"Sweet Bones" is not a typical, amazing film. As a rule, every new product of the film and television industry is gum for the brain. Going to watch the next tape or including the player, the viewer simply signs that he does not want to think and he had a reason to relax and look at a beautiful dynamic picture. But not always this picture remains an internal gaze after running thin lines of credits on the screen.
And the commercial task of the film market is not that the next product left in the minds of the consumer a trace of the comet, the desire to comprehend what he saw and through something in himself. After all, this distracts from the need for a new game of subjective impressions, which should end in the objective finale of the fiery impact of cinematic dreams.
That’s not the case with the movie Sweet Bones. After it, you want to close your eyes and reconsider your own feelings about life and that man is the only creature endowed with consciousness, therefore struck by the terrible punishment of realizing his death. And we better not be reminded of that. However, in any action movie or crime story, in almost every frame someone dies, but these deaths are not burdened by any philosophy.
On the contrary, in "Sweet Bones" with more than the tragedy of inevitability. But this tragedy is played so skillfully that there is a spark of light in the soul, especially if she has already experienced the loss of a loved one. The perfect world and the perfect manner of its embodiment are truly worthy of all praise.
His name was Juan Ramon Jimenez, and the saying was: “If you get lined paper, write across.”
Just a delightful graphic of paradise or rather peace between worlds. By the way, there is an actress who played a well-dancing girl in the Rebel (she really danced ahah well).
The image of the maniac was creepy, like such a man, decent in appearance, turned out to be a maniac. Yes, maybe immediately on the trailer and it is clear that he is a maniac, but believe me, when you watch a movie, then you do not arbitrarily burst out: “Yes, it’s him!” Don't you understand?
It is an intriguing beginning, I advise you to read first, and then watch.
“It’s just another person’s soul is dark.”
Saoirse Ronan played her role well, I’ve watched a few movies with her, and in each film she plays better than in the previous one. I hope that soon she will play not only in films with the theme of fiction, but also would like to see her in films more philosophical.
Although Pretty Bones, written by Alice Siebold and filmed by Peter Jackson, make you think that everyone can pretend to be a decent person, a wonderful gardener, or even all together. In fact, it turns out...
“The person who killed me lived in our neighborhood. His mother admired his flower curbs, and his father once asked him how to fertilize them. ?
For a long time, Peter Jackson did not appear on our screens with a new film. After orc battles and fuss with a huge humanoid monkey, one of the highest paid directors of our time went into the shadows. According to rumors, he tried unsuccessfully to take on his shoulder the adaptation of the video game “HALO”, then could not launch the production of “Hobitt”, but it came 2009 and after 4 years of lull Peter returned, first as a producer of the extraordinary “District N9”, and then with his own picture – “Dear bones”. Drama, by the way, with ambition.
The film is based on the bestseller of the same name by Helen Siebold and tells about the experiences of a fourteen-year-old girl raped and killed by a maniac neighbor. After death, the heroine falls into such a gap between heaven and earth. The soul of young Susie Salmon, the name of the girl, burdened with injustice, appeals to her parents, especially to her father. She does not want to go to heaven, because so much was still ahead of her: she dreamed of becoming a photographer, a classmate with whom she was in love, invited her on dates, but all this was taken away by her killer.
The story is divided into two parallel stories. At the forefront comes the journey of Susie herself in the illusory world, appearing in the images, visions of her relatives and friends. These visions take on surreal forms thanks to the beautiful visual series, but each such image, whether it is a giant glass bottle with a ship inside or a tree on a hill shedding leaves that turn into butterflies, is actually a reflection of real things and events that still connect Susie with the world of the living. The second story is about her family grieving the loss of her daughter. A separate thread in all this weaves the thread of the villain who took the life of the girl.
Thanks to the skillful director, the film does not fall apart, and as a kaleidoscope, a colorful pattern of family drama, a romantic love story and in some way suspense arises. It looks quite easy, it is not extremely cruel scenes of violence or naked moralization.
At its core, Pretty Bones is a lightweight version of Where Dreams Lead, only if Robin Williams was looking for a way to heaven, then Susie craves the opposite. However, the more she watches her family from above, the more she realizes that without her, she will be better off. After all, life, one way or another, must go on, even if Susie no longer has a place for her. “Dear bones” is a symbol of the restlessness of the soul, they should somehow be buried underground, in the past, but until Susie’s killer is punished, she will not be able to find peace.
Peter Jackson's film has many similar allegories and inspiring, dreamlike episodes. You can only complain about the tempo of the film. I don’t know if the reason for this was the difficulty of adapting Ms. Siebold’s book or if it was necessary to spend more time in the editing room, but in some places an interesting story looks tense. And how infuriating is the music that appears both to the place and not to the place, as if without it the viewer could not perceive the sadness, joy or fear of the characters of the film. Such emotions should come by themselves, not at the direction of the authors.
The situation was saved by the cast. If little can be said about Rachel Wise and Mark Wohlberg, then the star of “Atonement” talented Saoirse Ronan played Susie and Stanley Tucci as a killer look more than convincing. The latter is even nominated for “Oscar” for the role of the second plan, but according to the old tradition, awards “scoundrels” do not give. This may be true, but this is an extra reason to get acquainted with the new creation of Peter Jackson.
It may sound like a pun, but “Sweet Bones” is a very cute movie, so did not overcome separating good cinema from genius.
I saw an ad for Pretty Bones by accident, and I came across it online the same day. After reading about this film, I sat down to watch it. To be honest, the film didn’t live up to my expectations. Peter Jackson picked up stunning landscapes, Rachel Weiss and Mark Wahlberg managed to convey all the touching of the moment, learning that their fourteen-year-old daughter is dead, and in general, I have no complaints about the acting, except that Stanley Tucci was not very able to get used to the role of a maniac-neighbor.
The movie is long. Especially in places where Susie was supposed to go to heaven but kept coming back. Loved the moment the sister pulled the album from under a neighbor's floor. The moment was intriguing, I was biting my nails, begging Lindsay to run away from him. Also, I would like to emphasize that Susan Sarandon was pleased. A great actress in all the movies, and then I did not disappoint: the sight of a dissolute grandmother, raising the family from mourning. Those moments made me smile. Saoirse Ronan, of course. For a fifteen-year-old girl, she played great, although there were a few moments where there was a lack of emotion, but it seems that she gave everything to the full.
Peter didn't make it. That is why the film seems a little empty, and after it there are mixed feelings of emptiness and expectations, it seems as if the film is not over, or the continuation of watching in the second part.
To say that my impression of the film “delight” is impossible, but the film itself is not so bad that would not like. In general, it is suitable for viewing - but not more than once.
I first learned about the movie from a poster. Saoirse Ronan’s blue eyes were very interesting, and the atmosphere on the background of the poster was interesting. After 2 days, I watched the trailer and was taken aback – a quick video sequence of the computer world to the tune of Gemini Cocteau pulled for something slightly perceptible. The verdict is to watch. Started watching.
In the course of the film, you begin to realize that, alas, the beautiful Lord of the Rings and District 9 are what Jackson does well, but Sweet Bones is a little different.
It is no secret that the tragic death of a beautiful young creature always leaves indelible impressions and a desire to cry, take revenge on the cruel world and think about it. But what I saw didn't vomit. Yes, look at the example of "Bridge to Terrabitia" No murders, no maniacs, and catches so that you can not get out of the crisis for 2 weeks.
Saoirse Ronan plays convincingly, but again, I repeat, this game does not have that childish purity and immediacy that will really make me think about this film. This is my opinion, my feelings.
I liked my father and Maniachina. When my father beat the boats, I wanted to help him. I am silent about the maniac - everything is true and without unnecessary exaggerations. I wanted to dismember him, which means I coped with the role.
As for the script and the direction... I don't think that's Jackson's style. He can create a battle or arrange the resettlement of aliens in the slums. And it's interesting. But. Nice bones really don't pull as much as they could pull. Therefore, the rating is average -
Before watching the film, I read many reviews and reviews, the contradictions of which intrigued me. I began to look with interest, especially since I read Siebold’s book a few years ago, and it impressed me as quite original and worthwhile thing, representing a certain literary value. What I can’t say about the movie...
The writers decided to change the composition of the book, laying out all the memories of Suzy at the very beginning, which, in my opinion, broke the composition; many nuances were thrown out and missed, and they were the ones who made this story so touching and memorable.
In the film I can only note one thing: it is very beautiful, shots could be used in illustrations for the book, an excellent edition would turn out. Also, I can’t help but note the play of the actress – the main character, sincerely and very, very. . . lively, sorry for the pun.
Bottom line: not exactly a successful film adaptation.
I had a chance to see one of Jackson’s latest creations. Let’s forget that I haven’t read the book. As short as I can, about the movie itself. In general, all is well, but this protracted sympathies (already from the first frames we can conclude that Jackson threw all his strength on the shooting of The Hobbit) spoils the entire impression of the film. The plot itself in places stalls so that in all directions flies a cloth of very weak dramaturgy. Holes in the script here and there. The events in the film stubbornly refuse to move on their own, they seem to be pushed (several times I just wanted to squander). The whole movie could be cut to 40 minutes.
Waldberg liked it, the girl was not impressed, although there was no irritation. A maniac is nasty, of course, well, that's how he should be. I can't say anything about the others, I don't remember. Heated interest only the intrigue of the death of the main character, after which again the abyss.
And here in the foreground come patching holes and the main engines of the film — special effects. Jackson is not Jackson without them, here everything is in place \literate\beautiful, there are no words \just need to see yourself \ in the cinema the roof blows. As a result, we all understand perfectly well that Peter just liked another book (and besides about the schmuriki, in my opinion, he is not indifferent to them, remember the 1999 film “Inspiring Fear”) and he, having a pretty studio, allowed himself such a whim.
Separately, I want to say about the soundtrack. Brian Eno very diligently helps to move the weak dynamics, holding it under the handles, like an old woman crumbles on the go. Some sounds simply excite the ear, waking up peacefully dormant goosebumps that no longer hoped to wake up. If it weren’t for the veteran’s ambient sound, hope would have hung its heavy body on special effects. Again, it all comes down to them, hurtful...
And yet, the rating of the film is higher than “satisfactory”, because there is a moving, warm living something there that makes you watch “Dear Bones” to the end.
6 out of 10
I’ve heard a lot about the book and the movie “Sweet Bones.” I saw the trailer and decided I would definitely watch this movie. I started with the book to be aware. The book was delighted. Such atmosphere, syllable, plot! And now it is time to watch the movie. I was sitting there waiting for my favorite moments, when the movie would look like a book. I haven't waited.
I was bored watching. The beautiful pictures could not hold my attention. Everything is crumpled and incomprehensible. The frame changes the frame, and in general it turns out a great story. Not reading the book very much in the plot will be unclear, and the reader will be annoyed to see such an inverted and adjusted narrative. I know you can’t fit every line of the book into the movie, but you can at least be close to the plot. I wanted to shout, “That wasn’t there!” It wasn't like that! Why not show such a complex and lyrical love line between the father and mother of the heroine? Why is the world after death not as described by the author? And the ending? It’s a mix of moments from the middle and end of the book. The meaning of the name has not been revealed. Missed relationships within the Salmon family. It is absolutely not shown how hard it was the younger daughter, how she yearned for her sister. You can't see her fighting spirit. Looking at Lindsay's cinematic, you see a kind of silence. In general, looking at quickly changing events, I never felt the essence.
As for the actors, there are not so many complaints. The older Salmon fit perfectly into the image. But the actress for the role of Lindsay, in my opinion, is completely unsuccessfully selected. I also didn't like Ruth's game. A girl who should stand out for her otherworldliness and unusualness, and stood out only for her Gothic appearance. Much to my disappointment, many of the characters in the book were simply omitted in the film.
My verdict: those who have read and loved the book “Sweet Bones” should not spoil the impression by watching the film.
Suzy is an ordinary fourteen-year-old schoolgirl. She does everything that ordinary children of her age: goes to school, to a drama club, communicates with friends, falls in love, in general, everything else. But one evening, in a field, she meets a neighbor who lures her into a house he dug in advance, and there kills her, after which she does not go to heaven, but remains somewhere between the two worlds. The question of why does not arise But why Peter Jackson? Well, it's not his genre. He can’t tell this story in a beautiful and fascinating way. He can't. There's nothing you can do about it. And all the failures and failures of this film, solely on the conscience of the Director. This is my personal opinion. I'll start with the main thing. The script. The stories told in the film, in its conception for me was very interesting, but as it developed everything came down to such platitudes that even a marvel. And this whole storyline with Susie between two worlds... In my opinion, all this looks more than ridiculous. And the fictional world, which, although not bad, but, nevertheless, is unexpressively drawn, is much worse than in The Lord of the Rings, in which Jackson calibrated everything for the smallest details, here it all looks too picture. And without this line, the film is reduced to a banal detective story, in which the police, as always, do not want to do anything, and the relatives of the deceased only do that play the game themselves detective. Anyway, not interesting. Well, even if so, all the experiences of the murdered girl, which was the focus of this film, all so picture that she would rather kiss at least once in her life than that her father was not beaten, or that the criminal was not caught. In terms of acting, everything is much better. The main attraction of the film is of course Stanley Tucci. He played very well. The maniac turned out to be one hundred percent. It's not about his game, it's about his aura. At the same time, there is more praise. Very successful angles in the film were used when shooting the same Tucci, as a result of which, his game looked even more spectacular. The composers have also done well. Very good musical inserts. Most importantly, everything is in place. In general, if we sum up the results, then the claims are only in the scenario plan. Maybe it’s because I expected a lot from this movie and it didn’t live up to my expectations. Others might like it, but they're lying to those who read the original story. I have not read it myself, but I am sure that this is not an approximate version of the text, it is painful to somehow blur everything so that such an “original” has fans. Original
Suzy is an ordinary fourteen-year-old schoolgirl. She does everything that ordinary children of her age: goes to school, to a drama club, communicates with friends, falls in love, in general, everything else. But one evening, in a field, she meets a neighbor who lures her into a house he dug in advance, and there kills her, after which she does not go to heaven, but remains somewhere between the two worlds. The question of why does not arise But why Peter Jackson? Well, it's not his genre. He can’t tell this story in a beautiful and fascinating way. He can't. There's nothing you can do about it. And all the failures and failures of this film, solely on the conscience of the Director. This is my personal opinion. I'll start with the main thing. The script. The stories told in the film, in its conception for me was very interesting, but as it developed everything came down to such platitudes that even a marvel. And this whole storyline with Susie between two worlds... In my opinion, all this looks more than ridiculous. And the fictional world, which, although not bad, but, nevertheless, is unexpressively drawn, is much worse than in The Lord of the Rings, in which Jackson calibrated everything for the smallest details, here it all looks too picture. And without this line, the film is reduced to a banal detective story, in which the police, as always, do not want to do anything, and the relatives of the deceased only do that play the game themselves detective. Anyway, not interesting. Well, even if so, all the experiences of the murdered girl, which was the focus of this film, all so picture that she would rather kiss at least once in her life than that her father was not beaten, or that the criminal was not caught. In terms of acting, everything is much better. The main attraction of the film is of course Stanley Tucci. He played very well. The maniac turned out to be one hundred percent. It's not about his game, it's about his aura. At the same time, there is more praise. Very successful angles in the film were used when shooting the same Tucci, as a result of which, his game looked even more spectacular. The composers have also done well. Very good musical inserts. Most importantly, everything is in place. In general, if we sum up the results, then the claims are only in the scenario plan. Maybe it’s because I expected a lot from this movie and it didn’t live up to my expectations. Others might like it, but they're lying to those who read the original story. I have not read it myself, but I am sure that this is not an approximate version of the text, it is painful to somehow blur everything so that such an “original” has fans. Original
Just from an American theater. I can’t tell you what impression the film made on me. On the one hand, good work: everything is so foldable, interesting plot, good acting of actors. The story itself is very sad, because to imagine that such a little girl dies and even under such terrible circumstances. Disliked, not knowing life, with huge plans for the future. Without even printing the film. In general, the whole film is about how different sides experience this tragedy: the girl herself, her parents, the murderer. Which, in principle, is very interesting, since there are not many such films.
But on the other hand, the film did not touch all the proper strings. I'd like to add something else. It seems that something very small is missing...
In addition, the end turned out to be a little crumpled. The author found an unusual and, perhaps, a little unexpected way out of the situation, but they could not reproduce it properly.
Perhaps all this is due to the fact that the author tried in all possible ways to dilute the tragedy of the situation.
Overall and generally, I liked the film. I would call it a harsh tale of life. So I suggest you take a look.