Haven't read Alice Sebold's bestselling novel, but not sure if fantasy guru Peter Jackson was the right choice for such emotionally intense concepts such as rape, murder or mutilation of a teenage girl. The film contains multiple cross-cuts between different locations on earth (consider: did you know what was happening to your daughter while you calmly had dinner?), and between heaven and earth, during which Jackson proves his expertise in fantasy imagery. Terrible acting by Rachel Weisz leads to a very implausible mother character, but Stanley Tucci is superb as the maniacal killer.
Mo says:
Dissagree, Rachel Weisz was great with the little she had, unfortunately, an actor can't fight a director who cuts most of her performance. i fond her a much better parent than marky mark, who was miscast.
ReplyDeleteI had a problem understanding why the Weisz character left the home, why she stayed away, and why she came back? There may be some very good reasons in the novel (or even in the movie), but I had a hard time "believing" the character's motives. We never even see the slightest reaction from the kids towards their mother's absence (but I guess that's the director's or screenwriter's fault).
ReplyDeleteCompletely agree about Wahlberg. He doesn't look mature enough, to be acting so mature.
I enjoyed the film but as you would probably suspect the book is better. It would have to be a Jackson trilogy to do the book justice. I too agree about Wahlberg. As for the mother's motivations...read the book.
ReplyDeleteI can say at least I've never seen a movie as good as the book (or am I missing a great movie here?). Even the best Stephen King-inspired movies ("The Shining", "Misery") don't match the novels.
ReplyDeleteHope I get time for this book ...
I think the movie was too unreal - about killing - to be believed or enjoyed. At least this was the first feeling I had after watching. I didn't connect at all.
ReplyDeleteDear Mohsen, about movies' matching the novels, I hope you get time to see the series of "Pride & Prejudice" by BBC. It's the most matching version I've ever seen.
(PS: I know. Absolutely not in your favorite genre!)
Jane Austin! My absolute weak point!
ReplyDeleteTo be fair to this film the book is very unreal and fantastic in places. It's a pity that the girls rape was not really dealt with by the film.
ReplyDeleteSome things worked much better in the film, though I just cant remember what at the moment.
I was listening to an article on NPR, saying the rape scene in the movie does not at all satisfy the magnitude of the event as described in the book - as this was Sebold's whole purpose of writing the book (to portray her own rape).
ReplyDeleteIt was not really graphic in the book but the movie failed to even mention it, it was just implied by some heavy breathing from the murderer. Too subtle for some people I expect. I did not know Sebold had been raped. I read a few pages of another of her books and it started with a very graphic and disturbing rape.
ReplyDeleteIf I remember correctly, when she was raped, one of the cops told her: "You're lucky to be alive", which she considered a very ignorant and bitter statement. That prompted her to write the book "Lucky", based on her factual experiences. Later, she wrote "The Lovely Bones", which is a fictional and more philosophical rendering of the event.
ReplyDelete