Film review: The Lovely Bones

Director: Peter Jackson
Screenwriter: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson [screenwriters], Alice Sebold [novel]
Main Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Saoirse Ronan, Stanley Tucci, Susan Sarandon.
Runtime: 121 minutes.
Certificate: 12A (UK).
Brief Summary: "The Lovely Bones" centers on a young girl who has been murdered and watches over her family - and her killer - from heaven. She must weigh her desire for vengeance against her desire for her family to heal.
Tagline: The story of a life and everything that came after...
(source:IMDB).

Counting 'The Lovely Bones' by Alice Sebold as one of my favourite books, I eagerly awaited the film for the best part of a year. Normally, I am wary of movie adaptations of my favourite novels, but I had good faith in Peter Jackson. I haven't seen much of his films, with the exception of Lord of the Rings, but I'd heard only praise for his work, most notably the 1994 thriller 'Heavenly Creatures'.

Unfortunately, I came away from this film feeling disappointed and slightly robbed. It's not that it was a bad film, as such. Indeed, the visuals were nothing short of stunning, whilst the cast put in brilliantly heart-breaking performances, particulary rising star Saoirse Ronan, as the protagonist, Susie Salmon. And if the mark of a good villain is his ability to chill the viewer and to spur nightmares, then Tucci deserves a special nod too. No, it wasn't Jackson's directing ability that let the film down.

Part of the reason I found The Lovely Bones novel so moving, was the preoccupation with the Salmon family, and how they dealt with their grief, all the while overlooked by Susie. Sebold managed this with absolute tenderness, whilst also interweaving the plot with Susie's own experiences in the afterlife, and the ongoing hunt for her killer. Instead, the film seemed to become simply a manhunt for George Harvey, the killer, whilst throwing in a couple of corpses for good measure. I clearly have no experience with directing films, but it seems obvious to me that if you're going to direct a film about the rape and murder of a teenager, you have to be so careful with your approach. I spent the majority of the film feeling progressively more uncomfortable, and had to keep reminding myself that the film was merely a 12A. I'd read reports that Jackson had cut parts of the film so that he could achieve this certification. I struggle to find a reasoning for why he would want children of 12 and under (if accompanied by an adult) to endure such a distressing cinematic experience. I'm 9 years older than the minimum age restriction and I still didn't feel ready for it.

Important parts of the plot seemed to have been lost in translation between novel and film. Jackson has neglected to mention the dismembered bone that the title is centred around. Other integral features are either glossed over, or absent altogether. We know nothing of the mother's affair with the police officer involved with the case, so whilst she leaves to pursue a new life, the audience is left behind, slightly confused. We don't see sister Lyndsey's private battle with grief whilst struggling to let her new boyfriend in. Or, the utterly heart-wrenching moment when the family dog is reunited with Susie in her new, bittersweet world. Any of these moments would have enabled the family to become much more relatable to the audience, and therefore place them at the true heart of the film, instead of as a couple of supporting characters with no depth. And, whilst I have the upmost admiration for Susan Sarandon's acting abilities, the use of the grandmother as a 'humorous' interlude to the main story felt forced and out of place.

This viewing experience merely cemented my belief that films can never beat the original material, and as soon as I have spare time, I am picking up the book, and reminding myself of the story that I fell in love with.

My rating: 2/5