The Lovely Bones (Peter Jackson, 2009)
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:46 am
According to The Hollywood Reporter, Ryan Gosling has signed on to join Rachel Weisz. Shooting starts in October.
Amen to that. I remember when she was originally attached to direct - it seemed like such a great choice.Matt wrote:I still would rather have seen Lynne Ramsay's take on it, Gosling or no.
You got that right, my friend. He would've never had the trilogy if he hadn't done that movie. It earned him immense respect, and still does...Magic Hate Ball wrote:That's good, I suppose. Peter Jackson's not my favorite director, and hopefully he doesn't make it too "Lifetime Original Movie", because Lovely Bones has a real spark that shouldn't be buried under a lot of smarmy sugary syrupy crap. I haven't seen Heavenly Creatures, so I really shouldn't be talking anyways.
Oh, sir. There is only ONE trilogy.exte wrote:You got that right, my friend. He would've never had the trilogy if he hadn't done that movie. It earned him immense respect, and still does...Magic Hate Ball wrote:That's good, I suppose. Peter Jackson's not my favorite director, and hopefully he doesn't make it too "Lifetime Original Movie", because Lovely Bones has a real spark that shouldn't be buried under a lot of smarmy sugary syrupy crap. I haven't seen Heavenly Creatures, so I really shouldn't be talking anyways.
From recent interviews, he says he's "seriously considering" it.Floyd wrote:It will be interesting to see if he continues his use of the RED camera for this. Does anyone know?
Well, I wouldn't say that, if we want to count things like Zodiac, Miami Vice, Superman Returns, Apocalypto, etc. in that category... all shot digitally, and on cameras that the RED more or less runs circles around. None of them shoot above 1080p, while the RED does 4k and then some.exte wrote:I doubt he would, but you never know. I'm sure the camera still has a long way to go for mainstream Hollywood fare...
Imperioli connected to "Lovely Bones"
By Borys KitThu Aug 2, 12:32 AM ET
Emmy-winning "Sopranos" star Michael Imperioli has joined the cast of Peter Jackson's adaptation of "The Lovely Bones."
The all-star lineup includes Rachel Weisz, Ryan Gosling, Susan Sarandon, Stanley Tucci and newcomer Saoirse Ronan.
The big-screen adaptation of Alice Sebold's best-seller centers on a young girl who is murdered but continues to observe her family on Earth after her death. She witnesses the impact of her demise on her loved ones, while her killer skillfully covers his tracks and prepares to murder again.
Imperioli will play Len Fenerman, the detective in charge of investigating the girl's death.
Jackson will start shooting the DreamWorks/Paramount project in October, in Pennsylvania and New Zealand.
Imperioli recently received his fifth Emmy nomination for his supporting role as an ill-fated mobster on HBO's "The Sopranos," having won the statuette in 2004. His credits include "GoodFellas," "Bad Boys," "Summer of Sam" and the upcoming "The Inner Life of Martin Frost."
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
So many movies are fighting for the RED that it is virtually impossible to get hold of right now. 4k native resolution places it far above any other digital camera on the market.exte wrote:I doubt he would, but you never know. I'm sure the camera still has a long way to go for mainstream Hollywood fare...
From what I've read and heard, it's pretty much identical to The Lovely Bones.tavernier wrote:Maybe Ramsey can tackle Sebold's new novel, which, from all reports, is a complete disaster.
Seriously, I agree. As my girlfriend says to me, every time we see Wahlberg knock another performance out of the park: "That was the guy in those underwear ads!" For me, it was the scene in Boogie Nights where he's screaming and crying with his mother who is throwing him out of the house that had me convinced he was the real deal. My girlfriend can't even watch that scene it's so intense.exte wrote:Anyway, kudos to Wahlberg for creating a stunning career... who would've really thought so back in the early 90s??
The review in the NY Times Book Review was more enjoyable.Matt wrote:From what I've read and heard, it's pretty much identical to The Lovely Bones.tavernier wrote:Maybe Ramsey can tackle Sebold's new novel, which, from all reports, is a complete disaster.
Well that's the first time I've ever heard anyone apply the word "tedious" to any part of Lolita.tavernier wrote:The review in the NY Times Book Review was more enjoyable.Matt wrote:From what I've read and heard, it's pretty much identical to The Lovely Bones.tavernier wrote:Maybe Ramsey can tackle Sebold's new novel, which, from all reports, is a complete disaster.
I have to read more book reviews, they're way funnier when bashing a book than a film critic bashing a horrid turd of a film.Matt wrote:The review in the NY Times Book Review was more enjoyable.tavernier wrote:From what I've read and heard, it's pretty much identical to The Lovely Bones.
It's very fashionable these days to dismiss Nabokov (and Roth and Updike and Mailer most other major mid-century male writers).Mr_sausage wrote:Well that's the first time I've ever heard anyone apply the word "tedious" to any part of Lolita.tavernier wrote:The review in the NY Times Book Review was more enjoyable.