The Lovely Bones

Oh, Peter Jackson. Sigh. As a defender of his 2005 version of King Kong, I would love to champion his latest effort, a big-screen adaptation of Alice Sebold's popular novel, The Lovely Bones. I cannot lie, though, and it hurts to do so. Jackson is a visionary talent, and he's got his meal ticket paid for eternity, if only because of his Lord of the Rings trilogy. But he's got some serious work to do if this is the best he can do in terms of cinematic growth. The Lovely Bones is more cinematic devolution, not evolution.

The Lovely Bones is narrated by Susie Salmon, a 14-year-old girl who dies in 1973 at the hands of a creepy neighbor named George Harvey. Salmon narrates the film from beyond the grave, as she hangs out in what amounts to a very pretty version of Purgatory. She narrates as she watches her family deal with her death, try to figure out who did it, and how to move on with their lives. The unique part of the movie is the former, as we envision what Susie sees past the grave, a colorful and odd vision of a near-Heaven. As impressive as parts of the movie are, though, here is a movie that makes mistake after mistake after mistake.

Before we wade into my criticism, let's get this much out of the way: Peter Jackson has an eye for visuals. The Lovely Bones has many flaws, but one of them is not the look. Both in the real-world version of the 1970s and in the vision of Heaven, Jackson succeeds. The cinematography, by Jackson collaborator Andrew Lesnie, is pitch-perfect, and I sincerely hope it gets an Oscar nod. Though the special effects sometimes seem a bit too special, and not blended enough, it's a rare distraction. Whatever positive comments I've got, they're almost all about the visuals.

The other noteworthy performer is Stanley Tucci, as the murderous George Harvey. Tucci, sporting a sleazy combover and making his voice sound a bit more chalky, is as creepy as possible as someone who really should've been found earlier. If Harvey was always this icky, how did no one else figure him out? Whatever the case is, Tucci's performance is arguably the most notable element of the movie, as Tucci dominates every scene he's in. But here's the thing: where I would normally tell you that Tucci steals the movie from everyone else, I won't. Why? How can the lead performer steal the movie?

That's the first big problem of The Lovely Bones. Harvey is not the main character of the book. Susie Salmon, as portrayed by Saoirse Ronan, is. If not her, let's focus on her dad, played by Mark Wahlberg. But, no. Tucci not only dominates his scenes, but he's got a lot of them. A lot. Way too many. I'd love to know a breakdown of how long he's onscreen, because it feels like he's got more screen time than anyone except Ronan, who's fine here, but not amazing. Why does Jackson, and his co-writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, focus so much on Harvey? I can't say, but I know that focus makes a lot of the scenes featuring Susie's family, especially the fractured relationship between Wahlberg and wife Rachel Weisz, feel underdeveloped and pointless. One transition, as Wahlberg takes the advice of local detective Michael Imperioli (very good in a thankless part) and gets his drunk mother-in-law to help his wife cope with Susie's death, is inappropriately funny.

I wish I could tell you that it's not Wahlberg to blame, but...yeah, I understand that Wahlberg is the right age for the character, and I know he can play more than a blank slate (see The Departed), but this is not a great role for him. Why not cast Sam Rockwell or Peter Sarsgaard? Why not expand the character in the script? Why have Weisz leave her entire family to work in an orange grove? Why have her come back at the weirdest and worst possible moment? Why? Yeah, there's just too many questions that don't get answered in the real-life portion of the movie. What of the supernatural portion? Though the visuals are impressive, I found them unnecessary. Can someone explain to me the scene where Susie and her fellow dead-girl friend parade around their imaginary world and get plastered on the covers of teen magazines? What the hell was that?

In the end, my problem with The Lovely Bones is a lot of little questions. Susan Sarandon, as the Salmon grandmother, is meant to be comic relief, and does fine in her time on screen. But why is she on screen? Why am I watching a montage of her being a bad would-be parent? Why? Why? Peter Jackson, why? I know many people have been lambasting The Lovely Bones, and I wish I could stem the tide. But, in the end, I can only ask why it happened at all.