Them Bones

email this story
read comments (51)
post a comment

The full-length trailer of Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones (Paramount, 12.11) will be unveiled, I suspect, sometime Thursday night. Here's an Entertainment Tonight teaser, courtesy of Trailer Addict and In Contention. No matter how good, period-perfect, overbearing, great or commercially problematic the film turns out to be (and I'm mentioning the last possibility due to alleged concerns in this realm), it will certainly bear the Jackson stamp. And you know what that means.

It means that The Lovely Bones will try to dazzle, caress, smother, cajole and generally work you over like Lou Ferrigno until you drop to your knees in submission. Or until you rebel. Or -- this is what I'm hoping for -- audiences are won over by a poetically sad and elegant human drama that has the integrity not to try and sell its immaculate sensitivity.

It seems as if CHUD's Devin Faraci is ready to surrender, and that's fine. I'm a declared Jackson hater and that's fine too, but I'd love to get off that train and start hearing/playing another tune. I'd be delighted if the lighter-touch Jackson of Heavenly Creatures would make a return. I would love to move on and give up the hate. Which, I realize, is boring to read about.

"Jackson surprised everyone [at a small ComicCon presser] by showing a four minute sizzle reel for The Lovely Bones," Faraci writes. "What we saw was essentially an extended trailer, but it offered a serious look into the world Jackson had created -- not just the main reality of the book but also the afterlife which main character Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) visits after being brutally murdered.

"The footage was simply sumptious. Jackson's eye for period detail was right on (the story is set in 1973); he successfully evokes the era without ever rubbing your face in the 70s aspect of it. The real world was filled with rich, dark hues while the afterlife was brighter, often candy colored. We saw moments in the afterlife without context, and the scenes were fantastical, including a shot where huge ships sail into giant bottles. Susie walks across a lake to come to a lavishly lit floating gazebo. She stands in the middle of speeding traffic on a busy night road. A hippy girl dances gaily at the very curvature of the green Earth.

"The idea, which is in the book, is each person experiences [heaven] based on what their life experience is," Jackson said. "What Susie experiences in her afterlife is based on being a 14-year-old in 1973 and...the pop culture that she's grown up with and the life experiences she's had. For our research in the afterlife, we actually looked at episodes of The Partridge Family. Which is not where you normally go for the afterlife."

"While the afterlife material was visually intriguing, I was most interested in the real world scenes. This will be where the meat of the film happens. 14-year old Susie, is lured into an underground room by neighbor George Harvey (Stanley Tucci), who rapes, murders and dismembers her. Susie's family must deal with the loss of the daughter and the open-ended nature of the case, all while Susie watches - and tries to communicate -- from beyond.

"Tucci is almost unrecognizable. It took me a minute to figure out who the guy was under the make-up.

"'Stanley liked the idea of playing the part, but I think he was terribly worried about being spat on in malls because he's a very, very evil character,' Jackson said. Luckily for the actor his director envisioned a very different appearance for him. 'Stanley also liked the idea of looking the least like Stanley Tucci as he possibly could.'

"It was Tucci who really stood out; in just a couple of snippets he was utterly convincing playing a cold-hearted evil man, and also a guy who was hiding in plain site, just out of the reach of the law. There's a scene where Tucci sits on his couch being interviewed by a police detective that will, I think, be electric in the final film. What I saw was impressive, and if voters can get past the evil of the character, I think Tucci could be looking at an Oscar nomination.

"The big question mark for me remains Mark Wahlberg, who came in at the last minute (Ryan Gosling had originally held the role) and who seems to be wearing a cheesy wig. He plays Susie's dad, a role requiring lots of pain, grief and anger. We didn't see enough to really get an idea of how Wahlberg plays it, but Jackson did tell us what surprising film won the actor the role.

"We really liked his comedy that was in I Heart Huckabees, and one of the things with the character of Jack Salmon is he's an obsessive. I mean, he's kind of an obsessive in a gentle, comedic way, and he's an obsessive in his relationship with his daughter. And then when she dies and he's wracked with guilt, but he's also thinking, 'Who did this? Who did this?' And he becomes obsessed with finding the killer. So we wanted somebody, but we didn't again want to play that heavy and make it maudlin."

"The entire project is a tricky one; Jackson himself said that the book doesn't lend itself to a cinematic structure, and the tone of the story is tough to nail. One moment we're in a strange afterlife with Susie and the next we're with her grieving, destroyed family. And in the end the film is the story of the brutal slaying of a teenage girl, not the easiest subject. I don't think that the visuals of the film were ever in doubt, and if they were the four-minute extended trailer removed all of it. But how will the film itself play?"

"Prostitutes Of Our System"<< previous | next >>Same Stats

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 4, 2009 at 4:50 AM

comment #1

JD says ...

Wahlberg's performance is looking very Happening-esque. And you know what THAT means.

Posted by JD at August 4, 2009 5:58 AM

comment #2

raygo says ...

Stanley Tucci played some memorable villians on TV ... back to Wiseguy and Murder One. He can be quite sinister.

Posted by raygo at August 4, 2009 6:05 AM

comment #3

Admiral82 says ...

I didn't recognize Stanley Tucci either. "I didn't know William Hurt is in this." was my immediate reaction. Count me in on this one.

Posted by Admiral82 at August 4, 2009 6:05 AM

comment #4

paul_kolas says ...

I want this movie to be unforgettable. I want Jackson to knock me flat on my ass and silence the whispers of doubt buzzing in my head. But we see this kind of Oscar-thumping every year. Anyone remember 'Dreamgirls"? Why do I feel in my gut that "The Road" is going to turn out to be the movie 'The Lovely Bones" wish it was?

Posted by paul_kolas at August 4, 2009 6:15 AM

comment #5

Chase Kahn says ...

I don't know, looks iffy. Gosling leaving the project like a week before shooting worries me, and so does Whalberg and his wig replacing him.

I also worry that Jackson will, yes, work me over like Lou Ferrigno with buckets of schmaltz and mawkish sentimentality -- hope I'm wrong.

Posted by Chase Kahn at August 4, 2009 6:19 AM

comment #6

Rich S. says ...

"it will certainly bear the Jackson stamp. And you know what that means."

You'll give it a positive review upon walking out of the theater, then turn on it a month later?

Posted by Rich S. at August 4, 2009 6:29 AM

comment #7

The InSneider says ...

Raygo, right on re: Tucci in MURDER ONE. He's absolutely brilliant in that series.

Posted by The InSneider at August 4, 2009 6:29 AM

comment #8

Ray says ...

It looks like Jackson is ladling on the CGI sauce again. When is he going to realize that creamy, dreamy CGI images don't necessarily make an audience FEEL anything??

Posted by Ray at August 4, 2009 6:33 AM

comment #9

paul_kolas says ...

Maybe Jackson's "vision" will have Gandalf restore Susie to her family and banish Stanley Tucci forever to Mordor.

Posted by paul_kolas at August 4, 2009 6:58 AM

comment #10

Chase Kahn says ...

Ray -- I agree. Watching that 30-second clip, It was almost like watching a Tim Burton trailer in that it's exactly what you'd expect it to look like.

That shot of Susan Sarandon looks straight out of "Speed Racer".

Posted by Chase Kahn at August 4, 2009 6:58 AM

comment #11

corey3rd says ...

The wind killed her!!! Happening 2: Breaking Wind

Posted by corey3rd at August 4, 2009 6:59 AM

comment #12

erniesouchak says ...

Tucci is pretty creepy in "Julie & Julia," if you ask me. I don't EVER want to see that guy in a sex scene.

Posted by erniesouchak at August 4, 2009 7:06 AM

comment #13

Chase Kahn says ...

If they use that music in the actual trailer I'll go Stanley Tucci on a little girl -- so freakin' generic.

Posted by Chase Kahn at August 4, 2009 7:07 AM

comment #14

btwnproductions says ...

Alice Sebold's book is terrific, and a quick read once it gets its hooks into you. I'm firmly in the pro-Jackson camp but I never saw it as a film. If he got it right there won't be too much overt CG. (Gosling was too young for the role, but I'm uncertain about Wahlberg.)

Posted by btwnproductions at August 4, 2009 7:10 AM

comment #15

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

I remember thinking the book was sort of quiet and understated and sweet, at least until the silly climax. This looks full of bombast and epic CGI landscapes.

Posted by BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey at August 4, 2009 7:18 AM

comment #16

mitchtaylor says ...

"I'd be delighted if the lighter-touch Jackson of Heavenly Creatures would make a return."

That's pretty funny considering how intensely overbearing Heavenly Creatures is... of course in that movie it's quite appropriate due to the fact that the protagonists are teenage girls in the thrall of various manias... one of the reasons that movie is so great is that his style perfectly matches the intensity of feeling one has as an adolescent. I don't know much about this story, but from everything I've heard, it seems that he's surely going to destroy it with his overbearing, arch style. And I say this as a fan.

Posted by mitchtaylor at August 4, 2009 8:03 AM

comment #17

Steven Kar says ...

This movie will probably piss off the guys on this board, but I'm certain that chicks are gonna dig it.

Posted by Steven Kar at August 4, 2009 8:13 AM

comment #18

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

This movie will probably piss off the guys on this board, but I'm certain that chicks are gonna dig it.

I don't know. It's one of those books that everyone seems to have read, and if they significantly change it the female backlash could be significant. It's the same reason the hardcore girl Harry Potter fans don't like the films that much. The Time Traveller's Wife will also fall foul of the chick-lit brigade if it doesn't resemble the book.

Posted by BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey at August 4, 2009 8:21 AM

comment #19

Imogen says ...

Peter Jackson has a fistful of Oscars and the overwhelming respect of his peers, movie critics and the public. I don't think Jeff sniping at him in order to get hits on his site from the usual pseudo-intellectual muppets is going to worry him any.

Posted by Imogen at August 4, 2009 8:41 AM

comment #20

DavidF says ...

I can't believe people are making conclusions based NOT on the trailer, but on the sliced and diced ET trailer!

This is still the dude who made Heavenly Creatures - which shares some tonal and plot elements - so pardon my if I'm not comparing this to Dreamgirls or going on for the umpteenth time about the evils of CGI.

Someone who thinks the Lord of the Rings movies are nothing but CGI porn should watch some of the making-of material on the DVDs to understand how much in camera and miniature work there was, and to understand that Jackson knows damned well how to use all the different tools.

That doesn't mean this movie won't suck - but it sure means you don't know either way, yet.

Oh, and Gosling was way too young for the role. Doesn't mean Wahlberg will be great but we can hope...

Posted by DavidF at August 4, 2009 8:43 AM

comment #21

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Nice to see the Jackson hate is contagious.

Pffffffft, looks good to me, and like David said, it's a teaser for a teaser!

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at August 4, 2009 8:54 AM

comment #22

BurmaShave says ...

We've got trailers for trailers now. Let's think about that.

Posted by BurmaShave at August 4, 2009 8:56 AM

comment #23

paul_kolas says ...

Can prick tease trailers for porno films be far behind?

Posted by paul_kolas at August 4, 2009 9:00 AM

comment #24

JackMP says ...

Would be 150% more excited for this if Lynne Ramsey was still writer/director.

Posted by JackMP at August 4, 2009 9:05 AM

comment #25

arturobandini2 says ...

Aargh. If Jackson hadn't stolen this project from Lynne Ramsay, I seriously doubt there'd be overwrought footage like this on display. He certainly doesn't have my overwhelming respect.

Posted by arturobandini2 at August 4, 2009 9:13 AM

comment #26

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

Has there ever been a faster turnaround from a peddler of B-movies to universally acclaimed "visionary" than Peter Jackson?

Posted by BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey at August 4, 2009 9:21 AM

comment #27

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

That's because his B-movies were visionary...

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at August 4, 2009 9:24 AM

comment #28

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

They were quite fun, but not as good as Sam Raimi's Evil Dead.

Posted by BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey at August 4, 2009 9:33 AM

comment #29

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

That's a fair enough point. I do think Braindead is in the same ballpark, however.

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at August 4, 2009 9:37 AM

comment #30

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

I think Jackson is okay. The second LOTR film was good. First and third had okay bits in them. Heavenly Creatures and the gore movies were all quite good.

What was The Frighteners like? I never saw that one.

Posted by BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey at August 4, 2009 9:39 AM

comment #31

lipranzer says ...

As it is just the teaser, I won't comment (except to say I didn't recognize Stanley Tucci either), but it got me thinking about cinematic depictions of heaven. The only ones that come to mind that made an impression on me were Alan Rudolph's MADE IN HEAVEN (a glorious movie while in heaven; a muddle once it gets back to Earth), and Vincent Ward's WHAT DREAMS MAY COME (looks glorious, but done in such a kitschy manner it's hard to take seriously). I also saw A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH years ago, but on a horrible print, so I need to see the new version.

Posted by lipranzer at August 4, 2009 9:52 AM

comment #32

prairie_oysters says ...

It looks like a sack of shit. Which befits an adaptation of one of the most cloying, mawkish piece of shit books I've ever waded through.

Shit, on a shitty stick with a sloppy shit chaser.

Posted by prairie_oysters at August 4, 2009 10:01 AM

comment #33

lipranzer says ...

Oh, and by the way, I can understand people not liking Jackson, or the novel, but I'm a 41 year old straight male who likes Jackson and the novel (I also loved the most recent Harry Potter movie), and along with THE ROAD, this is the fall movie release I'm most looking forward to, so I don't want to hear any of this "only chicks will dig it" shit.

Posted by lipranzer at August 4, 2009 10:08 AM

comment #34

Chase Kahn says ...

I thought "Fellowship of the Ring" was the closest the series got to being restrained -- easily the best of the trilogy.

It is kind of odd to comment on a teaser for a teaser, but ET also did this with "Revolutionary Road" and it was pretty much the same gist as the full package.

Posted by Chase Kahn at August 4, 2009 10:12 AM

comment #35

Floyd Thursby says ...

Tucci looks sorta like Jason Schwartzman.

Anyone seen King Kong on Blu-ray? I

Posted by Floyd Thursby at August 4, 2009 10:15 AM

comment #36

Steven Kar says ...

"Has there ever been a faster turnaround from a peddler of B-movies to universally acclaimed "visionary" than Peter Jackson?"
------------

Yes. Zack Snyder.

Posted by Steven Kar at August 4, 2009 10:18 AM

comment #37

larry braverman says ...

Zack Snyder is a 'visionary' director because the trailer for Watchmen told us so.

Posted by larry braverman at August 4, 2009 10:24 AM

comment #38

Imogen says ...

I see that the kids are back from school in England.

Posted by Imogen at August 4, 2009 11:25 AM

comment #39

DavidF says ...

Blah blah blah, y'all.
Jackson made a couple of ingenious cult horror films and one genuinely unique arthouse film.

He parlayed that into one poorly-received Hollywood flick (which, to answer the above question, is not that bad. Has some wonderfully weird moments in it.)

Then, this fat New Zealander who doesn't even wear shoes, went toe to toe with the Weinsteins over their desire to turn an "unfilmable" collection of three canonical books into a single movie - or two, even.

With undaunted huberus he somehow convinced New Line to let him film 3, 3-hour movies with a ridiculous budget, using his own special effects house who, even at the time, had no idea how to pull of Gollum and some of the other stuff. He cast a bunch of barely-known actors and hauled them down to the ass end of the earth for like 4 years to film this shit.

Just imagine the pitch: "It'll have Rudy AND Sean fucking Bean! How can it lose?!"

Then he pleased the die hard nutty fans and AND people who didn't know an Orc from a hole in the wall. Each movie was nominated for Best Picture, each made more money than the one before it, and the final one deserved everything it got, no matter how many "extra endings" you think it had.

If that doesn't impress you - this guy not only thinking he could turn The Lord of the Rings into movies but actually succeeding in every possible respect - well, tough shit.

Why don't you go make your own "Clerks" and try to one up him?

I'm sure Jackson will cry in his cornflakes that YOU think he sucks; at least if he doesn't trip over his 15 Oscars and hundreds of millions on the way to the breakfast nook.

He earned "visionary" as a title, at a minimum.

Anyone criticizing a film for being overblown based on an Entertainment Tonight trailer mash has no business commenting on a serious film site. I'm gonna say....hmmm...I think you have to see at least 3 minutes of a film before saying it sucks. Is that fair or should we go as high as 5?

That's my humble opinion, dawg.

Posted by DavidF at August 4, 2009 11:29 AM

comment #40

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

I'll stand up for P-Jax anyday, but Zack Snyder being hailed a visionary is indeed some shit. How about directing some original material before gaining that moniker? I've actually liked his films so far (as far as they go), but one decent horror update and two graphic novel adaptations do not a visionary make.

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at August 4, 2009 11:30 AM

comment #41

Devin Faraci says ...

Jesus Jeff, did you just gank every single word from my story?

Posted by Devin Faraci at August 4, 2009 11:36 AM

comment #42

bents75 says ...

Wow, am I the only one who has never heard the word "gank" before?

I didn't even know what it meant - I just had to look it up. I assumed it was a typo.

Curiously, it's also slang for "fake crack cocaine".

Wells did credit you towards the top, Faraci, did he not? And almost the whole story is in quotes, so he's not really stealing from you, is he?

You must be smoking too much of that gank.

Posted by bents75 at August 4, 2009 12:18 PM

comment #43

mpneeb says ...

So if people who are curious to see AVATAR are referred to as "Avatards," can we refer to people who want to see 'THE LOVELY BONES' as "Boneheads"?

Posted by mpneeb at August 4, 2009 2:04 PM

comment #44

Imogen says ...

No; you may refer to them as the "Lovelies." "Boneheads" is reserved for people who judge a picture on a snippet of a trailer.

Posted by Imogen at August 4, 2009 2:13 PM

comment #45

MovieBob says ...

Citizen
"I'll stand up for P-Jax anyday, but Zack Snyder being hailed a visionary is indeed some shit. How about directing some original material before gaining that moniker?"

The people calling Snyder "visionary" don't know or care what the word actually means, and are just using it in place of "scary-talented." In which case, I'd say he deserves it.

There are maybe a handful of genuinely "impossible" tasks in modern film. One is decently remaking "Dawn of The Dead," the other is making a functioning (to say nothing of excellent) narrative feature out of an Alan Moore book that ISN'T "V for Vendetta." Snyder did both, that's worth a lot of respect.

Posted by MovieBob at August 4, 2009 4:40 PM

comment #46

chris7crows says ...

"Has there ever been a faster turnaround from a peddler of B-movies to universally acclaimed "visionary" than Peter Jackson?"

Quentin Tarantino?

"There are maybe a handful of genuinely 'impossible' tasks in modern film... the other is making a functioning (to say nothing of excellent) narrative feature out of an Alan Moore book that ISN'T 'V for Vendetta.'"

Functioning, yes, but it doesn't really adapt the story so much as Zack Snyder's idea of what the story should have been (which apparently involved people punching through concrete walls).

Posted by chris7crows at August 4, 2009 6:22 PM

comment #47

frankbooth says ...

"That's pretty funny considering how intensely overbearing Heavenly Creatures is... of course in that movie it's quite appropriate due to the fact that the protagonists are teenage girls in the thrall of various manias... one of the reasons that movie is so great is that his style perfectly matches the intensity of feeling one has as an adolescent. "

That's dead-on, Mitch. I watched it again recently to see how it held up post-Rings, and to see if Jackson's bigger/louder style was in evidence. It was -- the film is full of crane shots, effects, giant close-ups, an overbearing score. But it did, as you say, fit the material, so it worked.

But this...I watched the full trailer posted above, and it looks like CGI overload and endless push-ins. Everything Jackson falls back on in his weakest moments.

And am I the only one who confuses this novel with The End of Alice?

Posted by frankbooth at August 4, 2009 7:45 PM

comment #48

Yuval says ...

I really hate the Lord of The Rings trilogy, I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. I've never really given much thought to the fact that Peter Jackson cast Sean Astin (that was in a movie called "Rudy"), and that Astin isn't a big star, or any type of star at all, just a relatively known actor. Not only that, but each movie of the trilogy grossed more than the previous one. And the last one won the most oscars (I have heard about that once, but haven't given it much thought). And to top it all Jackson has the respect of his peers, movie critics and the public.
After contemplating all this new information I think The Lord of The Rings trilogy is terrible and one of the worst viewing experiences I've ever had. And because of that I will face any Jackson film with a sense of dread. I would like to discuss why I hate the movies so much. Wells using images of torture and rebellion are very apt. While sitting in the theater (wanting nothing more than to enjoy myself, believe me) I could feel myself trying to be pushed (hard) to FEEL by countless long "climaxes" lasting long stretches of time leading up to nothing but more and more LONG "climaxes" of nothing. The repetitive climaxes are all variations on the same basic story of good vs. evil. So even looking back I find it hard to believe the movies are 9 hours long.
Since my hatred for the movies have no relation to the number of oscars they've won (or how Jackson dealt with New Line, forgot about that one), I really don't see how what I wrote should anger anyone here. Right?

Posted by Yuval at August 4, 2009 7:47 PM

comment #49

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

MovieBob --

Yeah, I've definitely liked what I've seen from the guy so far. There's not a DVD of his movie I don't own -- that's a pretty high compliment. I agree that he's had some pretty tough (I don't know about "impossible") tasks, and the resulting films have come off pretty well, if not quite as inspired as the source material of each (granted, that probably would be "impossible").

The word "visionary" just kind of makes me twitch if it's unearned. And it takes a lot to earn that label, in my eyes.

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at August 5, 2009 5:47 AM

comment #50