I haven't had a chance to see the movie yet but I have read the book twice and I think the majority of your complaints about the movie can be traced back to the original source (which is both good, since it means Jackson didn't stray overly far from the source material, and bad because it means he didn't try to improve upon it).

This is especially true for Susie's selfish visit to earth, which is easily the worst part of the book. I'm very sad to see that they did not cut that out because it is so epically lame.

I did quite like the ending though, assuming that it is the same. There is a nice, simple justice to it.

I'm curious about Wahlberg and Weisz too. One of my biggest problems is that they cast such major Hollywood actors to play normal, suburban parents whose lives are turned upside down. The thing I sort of liked about the book was how it shattered an average family and neighborhood, but it seems so unrealistic and "Oscar movie" to cast these two. They're great actors, but I wish they would've gone for someone else.

I hope people don't start slamming Peter Jackson too badly. I agree that it sounds like a lot of the issues come from the source material itself. And after this and King Kong (which I still think is an excellent, entertaining movie), I'm afraid people are going to give up on Jackson completely and condemn him as a one-hit wonder. Or rather, one-trilogy wonder.

Ugh. The ending. To this day, that's the only thing I remember about the book, mostly because it pissed me off so much. One added sentence is all it would've taken to give her parents some closure and peace, and she couldn't be bothered?

Not to be a lone voice of dissent re: the book, but I am apparently one of the few who did not hate Susie's 'visit' at the end. I can understand, however, why it might seem pointless in the movie, since from what I've heard the whole theme of sex, which is quite a large part of the book, is somewhat omitted in the film adaptation.

What I have also heard is that the story overall is somewhat simplified into a thriller/revenge type plot, which I guess would make Susie's part of the storyline seem superfluous. If that is the case, then the fault lies entirely in the adaptation, because the book is much more than that, in my opinion.

I have not, as yet, seen the movie. I did enjoy the book, though I share many of the sentiments here - Susie's visit to earth in the book was a bit problematic. However, I also think that the final fate of the killer was great. The idea that human "justice" is not the only kind of justice was well done. Lots of people don't get closure on their pain - indeed, most of us don't -so that was a perfectly fitting way to end the story. BTW, Stephanie Zacharek's review of the movie in Salon is very good. She makes the point that the title "The Lovely Bones" refers to how relationships and families survive and evolve in the wake of tragedy. The fact that Susie and her experiences in the in-between are basically irrelevant to the "murder plot" of the story makes sense.

Susie's in-between and the justice issues make a lot more sense when viewed in the context of the book's author's own experiences with violent crime. A read of her memoir will tell all you need to know about the reasons for Susie watching her family carry on (or not carry on very well) without her. I would recommend that book mroe than the Lovely Bones.

i did not see it yet
Fucker

Thanks for posting this. Would be intrested to read more or possibly please contact me by email thank you!

Jackson made it a drama/thriller/fantasy/crime/horror. Does that make sense?
http://dailyrunneronline.com/?p=900