The Lovely Bones is a decent film with a reasonably well developed plot and a good cast. The highlight of the film, for me, is without a doubt Stanley Tucci, who is immensely transformed and powerfully disturbing as George Harvey, his performance was absolutely riveting, it is just a shame it could not have been for a film that deserved him. The movie tries too hard, it is throwing messages, metaphors and imagery at us left, right and center that it forgets that characters and realism captures an audience far more that impressive visual effects. There is so much going on at once that a lot of it becomes muffled. Several members of the cast misses the mark, speaking of, Mark Wahlberg is unconvincing in this film, it is not a part that was right for him, I never truly believed he missed his daughter and wanted redemption for her. Susan Sarandon plays Susan Sarandon so much that it took me out of the movie completely, she didn't fit the film's aesthetic and her character was brought in to the plot in such a forced manner that I could not help but feel a little cringe. Forgettable. While it had good intentions, The Lovely Bones pales in many areas and is certainly Peter Jackson's weakest movie, give this one a miss. A recently deceased young girl watches over her family as they grieve. Best Performance: Stanley Tucci / Worst Performance: Susan Sarandon

She dies. Happy ending tho. Very good up until the point where Mr Harvey tragically gets caught by the sister. The sister then becomes a snake and then tells on him to the police. Sister is a snitch and snitches get stitches. Mr Harvey's a quality bloke who undeservedly is painted as the villain and dies of ice in head and falling off a mountain. Absolute legend. Top notch film. Where's the sequel at?

Worse than a waste of time. The main character (the dead girl) does something stupid no one with an IQ over 70 would do in real life, resulting in her murder. Most of the movie is Disney-esque sequences of an afterlife, with no plot. The actual plot takes place on earth, but it consists of almost nothing. We see a family grieve, fall apart, come back together, and the murder is solved...except it isn't. The murderer gets away, and we're supposed to believe justice was served when, as an old man, he dies in an accident. Meanwhile, if you have a brain, you realize he had continued his serial rape/murders until his untimely death. In other words, it's a movie about spending his entire life getting away with rape and murder of girls and women. Hello? .

Grief is a solemn subject for a film, one which requires a delicate touch. A film which hopes to portray grief in a meaningful way should ideally contain good dialogue, meaningful silence, and subtle, well-observed performances. As an example of such a film, I heartily recommend John Cameron Mitchell's "Rabbit Hole." It's quietly engaging, it takes its time, and it's truly and deeply moving.One movie I would not recommend is Peter Jackson's "The Lovely Bones."Jackson is not one for subtlety, or silence, or observation. Each of his films has been a monument to bombast. Jackson loves epic action sequences. He loves audacious CGI landscapes, and wildly soaring musical cues. He loves showmanship and melodrama.I've enjoyed more than one of Jackson's films. His talents have their place. Here, they are egregiously misapplied.Where to start? The problems with "Lovely Bones" are innumerable, starting with the basic premise and spiraling out in every direction.Saoirse Ronan gives perhaps the film's only good performance as Susie Salmon, a teenage girl who is stalked, raped, and murdered by a man who lives in her neighborhood. From a kind of limbo, her spirit looks down on the world and observes her family as they learn to deal with their grief and try to figure out who killed her.The film begins a few days before Susie's murder. From the afterlife, Susie narrates to us the events up to and through the moment of her demise. After her death, we watch as she runs, confused, away from the place of her murder and into a digital special-effects extravaganza known as "the in-between," a kind of limbo where lost souls can look down on their families and get used to the idea that they're actually dead, before moving on to Heaven.From the outset, this film is pitched specifically toward a Christian audience. The words "God" and "Heaven" are pointedly used. And yet, the film doesn't really seem to be interested in engaging with the subject of faith, not beyond the notion that Heaven is beautiful in a sanitized Disney sort of way, and that maybe we eventually all become one, or something like that.An actual grief-stricken parent might have a crisis of faith. That might make for the stuff of a powerful film. The characters in "The Lovely Bones" aren't deep enough for that kind of mourning, and this film isn't interested in that kind of honesty. And so, outside of the film's dumb assumption that God and Heaven do exist, nothing is said about Christianity or the nature of faith whatsoever.Susie's father, Jack, is saddled with a lot of corny dialogue, and is given entire scenes which are utterly thankless. In one, which is inappropriately played as broad comedy, he breathlessly accuses every man he knows of murdering his daughter, as the detective in charge of his case rolls his eyes. The film is certainly going for laughs here -- but why? What an odd and ugly choice.Jack is played by Mark Wahlberg in a performance that comes across as so dopey, so cheerfully clueless, and so oddly flat at times, that it's hard to take any of his scenes seriously.Grandma Lynn, Jack's mother-in-law, swoops-in after Susie's death to help the Salmon family deal with their grief. As written, and as played by Susan Sarandon, Grandma Lynn is a broad comic archetype. Among the squeaky-clean Salmon household, she wears fur coats, chain-smokes, and drinks brandy during the day. She's obviously intended to represent a kind of "sieze the day" philosophy, but as the film presents her, she's merely ridiculous. The film doesn't allow the Salmon family to solve the mystery of Susie's death through natural means. Instead, Ghost Girl communicates with her father, imparting into him a "bad feeling" about the neighbor down the street. Then, Jack develops some photos Susie took just before her death, and -- shock of all shocks! -- the photos, which were taken by Susie as she passed a neighbor's yard, show THE NEIGHBOR in them!! And so, of COURSE Jack realizes that man is the killer.What kind of logic is this? What is the film trying to say? That we should trust our gut-instincts? But what about that earlier scene, where Jack was accusing every man he knew? That was gut-instinct, too! What makes this time any different from that? The film declines to answer such questions. I'm not sure it even realizes it's raising them.Susie's afterlife resembles a TV pharmaceutical commercial -- the kind where people stand in radiantly-green CGI fields, breathing in all the goodness that Advair has brought into their lives. Worse, as Susie meets other girls there, they hang-out in sequences which Jackson seems to have imagined as "the best slumber-party ever!" The girls have their pictures taken in an imaginary New York and see themselves appear on the covers of celebrity-gossip magazines. They go sledding down an impossibly-perfect mountainside in what looks like the set of an Old Navy ad. The overall effect is cheap and gaudy, overtly commercial, as far as one is likely to ever get from depicting a meaningful or poetic afterlife.Even the good aspects of this film are miscalibrated; for instance, Jackson brings a lively visual approach. The colors pop, the camera swoops and swoons around. But this kind of visual zest runs counter to the film's somber subject-matter. The same could be said about the overcooked musical-cues."The Lovely Bones" is one of the worst big-name films I've seen in a long time. It is poorly-conceived on every level. It aims to say something meaningful about grief. What it delivers instead is a pretty lie, a well of platitudes, a "Chicken Soup for the Grieving Soul."