aspect of day to day life or that aspect. If you want a realistic depiction of day to day life, observe the world around you, not a movie screen.The Lovely Bones is being unfairly hammered as maudlin drivel. Some of the concepts and visuals are on the representational side, but if you take this film as a strange amalgam of a murder/suspense thriller and a fantasy in the vein of a children's book, it all works perfectly. The emotional outpouring is portrayed very well by all the players involved. None of it seemed forced. I became emotionally invested early on and the overall impact of this work struck a chord in me that resonated deeply.More than anything else, this film is unique. Jackson takes many chances when one considers all the traditionally accepted conventions of film making, but unless you are one of those self-absorbed, self-important film student types who endlessly struggle with the "rules of making good films," you'll get something out of this.The use of CGI was adventurous to be sure, but if one views this piece as an interpretation of life, love, and death through a fantastical lens, then the effects remain harmonious to the telling of the story. More, the CGI in this case describes 'world's unseen,' metaphysical possibilities existing simultaneously without the bounds of physical space and time. A welcome departure from space ships and crumbling cities. Some of the nastiest complaints about the CGI are coming from people who probably have no problem with giant robots that transform into cars and trucks.Acceptance of a fictional story, the suspension of disbelief, these events occur in the relationship between a movie and its viewer… completely apart from all the rules of pacing, subtext, and all the rigid pigeonholes that don't really apply to the creative process anyway. I did not find the Lovely Bones to be maudlin, and I am a pretty jaded movie-viewer.

movie but an inspiring, uplifting movie despite the sadness. I'm not saying it was perfect but it certainly was NOT as horrible as people are saying. I enjoyed it. I was scared, I cried, I laughed and was entertained. Isn't that what a movie is all about?

of way. It's in my top five so far this year, and I'll be surprised if it gets snubbed by the Oscars with 10 noms for best picture on the way.

said: I do not believe that the movie is too CGI crowded since the scenes at hand are meant to be unearthly and even a little mystical at that! I am not a very emotional person, I haven't even been able to really feel sad when others around me were already sobbing. But going into this movie and just letting it do its magic, it actually touched me deeply and made me think about it! Sure - there are a few things that might have been done differently, probably even quite a bit better. But the all-in-all feel this movie leaves the viewer with is incredible. The bizarre but at the same time beautiful world of the in-between, the pain of the family members over the horrible loss and their unique ways of, not necessarily dealing, but rather living with it, even the sick mind behind the murder - it all works together in creating that viewing experience that is deeply touching through its countless layers.The acting of pretty much each individual actor is already quite impressive, but as the characters interact, one can actually feel the emotional bonds and understandings, as well as the tension or even hatred between them. All in all I can only urge anyone who loves movies that go beyond that typical mirror of merely entertaining and uninspired filmmaking to watch this gem. Certainly not everyone will enjoy or appreciate it as much as I did, but at least give it the chance it deserves without going into it, already looking for those 'evil CGI' parts and at the very least you will have your own opinion about it afterward and not the one of some guys that merely told you the same thing they only heard from someone else ; I hope you have a great viewing experience!

bears much resemblance to a made-for-TV melodrama.I gave it a 9/10 because it is not perfect. There are a few elements that could have been better developed, such as the relationship that grows between Susie's younger brother Buckley and their bereaved father. However, Jackson chose to focus almost completely on Susie's dilemma in the afterlife as she watches her family grieve and her killer become maddeningly arrogant in his ability to duck and cover.It is this reviewer's opinion that if you came to The Lovely Bones expecting a gruesome rape scene along the lines of A Time to Kill, you were disappointed. Jackson expressed dismay that his viewers would even WANT to witness a 14-year-old girl being raped and murdered, stating that he had no desire to portray such and never will. This movie will not appeal to males in general, particularly under the age of twenty-five, for what should be obvious reasons. It is about a young girl whose life was stolen from her. She therefore has a young girl's feelings, hopes, and fantasies. If you can't relate to those emotions, then you probably won't like this movie. If you can't be touched by the powerful imagery the CGI in the movie provides, you probably won't like this movie. There are straightforward, A to Z movies that tell their stories step-by-step from beginning to end plot-driven , and then there are movies that weave a tale around the emotions and struggles of their characters character-driven . This movie is one of the latter, and if you don't like that kind, then you probably won't enjoy it. Furthermore, a character-driven tale based on a novel in which every character receives as much screen time as it did page time ends up becoming epic in length. I marathon-read the book in one day. How long does a movie based on it need to be in order to accurately establish the core plot?In summary, if you can allow Jackson's special effects to blow you away, as was intended, and if you can approach it with an open heart, then you're in for a real treat in The Lovely Bones. It was elegantly done and very entertaining -- to the right person.

meets the eye candy.If you are a relaxed film watcher that likes everything handed to you on a plate underlined with heavy handed dialog and massive visual cues then you will only get half of this movie… and you still might enjoy it.If you are the type of movie watcher that doesn't mind working a little, reading a lot from inferences, pick up the tonal shifts and can see past the big CGI scenes and see them for what they are a device to show Susie as small vulnerable and in jeopardy even though she is dead then you are going to get a lot out of this movie… and really enjoy it.

performance. Rachel Weisz, Mark Wahlberg, Susan Sarandon & of course Stanley Tucci one of the finest supporting actors in modern times are all convincing here too. I believe that when the nay-sayers saw the level of CGI they lost interest & forgot what this film can really offer you at its core - tension, heartbreak, thrills & joy.If you really make the effort to delve into this film, you will come out with a tear in your eye. If not, then I pity you for not being able to look past the CGI blunders & see a really emotional film.

back home with a fictitious peace of mind. In "The Lovely Bones" we know who the monster is from the time the monstrosity is committed but we're only spectators unable to do anything about it and that frustration may have turn part of the audience and most of the critics away. True the CGI of the "in between" is, sometimes, too much but the film as a whole is a real experience. Saorise Ronan is marvelous, so are Rachel Weitz and Mark Whalberg. Stanley Tucci was deservedly nominated for an Oscar and Susan Sarandon, another risk taker, plays the emotional constipated grandmother with great courage. Look at the exhaustion on her face as she takes care of the family, drained without betraying the arid nature of the character. As the film ended I stayed in silence for the longest time, embedded in the sadness, clinging to the hope and mystified by the massacre the critics perpetrated in this original and highly recommendable film

subject matter, the murder of a young girl, it's a bit unfair to go to the movie and expect to see the book come to life on the screen.The problem in making the movie, as in any adaptation of magical realism concerning dark subjects, is how to capture the magic without having it jar too much with the realism. That was extremely difficult to do here considering how grim the subject is. So when Jackson uses special effects to invoke heaven, people tend to completely flip out, without really offering their own alternative about how that "should" have been done.All this adds up to a book that perhaps shouldn't have been adapted for the screen at all. That said, I think the movie is quite a fine one, especially because of the magnificent performances of the two leads, Ronan and Tucci. Thanks to the sweet-faced and deeply affecting Ronan, you'll never forget Susie Salmon. The music is also just fantastic, not surprising as Brian Eno did it -- it's very disappointing that the soundtrack is not available, as it's beautiful and haunting.I'd suggest seeing it and just let yourself decide if it's a worthwhile experience or not. I found it to be a very good try at adapting a book that by its nature is extremely hard to film. Actually the best way to go at it would be to watch the movie, then read the book, then try to figure out for yourself how you would have done it differently. I suspect that you'll gain a new appreciation for Jackson's movie if you do that.