Andrea Larrabee: Peter Jackson: The Lovely Bones

Great interview. I think Jackson has the right attitude about doing an adaptation from a book. I have not read the book and I plan on doing so. I have seen the trailers for the movie though and it looks great.

So funny this is an artical..I was going to talk about this movie in my blog..cause it was just sooo different...I really wish I woulda read the book first..sadly did not know it was a book...I always read first..I was very suprised by the movie ..not at all what I was expecting by just watching the trailers!!

I am so excited about the film, I just finished reading the book, which may I add is fantastic

Such an awesome movie based off an even better book. I have to say that Peter Jackson did an excellent job with the movie and though the book is better in story and detail, I understand budgets and time restraints. All in all, both were great. There was even a scene in the movie that touched me so deeply I almost cried (I didn't becasue we were in a theater though.).

Great interview, too bad the movie doesn't live up to the hype. This was, by far, the worst movie I have seen in a long time, and that is saying quite a bit because Hollywood seems intent on creating an endless series of unwatchable dribble lately.

To borrow a much used cliché, this movie had more holes than a brick of Swiss cheese. I understand that the movie-goer is expected to suspend a certain amount of belief when attending a movie, but you'd have to do more than suspend it. You'd have to remove it from your mind, bludgeon it with a hammer, drive it to New Jersey, and bury it in some forgotten field next to Jimmy Hoffa!

A guy digs a huge hole in a field right next to the town, a field that students seems to walk through every day and no one sees him doing it? A corn field, mind you, that grows corn in perfect rows, so where is the farmer? And don't give me the "he dug it at night" crap, cause that wouldn't have happened without lights, which would've been seen by someone--especially when he brought all that crap over to decorate it. And let's not even talk about how he managed to get all that crap out of the hole--including the body--without being seen. Yet in past murders he didn't seem to have a problem leaving the body for all to find it.

Oh, and how about the fact that evidence, including a lock of hair, is taken by the girl and the bad guy doesn't think "geese, I better get the hell out of town" no, he takes the time to get rid of the body that he never worried about hiding in past murders. Also it's interesting that this guy who needed help to roll the safe over and over and over and over again to the dump (cause backing up the Jeep to the hole would've been, I guess, anti-climatic) managed to lift that same safe up the stairs of his basement and into the Jeep before the police got to his house? Come on!

You never got close enough to care about any of the characters--including the main character, which made the whole thing just 135 minutes of torture. And speaking of cliché, could they have made the child molester anymore "Chester" looking? Really Mr. Jackson, is that the best you could do?

i agree with dangerous4tune, this movie was terrible.

all i can say is read the book. jackson and his screenwriters created unnecessary holes in this wonderful story.

like in the book he got rid of the safe at the same time as the bracelet, why move that to the end? and there were so many misquotes and stupid changes that if you read the book, it made it unwatchable.

i guess now i know how my harry potter loving girlfriend feels every time she watches one of those terrible book-to-movie adaptations. <3

I know you guys think the movie sucked, but you should still use spoilers for those of us who still might want to read the book or see the movie.