I thought Peter Stormare was in Lovely Bones, but nope

**Howard Roark** · 2010-02-01 06:22

Peter Stormare:
http://i.allstarpics.net/images/orig...debkohbhoe.jpg
I know him from Lars Von Trier's Dancer in the Dark, he played Jeff, the slightly slow boyfriend/love interest of Bjork's charcter, Selma

but no, it was Peter Tucci, nearly completely unrecognizable:
http://www.3news.co.nz/Portals/0-Art...lovely_320.jpg

the contacts really threw me off, bizarre how much eyes can change someone

throw a moustache on Peter Stormare and he's a near spitting image; the too-light eyes have a slightly sinister cast in some roles, they appear dead or devoid of... something (intelligence, perhaps, in Dancer, but compassion etc in Lovely Bones)

I don't suppose anyone else made the same error? (unlikely as I am uncertain of Stormare's household name caliber, or Tucci's for that matter)

**Howard Roark** · 2010-02-01 06:23

another of Tucci in character:
http://www.variety.com/rbidata/photo...iety/34062.bmp

I think here, perhaps, you can see where I was mislead

**Howard Roark** · 2010-02-01 06:30

Stanley Tucci, out of character:
http://image3.examiner.com/images/bl...ter_kramer.jpg

the difference is much more clear
I really wonder if they wanted Stormare as their first choice for the role

**Charismatic** · 2010-02-01 11:08

You thought a man was lovely, lol.

**Howard Roark** · 2010-02-01 23:11

Originally Posted by Domon Kasshu

You thought a man was lovely, lol.

I never said that lol

**Shiroikage** · 2010-02-02 01:16

truth be told, i know him from the big lebowski

**Headspace** · 2010-02-02 01:19

I hear Tucci was the only thing that made the movie worth seeing.

**Howard Roark** · 2010-02-02 01:21

I had no complaints about anyone in it

**Howard Roark** · 2010-02-02 02:55

I'm gonna have to read the book, all my gf said was that the movie was different than the book

**Howard Roark** · 2010-02-02 03:02

yeah the visuals seemed.. too prominent. I mean, they were pretty and often impressive but I wasn't completely clear what Jackson was trying to say with the whole movie

its views on death were a bit all over the place; hopefully the book is much more cohesive

**Howard Roark** · 2010-02-02 03:04

also, because she recanted her vengeful feelings and tried to dispel their effect on her dad's mood and actions, I took the final seemingly vengeful act to be more of a karmic balancing rather than an act (on her part) from beyond

there was an earlier point in the movie where she was in the in-between and looked up at some icicles, I didn't feel that these were an extension of her

**Howard Roark** · 2010-02-02 03:13

spoilers:

Spoiler: show

**Howard Roark** · 2010-02-02 03:16

Originally Posted by Ivve

the problem is that the whole point is that she really has no ability to influence anyone's moods or actions from beyond anyway. she's completely unable in any tangible or intangible way able to give her family any kind of cues at all about anything. their actions and etc are supposed to be wholly their own, and she is simply an observer now.

oh, in the movie she was able to be seen in some manner, as well as apparently influence her dad's emotions and indirectly his actions (I felt this was flawed in its presentation, kinda made me huh?)

these things were not in the book?

**Howard Roark** · 2010-02-02 03:18

Originally Posted by Ivve

the fact that peter jackson tried to play it like she was somehow able to express her anger through her father is just fucking dumb, and it's not true to the story.

ah

and @ spoiler, oh kk - yeah that scene was long and yet not long enough

idk, I don't feel the movie was terrible in any way, maybe just some better choices could have been made

definitely want to read the book though as there was enough in the characters and story to tweak my interest in what it had to say

**Howard Roark** · 2010-02-02 03:19

Originally Posted by Ivve

the fact that peter jackson tried to play it like she was somehow able to express her anger through her father is just fucking dumb, and it's not true to the story.

Originally Posted by Ivve

no, not at all. it's basically limited to her father thinking he may have seen her reflection for a split second, one time. and even then it's not even clear whether it happened or he imagined it.

and the son's correlation of seeing her?

**Howard Roark** · 2010-02-02 03:20

he had a lot to say, and seemed aware that she was listening; seems a lot from seeing someone in a reflection or whatever

**Howard Roark** · 2010-02-02 03:24

maybe he should have put out an IMAX 3D version of Lovely Bones

**Howard Roark** · 2010-02-02 03:46

I noticed the Camus right away but I assumed it was going to be The Stranger

Thread: I thought Peter Stormare was in Lovely Bones, but nope

Thread Tools

I thought Peter Stormare was in Lovely Bones, but nope

Similar Threads

'T was in another lifetime, one of toil and blood

I think I've fallen in love.

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads