Buy The Lovely Bones Movie. Watch online or Download
Genres: ThrillerFantasyDr
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Stink Fisher, Jake Abel, Rachel Weisz, Susan Sarandon, Stanley Tucci, Michael Imperioli
Director(s): Peter Jackson
Available Quality: Hi Def
Country: USA, UK, New Zealand
Year: 2009
Available Quality: DVD, iPod, Hi Def
IMDB Rating: 6.6 out of 10 (56730 votes)
The Lovely Bones centers on a young girl who has been murdered and watches over her family - and her killer - from heaven. She must weigh her desire for vengeance against her desire for her family to heal.
 |
The Lovely Bones (iPod) | Resolution: 480x208 px | Total Size: 458 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Lovely Bones (Hi Def) | Resolution: 852x368 px | Total Size: 1096 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Lovely Bones (DVD) | Resolution: 720x304 px | Total Size: 2245 Mb |
|
Movie Photos:
We have taken some photos of "The Lovely Bones". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitors Review
alongo2 (21 May 2012)
Bad ending
This would have at least gotten an 8 out of 10 from me, as I reallyliked this movie a lot, until the ending. Everything except the last 10minutes of the film was great, bringing every emotion from joy andsadness to suspense, but in my opinion, the ending let me down bigtime. I feel it just went off on a tanget after Susie's sister foundMr. Harvey's sketch book in his house. I was expecting Susie to befound in that safe, either by police or by some unexpected event at thesinkhole. It seemed that Susie's first kiss was more important thanresolving her murder. As for Mr. Harvey, karma is a bitch, but I feltvery unsatisfied by the ending.
spewey07 (21 May 2012)
Not wonderful, but enjoyable
I recently watched this movie on HBO on a gloomy, overcast day. Howappropriate, as The Lovely Bones is hardly a "feelgood" movie.Reading some of the other reviews, I have to agree with some of thecriticisms. The CGI "in-between-heaven-and-earth" stuff was beautiful,but a bit much at times. And there were definitely some plot holes thatseemed illogical. For example, why did that punk kid beat the crap outof Marky Mark? And in the scene where the killer dumps the safe, heneeds help to get the safe out of his truck and over to thesinkhole.......strange, since he somehow managed to get the safe fromhis basement into his truck all by himself. Also, as someone elsementioned, how did he manage to build (and then later get rid of) hisunderground lair without anyone noticing anything?Having said all that, I have to admit I did enjoy this movie, and I wasmoved by the plight of the murdered child and her family. And I'm gladwe weren't subjected to the actual murder - seeing the gory aftermathwas bad enough. Ideally, I would have also liked to have seen a tidierending. I do understand, however, why Peter Jackson ended it the way hedid. In most movies of this genre, we get a nice, pat ending where thekiller is caught, convicted and sentenced; and the murder victim gets aproper burial and the family gets closure. Jackson's ending is muchmore true to real life, where a "happy" ending (of sorts) is much moreelusive, and things don't always turn out the way they should. Yes, wedo get to see some measure of justice in The Lovely Bones - but thereis still so much more that is left unfinished......that will foreverremain unfinished.Overall, despite the flaws, this was two hours well spent. The actingwas great, the story was touching, and it left me with a heavy heartand tears in my eyes. Definitely worth a look-see.
Film-Slave (20 May 2012)
Mawkish and full of holes
An attractive cast quickly deteriorates in this heavily visual filmthat forgot its story.It's no secret that the protagonist is murdered, but the neighbor whocommits the crime (it is revealed at the top of the film, no secretthere, either) is a cartoon of creepiness. The only traits missing areflop sweat and incontinence. Tucci's character is no picture ofnormalcy.Wahlberg and Weisz are wasted in this film. The actresses who portraytheir daughters do better, but the film fails them. The beautifulboyfriend is so carefully framed, that this should have been aTWILIGHT-type flick so tweens could worship him. And the actress whosefolks oversee the sink-hole dump is too pretty to play asocially-disabled teen.Then the chorus of characters in the "between world" are Stephen Kingquality spooks, complete with wooden delivery and mysterious statementswhich when questioned are followed by "you'll see" answers.Questions about this film: (1) In a field adjacent to the school, whydidn't anyone see preparation or demolition of the secret place? (2)Why was Wahlberg miscast in this role of an emotional wreck who isshort-fused and obsessed? His celebrity has been built aroundcharacters who are cool, circumspect, smarter-than-average, and nowthey want us to believe he's slightly stupid? (3) When a safe is takento be dumped into the sink-hole dump, why does he park so far away, andwho built an antique floor safe that appears to weigh as much as afiling cabinet? (5) Why is Susan Sarandon in this film? It seems as ifher character came from another movie and offers NOTHING to thisscript. She's overdressed, but can't operate a washing machine? This isfailed farce at its worst. (6) Why isn't there ever resolution to thisfilm, which deals in obviousness? Why get obtuse now?I've read several reviews in which female viewers "cried" and gave highmarks. Is that all it takes emotional string-pulling? Film makers knowexactly how to lead up to an emotional crescendo, how many "beats" towait, and when to pull the trigger for tears.
(20 May 2012)
5 Stars for Present Day, 0 Stars for The Other Place,Minus One For The Rhoda Gets Zapped (Bad Seed) Ending = Two Stars
Liked the present day part, well at least the acting, esp. at the beginning (even though Jackson lingers way too longingly over the teenaged boy's curls and eyes, pretty predictable)> Hated, really hated, the Other Place scenes (spoilers ahead -- like we didn't see where the plot was going with Susie's mentor, Holly.....please -- spelled out like a billboard from the start.....). But the Tucci cornfield scene makes the entire thing worth watching. I remember loving the book, but his is a very, very mixed bag.
MLDinTN (16 May 2012)
too long, too many "artsey scenes"
This movie was not very good and should have been much shorter. All the"artsey scenes" where Susie is in the afterlife was just silly andadded nothing to the story. I didn't like it. Why not just have herobserving her family trying to find her killer instead of having herwonder through fields, lakes, snow,etc... Also, she is supposed to beobserving what her death is doing to her family. And why not have thegirl, Ruth, whom can feel and "see" Susie's ghostly presence dosomething in the film. It never even shows her talking to Susie'ssister or family telling them what she felt the night Susie wentmissing. And the discovery of the killer was rather uneventful. I meanher sister doesn't even run in the house yelling call the police. AndSusie's family never have closer because they don't find the body norno what happened to the killer. But "we " get to see the killer's fate.FINAL VERDICT: Not worth watching.
bradcla (15 May 2012)
Bad, bad, bad, worst movie I have seen in a long time
Four of us went to see it and all four of us could not stop laughingabout how bad it was. It took almost 75 minutes to introduce the factthe kid was dead, it should have taken 20 minutes maximum. When theentire audience laughed at what was suppose to be the "dramatic" climaxit made me feel better, I wasn't the only one that thought the moviewas pathetic. We are going to use it as punishment for our kids, ifthey are bad they will be forced to watch this movie.For some reason I have to enter 10 lines of review for this submissionto be accepted. There is only so much time I am willing to waste onthis on, how about this, it is not even worth downloading and watchingfor free.
(05 May 2012)
Don't Kill Off Your Heroine Then Let the Serial Killer Go Unpunished. It Will Only Alienate Your Audience.
A 14 year old teen is dismembered and dumped in a landfill. Her sick killer never gets caught. Audiences have a right to be disgusted that there is no justice. But, wait. The moral of The Lovely Bones is don't let anger destroy you. A beautiful but extremely difficult film to watch, one with a powerful message. Mark Wahlberg and Stanley Tucci are spectacular.
Nicole-Jane_x (04 May 2012)
really good film (spoilers kinda)
first of, i really don't understand the hate for this film. i alsohaven't read the book.i watched the film after hearing so much negative reviews on it, andinstantly i liked it.the cgi was good in my opinion, it reminded me of playfulness, like achild's mind would be if they created their world. some scenes werehard, and a little disturbing, such as obviously where he lures Susieinto the underground thing he built. the acting in this film wasbrilliant too, especially Mark, who played Susie's father. The actresswho played Susie was also really good, and as i haven't seen her inmuch else before this, i must say i thought she was outstanding. SusanSarandon plays her grandmother, and she is, in my opinion, the lightheart to the film, one scene in perticular :) but what really stood outto me was when Susie realises she is dead. he murderer is lying in abathtub, there is a razor on the floor, and blood in the sink and overthe toilet. this is creepy, a bit to creepy for a certificate 12.9/10 overall...i liked this film. i would recommend it to everyone, ifyou've read the book and loved it, i would say forget the book, takethe film for what it is, a beautiful piece of cinema.
Steven (04 May 2012)
Not at all what I expected
I did not know that this movie was based on a novel, so obviously Inever read the novel. The movie was not what I had expected at all. Iknew before hand that this was a movie about a girl who had beenmurdered, and her ghost.I assumed that this was going to be a story similar to "Ghost", staringDemi Moore and Patrick Swayze, in that I expected someone to bemurdered, and then the ghost of the murdered person to help those whosurvived them move on and ultimately extract vengeance on the murderer.The movie sets us these expectations from the beginning, where we areshown who the murderer is, and we see the murdered girl's ghostinteracting with the supposedly socially outcast girl. It is furtherreinforced by the father seeing her outside his window, and her brotherclaiming to have seen her and been kissed on the cheek.So we have this set-up where we are expecting some kind of supernaturalassistance with solving the murder crime.And it never happens.OK, maybe in the most obtuse way, the father is tipped off to themurderer in the scene where he is helping the murderer build his "duckblind". But in no way does this correspond to the murdered girl'ssister who ultimately finds the evidence of who committed the murder.So I guess I was disappointed because I was expecting a supernaturalghost story, when in fact it's just about a ghost watching the world ofthe living. I was expecting supernatural assistance in nailing themurderer, and it never comes.We have some satisfaction in seeing an icicle make the murderer fallover a cliff, but it is unclear whether this is a supernatural event ornot. It feels contrived.
ovo1129 (03 May 2012)
Disappointing...
I was not blown away, despite being a very big fan of Peter Jackson."The Lord of the Rings" films are my number one favorites of all time,and I absolutely love "Heavenly Creatures", and deeply enjoyed "KingKong", as well as "Braindead" and "Bad Taste". That being said, "TheLovely Bones" was a misstep on Jackson, Walsh, and Boyen's part. Thefilm comes off more like a trailer than a film; the story is nevergiven its own pace, and as a result we are constantly jumping from onescene to the next without an anchor. The narrative is the weakestelement of "The Lovely Bones." It's a wonderfully shot film, just not awonderfully structured one. While beautiful to watch, the journey frombeginning to end isn't very fruitful. The final 30-minutes werefantastic despite the rest of the film; I was holding my breath andmoved emotionally, which is the essential Peter Jackson experience. Ifeel if Jackson were to return to what inspired him to become afilmmaker, the end product could've been a much better film on par with"Heavenly Creatures." As for the rest of the film's pros and cons. Theperformances are well done. Ronan and Tucci are fantastic; however,Wahlberg seemed rather unconvincing, much like his performance in2008's "The Happening." I don't think he was miscast, rather, he justdidn't give it his all. The characters weren't given much to do, andthe voice-over during the epilogue kind-of points out howunderdeveloped the family really was. The CGI is a mixed bag as well.Some scenes are beautiful, while others were poor (borderline cheesy).I liked the music, as well. All in all, "The Lovely Bones" isn't aterrible film, just a disappointing one. Jackson has proved himself aquality director, and hopefully his next venture will be fantastic.
Pilatunes (01 May 2012)
Deplorable
'Deplorable' is the adjective Rober Ebert used for this movie and it'sthe right one.Suzie Salmon is lured into a trap, raped, murdered and dismembered. Wedon't see the raping and dismembering but you can figure it out.It's about as horrific a crime as one can imagine but this movie treatsit casually, almost a non-event, rather than with the solemnity atragedy like this deserves.There are numerous other flaws in the movie, but this was enough forme.'The film's primary effect was to make me squirmy.' said Roger Ebert inhis review. I'd substitute 'ill' for 'squirmy'.Don't see it.
DICK STEEL (30 April 2012)
A Nutshell Review: The Lovely Bones
I suppose Peter Jackson's probably experiencing what James Cameron hadplanned to avoid when he directed the biggest movie of the year backthen, and that's not to get crushed by the weight of expectations thatunfortunately come around naturally. We know how the Kiing Kong remakefared, and now The Lovely Bones which had been getting a whole lot ofmixed reactions, but one which I am firmly throwing my weight behind.It's not a bad film, and I sense that it could have been the subjectmatter dealing with death, reconciliation and moving on, that may notsit well with most audiences. There's no big bang special effects towow the crowd, and neither any heavy melodramatic piece with an openand shut investigations. While the trailer had given out the entireplot, there's still this sense of dread that's permeating throughoutthe film, making watching it somewhat of a chore not because we know ofthe storyline, but because we're powerless to help the characters getthrough their ordeal, or to see to it that justice gets served,properly, and not in the manner it was dished out in the film. Thereare no easy resolutions, and it is precisely that which will likely getyou riled up and think, what's Peter Jackson doing?But it is exactly this sense of dread that makes the film stand out,and each time providing that heightened sense of danger whenever GeorgeHarvey (Stanley Tucci) is on screen. Peter Jackson seemed to relishbuilding a number of such high tension scenes that plays on what wealready know, and feeds from our worst fears and dread to propel thenarrative forward, not necessitating to show us in full what theoutcome of his dastardly deed toward his victim Suzie Salmon (SaoirseRonan) since there's nothing more vivid than the individual power ofimagination. But that doesn't mean that Jackson doesn't take the timeto show the depth of evilness of such a character, providing a glimpseof that through a really creepy string of scenes that almost guaranteewill make the young ones cry (PG people), and your heart a littlepainful.The scenes that Jackson dwells on, are the reaction to the loss of avalued family member, a loved one. Time is spent amply to build up thepicture of a close knit and happy family whose perfect life as theyknow would be inexplicably shattered by the evil of man  as Suzie putsit, they were living at a time when such atrocities were unheard of,where innocence would be lost. The film highlights how individuals tryto move on, with some doing so more easily than others, and those whocling on to the sliver of hope that something will be done, or anoutcome will miraculously turn favourable. It's a good break for MarkWahlberg as it seems to shy away from an action role  instead ofkicking butt, he gets his butt kicked hard here  and he returns to adramatic role that calls for strength and persistence as the head ofthe Salmon household.Rachel Weisz too held her own as Suzie's mom, though I felt that herperformance was split into two, the earlier one pre-Suzie murder thebetter of the lot since narratively she disappears midway through themovie, leaving Rose McIver to pick up where she left off as Suzie'ssister Lindsey. To lighten the mood, Susan Sarandon enters at anappropriate time to pepper the film with some light hearted moments asthe all smoking and drinking Grandma Lynn, the balance of reactionsbetween both parents, and the surrogate guardian of the Salmonchildren.Saoirse Ronan was excellent in Atonement, and backs that fineperformance with another fine one as the protagonist narrating thestory from somewhere in limbo between Heaven and Earth. She's thespectre who can peek into the human world, and have to deal with boththe ghosts of her past and the evilness that continues to haunt her,and that light at the end of the tunnel she, and others, have to movetoward. Like all folklore dealing with spirits, they're never quitegone so long as there's unfinished business left on earth, and Ithought the finale of her story was well done, bringing resolution, andfor a happy moment, an opportunity to gain back what was unfairly takenaway from her, without her putting up a fighting chance.Ultimately, it's a sad film dealing with very real human emotions aboutloss and the different reactions to it. People move on, and we do sofor as long as our mortality dictates. In the meantime, only those whoare close to you, will remember you as you disappear in a flash likethe wind, memories like pictures keeping you quite alive to your lovedones while that in others start to wane. Recommended, and only if yougo in not expecting a special effects extravaganza (the CG picturesquescenes are mesmerizing by the way), or an uplifting dramatic tale.
(30 April 2012)
Not Bad!
I have never read this book before, so I don't know any differences between it and the movie, but as far as movies go, this is a pretty good work. It was a little dark in parts, but the acting and story were both pretty good. The visionary style used in parts of this movie was very breath taking and awesome too. If nothing else, this movie is definitely worth at least a watch. Check it out!
(29 April 2012)
Why is this movie getting such bad reviews?!
I'm a fan of the book this movie is based on, and although Peter Jackson took some liberties with the story, the result was an emotional and visually stunning film. "The Lovely Bones" tells the story of Suzie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan), a 14-year-old girl who is murdered by a neighborhood predator (Stanley Tucci). As the Salmon family copes with their tragedy, Susie's spirit hovers in the "in-between" that exists between heaven and Earth. Unable to let go of her previous life, Susie keeps a watchful eye on her family and her murderer, hoping that justice will ultimately be served and that she and her loved ones can finally move on.I appreciated that the film didn't show Susie's violent murder on screen, which would have been extremely disturbing. The film does a fantastic job of portraying Susie in her in-between world, which is beautiful to watch. I wish Susan Sarandon was given more screen time, because she is hilarious in her role as the drunk grandmother. Tucci gives a terrifying portrayal of a child killer, and Ronan's performance as Susie is very understated and sincere. Overall, I enjoyed the movie very much.
(25 April 2012)
I really enjoyed this movie, very moving...
I watched this movie today and I have to say, it still is affecting me. I guess as a mother, this movie might have more emotional impact on me as opposed to someone who isn't a parent. Also, I want to mention, I have not read the book (but now will). The main character, Susie Salmon was superbly acted by Saoirse Ronan. She really made me feel every emotion. I felt the effervescence of youth, remembering those feelings of being 14 and admiring a boy....I also felt the fear and gut-wrenching anguish Susie felt and the sadness...I really was so sad and could feel the pain. I thought the whole cast was stellar and perfectly cast. One message I think I got from this movie was how much you take for granted. Susie missed her first kiss....makes you wonder how something that seems trivial as an adult (now), how much would most of us would have regretted not having that experience in our youth? I would definitely watch this movie again, it was mesmerizing and I couldn't not watch it. I was hoping for a little bit of a different end though, but maybe what I was hoping for was too predictable....
(25 April 2012)
What every child should know.
This review is from: The Lovely Bones (DVD) This is a fantastic movie. I only wish the title was more understandable as to what the movie was going to be about. If I had youngish children I would watch this with them to help them understand that there are bad people out there and how to deal with them. Every parent should watch this movie. It is a must see.
locatekyle (24 April 2012)
My retort to all the bad reviews
After reading all the bad review's and not reading the book I went tosee this film with not much expectation other than it would most likelybe a visual feast and I was not let down. Wow it was glorious,stunning, beautiful etc. I didn't notice everything else that most ofthe people's bad reviews thought about it yes maybe a little sappy butit is a story about a young girl who gets killed before her time,before she has even had her first kiss, a fathers love for that child..yada yada THAT IS VERY SAD. I thought that the CGI sequences flowednicely from reality and back I wonder if some people have a chip onthere shoulder about Peter Jackson because of his success from littleold New Zealand when they just can't get a break even after years offilm school yall must be very annoyed. I guess that had I gone inexpecting one of the greatest films of all time I would have beendisappointed but I was not at all unhappy with the film it is anenjoyable piece of art if anything maybe to many big name actors that Icould not get past there previous roles (Stanley Tucci) possibly studioexecs putting there clammy hands in the mix to maximize the box office,shame on you studio shame on you.
shanebeacham (23 April 2012)
I Think Some People Need To Watch This As A Film And Not As An Adaptation
Thanks for checking out my review for The Lovely Bones starring SaoirseRonan, Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz and Stanley Tucci. Now the basicpremise follows Susie Salmon, like the fish, who is raped and murderedby her neighbor from across the street. Once dead she is caught in the"In Between" which is the middle between Earth and Heaven. There, shewatches over her family and see how they are dealing with thesituation, and she watches over her killer and seeing who his nextvictim may be.I was looking forward to seeing The Lovely Bones once the trailersstarted coming out. I have never read the book, and I believe that nomatter what how good the material is, a film should stand on its own.Once the reviews started coming out, I wasn't so sure about what wasgonna happen. But a lot of the reviews have been concerning theadaptation in comparison to the book. And because I didn't read thebook, I loved the movie.On the good side, the cast were easily the best part of this movie. Mytwo favorites in this movie were Stanley Tucci and Saoirse Ronan. Ronanis the soul of this film. She pushes it along and makes us care forher, cry for her, afraid for her. Stanley Tucci is incredible and isjust creepy in this film. He makes you scared of him and just hate him.Mark Wahlberg is great as well as Rachel Weisz, which leads into mynext praise for the film.A lot of the emotion comes from the scenes where the characters aregrieving the loss of Susie. When that happens, Mark Wahlberg is at hisbest, and Rachel Weisz is at her best.A lot of the reviews have pointed out how the film is more about thevisual effects than the story. I feel more that the visuals help tellthe story. The scenes in the In Between are the best parts visually. Itmakes you feel like you're in Susie's head.The film's message about moving on after a terrible loss is used sowell in the film. And this will affect some more than others dependingon if you've been in that situation.Having said all that, basically calling this movie a lovely film (nopun intended), it does have some things wrong with it. There were sometimes where the film felt a little bit too melodramatic. It was onlyabout 2 or 3 times, but they were definitely noticeable.Also, Susan Sarandon, while not bad, was the weakest role in the film.She's basically supposed to be a bit of comic relief in the film, andsometimes it worked because you think, "Oh, that's just how she wouldact in this situation, trying to bring the family back together." Andthen there are times where it just feels a little too silly. It didn'truin the film, but it kinda went a little overboard in some bits.The music they use doesn't work. Not the score per Se, but the scenewhere they use source music, and I get what they're doing: They'retrying to bring us back to the seventies. But there are times where itjust doesn't work at all. Like the scene in the beginning where Susieis rushing her brother to the hospital; it's supposed to be a seriousscene, but the music is played like it's meant to be "The Lovely Bones:Comedy Hour" and she's trying not to get hit while the music isplaying.Fortunately, the good outweighs the bad and in the end, I loved TheLovely Bones. It was a beautifully made film, directed well, and whilenot Peter Jackson's best film, it was still a wonderful movie. Ifyou're a fan of the book, maybe skip this one, but if you are like meand you didn't read it, get it on DVD.I give The Lovely Bones an 8.5/10.
(22 April 2012)
Great movie, but not without flaws
Upon hearing Peter Jackson had done this movie even though i knew very little about it i gave it a shot. I actually saw an advanced copy and was pretty impressed, the second time i watched it i can't say it got better but still stayed about the same, although the people i watched it with were not as equally impressed as myself. The Lovely Bones is a love or hate relationship, there is really no grey area to be found here, much like with Lord Of The Rings. You really have to have a creative, and spontaneous thought pattern, and also be creative when viewing a film like this. Its definitely a unique film that won't appeal to all audiences. Not to spoil the movie for people who haven't seen it, but the young girl Salmon(Suzie) is murdered by a local man in her neighborhood, and while being in between worlds, of heaven and earth, she tries to point the way to help her mourning family find her killer. So actually what i'll do is break it down in pros and cons to tell the good and bad points of the film.Pros1. Stellar effects as expected from Jackson for the in between world seens, just beautiful2. The storyline has been done before, mainly in a movie like Ghost but is a lot more in depth this time around.3. Good performances from Mark Walburg, Steven Tucci(up for an oscar), and an ok performance from Saoirse Ronan(suzie).4. The reactions of the family were very plausible, though a little underwhelming in some spots.5. Great music throughout, and great cinematography.6. Just a good overall feel that the movie was very well planned and thought out.7. Interesting but strange on where the title The Lovely Bones came from, a bit disturbing actually.Cons1. Some pretty disturbing moments and visual content, possibly an R rating? Especially when involving young girls.2. Susan Sarandon while good is totally misplaced in this film as the grandmother.3. That being said Susans Sarandons character seems very unmoved, numb, and even seems happy that Suzie is gone, she comes to take care of the other children and makes it the comic relief of the film.4. Not the ending you want in anyway, but effective, the killer doesnt seem to get what he deserves.5. The wife of the film is pretty lousy, and leaves the family to be on her own, why? To mourn? It doesnt really specify and she is never seen again after about half way through the film.6. Some of the dialogue in a bit off base with not knowing whether to be serious or funny, or how to take it.7. Mark Walberg is a total wimp in the film, but a good father.8. It is never really explained why the killer did what he did, to Suzie, or the other people you find out he has killed, a major stone left unturned. Pervert, serial killer, child molester? You never find out.So all in all i liked the film because of its unique and intriguing ghost type premise and the visual effects, Peter Jackson is still right up there with Lucas and Spielburg, but he needs to make his next 2 Hobbit films great so we can see his real talent at work. The Lovely Bones is a good film (to me) but not stellar, i give it four stars because even with all the cons it still had a pretty positive impact on me, its just better if you share the movie with someone else, but a bit boring by yourself. Btw your young kids really shouldnt see it, the moments that are a bit improper really would make children feel violated, and as i said i think they should have beefed it up to an R rating because of that fact.
Robin Richter (22 April 2012)
I was very disappointed in the movie; the author should have written the screenplay, too
I am generally very generous when I see a movie, even if it's not allthat great to others. This is the first one I've seen in many yearsthat I could rate as awful. Several of the actors didn't seem to beinto their roles, but the real shame is that the movie did not evencome close to being what the book was about. The special effects werenot necessary - they ruined a lot of the story because they just didn'tmake sense. The timeline was out of sequence. If you had not read thebook, you wouldn't understand what the movie was supposed to be about.The safe going into the big hole in the ground at the end, and themurderer having to bribe the guy to take it? That was their business.Why was "filling in the hole" even a part of this? What a cluster! Icannot recommend it to anyone. I do recommend the book whole-heartedly.
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20