Niki Carol wont feel so alone now that Peter Jackson's latest movie has also been trashed by major American film reviewers. Big news stateside is that another two respected magazines have given the movie a major thumbs down. Check them out. The New Yorker's David Denby says,"“The Lovely Bones” has been fashioned as a holiday family movie about murder and grief; it’s a thoroughly queasy experience," and J Hoberman in the Village voice, " In Jackson's hands, The Lovely Bones is doubly appalling. Part Disney's Alice in Wonderland, part Fritz Lang's M, the movie is horrific yet cloying, alternately distended and abrupt, sometimes poignant and often ridiculous." and ends with the stinger when he says, " Jackson's adaptation is a misguided tribute to the magic of the movies."

Go figure ...Nic K

I fall into the category of "read the book" and it appears all of us who have are mightily disappointed. When I heard the film was being made I had serious doubts about how it would turn out. As the bad reviews started to come out of the Toronto film festival I realised my fears had been realised. Adapting such rich and complex books for film is difficult, very difficult. Nobody expects film adaptations of such books to be faithful to the last detail but it is possible to preserve and transfer their essence, e.g. The English Patient, Brokeback Mountain. I think Niki Caro has done the book a great injustice and that's sad for such an obviously gifted filmaker. But even if we put all the hoo-hah about the book to one side the fact remains that as a standalone piece it is just as Graeme says, "a baffling mess". Three women at our screening (who had not read the book) said they thought it was boring and made no sense.

The Vintners Luck is quite possibly my favorite book of all time. I've read it from cover to back & again & never tire from Knox's intricate & truly brilliant story telling. However, when I first heard we were to expect a movie re-make I doubted that the rich & complex narrative could ever be successfully translated into a notable film. Sometime later (& as I first suspected) a cringe worthy trailer emerged. To see Keisha Castle-Hughes cast in this movie was my instant turn-off. I have vowed to never watch this movie & now the critic reviews say it all. As selective as I am with novels, I too are with films. Maybe a different time, different place, different director this could have been a brilliant thing. Right now, I like to pretend it never happened.

Can it be that lightning can strike in the same place twice? The British Press, and the American stalwarts Hollywood Reporter, and Variety, have also lambasted "The Lovely Bones," mainly for the fact that the Jackson team of writers have not been faithful to Alice Sebold's novel, and in fact removed all traces of the "nasty stuff" that the book is all about. In fact, Jackson's cotton-candy schmaltzy view of heavan has been compared to that other mawkish load of rubbish with heavenly scenes, Vincent Warm's "What Dreams May Come." Ok, the "Best Seller" Women's Brigade audiences will flock to the new Jackson, but the film certainly has misfired with the majority, and in Hollywood it looks as though it wont even rate Oscar nomination mention.

If a film claims to be based on a book, and takes the book title for its own, then that raises expectations of a certain level of faithfulness to the core themes of the book. It is not inappropriate for reviewers to comment on how well the film does or does not adhere to those themes.

If they'd changed its name and made it clear they were using the book as inspiration rather than attempting to translate it to film, then I think responses may have been less hostile. In making the choices they did, I think those involved should expect critique from those familiar with the source work.

That said, the film should be judged on other merits also, and reviewers are doing just that.

What a wonderfully absorbing movie. Nikki Caro has done a superb job. Please don't go to movies expecting to see a screen version of a book, especially not a book so complex as the Vinters Luck. It would have been a nightmare to adapt to screen. And remember most movie goers aren't book readers. This movie can hold its head up high as a simple story, well told, well acted and beautifully filmed. I would suggest it will appeal especially to women. I am appalled by the two-star rating you have given it.

Graeme - when can we expect to see your 'second thoughts' on The Vintner's Luck?

Graeme, I am so curious what drew you to see a movie you so strongly disliked THREE MORE TIMES and do a follow up? That's pretty intense. If I hated a movie I would never see it again. NOW I REALLY HAVE TO SEE THIS MOVIE!!!! You have inspired me!

Hmm...

I actually found the hand-held camera work quite refreshing -- not the usual period movie bollocks.

But, yes -- the film felt sanitised with it's interesting story core removed -- for distribs maybe?

I presumed that the bad circus act sequence was a metephor for gay sex -- this I don't undertand in a post-Brokeback world.

Nikki's made some ok films though. Can't win 'em all.

re: Phillip

I agree with your sentiments about judging a book and a film differently. But I think a film should be at least spiritually faithful to the source material. Look at Jackson's LOTR movies. A lot of what happens in the films does not happen in the books (and vice versa), yet he remains faithful to the spirit of the book by staying true to Tolkein's themes, characters, messages etc

I have not seen the Vintner's Luck, but if Caro has short changed the love story between the man and the angel (which Elizabeth Knox seems to think, according to the article) then I don't see that as being faithful, at all, to the novel. Like an earlier poster said, it's like removing the love story from Brokeback Mountain. What is the point? Perhaps even more devastating is that the love story between Xas and Sobran (and all the complications that follow) is probably the most compelling thing about the novel.

Again, I have not seen the film so I can't really comment beyond that. But I am perplexed as to why Niki Caro made this creative decision - considering it's an independent film surely they weren't scared of alienating viewers? it would be nice if she did an interview about it.