Followers

Friday, January 8, 2010

My name is Salmon, like the fish.




In the adaptation of Alice Sebold's novel, The Lovely Bones, Susie Salmon is played by Irish actress Saoirse Ronan.

It is almost impossible to separate a review of the film from the novel. Inevitable comparisons are drawn. The film skims over the rape and murder of Susie (but I am not totally against this, who actually wants to see a 14 year old girl raped and murdered?). They skip a lot of the plot, which is understandable when you have to compress so much content into a film.

But the malignant tumour of the movie, George Harvey, is terribly miscast. Played by Stanley Tucci, he is creepy but not terrifying. Perhaps this is the point? Is the audience meant to sympathise with the pathetic creature that he is? I do not know. But he is unconvincing as a hateful, malicious psychopath.

Susie watches over her family from her place in the "in between". In true Peter Jackson style, CGI is exercised liberally. However, one of the most effective uses of this technology occurs in a scene shortly after Susie's murder. Her father, played movingly by Mark Whalberg, starts to smash his collection of model boats encased in glass bottles. He and his daughter had constructed them together. As he throws them against the ground, Susie sees them in her "in between", only in gigantic proportions. They are massive ships floating in even larger glass bottles, each one eventually crashing against the rocks of the beach. The shattering of the glass and the collapsing of the delicate, carefully built models shows the grief of Susie's father and cannot fail to move even the most cold hearted viewer.

The use of CGI is also awesome in the scene of Susie dancing with Holly dressed in Indian hippie costumes on a globe of green grass. It is an LSD trip to the max, but expresses joy and happiness, something that the film needs more of.

Another highlight is Susan Sarandon, who plays the drinking, smoking grandmother. She takes control when Susie disappears. She provides the only comic relief. In one scene, Susie's little brother is painting his grandma's toenails. He says to her, one day you will die too. She replies that 35 is far to young to die, whilst dragging on a cigarette.

Lindsay Salmon, played by Rose McIver, is convincing and realistic as the sister left behind. The scene in which she smashes George Harvey's basement window with her sneaker is perhaps the most compelling. Even though I knew she would escape, I covered my eyes and cringed.

"I waited for justice," Susie says in her afterlife, "Justice did not come." Taking the film aside from the novel, the evil rapist/murderer does get what he deserves. If that is what you define as justice. And the family do receive their closure in the finding of evidence which would be more than enough to convict George Harvey of Susie's murder.

Despite Ronan's more than competent performance, there are too many shots of her with the same facial expression... "Dad! Noooooo!" The film could have done with a bit more editing. But, in short, it is not a waste of money. Go see it, then whinge about how the novel is better. But appreciate the acting, which is pretty damn good with exception of Stanley Tucci.
"Bye Dad."
"Bye Susie."
Such a casual exchange. But it compels you to appreciate the moments you have with those annoying family members you encounter everyday.

3 comments:

bicep123 said...

I was more disappointed by Rachel Weisz's performance, than Stanley Tucci's. She was so much better in "The Constant Gardner." That being said, I felt as though she didn't have as much to work with in this film than the latter one. Mark Walberg has been trying to move out of roles that require him run around shirtless for years. I felt that he gave a competent performance, though I (IMO) also felt that there are any number of actors who could have done more with the material that he got. I haven't been impressed by anything Mark Walberg has done (yet) and if he spent the rest of his career making shirtless cameos in comedies (ala "Date Night"), that'd be alright with me.

Anyway, it's a Peter Jackson Movie Post LOTR, or PJM-PLOTR, which suffers from what I call Rowling Syndrome (named after the wrist breaking 734 pages of Harry Potter Goblet of Fire - a book that could have been trimmed 400 pages and still made sense). I thought both this movie and King Kong were both under edited. And it's not like PJ doesn't know how to make a movie, just look at "Heavenly Creatures."

btw, we could have watched "Alvin and the Chipmunks - the Squeakwell!" instead of this movie! boo! I don't know how to feel about that...

Milly said...

I barely recognised Rachel Weisz at all because of the dramatic amount of weight she has lost since her other films... also because her performance was not very remarkable.

Mark Whalberg's part was actually supposed to go to Ryan Gosling but he walked off the project. Gosling has been great in everything I have seen of his, especially "Lars and the Real Girl", but Whalberg still did a good job.

I will get "Heavenly Creatures" out and tell you what I think... watching "In The Name Of The Father" soon.

"Alvin and the Chipmunks" would no doubt make me have a seizure.

bicep123 said...

""Alvin and the Chipmunks" would no doubt make me have a seizure."

It's like I don't know you at all...

Ryan Gosling (if they made him out like his 'Lars and the Real Girl' character) would look too much like Stanley Tucci (I think). He's a great actor, though.