The Lovely Bones

This story of a young girl murdered by a serial killer in 1973 Pennsylvania is really flawed and I've been sitting here trying to figure out why. I've come up with three reasons. But first let me assure you that if you liked the book, you'll probably like the film. This is one of those novels that developed a loyal fan base. I'm just guessing here (haven't read it myself) but it seems like director Peter Jackson remained true to the book, a policy that worked pretty well for him while doing "The Lord of the Rings". But a film has to stand on its own, so here are three problems that torpedoed this film for me.
1) Casting- I think Stanley Tucci is a brilliant and underrated actor and he does not disappoint here. He does excellent work as the creepy neighbor serial killer and he's on the list for a nomination. Saoirse Ronan also does beautiful work as a teen victim of a monster. At least while here character is on earth. In the afterlife, Jackson has chosen to let Susie Salmon wallow in a primary color limbo between heaven and earth. And wallow she does. Susan Sarandon, playing the boozy grandmother is so over the top that she seems like she's in "The Lovely Bones-The Musical". Rachel Weiss and Michael Imperioli don't have that much to do so they don't do much. (Someone should tell Imperioli that "The Sopranos" is over). But the real problem here is Mark Wahlberg. In the pivotal role of the distraught Dad who drives the investigation and won't let go, Wahlberg plucks one note, and not a great note at that. This character needs range and Wahlberg simply doesn't have the chops, not even close. It hamstrings the film.
2)Serial Killers and The Modern Audience- It's 1973, no DNA, the guys from CSI are nowhere to be found, and America doesn't know the first thing about Serial Killer M.O. The movie seems like one big anachronism and it's frustrating for an audience or maybe for just me, to watch the serial killer win, time after time. Again, this might be me but I was cryin' for just one cop to fingerprint something.
3)Sentimentality- This movie is sap. It's often good sap, but make no mistake, its industrial strength sap. By the time we get to Susie's post-mortum monologues we are in full day-time drama, lady-tears territory. Heaven is all light and the strange limbo that Susie exists in after her murder is a curious combination of candyland bliss and boogieman nightmare. It is awash in grievous sentimentality and really quite creepy.

I have a theory. If you believe that heaven is a place, filled with light and things familiar, a place close to earth, with a benevolent God and endless happiness, this might be your film. If you ever had a doubt or even a smidge of cynicism, you will probably despise this movie. Me? I'm in limbo.