Imagen no disponible
Color:
-
-
-
- Lo sentimos, este producto no está disponible en
- Imagen no disponible
- Para ver este vídeo, descarga Reproductor Flash
Lovely Bones [Edizione: Stati Uniti] [USA] [Blu-ray]
Otras opciones en Blu-ray | Edición | Discos | Precio Amazon | Nuevo desde | Usado desde |
Blu-ray
"Vuelva a intentarlo" | Edición especial | 1 |
—
| — | 25,93 € |
Blu-ray
23 junio 2010 "Vuelva a intentarlo" | — | 2 | — | 34,00 € |
Género | Mystery & Suspense |
Formato | Edición especial, Subtitulado, Importación, AC-3, Pantalla ancha, Doblado, Dolby, Sonido DTS Surround Ver más |
Colaborador | Reece Ritchie, Amanda Michalka (Aj), Greg Wood, Saoirse Ronan, Scott Evans, Jake Abel, Dan Kern, Christian Thomas Ashdale, Fran Walsh, Rose McIver, Stanley Tucci, Bruce Phillips, Stink Fisher, Katie Jackson, Anna Dawson, Carolynne Cunningham, Bob Burns, Peter Jackson, Nikki Soohoo, Carolyn Dando, Christian Ashdale, Aimee Peyronnet, Mark Wahlberg, Jack Hoffman, Rachel Weisz, Anna George, Glen Drake, Lee Miller, Michael Imperioli, Andrew James Allen, Billy Jackson, Susan Sarandon, Charlie Saxton, Tom McCarthy Ver más |
Idioma | Inglés |
Los clientes que vieron este producto también vieron
Descripción del producto
From Academy Award winning director Peter Jackson comes the extraordinary story about one girl's life, and everything that came after. When 14-year-old Susie Salmon was murdered, she left her unfinished life behind. But now from her place in a strange but beautiful in-between world, she must help her father catch her killer and protect her family before she can finally move on.
Detalles del producto
- Relación de aspecto : 2.35:1
- Descatalogado por el fabricante : No
- Dimensiones del producto : 1,78 x 19,05 x 13,72 cm; 98,09 gramos
- Número de modelo del producto : 2 Videos
- Director : Peter Jackson
- Formato multimedia : Edición especial, Subtitulado, Importación, AC-3, Pantalla ancha, Doblado, Dolby, Sonido DTS Surround
- Fecha de lanzamiento : 26 agosto 2014
- Actores : Christian Ashdale, Rachel Weisz, Mark Wahlberg, Susan Sarandon, Stanley Tucci
- Subtitulado: : Portugués, Francés, Español
- Subtítulos: : Inglés, Francés, Español
- Estudio : Dreamworks Video
- Productores : Carolynne Cunningham, Peter Jackson, Aimee Peyronnet, Fran Walsh
- ASIN : B001QOGYAY
- Número de discos : 1
- Opiniones de los clientes:
Opiniones de clientes
Las opiniones de los clientes, incluidas las valoraciones del producto, ayudan a otros clientes a obtener más información sobre el producto y a decidir si es el adecuado para ellos.
Para calcular el desglose general de valoraciones y porcentajes, no utilizamos un simple promedio. Nuestro sistema también considera factores como cuán reciente es una reseña y si el autor de la opinión compró el producto en Amazon. También analiza las reseñas para verificar su fiabilidad.
Más información sobre cómo funcionan las opiniones de los clientes en Amazon-
Reseñas más importantes
Principales reseñas de España
Ha surgido un problema al filtrar las opiniones justo en este momento. Vuelva a intentarlo en otro momento.
Reseñas más importantes de otros países

A 1960's - early 1970's murderer of a number of pre-adult girls of different ages called Mr Harvey is played by Stanley Tucci. There is a hint that Mr Harvey is also a sex offender, but, fortunately, there is no sex or nudity in this film, and we never get to see the gruesome murders actually carried out before our eyes on screen.
The Salmon family comprises Mr Salmon played by Mark Wahlberg, Mrs Salmon played by Rachel Weisz, the mother of Mrs Salmon, referred to as "your mother" by Mark Wahlberg, and a very formal "Grandmother" by the Salmon children, is played by Susan Sarandon, and the three Salmon children, two daughters and a son, include the murdered girl called Susan / Suzie Salmon played by Saoirse Ronan.
The main credits do not mention the younger sister, Lindsay Salmon, and you really have to look hard to find out that she is called Rose McIver in real life, which is strange in itself because she has an important, albeit utterly far-fetched, role in that she finds the evidence that proves that Mr Harvey is the abductor and murderer of her slightly older sister, Suzie. She is also scene stealingly beautiful and attractive. All credit has to go to the film director, Peter Jackson, and the film crew in, arguably, getting it "just right" when filming Lindsay Salmon / Rose McIver, because any more of her and the film would be entirely about her just on her looks and physical attractiveness alone, given that she is also a first class actress in her own right. Saoirse Ronan is excellent throughout, but could easily have found herself, (and, it has to be said, the other women in the film), completely eclipsed by Rose McIver if Peter Jackson and the film crew had spent even a little bit more time and attention than they did on Linsay Salmon / Rose McIver.
In this film the murdered Susan Salmon watches over her family and through will-power directs them, in particular her Dad, but also her younger sister Lindsay, towards the murderer, who, although not caught by the authorities, meets a satisfyingly grisly end. In real life, I would contend, it would not be the deceased who watches over the family, directing them, and, it has to be said, the authorities, particularly in a functioning modern state, in the right direction, but an Angel.
Mr Harvey is a solitary figure, but in real life the kind of bloke who does this sort of thing almost always has a woman, along the lines of Fred and Rosemary West in the UK.
In short, a very good film, marred, I thought, by modern stereo-typing and political correctness, (on all fronts ... the new age-type religion that has the deceased Suzie Salmon hanging about directing the living, the intrepid / extra-ordinarily brave teenage girl as played by Lindsay / Rose McIver when getting the evidence from Mr Harvey's house, the creepy middle-aged bloke who lives on his own, abducting, sexually abusing, and murdering young girls, the central Asian looking girl murdered by Mr Harvey in what was obviously very white parts of 1960's United States who pals up with Suzie in that new age inbetween religious state that comes between dying here and going to heaven ...), with only the strength of the acting cast saving an often truly far-fetched, unpleasant, storyline from total oblivion.

I believe that Alice Sebold's "The Lovely Bones" is one of the most remarkable stories and also one of the greatest publishing feats in my lifetime. 40,0000,000 copies sold well before the film even went into production. The novel has been translated into 28 language. It sat ON the NY Times TOP TEN fiction seller's list for 54 weeks straight. That's more than a year! No one accomplishes that these days... not even Stephen King or other pop fiction writers. With no doubt, Sebold's novel will remain within my top 10 reading experiences ever. Please go out and buy it. In the meantime, based on the sneak preview in Portland, our film critic, Shawn Levy, a much heralded film critic across this country, shared his insights into the FILM in our state newspaper the very next day; he stressed he had never read the book.
I am chiming in here by sharing the letter I wrote for publication in "The Oregonian" a day after Levy's review hit the stands. I hope for those of you who have read the book or have seen the movie - but not both - that my letter helps to draw some distinguishing facts about this DVD, the history behind production and how I'm still on this horrible fence trying to turn something I'm frustrated by into something definitively more OR less meaningful to me.
I feel privileged to have Mr. Levy living in my city. He understood key themes and managed to fill in gaps in the film based on his intuition, intelligence and his keen eye for knowing when a scene has ended up on the cutting room floor, even though he never read the book.
"Mr. Levy's Take on 'The Lovely Bones'"
Levy fan, here, for years. BUT, the film is rated PG13, not R - which weighs HUGE significance in what ended up on screen and what was omitted. I'm happy to have come across Levy's review, which is by his admittance, a review of the film and that he is unfamiliar with the source material of Alice Sebold's immeasurably successful novel. Some books are meant to stay just that; books. Brave Jackson took on the adaptation, but the film does not stand on its own. It tries, desperately to rush everything from the book onto the screen with a rather embarrassing lack of confidence, fluidity or true closure. I followed everything I could about the production of the film. Too many hands in a cookie jar. Too many compromises. For the average viewer not familiar with the book, I'll assume very few will see it for what Jackson haphazardly tried to message (though Levy surprisingly culled out what must have been left on the cutting room floor as he pieced it together and for the most part, was correct!).
First, it's a fable, folks. If not seen in that light, the viewer won't walk away with even part of what the novel accomplished. The film captures a time and place that is resonant for any parent in suburban 1970's or children who grew up at that time, too. The most commonly misconstrued notion of this story is that it's all about a serial pedophile. In fact, the book is steeped in the culture of sex in the 70's. The characters are drawn from a time and place in our country where households became more and more insular after the radical 60's. Families held many secrets from one another, and often lived two lives (how about those car-key swapping swingers parties and then taking the children to church on Sunday?). The plot keenly captures the politics and dynamics of a family and a community, deepened and fully disclosed through the naiveté of the story's protagonist, an innocent 14-year old girl who is brutally raped and murdered within 10 minutes of the start of the film (or a few pages into the novel).
Over the proceeding years, she watches over her family as it splinters and mends and becomes something she first does not try to understand, then resists when her loved ones change over time and she isn't, and finally only when she accepts the fate that rests within each and every other character does she obtain closure. How universal are those themes?!? Jackson's filing down of the story to an "emotional thriller" (his words) -- "with supernatural elements" (again, his words during production) -- is appalling. His interpretation would have been fine... had he not continued to flush what he brought to the screen with his poor pick-and-choose methodology of the source material, perhaps he could have made something of his own. I think of screen adaptations where a director and screenwriter achieve greatness from a book that was less than extraordinary. Think the horrid, flat novel "Fried Green Tomatoes". Now think: How did the movie nail everything quite perfectly when the source material was so poorly written that they really aren't comparable? Same can be said for Rick Moody's excellent book "The Ice Storm" when the adaptation took the story miles away in terms of real impact for the film viewer. Jackson failed in his mission, and ironically did so after desperately trying to faithfully translate the novel to screen. This film was in the can and ready for a December 2008 release. Much tinkering, debate and ego bruising in Hollywood saw this film remain in the editing room for another 13 MONTHS before it finally hit screens. Come on. The more hands on anything simply dilutes the final delivery of the finished "product.
BTW, Heaven, Mr. Levy, is not to be confused by 40 million readers who commonly identified -- through language, life, geography, culture, religion and spirituality, with the "In Between". Hence, the power of "The Lovely Bones." [END]
So there you have. My review would actually point out the following:
Hugh Jackman didn't bite at playing the father which is great, but I wish they had stuck with Ryan Gosling in the role during preliminary shooting instead of mutually agreeing he was too young looking for the part. (Hello, can't that be said for every single film Leonardo DiCaprio EVER has made????). Heck, Rachel Weisz' part is so walk-through, they should have fired her and found Ryan a match (which they originally had been considering Helen Hunt as the mother). Bringing Walberg in? Wow. You could tell that actor that everyone in his family drop dead of simultaneous brain explosions and he'd still look like someone splattered menthol on his eye lashes to make him "cry". His performance was so uneven, it was embarrassing. Stanley Tucci was brave to take on the role of a pedophile killer, but did so to create one of the most memorable (if creepy) characters on screen in the past year or more. Saiorse Ronan was BORN to play the part of Susie Salmon. I cannot imagine any young adult actress who could have pulled off what she commanded. Watch her facial ticks and listen to her vocal tonations, match your ears to the cadence of her voice, and how she can express 20 different emotions within a three minute scene, and do so without uttering an actual word. Just shifts in her body, her eyes, her stance, the wisping away of a hair in her eyesight, her flinch or uncertainty. Her total lack of being comfortable where she is. No "child" actor has pulled off such range since Haley Joel Osment starred in "The Sixth Sense". Susan Saradon played a stock character, but at least wasn't too cloyingly boring. Picking an actress who in real life is actually is SIX years older than Ronan to play her "younger" sister... uh, I can't even go there, though I enjoyed seeing Rose McIver in a larger part of a major movie.
Then there were the scenes literally dropped to the editing room floor that were very key in understanding motivations, background characterization and a more dense, yet explainable story on film. Parts dropped I will not go into detail here and spoil the novel. But Rachel Weisz, Michael Imperioli, the character of Ray Singh's completely missing mother, Ruana, and actress Carolyn Dando's role... they ALL were substantial to the storyline. They should have been included or left in. They connect such significant plot lines.
See, here's the takeaway. Jackson didn't own his own story. His choices in what was left out versus in, the poor manipulation of Sebold's time line and attempting to create THREE different endings (and USE THEM ALL!!?!??), rather than use the expertise of Sebold's wonderfully closed ending were all just bad decisions. I'd still rate the movie 3 stars since the rest of the crap on our t.v. and theater screens sucks far more than this failed attempt at retelling the contents of Sebold's dense, real and surreal novel. Oh, and for every review I see on here where people gripe about "Heaven" or "Pedophile" or "Boring" or "I just didn't GET it" or too many "CGI" effects, read the novel since you clearly didn't understand what was presented to you or why. Not necessarily your fault, but criticizing something that collectively is cohesive for many others, well, that's odd. It is not "Heaven" it is the "In Between" and if you don't like character driven movies that don't end in explosions everywhere or really sophomoric humor, then don't pick a DRAMA and then pee all over it. Wow.


The film does have an uncomfortable edge to it in so much as the depressing horror of murder. And there is great sadness in the loss of the murdered teenager Susie. But this film has more than just a murder story.
We see Susie Salmon from a little girl right up to the time when as a teenager she is murdered by a neighbour.
She finds herself in a world between the mortal world and heaven. A world where it is neither one thing or another.
She reflects back over her life and events of the terrible murder and is pulled to her family through the emotional pain they go through and as she struggles to cope with everything she has to learn to let go and move on towards the light of heaven. We see that death is part of life. And we are reminded about what is really important here in this life.
This is a haunting and heartbreaking story that unfolds from heaven, where life is a perpetual yesterday. Everyone has his or her own version of heaven. It can be what we want it to be. Susie's version is part of her simplest dreams.
This is a sort of coming of age story. Susie clings to the world of the living as she struggles to accept her death. She watches her family disintegrate in their grief. Her father becomes pre occupied with finding the killer. Her Mother is in denial and withdraws. And Susie watches her sister go through the milestones of the teenage life she was supposed to have. The story is a sentimental journey of loss, love and faith.
The idea of a murdered teenager caught in a between worlds place as she watches over her friends and family cope with her death and her own struggle to fight feelings of revenge is not so negative as one might think.
Instead we see the afterlife world through fabulous special effects with glorious imagery. We see the love of a family that transcends disaster and grief. The love that can always be there for all eternity. We see how through that love, and the glory of heavenly love that it is possible to let go and to move on as best we can.
As for the murder thread there are little moment of development with regard to the killer but the ending proves that this film is not the ordinary murder horror story with a predictable conclusion.
Instead I felt that the murder although a heavy feature is not what the film is really about. The film asks what is really important. The death or the love? Our lives here on earth are just a moment of time in the grand order of the universe. Our lives touch others. There are threads that cross each other and there are moments when we share good and bad with others. Loved ones can always be with us through those moments of love for each other even when they are not physically with us. Love can be there without actually ever getting to say I love you.
Susie and her family struggle to bring the killer to justice. Love unites and negativity destroys. So in the end everyone has to let go. And without giving anything away everything comes right in the end.
The film has great originality and imagery and shows life as raw as it can be, as well as a life after in a heavenly existence as I hope it will be. Susie moves on to heaven and her family move on with their lives.
The movie is quite long and it can seem gloomy and slow but don't be put off. This is a film that requires thought. It has originality.
