I saw this tonight in spite of the negative reviews that have been pouring out on various forums.
Scratching my head to try and understand the vituperation against this movie, which seems to be for two main reasons:
1) Peter Jackson chose not to include the rape scene on screen.
2) Apparently there was too much CGI used to convey Susie's spiritual experience of the 'in between'.
Before I go further I'll make it quite clear that I feel this is neither a perfect film nor Jackson's best work. It's obvious Mark Wahlberg's part has been edited down and I can't help wishing Gosling had been able to stay on in the role of the father. He would have brought an emotional depth to the role which Wahlberg lacks. However, in the scenes that were included I didn't have a major issue with Wahlberg's performance. The rest of the cast were very good, except for the girl who played Holly who was not a particularly good actor.
People claim that Jackson has dishonored Sebold's novel by choosing not to show Susie's violation and death explicitly on screen. I think the opposite. Jackson has understood that whatever he tried to film would be inadequate to convey the horror of such an intensely personal violation. Those who have read Sebold's novel will no doubt remember that while she makes it clear what has happened--most of it is expressed by suggestion and metaphor rather than blow by blow descriptions. Jackson, in my view, rightly felt not only that we do not need to see blow by blow details but was perhaps concerned that from a victim's point of view it might actually be disrespectful to try and do so? I'm not trying to speak for anyone, just batting around ideas.
As for too much CGI; for me this was not an issue at all. Jackson has a terrific visual imagination and this greatly enhanced and helped to convey Susie's struggle to come to terms with what had happened.
Perhaps Jackson's purposes in making this film simply did not match the majority of viewers' expectations. However, even when his movies don't totally work, for me they are never boring.
Scratching my head to try and understand the vituperation against this movie, which seems to be for two main reasons:
1) Peter Jackson chose not to include the rape scene on screen.
2) Apparently there was too much CGI used to convey Susie's spiritual experience of the 'in between'.
Before I go further I'll make it quite clear that I feel this is neither a perfect film nor Jackson's best work. It's obvious Mark Wahlberg's part has been edited down and I can't help wishing Gosling had been able to stay on in the role of the father. He would have brought an emotional depth to the role which Wahlberg lacks. However, in the scenes that were included I didn't have a major issue with Wahlberg's performance. The rest of the cast were very good, except for the girl who played Holly who was not a particularly good actor.
People claim that Jackson has dishonored Sebold's novel by choosing not to show Susie's violation and death explicitly on screen. I think the opposite. Jackson has understood that whatever he tried to film would be inadequate to convey the horror of such an intensely personal violation. Those who have read Sebold's novel will no doubt remember that while she makes it clear what has happened--most of it is expressed by suggestion and metaphor rather than blow by blow descriptions. Jackson, in my view, rightly felt not only that we do not need to see blow by blow details but was perhaps concerned that from a victim's point of view it might actually be disrespectful to try and do so? I'm not trying to speak for anyone, just batting around ideas.
As for too much CGI; for me this was not an issue at all. Jackson has a terrific visual imagination and this greatly enhanced and helped to convey Susie's struggle to come to terms with what had happened.
Perhaps Jackson's purposes in making this film simply did not match the majority of viewers' expectations. However, even when his movies don't totally work, for me they are never boring.