New 'Lovely Bones' Clips, Poster and a Handful of Reviews
COMMENTS
How is it stacking up so far?
I am seeing The Lovely Bones soon enough and I don't want to cloud my judgment by reading a bunch of reviews, but that doesn't mean you have to live by the same rules as five have found their way online.
- Mike Goodridge at Screen Daily (positive)
- Xan Brooks at The Guardian (pan)
- THE SNEAK at The Sun (rave, but this one is hard to take seriously)
- Jamie Graham at Total Film (rave)
- Harry Knowles at Ain't It Cool News (rave)
Thanks to Kris Tapley at In Contention for the summaries, helping my effort to not read them.
And now, for the new poster that debuted at MySpace and if you like, MSN has one more clip from the film right here.
Photo: DreamWorks via MySpace
The Lovely Bones hits theaters on December 11, for more on the film including my gallery of 13 images click here.
Previous Post
Showing 5 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New CommentNOTE: The Facebook login option has been disabled. We apologize for any inconvenience. |
DON'T WANT YOUR COMMENT DELETED?
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Want an avatar for your comments? Click here to sign up with Gravatar.
Todd McCarthy's Variety review is also up, not quite a pan, but mixed negative at best. He strongly dislikes the CGI sequences..
"The book's rep, the names of Jackson and exec producer Steven Spielberg, and a mighty year-end push by Paramount/DreamWorks will likely put this over with the public to a substantial extent, but it still rates as a significant artistic disappointment."
AND…
Kirk Honeycutt in the Hollywood Reporter is mixed, maybe mixed positive at best.
I'd also beg to differ with Kris T's label of positive for Mike Goodridge's Screen International review. A MIXED review is more accurate.
Here's the lead:
"Peter Jackson’s eagerly awaited film version of Alice Sebold’s bestselling novel is sometimes exquisitely realised, sometimes frustratingly uneven…(it) was never an easy prospect for adaptation, and Jackson can’t quite capture a fluid structural rhythm for the piece, even while individual sequences and creative decisions are spot-on."
Not our Oscar winner this year but I think it will still do some nice business…
I do really think that this film will garner some nominations especially in the acting categories.
It sounded to me like the review over at Variety was a bit biased. Clearly the reviewer believes that the film doesn't live up to the standards of the books poignant simplicity. However, sometimes when Director's take liberties it works out for the best. Let's remember that Peter Jackson is the guy turned the original, 75 minute classic "King Kong" into a 3 hour behemoth.
I just have a hard time believing that a movie where Peter Jackson succeeds in directing his actors and crafting good dialogue + provides us with fascinating visuals (so fascinating in fact, that they are almost "too" good) is not worthy of my time.
This is gonna be a good film. Maybe not on the level of Heavenly Creatures or LOTR, but certainly one that lives up to Peter Jackson's twenty-first century resume (apologies to all those fans of Bad Taste out there).
'You are beautiful, Susie Salmon.'
Jesus, do these people actually hear what they're saying? And writing?
I think they just lost me.