tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6945954826038147974.post7054290670304121123..comments2023-10-24T03:50:19.640-07:00Comments on The All-New, All-Awesome: A Review of Peter Jackson's Latest - THE LOVELY BONES.Danny Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11154788596179153058noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6945954826038147974.post-53626251095038080142009-12-18T23:46:46.237-08:002009-12-18T23:46:46.237-08:00Hey Molly, thanks for your comment.So I don't ...Hey Molly, thanks for your comment.<br><br>So I don't know, I guess I just saw things a lot differently than you did, and obviously having not read the book I probably came at the movie from a much different angle. <br><br>That said, I think that Jackson made it pretty clear what happened to Susie. I don't see how showing a rape scene would have added to the film. It would have been pretty much unwatchable and a distraction from the rest of the story. I thought Jackson did a fine job of conveying the horror of what happened in an elegant manner that was emotional and painful. If he were more graphic, I don't think it would have fit into the tone of the film.<br><br>And my whole point was to say that Jackson was telling a dark and bleak story, but NOT in a grim and gritty manner. I thought that the fantasy imagery emphasized the fact that these characters, stuck in a mundane and tragic "real" world, were also characters in a much grander story, a much bigger tapestry, than they themselves realized. That to me was the hopeful message of the movie - that even when tragedy strikes, hope can spring up around it. I don't know if the tone / message of the book is completely in contrast to that, but I liked that the movie took a different approach to addressing personal tragedy. <br><br>I mean, think of a movie like Million Dollar Baby. To me, that film became bleak to an absurd and pointless degree. What were we supposed to take away from the movie? I thought with The Lovely Bones, the story was rendered more effective because of the fantasy context that Jackson put it into. I wouldn't want every movie to utilize that style of storytelling, but I think in this one, it worked.Danny Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11154788596179153058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6945954826038147974.post-35574629705879286952009-12-18T17:55:33.511-08:002009-12-18T17:55:33.511-08:00I respect your opinion but i have to disagree with...I respect your opinion but i have to disagree with your review, i thought the movie was awful. The reason why Stanley Tucci stands out is because he's almost the main character in the film while the other actors around him are given next to nothing to do. Tucci is a great actor but he's given most of the film. Mark Wahlberg tries hard but he's left with really nothing to do. The reason Rachel Weisz does not shine as much as you would have liked is the fact that the director cut a good portions of her scenes out of the film ( and they did film them) Susan Sarandon also had most of her scenes cut as well and her character does not come across very well at all because of it( The montage with her cleaning the house was embarrassingly bad and out of a completely different movie altogether. <br><br>As for the film being dark? What movie did you see? With all the CGI effects that Peter Jackson puts into this film, you could have thought that you were seeing a live action "Teletubbies" movie right in front of you with Saoirse Ronan as a guest star. I understand that they did not want to address the rape and murder of a child but to sweeten it to the point of nausea is worst than addressing what happen.<br><br>In my opinion, its a really bad filmMolly Jnoreply@blogger.com