Worst Film of 2009: The Lovely Bones

Over ten years ago, I watched a dud of a film with a packed theatre. I remember looking around at the audience and realized that everyone had slouched down in their seats with their heads back on the chair top and some had closed their eyes but most were not actively watching. The film was WHAT DREAMS MAY COME (1998) with Robin Williams, and some very intriguing special effects. Unfortunately, special effects do not a good movie make. Now we have THE LOVELY BONES and the same problem occurs. The special effects of a murdered young girl in heaven are quite unique and intriguing at times, but they don't make any sense to the dramatic arc of the story, or even to her in this heavenly setting. As impressive as the image of a tree where the leaves suddenly take flight thanks to thousands of birds is, what is the point to what is happening to the young girl's family "back on earth?" This constant shifting of heavenly settings which make no sense to us, and the reality of the young girl's murderer and family back on earth distracts from the dramatic thrust of the mystery. Add to that the implausible plot devises that move the story forward, and you have a seriously flawed film. For example, early on, you see the murderer in the middle of a corn field after the stalks have been harvested. Not too far away (maybe a block or two) the field seems to be surrounded by houses--the edge of suburbia you think, but then realize that she has been cutting through the field from school. The murderer starts to dig in the middle of the exposed field, and later you learn that he has dug out a large underground cellar, put in supporting boards, a ladder, candles, dolls, food, etc, and I am thinking---where is he putting all that dirt?, and why hasn't any one seen him and asked about all that construction? A while later, the girl's dead body shows up in his house--how did he get it there with all the blood and mud, across about one block of corn field and another couple blocks (or half mile) to his house without being seen and leaving an incredible trail to follow???? A half dozen characters are introduced, only to be left hanging with nothing of importance to do or to say (like the Shakespeare loving boy friend, and the weird "psychic" girlfriend and the farmer with the sink hole--they are all together at the end, but why, how, and so what.) Perhaps the well loved novel can clear up some of these questions, but I'm so disgusted that I don't even want to read it now. There is absolutely no emotional payoff here. To the film's credit, the cast does what it can. Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weitz are underplayed as the distraught parents, Stanley Tucci was unrecognizable if a bit physically obvious as the killer, and Susan Sarandon tries to liven things up with some overplayed slapstick as the overly dramatic grandmother. And the best part of this mess is the final 20 minutes which manages to whip up some suspense (finally!) as events begin to squeeze around the murderer. But even that is sabotaged with a suddenly revealed subplot in heaven that details the murderer's past history as a serial killer. The fault has to lie with the director Peter (LORD OF THE RINGS) Jackson who stages so awkwardly many unbelievable scenes (the girl's body is stored in a huge, heavy safe in the basement--yet within minutes the safe is hauled upstairs, out side and into the trunk of a car!--and then later is laboriously rolled about 200 yards! to the edge of the sink hole--why not just back up the car and save all that rolling?) Didn't the writer Fran (LOTR) Walsh realize the dumb logic of some of the plot devices? Isn't the producer (Steven Speilberg) there to double check logic? I didn't have to pay for this film (a free screening) but if I had, I'd really want my money back.
Another disappointing film from 2009 is COUPLES RETREAT which I just saw at a $2 theatre, and that's too much to pay. Vince Vaughn is the only top billed actor--he gets the most to say, but it's definitely an ensemble effort. He snorts out his dialogue (which he helped write) with his usual sarcastic, sardonic style. Unfortunately nothing is very funny or witty about four couples in an Eden-like setting who must go through typical (and sometimes extreme) couples therapy, except for the visual gags of the nearly nude yoga stud who offers "up close and personal" body poses with each participant which become ridiculously sexual. A cheap couple of laughs but I take what I can get for $2.
Now playing for what I hope will be a very short run is a dreary, lame comedy/drama I saw at SIFF last year. Matthew Broderick stars as a milquetoast divorced dad who is happy to live his life with low expectations. This changes when his roommate falls into a coma and the sister (Sanaa Lathan) shows up from Senegal and he falls for her (!) It's all very low key and not that interesting or hard to figure out. It also has a lame title--WONDERFUL WORLD.
Watched a fascinating dvd yesterday called FIRST MEN IN THE MOON (1964), a British film based on an H.G.Wells story, and I rather enjoyed it although at times the frenetic acting by Lionel Jeffreys left me cold. Best of all were the special effects by Ray Harryhousen--the stop action master of monsters from the late 50's,60's and early 70's who is more famous for THE 7th VOYAGE OF SINBAD (1958) which includes a sword fight with a skeleton, and ONE MILLION YEARS BC (1966) with Raquel Welch in a fur bikini . The moon harbors "ant creatures" who live under the surface, and the flight to and from the moon seemed pretty unbelievable, but hey, this is science fiction and the film moves along at an entertaining pace. And after the disappointing films this week, it seemed like a masterwork.