Early reviews of Peter Jackson's latest film - his adaption of Alice Sebold's metaphysical story The Lovely Bones - have proved mixed, with one of the worst pans coming from show business newspaper Variety.
The Variety reviewer, Todd McCarthy, surprisingly claimed that Jackson has used special effects too much and
too often for a film which didn't need them, after it premiered in London this morning.
He called the presentation "show-offy" and said the film "rates as a significant artistic disappointment".
The review is a unfortunate in light of the fact that the film was originally supposed to be released in March 2008, but will now hit cinemas over the northern hemisphere's winter holidays - prompting speculation that film company Paramount has Oscar hopes for the drama.
By contrast, another well-known critic, Harry Knowles, said on his Ain't It Cool News (AICN) film industry website that it was "an incredibly lovely" film.
"From the visuals to the performances to the story-telling and film work... it all goes to capture a very powerful story in a way that makes you want to hug those close to you," he said.
The Lovely Bones tells the story of a raped and murdered 14-year-old girl named Susie, who watches from her heavenly vantage point while her family on earth mourns her loss and tries to find her killer.
In The Guardian, Xan Brooks said it is "not a bad movie, exactly".
"It is handsomely made and strongly acted, while its woozy, lullaby ambience recalls Jackson's work on the brilliant Heavenly Creatures, before he set forth on his epic voyage through The Lord of the Rings.".
The Times newspaper in London said Jackson's predilection for richly textured layers of fantasy "runs riot here".
"The approach is anything but understated," it said, "Small-scale no longer appears in Peter Jackson's filmmaking lexicon."
It looked like a teen magazine photo story styled by Salvador Dali and the twinkly butterflies-and-rainbows aesthetic invited unwelcome comparisons to Vincent Ward's 1998 mawkish afterlife weepie What Dreams May Come.
Rachel Weisz was effective as the mother hollowed out by her grief; but Susan Sarandon's boozy, chain-smoking grandmother felt too contrived.
The newspaper said that Saoirse Ronan, who plays Susie, captured the uncertainty and intensity of thwarted teenage passions perfectly but her admirable performance was swamped.
The Hollywood Reporter said Jackson had transformed Sebold's startling, unique novel about the aftermath of a terrible murder into a story "more focused on crime and punishment ... something akin to a supernatural suspense thriller".
The film played well enough as a melodrama-cum-revenge thriller in which, Jackson and his team told a fundamentally different story to that in the book.
"It's one that is not without its tension, humour and compelling details. But it's also a simpler, more button-pushing tale that misses the joy and heartbreak of the original."
Time magazine described it as a "creepy, dreamy film" which was engrossing, and often enthralling as it straddled multiple worlds on heaven and earth.
"Essentially this is a story of loving and mourning - about how, with Susie gone, her family carries a tumour in its collective heart."
Staley Tucci played the killer with a quiet malevolence, while Ronan seemed an ordinary child whom catastrophe had made sweet and wise.
"When else has the obscenity of child murder been the cause of such gravity and grace?" the magazine said.
- NZPA
Early reviews of Peter Jackson's latest film - his adaption of Alice Sebold's metaphysical story The Lovely Bones - have proved mixed, with one of the worst pans coming from show business newspaper Variety.
The Variety reviewer, Todd McCarthy, surprisingly claimed that Jackson has used special effects too much and
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.