|
Showing reviews from 1 to 50 (total: 159)
|
|
 |
I watched it because my sister bought it and I figured it couldn't hurt. I read the book a little while back and I wasn't all together thrilled about it, but I'm willing to admit the depth it had and it was a fairly intriguing story. On top of that, I have faith in Peter Jackson after staying faithful to Lord of the Rings as much as anyone could when doing something so epic. In the book the story progresses through time and it's a story about growth, love, life, death, moving forward and how events fit into life. The beginning was well done, but keeping the story within a year left the story without the depth that the book had. What you're left with is a pretty picture, some okay symbolism, fair acting, no mystery and the worst wrap-up ending that I have ever seen. At the end of the movie I felt a much bigger appreciation for the novel, I don't recommend the movie, grab the book instead.
5/10
24.8.2010 -
love,always,and,forever@ - age: 18-25
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
I simply didn't see the point of this movie. In fact, it was very different from the preview. The dead girl did not communicate with her father. The killer is not caught, and his identity is not mystery. So really, I don't see the point of this movie.
4/10
24.7.2010 -
zygoto78@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
My wife and I wanted to see this because Susan Sarandon was in it, but even Susan couldn't save this train wreck of a movie. To put it mathematically: Hannibal Lecter + The Notebook = Train Wreck. Again, Peter Jackson needed an editor with a much sharper knife; 2:19 is a little long, especially for a colossal dud like this one. And it has one of the all time worst movie lines: "Of course it is, it's Heaven". I write this review in hopes that I might at least prevent some people from wasting 2:19 of their lives. Whose idea was it to combine a creepy serial killer theme with a love story? Maybe as a book it worked, but seriously, I've seen a lot of movies (I'm 51) and this one makes my all time worst list.
1/10
26.6.2010 -
enialbrelsyg@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
SPOILER ALERTS SORRY! I haven't read the book but thought the movie was very interesting fr 70's perspective. Hence the movie is slow because in 1973 which was a heck of a lot slower pace of life than it is now! The sets were fairly acurate. As a parent I felt like the parents in this movie were not really close together some reason- disjointed somehow. The narrative from the girl was intriguing. Stanley Tucci was a frightfull piece of work in this role- very disturbing, YIKES! Reminded me of Mr Roger's! Never would have thought this actor could do this kind of role. PS:The house fr the locket was symbolic of the girl and her leaving her body behind ect... The film is full of symbols& cues in the backround-books, music, lamps, colours, shaped in the sky-there is a story of clues there... That girl is an very good actor. The ending- was a mess-it felt like they sort of didn't know how to wrap it up... How come the police could not get this guy- It took him 5 seconds to pack a bag, get the heavy safe up the stairs all by himself and in the trunk and 20 min to get safe out of his truck and down to the ditch-HUH? Did the police not get there and maybe try to track his car like pronto? OH yeah, it was the seventies... Cheers!
7/10
20.6.2010 -
beauottawa@ - age: 36-49
I read the book and wanted to see the movie as thought the special effects would be great and they were. Followed very closely to book. I quite enjoyed the movie.
9/10
25.4.2010 -
mhgolf1@ - age: 50+
It was very well detailed in all the scenes. Veryy intense, emotional, suspenseful. A must see for people how have read the book and want to see the movie. The actors very picked! Way to go Peter Jackson!!!
10/10
4.4.2010 -
dis@ - age: 13-17
Spine chilling, slow in some scenes.
6/10
1.4.2010 -
swedlake@ - age: 26-35
Really beautiful, perhaps a little slow - which isn't bad, just not for everyone. It's a well told story of grief and regret, and a horrible murderer of course, and it's done well, I thought. Movies based on books are often more artistic.
8/10
30.3.2010 -
butterfly_wings02@ - age: 18-25
Overall I liked the movie, though there were things I would change. Peter Jackson was focusing too much on the middle world, and not enough on the characters or the real plot of the movie. I didn't like the sugar coated ending either, the part with the icicle (don't want to ruin it for anyone) I thought overall it was a good movie, except it was too focused on the special effects, though alot of it was important to get the feel of the middle world. I loved the girl actress, she played the role perfectly. I also liked Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weiss, and Stanley Tucci was PERFECTLY cast! I did come home and kiss my daughter while she was sleeping.
7/10
14.3.2010 -
getlaurie@ - age: 36-49
So far this is my movie of 2010. Over all just a great story with a awesome long awaited ending. The guy is just one really creepy dude who got what was coming to him.
10/10
12.3.2010 -
cft_elitefitness@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
This is a snooze-fest. Not an action, suspense or thriller one bit. Skip it. You're not missing anything special.
2/10
10.3.2010 -
joeljustleft@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
This is a little too much on the artsy-fartsy side for my taste. I was hoping to see something gritty and filled with suspense. I was very disappointed.
6/10
10.3.2010 -
jilljustleft@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
The first inclination that you have written a very week script. If you have to read a book first, what is the point? It seemed as of though that Peter Jackson just was infatuated with the 'In-between world' and failed to explain the real world or it's characters. He was copped out with the all important rape scene which sets the tone for the story. In this interpretation, Suzanne doesn't even know at first that she has been killed. I guess Peter thought that the story would of been better had Suzanne learned what happened to her after she passed. Overall, not as bad as some of the reviewers have been saying, but could of been waaayyy better.
5/10
7.3.2010 -
thesdi@ - age: 18-25
Not for the faint hearted. I'VE NEVER LIKED THE GUY WHO PLAYS HER DAD but even him being the perfect looser for the role. Very creepy but it makes you think. I'm going to make my daughter watch it when shes old enough. 31yo Dad.
8/10
21.2.2010 -
killerbee29_9@ - age: 26-35
Craptacular. Too long, overdramatized, boring, incredibly slow pacing, overuse of CGI, pointless scenes. Not a good film in the slightest. Mediocre at best. Save your money.
6/10
20.2.2010 -
avec,fromage@ - age: 13-17
A well constructed movie that withstands a backward look. The emotions of parents and siblings are believable and there were enough twists to keep me interested. The 'dream scape' of the world 'in between' was a little fluffy but came together as a theme in the end. Good book, but aso good film.
8/10
15.2.2010 -
catherine_shaver_49@ - age: 50+
The acting was quite good by all except for Rachel Weiss. As far as the story/plot goes, it is believable. The visuals/photography was also exceptional. Depressing? Maybe for some; however, the fact remains that you don't get away with anything- whether it is in this world or the next.
9/10
12.2.2010 -
debmastro@ - age: 50+
It was great, trippy but good.
7/10
12.2.2010 -
mizz,fabulous_mina@ - age: 13-17
The book is much better than the movie. But it's always cool to see words in action. I'm glad I saw to say I saw it but It won't be in my DVD library. The book on the other hand... 2 thumbs up!
7/10
9.2.2010 -
julie,estriplet@ - age: 26-35
It was watchable and entertaining, but not great. I left the theatre with an unsatisfied feeling. Having known, a young woman who was murdered, I think it does a decent job of "showing" how the person who died prematurely does not want to leave with so much of their potential life not yet lived. Yet, the other aspects... the emotional resolution for the murdered, the murderer and the family... should have been much better.
6/10
9.2.2010 -
hlepek@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
Again, glad this was a freebee. The LALA story makes dyin seem pleasant. The parents hardly have any emotion. The CGI effects are tired and boring. I hear the book was good and that it was well adapted. Glad I don't read.
5/10
8.2.2010 -
prefernothing@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
Very well done, performances from the actors are amazing!
9/10
8.2.2010 -
ytordlamoppe199@ - age: 18-25
I loved it! The in-between is beautifully done, with breathtaking images. The acting, especially the little girl's, is completely believable. Also, the movie is suspenseful and exciting. This movie has been totally overlooked and underrated!
10/10
7.2.2010 -
braultnathalie@ - age: 26-35
I loved this movie, but i've noticed that, you have to read the book to understand the movie. The book tells how this whole situation started and what had happened. In the movie, it doesn't really say what happened and how it happened. What I'm trying to say is, you should read the book before you watch the movie.
8/10
7.2.2010 -
emilyisdabomb97@ - age: 13-17
Save your money. Wait till it's on tv or rent it when it comes to video.
6/10
7.2.2010 -
siennasmom@
Thought-provoking, interesting & haunting. I found myself thinking about this film for days afterwards. Very good. One note: there isn't a large focus on showing the actual murder-- but the atmosphere and attention to detail in the scene leading up to it was cinematic creepiness at its best!
8/10
7.2.2010 -
lemonhouse@ - age: 36-49
Wasn't impressed... thought it would be alot better and no justice was served... it was depressing.
5/10
7.2.2010 -
coobear_is@ - age: 18-25
Overall, it was an okay movie; however, I felt like there were a lot of scenes that really dragged on. It seemed like a lot of the scenes and images were really trying to be symbolic, but the effect was boring.
6/10
6.2.2010 -
daisy__17@ - age: 26-35
Not worth the money. Very boring. Doesn't have a good story line. To all over the board.
1/10
5.2.2010 -
prissy2@ - age: 50+
I do not like it, really confusing.
3/10
5.2.2010 -
h7s@ - age: 13-17
Worth seeing. Very well done.
8/10
5.2.2010 -
rainbowduck@ - age: 1-12
I absolutely loved this movie. The best way to describe it is magical. I would strongly suggest to anyone looking for a smart movie that flows well (not a dull moment in it) that is also very spiritual (not religious), then this is a must see!
9/10
5.2.2010 -
much_peace@ - age: 36-49
All I can say is, Wow. This movie was, non-stop suspense, on the edge of your seat amazing! Go see it now! I'm buying it on DVD when it comes out!
10/10
5.2.2010 -
kodazaders@ - age: 13-17
I had heard drom a friend that it wasn't that good so I didn't have high expectations. I haven't read the book either. However, I found this movie very good. Stanley Tucci was great and is a serious contender for the Best supporting actor oscar. There were a few holes in the plot but overall good movie.
8/10
4.2.2010 -
mr_mysterio_21@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
Every year there are movies that just fly under the Radar, they are there and because of so much hipe, they do not get the billing they deserve. Lovely Bones is one such movie, Grusome subject yes, but the acting directing and the protral of streching of the mind, made for a movie that held you right to the end even to watch the credits. Must see for sure, let your imagine nation run with the theme. You will enjoy it.
9/10
4.2.2010 -
sailtbay@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
Loved every minute of it. Even though Rachel Weisz was dry and boring, Mark did a great job as obsessed with grief and need for the truth father. Saorise and Stanley Tucci were amazing. Effects truly spectacular, as if it could be any different, it's Peter Jackson for Gods' sake! And regarding all bad reviews... well it is difficult to bring a novel to the screen. Especcially such detailed one. The best way to cope with this, is to forget about the book and look at the movie as if it's an original screenplay. I remember many LOTR fans were blaming Peter as well, yet he made a history. All of the above is just to say, be open minded a little bit more. It is definitely a good movie, much better then many made today. Surely, lack of true action, Robert Downey Jr. and some blue people won't make it less entertaining. It's a food for your mind and soul, and if you can't work your brain and want just plain fun - The Lovely Bones is not for you. But, as someone already mentioned, it's a lot like What Dreams May Come- beautiful, sad and highly moral.
9/10
4.2.2010 -
deathwish@ - age: 18-25
I read the book and then saw the movie... it was really good, but in some parts if you hadn't read the book you have no idea why it's happening or what's going on... especially the end... my friend came with me and she had no idea why it ended the way it did...
8/10
4.2.2010 -
tcowls@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
I place this film in with the Da Vinci Code... nowhere near as bad as has been made out. I have to wonder if part of the problem was the subject matter itself. Let's face... it's one thing to read about a girl being raped, murdererd with her body disappearing pretty much forever. It'a whole other thing to see on a large screen complete with screaming and blood. I wouldn't have hated that and I'm glad Jackson avoided it. The true horror was the banality and ordinariness of Stanley Tucci's character and how easily that predator just slipped in and out of lives throughtout the film. I especially like that his previous victims were seen as characters (even if non speaking) as opposed to the usual movie just mentioned at some point. They could have trimmed some of the fantasy stuff , toned down the grandmother and had a slightly less tidy end for Susie's family but over all I liked this film. Worth seeing in a theatre. Note to professional critics... this is yet another episode where a film, while having some issues, did not deserve the trouncing it got making it appear like a band wagon thing. Save it guys... I have a film in mind when I decide if something stinks and this was nowhere close to it.
7/10
3.2.2010 -
lmclaug@ - age: 50+
Very very good it is really a must see film!!!
10/10
3.2.2010 -
nehiyawin_skwew18@ - age: 18-25
The movie dragged, was extremely boring and not well executed. The Producer failed to relate the details shown throughout. Take her Charm Bracelet for instance, why show it repeatedly if you’re not going to use it for something significant. The details of her murder and the ending, was also of very poor quality. If you discovered who murdered your sister, wouldn’t you immediately tell your parents? Finally, the safe with her body, taking from his basement then he loads in his truck, however he requires help to unload and to roll it in the pit. The screenplay writer should in the future make certain that he has credible scene structure and should cut out details that are not relevant, which unfortunately would be more than half the movie. Poor screenplay writing and mediocre production, total waste of time.
2/10
3.2.2010 -
mireille_mn@ - age: 36-49
Don't waste your time folks. Read the book and you'll see what I mean. Very disappointing. Walked out.
1/10
3.2.2010 -
foley_av@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
It was hard to follow what actually happened to the girl. I knew she was murdered, but there was no mention of rape in the move. It wasn't even implied. A little more information would have made this a better movie.
6/10
2.2.2010 -
dodge-ram@ - age: 36-49
This movie has some cool effects but for those expecting suspense this movie is hands down disappointing. It's based on a book written for a preteen girl and follows that pretense.
1/10
2.2.2010 -
dabeats@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
I hadn't read the book when I went to see this, and I'm glad I didn't. After reading the book's plot summary in Wikipedia, I could see how those who read the book first would be very disappointed. It seemed like it would be like the Reader's Digest version compared to the book. The film is good, although hazy and hasty in parts. Director Peter Jackson seemed to focus mostly on the special effects (which were awesome, and one would expect no less from the Director of Lord of the Rings trilogy), as well as the suspense and the human grief process. That's fine. But I often kept thinking something big was going to happen and then it just went into something else. Was that because Jackson sharpened the suspense a bit too finely and it didn't fit the story? Maybe. If it wasn't for the special effects to awe me and the deep sadness of the story, I would have felt a lot more frustrated as I watched, with the way it seemed to cut corners on the story itself. It's worth seeing, absolutely, but I suspect it's best to read the book afterwards to get the real story. Judging from the Internet summary, the film seems almost 2 dimensional by comparison to what was originally written. Yet the film is worth it for the special effects alone, reminding me a lot of What Dreams May Come.
7/10
2.2.2010 -
scorpio_mystique@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
I thought this movie was just ok... I felt it was kind of slow, it would be worth the $5.00 rental but not the $12.00 at the theatre. Loved the ending!
6/10
1.2.2010 -
tobi136@ - age: 26-35
Some parts were good, but in general the movie was slow and boring. Parts reminded me of Alice in Wonderland. Don' t waste your money, see it when it hits the video store.
3/10
1.2.2010 -
pilotdnd@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
To me that is the best movie on earth cause since I saw the premiere of the movie I have been dieing to see it and now that I did I would love to see it again and again you really would not belive your eyes and I find that the director did a really good job and the actors also when my friend said she saw it before me I was jelouse cause I really wanted to see it so I let it go and I saw the movie of my dream so thank you and this may be one of the movies in my history of movie in my intired life so you made that day of my life the best day ever in history.
10/10
31.1.2010 -
mychy@ - age: 1-12
| | | | |
First off, let me make this perfectly clear: I did not read the book. Secondly, even though the trailer seemed to be hinting the movie was going to possibly be a suspense thriller, I had been warned by people who had read the book that it should not be a suspense thriller at all. So my expectations were more realistic. I thought The Lovely Bones movie was good, and definitely worth seeing. Peter Jackson created an incredible "in-between" world that is visually stunning and definitely the perfect mood setting backdrop depending on the emotions needed at the particular point in the story. It almost makes me want to read the book to see the differences. The actors are very good, Mark Wahlberg delivering a good performance as the grieving father and Stanley Tucci shinning as always, this time in a very creepy way! And kudos to the lead actress playing the 14 year old girl... she was definitely convincing. 7/10, a good movie worth seeing, from a guy who did not read the book.
7/10
31.1.2010 -
rimbaud1972@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
Decent movie, lacked a lot of character growth but it was about the journey of a young girl to the afterlife and hurdles that existed I suppose. I didnt really like Mark's character to much, don't get me wrong he did a good job and is a wonderful actor but his character just didn't do it for me. Good movie, more of a rental though.
6/10
31.1.2010 -
cdn,dave@ - age: 26-35
I loved it! Amazing, I had chills down my back because through the movie, you don't know whats going to happen next!
10/10
31.1.2010 -
brianafurlong@ - age: 1-12
| 
