The Lovely Bones

OPENING: 01/15/2010

STUDIO: DreamWorks

RUN TIME: 135 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
The story of a life and everything that came after…

Opening Statement
Once just a little-known cult film director, Peter Jackson catapulted himself into position as one of the most-lauded modern filmmakers with his masterful Lord of the Rings trilogy and epic remake of King Kong, capturing the attention of critics and audiences alike. So it’s no surprise his adaptation of Alice Sebold’s much-loved novel The Lovely Bones was hotly anticipated. How does Jackson fare stepping into less bombastic cinematic territory? Not very well, I’m afraid.

Facts of the Case
Set in the early 1970s, the story centers on 14-year-old girl Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan, Atonement), an ordinary girl living an ordinary life. Susie enjoys taking photographs with the camera she received as a birthday gift from her parents, has a desperate crush on a boy named Ray (Reece Ritchie, 10,000 BC), and generally loves life. Alas, Susie’s time on this earth is cut tragically short when she is brutally raped and murdered by George Harvey (Stanley Tucci, Blind Date (2007)), a quiet neighbor who lives down the street. George did a good job of covering up any evidence of the crime, leaving the Salmon family suffering from both the loss of their daughter and an inability to reach some sort of closure. This is only the beginning of their story.

The film follows Susie into the afterlife; not heaven, but what is referred to as the "In-Between," where she must confront a variety of personal issues before moving on. Meanwhile, Susie’s father Jack (Mark Wahlberg, The Happening) obsessively attempts to solve his daughter’s disappearance, while her mother (Rachel Weisz, The Constant Gardener) moves away to deal with the grief. Even with Susie making several mysterious attempts to reach out to her family from beyond, will the Salmons (living or deceased) ever truly find peace?

The Evidence
Here’s the thing: when you’re making a movie that involves the rape and murder of a teenage girl, you have automatically indebted your film to its audience. Such a horrible occurrence plays sharply on the emotions of every viewer, and it’s up to the filmmakers to demonstrate the film is both worthy and mature enough to deal with the subject matter responsibly and appropriately. If they succeed, they present a strong and powerful story. If not, they run the risk of delivering a genuinely repulsive experience. Peter Jackson’s The Lovely Bones falls into the latter, offering up a bewildering concoction of elements that are by turns exasperating and infuriating.

The Lovely Bones is essentially a fusion of standard-issue murder mystery and super-cheesy paranormal melodrama. Let’s tackle the murder mystery first. It’s remarkable just how mundane and unconvincing the scenes in which Jack attempts to discover what happened to his daughter are. I think a small portion of the blame lies on the performance of Mark Wahlberg, who never quite manages to sell his portrayal of the grieving father. Another portion rests on the screenplay, which makes every member of the Salmon family (aside from Susie) terribly one-dimensional. Wahlberg doesn’t seem to have been given any direction other than, "Look disturbed and somewhat frantic," in every scene, and there’s only so much he can do with that. Speaking of direction, the largest portion of blame lies with director Peter Jackson, whose helming of the mystery sequences falls surprisingly flat. An average episode of Law & Order generates more suspense. Stanley Tucci’s genuinely creepy performance goes a little way towards creating some measure of tension, but that’s a small consolation.

Saoirse (Ser-sha) Ronan spends most of her performance gawking in wonder at Jackson’s RoseArt screensaver fantasy world, which is a much less involving version of heaven offered up in Vincent Ward’s What Dreams May Come. The scenes certainly look expensive, but there’s an odd poverty of imagination behind their construction. Moments that should have taken our breath away instead seem all too ordinary. This is only made worse by Susie’s strange journey. Unsure of where she’s going until she gets there, the ultimate destination is so cornball the audience gets the sinking feeling we just wasted more than 10 bucks and two hours of our time. That is when you realize just how nauseating this movie truly is: cornball happy endings maybe okay in my book, but not when you’re using the rape and murder of a child as a springboard to get there.

The film is rated PG-13 and thus can only go so far in its portrayal of the violent event that triggers the story. In fact, the film goes out of its way to be as vague and non-specific as possible, turning the rape and murder into a mystically unhappy dream sequence. It’s tastefully done, but so purposeless and vague it robs the moment of its required intensity. I’m not saying more should have been shown, but rather the imagery displayed should have packed a stronger punch.

Frankly, The Lovely Bones had started to grate on me well before that scene arrived, thanks to the poorly-written and incredibly obnoxious narration Ronan provides. Early in the film, there’s a sequence where Susie is sitting in the mall, informing us that she is being spied on by her murderer. The camera cuts to images of an ominous-looking man who keeps looking at Susie. I forget his name at the moment, so let’s call him Mr. Smith. Susie says, "By the way, it’s not Mr. Smith who was watching me. Mr. Smith never hurt anyone in his entire life. His daughter died of leukemia a year and a half after I did." What condescending crap! So you set up a suspicious red herring just so you can tell the audience their suspicions are wrong? Then, adding insult to injury, you try to make us feel guilty about suspecting him because his daughter is dying of leukemia? The guy’s not even a character in the film. We never see or hear from him again. So why is that fact relevant? Rarely have I felt such an urge to show a movie screen one of my fingers.

I also have an issue with Susan Sarandon’s character, who does not belong in this film. Look, Sarandon is an excellent actress and does a good job with the role. However, the last thing The Lovely Bones needs is a wacky, chain-smoking, alcoholic grandma to provide us with a few chuckles. Hey everybody, forget about that whole rape thing for a few minutes. Look at Grandma being all crazy! I could continue to list my complaints, from Brian Eno’s anachronistic score to the manner in which the film completely wastes the talented Rachel Weisz, but there’s no point in beating a dead horse.

Closing Statement
I wouldn’t say The Lovely Bones offended me, but it certainly pissed me off. Not just because the movie is bad, but because the talent involved is capable of so much better. This should have been one of the year’s strongest films. Instead, it’s one of the worst.

The Verdict
3/10

District 9

OPENING: 08/14/2009

STUDIO: TriStar Pictures

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

SOUNDTRACK: Not yet available

The Charge
You are not welcome here.

Opening Statement
District 9 is being hailed as a visionary achievement in modern science fiction, and it’s certainly easy to see why. It is more than encouraging to see an original idea appearing in the midst of a summer full of remakes, sequels, and adaptations. The film achieves a great deal and is a genuinely memorable experience, though it falls just short of being a modern classic.

Facts of the Case
The film takes place in the present day. Apparently, some 20 years ago, an alien ship appeared above the surface of the Earth. News reporters note with some surprise that the ship did not appear over a major American city, but rather over Johannesburg, South Africa. Over the course of those two decades, the strange-looking aliens (referred to as "prawn" due to their crustacean-like appearances) are removed from their ships, placed into a massive camp known as "District 9," and generally oppressed by the bureaucratic forces of a company called Multi-National United (or MNU). MNU has been contracted by various governments for the purpose of making sure the aliens are well-contained and not permitted to dramatically disrupt the lives of humans. After a while, humanity determines the aliens are too close to civilization and decide they need to be moved to an even more restrictive camp in a far more rural area.

The man placed in charge of this process is Wikus (Sharlto Copley), a bumbling pencil-pusher who got the job due to the fact that he is married to a well-connected woman. The process of serving eviction notices to the aliens proves to be an incredibly difficult one, and during the process several of Wikus’ men are injured or killed (the aliens suffer even greater losses at the hands of vengeful soldiers). Wikus himself is exposed to a strange fluid which causes an… well, let’s call it an odd reaction. Suddenly the game has changed for the sniveling company man, and the only being who can help him is a thoughtful and kind-hearted prawn named Christopher Johnson.

The Evidence
Over the course of cinema’s history, we’ve seen plenty of films speculating on what it would be like if human beings encountered living beings from another planet. Some have predicted violent battles, others have predicted thoughtful exchanges, but few have been as mercilessly cynical as District 9. You have probably heard the film makes an attempt to draw a parallel between the fictional situation that occurs in this film and the real-life horrors of apartheid, but this is no mournful meditation. District 9 is arguably the most intense action film of the year, perhaps rivaled only by The Hurt Locker.

The film is frenzied and chaotic from start to finish, mercilessly throwing the viewer into a hellish nightmare and assaulting their senses with a potent combination of tenacious outrage and stomach-churning violence. There is no time to sit down and carefully examine the situation, the film won’t let us off the hook that long. Anytime you start to relax, another body (either alien or human) explodes and blood and guts are splattered all over the camera. We feel as if we are witnessing a form of Hell on Earth, a feeling enforced by the fact that there is not a single sympathetic human character in sight. Our protagonist is a decent guy, by comparison to his peers, a monster by most other standards. Watch as he gleefully rips apart machinery keeping baby aliens alive, cackling as they die one by one. He sets a building on fire and grins, as he listens to each little prawn explode due to the heat. All that’s missing is a fiddle.

District 9 certainly assumes the worst about humanity, perhaps rightfully so. It suggests we are a fearful, violent people who would do anything to ensure we remain the dominant force on the planet by any means necessary. Perhaps it is too cynical. I expect there would be a reasonable percentage of people protesting the oppressive treatment of the aliens, but never mind that. The best I can say about the film is that for the first 80 minutes, I was entirely convinced of the scenario being posed. This is a vision of the world so confident and well-constructed that we simply don’t have a good reason to doubt it.

Alas, things change in the final act. I say "change" rather than "fall apart," because from a certain perspective the last act is rather good. It is the most intense sequence in terms of action, providing a genuinely impressive spectacle that should rivet most viewers. However, it also disappointed me, because it wanders too far into territory that feels more like an action blockbuster than like a potential real-life scenario. There is a certain point at which the film starts to feel less like an in-depth documentary (complete with interviews, shaky-cam footage, etc.) and more like a mash-up of The Terminator, Iron Man, and Alien, in terms of impressiveness and evident artifice. It’s at this point I felt slightly distanced from the film, in spite of its superb craftsmanship.

I suppose the film is less disappointing, if approached as an action film that just so happens to contain some social commentary, but the earlier portions are perhaps too good for their own good. They had me convinced District 9 was far more than a shoot-em-up. Sometimes it is, but in the end it’s still a shoot-em-up. I was also somewhat amused by the role the mysterious fluid plays, as it conveniently manages to be several different things in order to drive to plot from point A to point F in quick fashion. Finally, the acting is merely adequate (it’s clear certain cast members are amateurs), though I found most of it convincing enough to make me believe the characters are real people. The most intriguing character is one of the aliens, who has oddly been named Christopher Johnson. His soulful eyes manage to convey quite a bit.

Closing Statement
Despite my problems with District 9, odds are that when the dust settles and 2009 has concluded, I will remember this film considerably more than most. It brings a lot of good ideas to the table and makes most of them work through sheer force of will. Relative newcomer Neill Blomkamp certainly makes a big impression with his relentless direction, and it’s safe to say we can expect more films of interest from him in the future. In the meantime, District 9 is well worth a look. Be warned, it isn’t for the faint of heart. This film kicks your teeth out, shoves its message down your throat, and forces you to watch as the world succumbs to madness. Cue that fiddle music.

The Verdict
8/10