of her “domestics”.
The acting is simply amazing, not for nothing Stanley Tucci was nominated for an Oscar. I just hated his character, and since he is, he coped with the role 100%.
Saoirse Ronan is the girl I read about in the book.
Parents played magnificently, believe them, believe their grief, their tears.
Peter Jackson worked hard, the picture was wonderful, especially Susie's world.
It is worth noting the music, composer Brian Eno, from the music depends a lot in the film. Especially the main melody, how joyous and vivid it sounded when Susie left school and how disturbing and intimidating as she walked down a cornfield into the hands of her death.
Personally, I really liked the movie.
Of course, it is difficult to find a picture that would appeal to absolutely everyone, and 'Sweet bones' - not from such paintings. Some say that this film changed their lives, others believe that it is not even worth spending time.
I would prefer to be neutral because, as far as I am concerned, my opinion is neutral.
I liked the movie. He is very touching and light, beautiful, sometimes even the heart was compressed. But I wouldn’t recommend it to everyone. The film is unique, and not everyone is able to evaluate it, and I do not believe that people who wrote negative reviews are stupid, insensitive and the like. They just have a different mentality, and such naive-sentimental paintings do not get them. Impressive people will certainly approve. I would recommend them.
By and large, to the tape is not the last director in the movie Peter Jackson “Sweet Bones” you can apply the word “experiment”, the concept of originality here has never been unprecedented. After watching, it became obvious that this experiment is nothing more than a film adaptation, judging by the popularity of the picture, no less popular book.
I have not read such books, and most likely I will never read them again, accordingly, I can not relate myself to the category of viewers on whom the film “Sweet Bones” is aimed, and I have to subjectively evaluate the tape “Peter Jackson”, which is most likely done by that part of the audience who did not read the book. Undoubtedly, the main words in the prologue of the main character that in her fourteen years she was killed – aroused keen interest.
You don’t often see this kind of plot construction, taking the viewer on the straight path of their own mysteries, it looks more like the beginning of the end than the progressive structure of the script. We have before us a whole community of thriller, fantasy, drama and detective, but as I can already understand from the beginning of my review, before watching the film I knew nothing but names and numbers.
And for some reason, I hoped to see at least some direction of the genre developed, and in fact the film is good in parts, the production at a solid level, the actors so generally played perfectly, only collecting all these broken pieces from the floor - it is impossible to blind the figure. At least take and put the film at once several ratings, for each genre involved separately.
But to my good luck, closer to the final of the film Peter Jackson, everything falls into place, it turns out that the film "Sweet Bones" is that beautiful bottle like the film "Twilight", which is actively used now by a teenage group. And as a result, for the well-developed elements of the thriller and detective, you have to watch the whole film.
3 out of 10
Life goes on. Alice Siebold’s adaptation of Pretty Bones once again reminded me why I don’t like books put on screen. The book is not about death, but about life. The death of Suzy Salmon, with which the story begins, is not given so many pages. Throughout the book, a red thread runs the thought: “Life goes on.” Each of the characters copes with the death of a loved one in different ways; Suzy’s reflections and observations form the very essence of the book, and the fantastic element occupies one of the inconsequential roles that one forgets when immersed in the life of the Salmons. And he is present only because "Sweet Bones" is impossible without him, impossible without the hero-observer. In heaven, Susie becomes that hero, and on earth, Ruth Connors, whom I would call the elder Salmon’s successor. The lives of heroes are made up of their little details. Ruana Singh's fragrant cigarettes, the number "5" on Lindsey's uniform, the Pennsylvania lockstone on Suzy's bracelet... This technique brings the characters to life. I saw a different story in the film. And the story was about murder and retribution, and then it was about the Salmon family. The febrile series of events only remotely resembles the life described in the novel, there are no details that colored each figure, gave it density and volume. One of the brightest images of the book is a picture depicting Abigail, Susie's mother. In that photo, she was the same as in her youth, honest with herself, a little out of this world. This picture shows her not a caring landlady but a woman and shows why she left the family. Her escape is a crucial part of the book, as are many not included in the film. Eyes of the Ocean, this nickname has been forgotten. But for the big screen, events are necessary, reflections are on the book pages, and the character of Suzy Salmon became not only the main one, but also took a large amount of screen time. Too much fiction - the beauty of the spheres is too bright, too unreal. What the third plan was given in the book, went to the first. Pursuit, escape. Murder is punishment. In the film, Susie talks about hating her killer, overshadowing all feelings, quite understandable hatred. But I liked that in the end of the book, Susie is more relaxed about revenge. She is almost indifferent, and in indifference is the knowledge found in heaven. The knowledge that retribution will take place. And yet there is an advantage to screening. This is a soundtrack created by Brian Eno and John Hopkins (his album with King Creosote I have been listening to for months). I read the book recently, I remember the details well, and perhaps that is why I was so picky about the film adaptation. But even without such a focus on small things, it’s easy to see how Alice Siebold’s Pretty Bones surpass Peter Jackson’s Pretty Bones. 6 out of 10Original
It was so disappointing that I was not too lazy to register to write about it.
Spitting thrust of the “afterlife” annoys terribly – you just feel like you’re wasting time. And the girl is running, and the tree is still standing, and the ears are wobbling, the lighthouse is shining, the gazebo changes its dislocation again and again - and so the whole third of the film.
Actors' play is disgustingly monotonous. The girl is quite good in the melodramatic scenery of the beginning of the film, then quite convincingly plays fear, but then - one endless squint from the wind blowing endlessly into her face, obliged to endlessly move her curls so that at least something happens in the frame. The rest are just below the plinth.
The characters are arseholes. Grandma is beautiful - there is no dispute, but she belongs in a funny comedy on the theme "My mother-in-law came to us." Immediately after the girl's murder, her amusing household problems look blasphemous. Dad is a maniac himself. Tight, besides, he ratted on all the neighbors, and about the one he should have just forgotten. Mom's a dummy. It's a good thing she left. The sister looks pretty in front of the others - at least she's trying to do something. Unfortunately, her feat did not lead to anything. Secondary characters piss off their redundancy - why are they all here??
The plot is meaningless and incoherent. Who and what he wanted to say to everyone is completely unclear. Because I guess I didn't want anything. Just a sketch. An endless monologue of a dead girl. Nothing.
The main thing is not to prevent the maniac from getting rid of the corpse. Then immediately mom will return, and dad will recover, and in general everyone will be happy - even the previous numerous victims of this maniac will happily hold hands and with songs run through the paradise field, gratefully embracing you in passing for the fact that you, stealing someone else's body for a second, kissed the boy, instead of asking him to call the police.
Right! Why should we be so vindictive? Maniacs do not need to be caught - they are all disciplined and politely fall into the abyss. That's always the way it is.
“Sweet bones” refers to works that need to be read or watched. I read the book before, and I really liked it, so when watching the film, I tried my best to find in it the favorite moments from the bestseller Alice Siebold.
But, as they say, it didn't work out. There was a wild bewilderment: why did the book take the smallest amount? Why did you throw out such interesting storylines? There are many other questions like this.
There are no claims to the main character. Saoirse Ronan coped well with the role, there is no need to even find fault with it. And Mark Wahlberg perfectly conveyed the image of a heartbroken father, madly loving his daughter. The maniac neighbor also became famous: such a quiet, imperceptible nerd. But I'm sorry for the blurry images of Lindsay and Ruth. In the book, Suzy's sister is given one of the main roles. Brightly spelled out her experiences, confusion, dissatisfaction with the fact that she is seen only dead sister. There's none of that in the movie. It seems that she does not care at all about Suzy, who died untimely. As for Ruth, Carolyn Dundo is just incredibly accurate for the role of a ghost girl. But this image was cut to the maximum. And no matter how the actress tried to play (which she was very good at!), there was still some misunderstanding of her feelings and emotions.
The big mistake of the filmmakers was the decision to fit what had been in the book for almost a decade in a time span of a year. I'm sorry, that's stupid. If you don’t read it, it looks pretty good.
And the thing that pissed me off the most. Pictures of the afterlife. Who looks like paradise to? Bright, just cutting eyes, colors, huge ships in bottles, a strange girl of Asian appearance. I don't want such a paradise! It is clear that all this sugar charm was shown through the eyes of a girl, but she was fourteen, not five. And at this age you will definitely not dream of an eternal summer and holiday.
But don’t think I didn’t like the movie. Overall, he's good. If you take it as a separate work, and not compare it with a book, it is even very good. I can say that soon I will definitely have a desire to reconsider it.
Verdict: if you read the book, don't look - just be upset; if not - The film should like
7 out of 10
Beautiful and exciting story about a little girl 14 years old makes you wonder what we live for. Susie, the girl you can really fall in love with in the first minutes of the movie. Cheerful, dreamy, smart and beautiful Susie makes you admire her until the end of the film. Dramatic thriller, if I may say so, and shot it is really amazing.
A bit about the actors:
With the exception of Saoirse Ronan’s play, the talented actor Mark Wahlberg was also pleased, whose role in the film, although secondary, was very impressive. He managed to literally make me feel his parental loss and pain.
Perfectly played and Stanley Tuci, the actor, whose role was one of the most important in this film. He did a great job as a pedophile maniac, but he did the most important thing: To make me feel negative about him as a character.
The character of Stanley Toochey reminds me of the villain from the film “Collector”, smart calculating and knows how to create traps. All these qualities reflect well on him as a maniac, still better than the banal urine with a kitchen knife. Like a thriller.
A wonderful movie, beautiful, sad and exciting from the very first minute.
10 out of 10
Once again, I was convinced that if the representatives of the film industry decided to film something, and you haven’t read it yet, don’t read it!
Unfortunately, I read the book “Sweet Bones” long before the movie of the same name appeared in theaters. Probably shouldn't have done that. What I saw on the screen was a big disappointment.
So, the story about a girl who became a victim of a maniac-murderer, and leading her sad monologue from the other world is the plot of this film and the literary work of the same name, the author of which is Alice Siebold.
The first thing I want to note is that the picture does not convey the atmosphere, ideas and depth of the book. There is a sad story in the film, but it is not catchy. I understand that the question immediately begs: “How can one remain indifferent when it comes to such a terrible tragedy?” No, the point here is not in the plot itself, not in what the tape tells, but in how everything was transmitted.
I'll try to explain. It’s hard to find words to describe the feelings I felt when I read the book. First, when there was an acquaintance with the characters, it is interest and sympathy; then, when the plot began to twist, it is anxiety and tension; when the tragedy unfolded - despair and fear; then - apathy, longing and sadness; near the end - the desire to do justice; in the final - light sadness. These are all stages that a person goes through when his life splits into "before" and "after".
In the film, there was nothing similar: the narrative line was fast jerks, not allowing you to feel what is happening on the screen. Everything is somehow crumpled, too much screen time is devoted to completely unnecessary details. I was amazed that many important episodes from the source were sacrificed to the timekeeping, despite the fact that there are so many fictional scenes in the film that do not carry any ideological load. Endless conversations of the main character with deceased girls and arguments on the topic: “Where am I, who am I?” Why? At the same time, the state of the deceased, her confusion, fear, sadness, the desire to be alive, to be the daughter of her parents, to be happy!
I want to mention one more thing. When the main character did not return home in time, and the search began, in the film it lasts a minute from two, the emotions of the characters are superficial and straightforward, as if they were in a hurry to finish shooting and start the next take. While in the book, the back felt all the gravity and intensity of this moment. The writer skillfully conveyed the atmosphere of what is happening, the experiences of parents: when nothing seems to have happened yet – maybe the girl stayed at a friend’s house, or in the cinema, or in the store – but deep in their hearts they already knew that something terrible and numbing horror had happened from the inside.
I can compare one to the other and give examples. But it's still about the movie. So, director Peter Jackson — I love his work on The Lord of the Rings, I love his version of King Kong, although he overdid it a bit, but Sweet Bones is a failure.
Jackson is a master of special effects and computer graphics, everyone knows this, but this film is still more drama than fantasy. I bet he brilliantly showed the world beyond the edge of life: beautiful phantasmagoric landscapes, arbor, ships shattering to pieces - it was spectacular and exciting. The picture is bright, colorful, beautiful. But all this did not convey the essence and mood of the tape.
In addition, I believe that all the footage with the killer, details of the crime are too obvious and exaggerated. Somehow you immediately forget that you are watching, it seems that this is an episode from “Saw” or “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”.
The acting job was generally a success. Mark Wahlberg perfectly played the girl’s father, conveying his state of grief, loss and eternal hope. Saoirse Ronan is also good, in principle, this is how I imagined the main character. Stanley Tucci - oh yeah, I believed his character was a maniac, it was done in such a way that when he appeared on the screen, there was a very unpleasant feeling inside. But Rachel Weiss is an unfortunate type, I did not feel her emotions, she was halfway through the film with the same facial expression, a little weak.
As a result, the film leaves no aftertaste. It is not in vain that I cited the penultimate lines from the book in the title of my review. They reflect the cycle of life, what Alice Siebold skillfully showed: we come and go, sometimes on time, sometimes untimely, so you need to be able to appreciate what you have here and now. The film only touched the surface of this truth.
In the end, perhaps, if I was not familiar with the original source, the film would have made a better impression on me. I would see him as he is, not as he could be. But you can't erase your memory.
I liked the movie even more than the book I enjoyed reading. And for those who talk about the length of the plot, sorry, this is not a thriller, not an action movie or a comedy. This is a serious soulful film that makes you think, especially those who have children. I note that the script of the film is very little different from the work of Alice Siebold - and this is exciting.
Have you ever thought that perhaps somewhere near you lives a maniac like this under the guise of a lonely sad uncle? Maybe he's your neighbor, maybe he's an employee, maybe he's an acquaintance. He lives like everyone else - goes to bed at eleven, gets up at eight, smiles at a meeting, goes to work, watches TV. But he does it all on purpose! To avoid suspicion. He is smart and cunning like a fox, he knows how to wait, he knows how to put pressure on pity and evoke sympathy. And all his joy in life is to rape and kill.
Stanley Tucci played the role of a maniac perfectly. It even gives you goosebumps! As for Saoirse Ronan [Susie], my opinion is that she is a very talented actress and she has a great future ahead of her. For me, of such young stars, only Dakota Fanning surpasses her.
And although, after the film, you feel the triumph of revenge, the bitterness of loss does not go away. Only when you hear Suzy Salmon’s closing words does a sad smile touch the corners of your lips.
9 out of 10
Sweet Bones is an extraordinarily beautiful film. He not only amazes with his entertainment, but also amazes with his love.
I remember a long time ago I was standing in the store and choosing which movie to watch on Saturday with my sister and I caught sight of this particular movie. I bought it immediately and watched it the same day. The film impressed me very much. I roared nonstop throughout the film, I felt the film so much.
My name is Susie, Susie Salmon. I was 14 when I was killed on December 16, 1973.
So we're focusing on the girl Suzy Salmon. She has been raped and murdered by a maniac living next door, but she doesn’t leave, she gets stuck somewhere in between. She can't leave, so at this time she's watching her family's life, but most of all she wants to catch her killer. Her family is very much affected by the death of Suzy, especially the father, who almost gets close to the killer of his daughter, but for some reasons can not catch him.
The most moving part of the film is the suffering of her father. He cannot do without her (well, like any normal father) and he understands that only by catching her killer can he calmly let go of all his pain and start living.
The acting is superb. I really liked Mark Wahlberg. He played very convincingly, every time I looked at his suffering, tears rolled to my eyes. Rachel Weiss also played very well, Susan Sarandon is a wonderful actress, throughout the film admired her, and of course I can not say about Stanley Tucci. He played the best, his maniac is very convincing.
Bottom line: the movie needs to be seen by everyone. I don't think you'll regret it. Good viewing.
10 out of 10
P. S.
- But there was something my killer didn't understand: he didn't understand how much a father could love his child.
In an hour and a half, the whole book cannot be filled.
It was funny, but I first watched the trailer for the movie, then read the book and only today I had the chance to watch the movie. Usually the source of the film adaptation I read after watching it, so that the impression of the film does not spoil, because almost always the book is better.
Overall, the film was successful. Although too beautiful between the world, which is very much, stresses. It would be better to add dynamics to the plot, there is still so much undisclosed, including the meaning of the name itself. Only at the end is it somehow crumpled to explain what this is the most “cute bones”, while Alice S. in the book paid a lot of attention to this. I’m not talking about the very distant future, about the topic of Lindsey’s personal life (so waited in the film for the scene described in the book, where her biker proposed to her and they ran under a shower home for lunch, but alas...), which remained completely undisclosed, about the character and growing up of Buckley, o... much more about what, apparently, did not fit in the airtime. Well, at least Grandma in all its glory showed, and that's fine, although by the end of the film she became clearly tired.
In general, the film is very beautiful, the picture pleases the eye, the music pleases the ear, the actors play amazingly, although some moments, in my opinion, lacked drama, something flashed too quickly ... On the other hand, the director has a different angle of view, and he, reading the book / script, felt other moments and set other priorities.
Conclusion: once again convinced that the book should be read after the film adaptation. People who haven’t read should like it. Although then there are misunderstandings ... and then the book is worth reading.
8.5 out of 10
I saw the movie. And something about him I liked, something I didn't. Reading the book, I realized that the writers cut a lot. The ending is completely different. And the roles are not played well. The only one I liked was Saoirse and of course Stanley Tucci. I didn’t imagine him in that role and he’s a really good actor.
I expected more from the movie. The book is more holistic. And for those who have not seen the film or read the book, I advise you to watch it first, and then read it. Otherwise, you'll ruin your eyes. Then you will have the imagery.
I liked the idea. It's really hard to lose kids. It is not normal for parents to bury their children and move on. After her daughter died, the adults forgot they had two more children. Everyone was sad. At first I didn’t believe in the death of my child. To the last. It is difficult to accept this, and it is impossible to accept it.
Someone tried to forget everything. Someone wanted the whole world to remember. And this separation led to a huge gulf between husband and wife. But by the end of the movie, they're doing it. And that's good. It gives us hope.
The book makes us think. Take care of every moment with your loved one.
I knew from the trailer that this movie was worth it and I didn’t miss it. Once in the cinema (after a month of waiting), she sat in tears almost from the first to the last frame.
Saoirse Ronan, a beautiful young actress. Her crystal clear eyes are fascinating. Someone wrote that Suzy Salmon could play Dakota Fanning. No, no, and no again! I watched Amber City, Atonement with Saoirse, and there and there she had the main role, and in Atonement it was also very dramatic, but only here in Pretty Bones it absolutely fit, it is completely hers, and I cannot and do not want to imagine anyone else in her place.
Susan Sarandon, an extremely colorful actress (Grandmother Susie), I love her very much, especially for the film Stepmother, which I have known since childhood. The behavior of her character is quite alien to me, but I will not judge her, of course. In general, characters can be discussed endlessly, so I will not even start this topic. Everyone in this movie is so interesting! Dad (Mark Wahlberg) with a passion for boats in bottles, after him, by the way, and I began to have a weakness for them. A very charming mom (Rachel Weiss) who is trying to survive her daughter's death but can't cope with it. And others. Oh yeah! I want to pay special attention to the maniac, Lord. How he played! It seems to be an average man, but how he conveyed everything with his eyes. This is what girls are afraid of when they enter dark yards. Well, how can you recognize, for example, Julia Child’s husband in Preparing Happiness by Recipe? What a charming family man he is, and here is such an embodiment of evil! I didn't recognize him behind the curtain of a mustache until I looked at the cast list. My bows.
The worlds of the deceased Suzy can not be described in words, it is necessary to see for yourself and better on the big screen. The moment when the film's main soundtrack comes in, Cocteau Twins - Alice. This is the perfect fusion of music and image.
So if you haven't seen it, look, it's all worth it.
10 out of 10
I wanted to see this movie after watching the trailer. I don’t know if the film has justified me, but the mixture of such emotions is probably beyond the power of any other film (except very heavy). You are not afraid of death after watching.
Very good environment of the 70s. And my favorite moment of growing up is Lindsay. It worked out in a way that no one else could have done except Peter Jackson.
Heroes:
I am currently reading a book and reviewing the film. Of course it didn't show much. For example, Ray and Ruth from strength in the film 15 minutes. There are many different names in the book. I'm glad they didn't show up.
Saoirse Ronan, a beautiful actress. Many said that they could put another actress (like Dakota fanning) in her place. Hardly... Suzy Salmon could only play Saoirse!
I will say right away, it seems that the maniac chose especially backward girls as victims, otherwise I can not explain why she spent a year riding pink pony, while her family fell apart into tiny particles, and the maniac was thinking about a new victim. Even though a higher power has made it pretty clear that it can prevent it. Already at the end of the film, the upper force finally loses hope for the girls and takes matters into its own hands, but it is too late.
The film is hard, parents if you are ready to injure children, but make them think a second time when a good uncle offers to show something interesting in a dark forest.
It’s a pity who is really sorry for this director, probably in every house there is a black sheep, this is how this film looks against the background of other masterpieces of the director.
I’ll bet 4 out of 10, just because one touching scene from Broken Ships isn’t enough.
Let me throw tomatoes, but the film was not impressed... the acting in my opinion is brilliant, once again admired Stanley Tucci. The actor easily enters any images and it can not but please. A true professional.
As for the film itself... on the eve of watching, I just finished reading a book that I really liked, but the film... a completely redesigned script, missed a lot of important points... well, did Jackson not manage to do something truly masterpiece?
Sitting the whole movie in anticipation of the favorite moments of the book, well, the bad end was waiting for something unusual... what did you get? A light melodrama for teenage girls. Interestingly, the author of the book liked that his drama was so facilitated, removed half of everything on which the plot was built. Afraid to injure the psyche of the audience? Or were you trying to save money?
Everything turned upside down. Poor Susie was somewhere between the worlds, although she was supposed to live in paradise, along with her mentor and girlfriend.
These lists of victims... it all went stupid! It is a pity that the script was changed from and to.
I bet 3 IZ 10 for a chic finale and excellent acting. Perhaps the only thing that really impressed me.
The premiere did not go, announced as a horror story of average quality. Then there were more reviews of friends - boring thrust, little action, went in vain ... But one rainy evening, my sister brought a disc, and we wrapped ourselves in blankets with a cat in our arms... couldn’t come off to be honest. A very peaceful picture!
Separately, it is worth noting the game of actors. Saoirse Ronan did a great job in a difficult role. Mark Wahlberg was very touching about the suffering of a father who lost a child. Stanley Tucci surprised: the first time I saw him in a negative role.
I think I will watch this movie more than once over time. And every time Susie shouts: "Don't follow him, where are you going, stupid?"
And yet, after all, this film is designed for a female audience, I will not recommend it to my friends. Well, only big fans of this genre.
Peter Jackson became famous as a director quite late - only with the release of the film adaptation of the epic saga "Lord of the Rings", and until then his name was known only to a narrow circle of fans of thrash cinema ("Bad taste", "Living dead") and art house ("Heavenly creatures", "Lost negatives"). And “Sweet Bones” is an attempt to return the director, elevated to the rank of almost the main storyteller of Hollywood, to the genre of chamber family drama in the spirit of “Heavenly Creatures”.
The film tells the story of a girl Susie Salmon, brutally murdered by a maniac neighbor, but who after her death did not go to Paradise, but to a certain world bordering on reality, from where she can watch her relatives, the guy she was in love with, and, of course, her killer, who is about to outline a new victim for himself.
The fantasy of Peter Jackson, who has his own, author's vision of the world, is violently splashed in "Sweet Bones". Here you and the half-mad grandmother performed by Susan Sarandon, and the doll houses that the neighbor builds, and the details of the fantastic worlds on which Suzy travels: a tree covered with foliage-birds, boats from bottles that she helped make her father. Add to all this in detail the recreated atmosphere of the seventies, the equally perfectionist approach to depicting the portrait of the killer, the skillfully pumped suspense and the good play of Tucci, Wahlberg and Saoirse Ronan, the lead actress. It seemed that one could say that the film was a success, but the picture that the director eventually presents to us looks strange, creeping in some places at the seams.
With his epic scope, Peter Jackson tried to make a movie about everything at once. The romantic story of first love. The tragedy of the “average Americans.” A serial killer is something like a zodiac. It is about the dream (and here - "Where do dreams lead"), embodied after death. Perhaps the most complete is the story of the killer. Stanley Tucci plays an ordinary man - transferring to our realities, "from the next apartment." He is lonely, makes doll houses (by the way, a similar technique for revealing the character used by Jackson and in relation to the hero Mark Wahlberg, who plays Suzy’s father) and likes to watch how the inhabitants of real houses live. He has a secret that only he knows. Very complete was the image of Tucci, for which the actor was awarded nominations for the Oscar and Golden Globe.
Disclosure of the other lines of "Sweet Bones" is far from perfect. Especially in this regard, unlucky, oddly enough, "fantastic" scenes of the film. For all their beauty, they are “blended” according to a fairly simple scheme: “image-from-reality = image-in-world-Susie”. After the multi-layered ideologicality of the British surrealist Terry Gilliam, “Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus” which was released a month earlier, the images of “Pretty Bones”, shown by Suzy, look childishly naive and straightforward.
Next. Lazy only didn't compare "Sweet Bones" to the director's other drama, "Heavenly Creatures," which fifteen years ago received a Venetian Silver Lion and an Oscar nomination in the Best Screenplay category. I’m not going to get past the “creations” either. In the insane action of that film, too, a lot of attention was paid to the imaginary world, but there, unlike “Sweet Bones”, there was no sense of zeal. The fairy tale gradually turned into dirt, love into death, and reality into fantasy. A specific humor (another corporate “chip” of the director) organically built into the narrative. Here the “number” of the heroine Sarandon, designed, according to the plan, to defuse the atmosphere in the house (and the auditorium), and really amuses, “discharges”, but looks false. If the director had gotten rid of him, the story would have lost nothing, except that it would have become a little darker.
If we consider the other, dramatic side of the “Sweet Bones”, then only the relationship between the heroes of Wahlberg and Ronan is really revealed here. For Mark Wahlberg, who stayed in the roles of Suffering Fathers (remember “Phenomenon” and “Max Payne”) “Dear Bones” is another such role, but perhaps the most successful. But the lines of the other characters are outlined almost dotted - including Ray (the guy Susie was in love with) and his "gothic" girlfriend, which reduces, in turn, the disclosure of Susie's love story is actually "naught."
With all this, I can’t turn my tongue to call “Dear Bones” a bad movie. He is light, kind and evokes a sense of fragile touch - like a small penguin in a glass ball. Keeping that feeling is expensive. Did Peter Jackson do that? Too overloaded was his film and resembling a vinaigrette, each ingredient of which is poorly combined with the other. This causes the rejection of “Bones” by the overwhelming majority of the audience.
In general, it is extremely difficult to determine the audience of “Sweet Bones”. Adults will find the film too naive, teenagers – out of date and drawn out. However, as time goes on, it seems that Peter Jackson did “Sweet Bones” not for discerning moviegoers. Not for harsh critics. Not even for myself. He shot it for his daughter, who at the time of the film was exactly the same age as the main character. Not as a great director, but as a loving father. That’s why this story, after cleaning it from a variety of husks, may seem too sentimental, too smooth, too simple. It was not necessary to complicate it.
I put 7.5 points out of 10 for the “cute bones”. I liked the film: its idea, the play of the already mentioned acting trio, the atmosphere (fragmented). However, I can’t put an assessment higher – I feel too strongly that as a director, Jackson was only formally present in his chair.
I, who loved the work of Peter Jackson after the film “Divine Creatures”, was glad that the action of the film “Sweet Bones” takes place not in Middle-earth, but on Earth – in a provincial town.
The story, unlike the director’s previous works, turned out to be glossy, idealized (whether there is Spielberg’s influence here), so that even the main villain – a serial maniac – seems pretty. This can be explained, for example: the audience of the film is not the jury of the Venice Film Festival, and not the audience of Cinematheque, but millions of people around the world.
But, despite the idealization, the picture leaves a stunning impression. Superbly, technically witty and innovative, the casting of the soul after death is shown. There is a subtle style of the director, able to vividly depict the characters of the characters, shade the dark from the light. Amazing imaginations of artists, fluctuations of corn, aerial camera work, emotional intensity. The film leaves magical seeds in the mind of the viewer, which can bring juicy fruits for thought.
10 out of 10
To begin with, the plot of the film is original, there is no banality, as is often found now. I really liked the mixing of styles: drama, fantasy, detective - the picture turned out very unusual.
The acting is superb. Experiencing the family, but without losing control over himself, Stanley Tucci played the image of a murderer well, we were not told why he killed, but it was noticeable from him that he had some mental problems, it was not revenge on someone, it was just difficulties, but to see them, you need to carefully look at his actions, at his face. Mark Wahlberg, who played the girl's father, also went well into the role. Experience, hope, vengeance, kindness and anger, that’s what he was all about. The beauty of the graphics is simply fascinating, these smooth transitions, bright, and then sharply gloomy pictures are original. Operator's job is 10 points. The whole film tried to predict the next events, but not everything came out, very, very unusual in it absolutely everything looks in one breath.
Competent climax does not need comment at all. The film is a masterpiece, just someone may not understand it, but it means nothing.
10 out of 10
After The Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson became one of my favorite directors. I have been looking forward to each of his films with great anticipation. It was no exception to the “Little Bones.” I was waiting, but I did not expect that it would turn out such, frankly, a weak film.
The heartbreaking story, from which at the end, in theory, the hall was supposed to cry, was perceived by the viewer completely indifferently. It’s probably because we’ve seen it somewhere before. A vivid example is the movie “Ghost”, which in its essence is very similar to what Peter Jackson decided to take up. But if in “Ghost” the viewer empathized and wept with the characters, then in “Sweet Bones” everyone was on different sides of the barricades. And even the farewell kiss of the main character and her boyfriend did not make the viewer cry, and I think my favorite director very much counted on this.
6 out of 10
I am a very sensitive nature (I cry when I watch Vereshchagin exploding for the thousand-fifth time, I cry when I watch “Stuffed” and even cry on “Avatar” from the heart) and was indescribably surprised that for all 135 minutes of the film, my eyes never got wet. Although the prerequisites for this are a lot. I asked myself why my body didn’t believe Jackson.
Because Jackson re-directed himself. And shot some set of "lucky plans", "magnificent color solutions" and "director's finds", glued them with his favorite pink snot, flavored with an excellent cast, seasoned with good music, and on, the viewer, eat! The picture is not perceived at all as something integral, living. And even in such a short film (135 minutes for Jackson is not the time) managed to drag out a few scenes so much that you get distracted from the film and remember the unforgettable Lord of the Rings and the hall, for 5 minutes chanting: “Frodo, throw the ring!”
The magnificent cast did not save the situation, although a big thank you to Susan Sarandon for the chic grandmother, Rachel Weiss thank you for being very beautiful even when crying, and maniac Stanley Tucci is just above all praise. Saoirse Ronan is a charm, probably she has a great future, but so far she is not very convincing, in my opinion.
After watching the movie, I wanted to see something really touching, like Where Dreams Lead. To, so to speak, the tears that tuned in, to cry out, and at the same time to check whether Jackson is not from there "magnificent directorial finds" smirked.
Yes, there are great directors who squeeze a great movie out of a bad script (the example is not far off – Avatar, you want to watch it, although the plot, frankly, is not worth the eggs). And there is Jackson, whose only merit is that he managed not to spoil the most brilliant creation of John Ronald Reuel Tolkien. Thank you very much for that. And please do not get into the wrong plate, well, it turns out you have fantasy with fiction, so please us with District N9 and The Hobbits! You don’t have to play with feelings, it’s not yours.
5 out of 10
As soon as I heard about the movie, I thought I would never go to it. And so in the world there is enough filth, vulgarity and cruelty. But it just so happened that I got to the movie. I expected anything but that I would be sobbing all over the room for almost the entire movie. There were times when I wanted to smile and even laugh. Excellent acting and beautiful unobtrusive music, inserted in small quantities on the most key moments, did their job. You forget to watch a movie, everything seems true. This is an incredibly informative film for modern society.
From the very beginning it is interesting and pleasant to see a happy family. But after a tragic day, everything changes. It's incredibly hard to watch the torment of parents who lost their child. It's disgusting to see a brutal killer who didn't feel guilty and looked into the eyes of Suzy's parents. It was incredibly scary to watch the maniac Lindsey, Susie’s sister, who, despite her fear, finds evidence in the maniac’s house. It's sad to see Susie see everything and know everything, but not able to tell it. And you feel an incredible relief when, at last, everyone was able to find the strength to say goodbye to the past, and live the future.
The film clearly shows the transition from gray reality to the perfect and beautiful world of Suzy's death. You feel the differences and you see more and more flaws in the world. But at the same time, you understand that an imperfect life, with vivid emotions and experiences, is better than simple observation without the ability to influence what is happening.
You leave the hall with a sense of strange euphoria and the understanding that there is still a lot to do. And the impression remains for a long time.
10 out of 10
I suggest you read the book as well. It's quick and easy to read. It is more cruel, but the feeling of reading leaves beautiful.