The Lovely Bones Not As Lovely As I'd Hoped

Just because you have Peter Jackson directing, doesn't mean the film is going to live up to the expectations. Lesson learned.

Don't get me wrong, The Lovely Bones looked lovely and told an interesting and understandable story, but if you've read the book recently it was quite disappointing.

The story, a 14 year-old girl gets raped and murdered in 1970s Pennsylvania and watches over her family as they grieve, stars Atonement's Academy Award nominee Saoirse Ronan as the ill-fated Susie Salmon. The ensemble cast includes big names like Mark Walhberg as Susie's father, Rachel Weisz as her mother, Susan Sarandon providing comedic relief as Grandma Lynn, and a never better Stanley Tucci as the child murdering neighbor. Throw Michael Imperioli in as the detective investigating the disappearance for good measure. All in all, the cast was probably one of the best parts of the film. Interesting fun fact, Jackson cast Ronan with the hopes of having an unknown as the lead, but Ronan's Oscar-nominated turn in Atonement came out first.

If you haven't read the book, the film is satisfying in its portrayal of a nature-filled heaven and the story behind it. Susie is observant, quizzical, curious, and loving. And Jackson did make an effort to include scenes directly from the book in the opening sequences that would have been lost in the script otherwise. We see Susie save her brother's life by driving illegally to get him to a hospital after he swallowed a twig. We see her pursuing her dream of being a wildlife photographer by following around one of her school mates and taking her picture. This is good story-telling, no doubt.

My major beef with the film is the amount of important events in the book that were left out. *SPOILER ALERT* In the book, Susie is raped. There is no mention of that here at all. In the book they find her elbow buried in the ground. In the film, the only thing they find is her hat. In the book her father has a heart attack, resulting in Susie's mother returning to the family she felt forced to abandon. The film uses an attack in the cornfield as the instigator for her return and in addition makes no mention of the extramarital affair between Susie's mother and the detective investigating her murder. Susie's sister Lindsey chooses to give herself to her boyfriend at 14, the same age as Susie's death, in the book. There is barely even a mention of him in the film. And finally, the book spans more than a decade. The film makes little mention of how much time has passed, other than at one point saying Susie's been missing for 11 months. It just seems like a lot to omit from such a compelling story.

Coming out of the film I was very frustrated because of these discrepancies and missing plot points. But regardless of book vs. film, the movie is visually stimulating, emotionally gripping, and definitely gives you a lot to think about. We'll see if Oscar thinks about it come February when the nominations are announced. Considering Stanley Tucci just got a Golden Globe nod, my money's on him to represent the film in March as well.