Hold Up on Bones Rebound

email this story
read comments (38)
post a comment

"I wept at the idea of a world that can hold so much beauty and so much horror at the same time. This is a significant, powerful film, one that I will revisit soon and often."

I don't trust Hitfix's Drew McWeeny take on The Lovely Bones because of the residual DNA of anyone who was heavily invested in Ain't It Cool culture (as he was for many years) and the almost contractual requirement that you had to be in the tank (along with Harry) for anything directed or even produced by Peter Jackson.

McWeeny is, of course, his own man and a good guy and a very fine writer and all, but a strong instinct is telling me to regard his positive Bones review with great wariness.

Especially since McWeeny decides to use the word "significant" at the end of the review without saying how significant -- i.e., very, somewhat, extremely or whatever. Calling a film "significant" is the same as calling it "interesting." It means nothing. Well, actually it does mean something. It means that a critic is trying to be gracious without being too generous or specific.

Nor am I persuaded by David Poland's serpentine, mixed-positive, perceptive-sounding response. Partly because he spends 15 or 20 seconds zapping other critics for exhibiting "a failure of imagination" before winding and weaving through his here-and-there reactions.

I detect the old Poland generosity here -- he loves to be the kindly generous one, the guy who gets what a major director has tried to do when others haven't, and especially the one critic who feels the emotional current in a film when other critics have rejected it because...you know, critics don't like emotion.

"I'm not sure where it ranks in the worldview of movies, honestly because I've only seen it the one time...it does demand multiple viewings," he says. (That's a warning siren right there.) "It's complex, it is more than one thing at once...each time you get settled into it being one thing it becomes another thing...it is unsettling, but the story is unsettling."

And then comes the obiter dicta that gives the game away: "I'm not sure if it's one of the best movies of the year," he says, "or a middle movie." Trust me on this when I say that Poland-the-benevolent allowing that The Lovely Bones may be "a middle movie" can certainly be interpreted as a somewhat guarded appraisal.

Sensing that he's putting out ambivalent signals, Poland then rebounds by calling The Lovely Bones "a very good movie...a fascinating piece of work...something we've never seen before, we've never had ths experieince...the storytelling is rock-solid...it makes you feel, which is maybe not so great for critics but I think for audiences it's a pretty terrific thing."

Get how the system works? If you're in touch with your emotions and not afraid to feel things, you may be strong and mature and big-of-heart enough to appreciate The Lovely Bones.

"I've Already Forgotten"<< previous | next >>Bye-Bye, Greengrass?

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 30, 2009 at 12:17 PM

comment #1

Rich S. says ...

I love all this breathless speculation based on reading the tea leaves from second-hand information.

Just a tip: If you're going to keep indulging in this sort of thing, you'll get more hits if you try to divine what was really going on when Tiger Woods wrecked his car.

Posted by Rich S. at November 30, 2009 1:10 PM

comment #2

Muscle McGurk says ...

Wow, a couple people liked a shitty movie? That's never happened before!

Posted by Muscle McGurk at November 30, 2009 1:12 PM

comment #3

Scott Nye says ...

I dunno, I was always taught that adverbs are for the weak. At the very least, "significant" is a much stronger statement than, say, "interesting." It's a little unspecific, but it usually refers to something the writer feels is groundbreaking, important (technologically, artistically, thematically, whatever), or otherwise more noteworthy than the majority of (in this case, mainstream) fare.

And, to be fair, McWeeny does qualify his review by stating the effect parenthood has had on his evaluation of art.

You really should just come out and say you're skeptical of the film because you don't like Peter Jackson's work. There's nothing wrong with thinking someone is a bad director, even if the majority disagree (I'm sort of on the fence about his stuff myself); it's a much better position than trying to make excuses for other people's reactions.

Posted by Scott Nye at November 30, 2009 1:15 PM

comment #4

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Have you even seen this yet? There's nothing odder than your (seemingly fairly recent) obsession with quoting, refuting, supporting, etc. criticisms of movies that have currently gone unseen by you. Not the emotionally vivid cowboy hat, yellow sneakers, mezzo-mezzo, Hispanic Party Elephants, nadda.

A suggestion: couldn't you just perhaps get back to focusing on your own opinions on movies? I only speak for myself, but that's one of the major reasons why I (have continued to) come here. I have a ton of movie sites (like hitfix) bookmarked, I can always find this other information (like Drew's review) on my daily surfaround.

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at November 30, 2009 1:16 PM

comment #5

Gordon27 says ...

"but a strong instinct is telling me to regard his positive Bones review with great wariness."

That's literally all you had to say. Everybody already knows how you feel about this movie. Trying to explain logically why you're ignoring the positive reviews won't work, because you're not using logic, you're using "I don't like Peter Jackson" to justify it all.

Posted by Gordon27 at November 30, 2009 1:17 PM

comment #6

Gordon27 says ...

"I dunno, I was always taught that adverbs are for the weak."

Significant and interesting are adjectives.

Posted by Gordon27 at November 30, 2009 1:18 PM

comment #7

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to Gordon27: I wrote this because Sasha Stone (and presumably others) have interpreted McWeeny and Poland's positive Bones reviews as indications of a possible bounce-back for the fortunes of Peter Jackson's film. People don't read reviews -- they read the headline summaries or the capsule versions or whatever. I just read these reviews closely and I saw qualification and hedging and a certain "yes but possibly a little bit no" going on in their sentences and between the lines. That's all it was -- just a little "look closer at the words and the author before you call these reviews raves" thing. So no, you're wrong -- saying that "a strong instinct is telling me to regard McWeeny's positive Bones review with great wariness" is not all I wrote or said.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at November 30, 2009 1:32 PM

comment #8

LexG says ...

Is it really so bad to be "in the tank" for a certain filmmaker, one who has built up a certain amount of goodwill over the years? I'm not the most rabid PJ fan of all time either, but there are several beloved directors whose new films will always have a running start with me, and I'd imagine even the most measured and dispassionate of critics would feel the same way.

I'd say most critics go into any new Coen Brothers movie with the review half-written in their heads beforehand, the star rating already jotted down at a 3.5 but the .5 in pencil so they can scratch out that half star and add a fourth if need be. I'm sure Ebert goes into a new David Gordon Green or Spike Lee movie confident it won't be anything less than "great," same as Jeff has a natural inclination towards Mann, Bigelow, Fincher, etc.

And I don't see anything wrong with that. Granted, I'm kind of an idiot, but I've long had a theory that based on director, crew and participants, I can 90% of the time pinpoint my reaction to just about any movie ahead of time. Hell, sometimes seeing the movie is almost a formality or afterthought. It's very, very rare for a director with a certain track record to ENTIRELY catch you off guard and change your preconceived notions and prejudices you felt going in.

Posted by LexG at November 30, 2009 1:48 PM

comment #9

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to CitizenKaned: The first screening I have from Paramount's New York office is on Wednesday night.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at November 30, 2009 1:48 PM

comment #10

Eloi Manning says ...

" I've long had a theory that based on director, crew and participants, I can 90% of the time pinpoint my reaction to just about any movie ahead of time."

I agree with this. It's rare that I am hugely disappointed with a film that I pay to see at the cinema because I've usually decided in advance whether I'm going to like it or not. This is not a bad thing; it helps save money by filtering out the stuff that you're never going to enjoy. I'll obviously go and see stuff from first-time directors with no-name actors too, but usually that'll have come recommended by a critic that I trust.

The only occasions in the last year or so that I've been let down by my own pre-screening expectations were Where The Wild Things Are and Synecdoche, New York; both of which I was sure I would love based on the talent involved, but ended up hating.

It's good though, because it means I generally like 85% of the movies I see or more.

Posted by Eloi Manning at November 30, 2009 1:57 PM

comment #11

gazer says ...

Some focus is put Mr Poland and others having an "investment" in Peter Jackson as the main reason for a positive inkling in their review of The Lovely Bones, which is not be outruled. However, taking Poland's statement at face value, why is an ambiguous experience of the film in itself to be interpreted badly? The very nature of being mainly against seeing ambiguity as a quality could indeed speak of an emotional reading not welcomed or even recognized. Critics seemingly love knowing in detail what makes a film good, and how it is good, because it makes for more concise writing aimed at making their readers more confident about what is written; this is how I feel reviews as a genre can end up limiting their subject by investing too much self-interest in the "clarity" of the review. This is very much about the goods and the bads of it covering perhaps over a restless reaction, hereby labeling it more easily, versus the reception an eventual expression of an emotional impact, as I see it.

Posted by gazer at November 30, 2009 4:01 PM

comment #12

extraneous says ...

I've seen Lovely Bones and was really moved by it. But my guess is that everyone will have a very different and probably very personal reaction to it, partly because it mixes dreamy CGI and hardcore domestic drama and partly because it dramatizes the Afterlife--and how can you NOT have a personal reaction to that? All of this is my way of saying: ignore what other people are writing about it, because this is one you gotta decide for yourself. Sounds like half these critics dont even know what THEY think yet.

Posted by extraneous at November 30, 2009 5:30 PM

comment #13

maxwelltrip says ...

Saw "The Lovely Bones" as well and i did not like it. Good actors like Rachel Weisz, Mark Wahlberg and Susan Sarandon get sideline while Peter Jackson plays around with his huge FX budget and forgets that the movie only needed a good script, which this film really does not have. The book had so many great plot lines that the movie cuts in order for Jackson to show off and that's the biggest crime of all because he leaves his actors to fiend for themselves with one dimensional characters that are shadows of what they were in the book.

Its a soulless technicolor mess from start to finish

Posted by maxwelltrip at November 30, 2009 5:58 PM

comment #14

DeeZee says ...

New Bones clip.
http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2009/IJKLM/Lovely-Bones,The/trailer.php

Posted by DeeZee at November 30, 2009 6:15 PM

comment #15

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Apart from Heavenly Creatures, Peter Jackson has built up years of good will? King Kong was a good-will fortifier?

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at November 30, 2009 6:16 PM

comment #16

CameronIsHMFIC says ...

Jeff is fighting another uphill battle againt Jackson and, please, Jeff, don`t take this as a slam. I admire that you stick to your guns no matter what. But the fact is that with LOTR, Jackson earned a lifetime credit with quite a number of people, such as Harry, Drew, David, Empire and Total Film magazines,etc and they`ll always provide enough positive reviews for his movies to overcome rotten rating (and I don`tI think Bones is bad movie, haven`t seen it but since I didn`t like the book, I defintiely like the changes I hear about).

Another thing is that Jackson is a very nice guy and those ladies from his posse that sometimes dress like they`re auditioning for Rocky Horror Picture show are very nice people too. In short, it doesn`t feel right to some people to root against nice guys especially when they are so approachable, down to Earth and guys like Harry consider them his friends. You may argue that their unkempt, red carpet-unfriendly "don`t care for superficialities like who`s wearing what" image may be a marketing calculation that appeals to geeks. Or that directing LOTR while wearing no shoes like a Hobbit was another image-building stunt, but brilliant sense of personal marketing or real deal, people dig the shit out of Jackson and his team and are willing to support his less stellar entries (King Kong)with stellar reviews. Again, i`m talking about bloggers and critics who, as you put it, are in the same tank. And I can understand why all that would rub you the wrong way. I know quite a few nice people that I want to strangle. :)

Posted by CameronIsHMFIC at November 30, 2009 6:32 PM

comment #17

Drew McW says ...

No offense, Jeff, but you're full of shit. You keep talking about all the movies I'm "in the tank" for, and I find it offensive. I said exactly what I meant in my review, and wasn't soft-selling any hidden disappointment. I think the movie is remarkable.

And before you start accusing me, maybe we should go back and compare our "King Kong" reviews. Mine was FAR less positive than yours and guess what? I didn't recant mine and then start trying to tear the director down. I don't run endless vendettas against filmmakers, using other people's reviews to bolster my own insecurity about my opinion, either.

You hate Peter Jackson. It's okay. Just say it. And then leave me out of today's quota of crazy, okay?

Posted by Drew McW at November 30, 2009 9:18 PM

comment #18

Gordon27 says ...

"I wrote this because Sasha Stone (and presumably others) have interpreted McWeeny and Poland's positive Bones reviews as indications of a possible bounce-back for the fortunes of Peter Jackson's film."

That's ridiculous; you're talking strictly about the critical response, not the "fortunes" of the film. The future of this film is set in stone; it will make money, because it's Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg and not prohibitively expensive, and it will almost certainly be nominated for Best Picture, for the same reason. The only question is how many critics enjoy it. Now, you can dismiss all the ones who do as being "in the tank", but that's beside the point -- being "in the tank" means that you are inclined to like a filmmaker because their sensibilities as a filmmaker match up to your sensibilities as a film watcher. That's all it means. You're making it sound like they only enjoy the movies because they drank the Kool-Aid, and that's the opposite; they willfully drink the Kool-Aid because they already like the filmmaker's previous movies (just like you convinced yourself 'Public Enemies' was great largely based on the final two minutes of the movie).

"I just read these reviews closely and I saw qualification and hedging and a certain "yes but possibly a little bit no" going on in their sentences and between the lines."

Yes, but this is all based on what you call instinct -- others would probably label it more accurately as "bias". As I said earlier this week, you're so desperate to tear down this movie that you looked for subtext in a Harry Knowles review. Subtext. Insanity.

"So no, you're wrong -- saying that "a strong instinct is telling me to regard McWeeny's positive Bones review with great wariness" is not all I wrote or said."

Well, I'm sorry to make you so overly defensive, but re-explaining the point didn't make it any deeper. It's still warped by your "instinct".

Posted by Gordon27 at November 30, 2009 11:52 PM

comment #19

Eloi Manning says ...

Wells: "McWeeny is, of course, his own man and a good guy and a very fine writer and all"

McWee: "No offense, Jeff, but you're full of shit."

Classy response, McWee.

Posted by Eloi Manning at December 1, 2009 6:48 AM

comment #20

Drew McW says ...

Oh, heavens forbid I'm anything less than flattered by Jeff's backhanded compliment.

Either I am my own man, with my own opinion, or I'm not. Jeff's one statement aside, this entire piece is his way of saying that I am unable to have a valid opinion of this filmmaker's work. Considering how nakedly Jeff wears his own biases and his oft-repeated fetishes about films, it is doubly offensive when he attempts to invalidate someone else's opinion, and he's spent a good deal of time this year telling me how I'm "in the tank" for this filmmaker or that, unable to process what I watch.

If you think Jeff's the classy one here, you're really not paying attention.

Posted by Drew McW at December 1, 2009 12:59 PM

comment #21

Anthony Thorne says ...

Oh fuck off Drew and stop your continual, put upon whining, for Christ's sake. 'No offense' intended... You're the same writer who weeks ago was bitching about DVD companies not sending you free screeners, and prissily hinted that there might be a reduction in the amount of 'coverage' that you may put forth as a result, yet the majority of times I've clicked on one of your 'DVD round-up' columns to read your thoughts on a certain title, it's been a tossed-off, no-effort, in-a-hurry variation on 'this should be interesting and I look forward to watching it'. Eloi Manning spoke volumes with his comment right above yours, and I think your usual tone and behaviour speaks for itself. God forbid that Jeff's gut feeling about your critical acumen isn't one of 100% confidence, I mean where could that idea have possibly come from..?

Posted by Anthony Thorne at December 1, 2009 5:06 PM

comment #22

Drew McW says ...

No one's whining, Anthony. Jeff chose to take his shots at me and I responded. Jeff seems to have moved on without any intention of commenting further, though, so I guess it's all just white noise at this point. Including your little foot-stomping tantrum. C'est la vie.

Posted by Drew McW at December 1, 2009 7:03 PM

comment #23

Anthony Thorne says ...

Jeff: " a strong instinct is telling me to regard his positive Bones review with great wariness."

DrewMcW: "this entire piece is his way of saying that I am unable to have a valid opinion of this filmmaker's work... Jeff chose to take his shots at me and I responded"

McWeeny's radar for a perceived slight is highly attuned. Thank Christ he's slithered away from this thread, else I would presume from his high-handed prod-and-finger to the assembled posters here that he's a self-serving cunt.

Posted by Anthony Thorne at December 3, 2009 6:03 PM

comment #24

bushworlda says ...

people are crazy about Mbt shoes, Mbt Sport and Mbt walking shoes are hot now
http://www.discountmbt.com/

Posted by bushworlda at January 4, 2010 12:12 AM

comment #25

bushworlda says ...

Mbt shoe include Mbt m walk and Mbt lami shoes,all of them are designer shoes

Posted by bushworlda at January 8, 2010 10:14 PM

comment #26

leelemon90 says ...

ghd hair straighteners and CHI Flat iron are delivered around the world, try to place an order of ghd straightners.

Posted by leelemon90 at January 17, 2010 5:22 PM

comment #27

leelemon90 says ...

Mbt are on promotion now,Mbt m walk orange, Mbt lami birch and Mbt chapa gtx are on sale.

Posted by leelemon90 at January 17, 2010 5:46 PM

comment #28

bushworlda says ...

Shoes Mbt have a positive ect on the entire body. Mbt Chapa, Mbt Sport are at just $87.

Posted by bushworlda at January 18, 2010 5:51 PM

comment #29

bushworlda says ...

Discount ghd straighteners and CHI Flat irons here,try to place an order of ghd hair straighteners.

Posted by bushworlda at January 21, 2010 6:06 PM

comment #30

bushworlda says ...

A really good pair of True Religion Jeans to walk around town in a very casual and comfortable way.For the seasons, Seven jeans are slim fitting, darker, and with bold pocket statements.Place the order for the Seven for mankind with free shipping here.Promotion now.

Posted by bushworlda at February 21, 2010 11:17 PM

comment #31

bushworlda says ...

ghd straighteners enjoy good reputation, pink ghd is a hot style of ghd hair straighteners.

Posted by bushworlda at March 5, 2010 5:38 PM

comment #32

sarkmbt says ...

the popular serial is MBT, you will enjoy over 50% discount if you buy a piece of ghd darkMBT outlet.The MBT Changa Women lace-up features rich nubuck leather and single-layer mesh uppers for breathable

wear.The MBT Chapa lace-up features rich nubuck leather and single-layer mesh uppers for breathable wear.
The versatility of the MBT M.Walk is another benefit.

Posted by sarkmbt at March 9, 2010 10:56 PM

comment #33

mark says ...

Latest Technology News Technology News Technology technologies in technology for technology information technology technological technology is engineering and technology and technology institute of technology the technology of technology business technology teaching learning polytechnic engineering teach effective instruction techniques education student institute future using college research news 2010 news Top Technology News Medical News Purchase Structured Settlements Mesothelioma Lawyers San Diego Secured Loan Calculator Structured Settlement Investments Endowment Selling Mesothelioma Patients The Technology News Technology News Technology technologies in technology for technology information technology technological technology is engineering and technology and technology institute of technology the technology of technology business technology teaching learning polytechnic engineering teach effective instruction techniques education student institute future using college research news 2010 news The Technology News The Technology Technology News Medical News Health News Medical Health Technology News Technology top-news Economic News

نوكيا الشرق الاوسط

منتديات نوكيا الشرق الاوسط

دردشة

شات

دليل المواقع

دليل مواقع

العاب فلاشيه

العاب

Posted by mark at March 22, 2010 10:32 AM

comment #34

coachbags says ...

Coach Crossbody bags is a good choice for people. coach bags are of high quality. you will have a brand new experience when using coach handbags.
http://www.bagworlds.com/

Posted by coachbags at April 5, 2010 5:06 PM

comment #35

coachbags says ...

Oakley Sunglasses from Oakley factory direct,Discount Oakley Sunglasses are with free shipping.

Posted by coachbags at April 5, 2010 5:08 PM

comment #36

wotanuo says ...

come to buy MBT now hot sale.Mbt shoes are physiological footwear. change your life from MBT,MBT Shoes UK get free shipping

Posted by wotanuo at April 26, 2010 1:26 AM

comment #37

beijing20082009 says ...

丰胸||丰胸||丰胸|
|丰胸||丰胸|
|丰胸||
丰胸||丰胸||丰胸

||丰胸||丰胸||丰胸

||丰胸||丰胸||丰胸||
丰胸

Posted by beijing20082009 at May 19, 2010 11:19 PM

comment #38

womens shoe says ...

Thanks to share your article.I hope everyone can like our new style shoes and t shirts online.
tn requin
tn chaussure
puma future cat
nike tn
discount mbt chaussure

mbt chaussure
nike air max tn
nike shox r4
nike shox nz
puma speed cat

nike shox r4
nike nz shox
puma future cat
cheap nike blazer
cheap mbt shoes

cheap mbt footwear
mbt walking shoes
mbt shoes clearance
discount mbt reviews

lyle and scott polo
cheap lyle and scott
lyle and scott jacket
lyle and scott wholesale
lyle and scott outlet

cheap ed hardy
wholesale ed hardy clothing
discount ed hardy shirts
ed hardy hoodies

Posted by womens shoe at June 23, 2010 6:26 PM