New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

This will go into a few spoilers, so if you haven’t seen (or read) The Lovely Bones, then I guess it’s because you’re not drawn to supernatural, child-murdering, crime drama thrillers?

“The topic isn’t the brightest topic,” said leading lady Saoirse Ronan about The Lovely Bones in Empire magazine. “I’m killed, yeah, but it’s so beautiful.”

Based on the novel by Alice Sebold, the film tells the story of 14-year-old Susie Salmon (Ronan), who narrates about the time she was murdered in December 1973, on her way home from school. Killed by the shifty Mr Harvey (Stanley Tucci), who just so happens to live in her neighborhood, her death brings her to a strange realm, one referred to as “the in-between.” Stuck there, she watches over her family and friends, using sheer willpower in helping her father Jack (Mark Wahlberg) and mother Abigail (Rachel Weisz) catch her killer.

The Lovely Bones is an unusual film for this column. Yes, there are things wrong here, but crucially it’s the decision to adapt such a distressing story to begin with. Director Peter Jackson is also credited with the screenplay (along with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens). He has successfully adapted before, as obviously seen with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. With The Lovely Bones, Jackson said he was in fact aiming to deliver a PG-13 film. “I shot it as a PG-13,” he said. “The subject was pretty upsetting.” And therein lies the main issue with the film, the subject matter itself, and also why it plays like a sanitized version of the novel. In trying to lighten the tone, Jackson does pretty the film up with Weta special effects during those “in-between” moments.

With a production budget of around $65 million, The Lovely Bones started out in limited release (just three screens) on December 11, 2009. It earned a good $116,616 on its opening weekend. It opened wide five weeks later on January 15, 2010. The film charted at #3, earning an okay $17 million on its opening weekend, but it just didn’t connect with audiences, ending its run with just $44.1 million at the US box office. With an additional $49.5 million earned overseas, the film amassed $93.6 million overall. By no means a flop, it was far from a success.

Opening during the awards season, it was heavily predicted to bag a clutch of Oscar nominations. It received only the one, for Stanley Tucci as Best Supporting Actor. He also gained a BAFTA and Golden Globe nomination too, only for Christoph Waltz to win each time for Inglourious Basterds.

Continued:       1       2