The Grisham Papers: A Time to Kill (movie)

 

IMDb Description: In Canton, Mississippi a fearless young lawyer and his assistant defend a black man accused of murdering two white men who raped his ten-year old daughter, inciting violent retribution and revenge from the Ku Klux Klan. 

Ebert review: three stars ("...the movie is interested in the white characters as people and black characters as atmosphere.")

Lawyer protagonist: Jake Brigance (Matthew McConaughey, in his first break-out role)

Evil antagonist: D.A. Rufus Buckley (Kevin Spacey); white supremacy; systemic racism; KKK; oppressive heat

Client: Carl Lee Hailey (Samuel L. Jackson)

Star supporting cast: Ellen Roark (Sandra Bullock, miscast IMHO); Harry Rex, Jake's friend (Oliver Platt); Lucien Wilbanks, Jake's mentor (Donald Sutherland); Carla Brigance, Jake's wife (Ashley Judd); Chris Cooper as a local police officer

Background: A Time to Kill was the first Grisham novel published, but the fourth to be adapted to a film. Matthew McConaughey was basically an unknown at the time and the studio and director took a chance on him. He was entering the big leagues with Sandra Bullock and Samuel L. Jackson, and even though he's the clear star of the movie he's billed after both of them (apparently it's alphabetical billing). He does well in his first starring role; Jackson is great as always; and Bullock is slightly miscast in my opinion as the smart, liberal, brash law student begging to be Jake's assistant free of charge. It's directed by Joel Schumacher, a sort of poor-man's Michael Bay, fresh off of Batman Forever. Two years previously he also directed another Grisham adaption, The Client. 

In small town Canton, Mississippi, two Confederate-loving degenerate rednecks come across a ten-year old black girl walking home from the grocery story. They grab her and proceed to tie her up and rape her (thankfully this is all implied in the filmmaking but it was still hard to watch). The two men are arrested, and as they are walking through the courthouse to be arraigned, Carl Lee, the girl's father, guns them down in front of A LOT OF PEOPLE. Local boy lawyer Jake Brigance takes the case, more out of a desire to be famous and further his career with a super difficult case than to see justice prevail. 

Justice prevailing. Hmm. Everyone knows that Carl Lee committed the crime. He did it out of vengeance. The film comes down mostly on the side that what he did was okay, because sometimes there is "a time to kill". Justice has been served. But revenge as a motive has never sat well with me. Carl Lee is the breadwinner for his family, and with him in jail his family struggles to get by. If he gets the death sentence, then what happens to his family? The long-term consequences do not outweigh the short-term feeling of satisfaction. Being there for his family, especially his little girl that experienced unimaginable trauma and physical pain, is a far better choice. 

Carl Lee and his role in the crime that starts the story becomes secondary to how being his lawyer affects Jake, the white protagonist. The Ku Klux Klan targets everyone around him, eventually burning down his house and causing him to send his wife and daughter away. It can be a bit simplistic way to view the racial aspects of the story. The film goes fairly easy on the individual and systemic racism, and instead uses the KKK as the real villain of the film. 

It makes me think of an article I read a couple summers ago during the social unrest after the killing of George Floyd. While racism is a systemic issue, most media and schools portray the evils of racism through the KKK or one bad person like a sheriff or cop. It allows white people to feel removed from systemic racism and to claim that it was basically solved when the Civil Rights Act was passed. But that's not the case; racism IS individual but it's also very much systemic. 

The film follows all the basics of the story from the novel, but excises all the extraneous parts that weren't necessary to tell a complete story. It also chooses to actually show Carl Lee on the witness stand, instead of completing skipping out on it like Grisham did. However, it all happens really fast and is over so quickly that I wish there had more to come from it. 

The production values are good throughout, with lots of interesting camera movements. Schumacher stages his scenes well, particularly when Jake visits Carl Lee in jail. Everyone is doused in sweat, which I honestly thought was a really nice touch. The story isn't exactly interested in legal strategy and how the legal system works, but it's a fun enough legal "thriller" that's worth a watch. 

The Sparks Oeuvre: Wrap-up

For the past six months I lived in The Sparks Oeuvre world. It was a fun and interesting place to be, because even though I love romcoms, "I don't really know love at all." Declarations of love in movies generally make me feel slightly anxious and a bit embarrassed, and sometimes I have to look away. For whatever reason though, I adore romcoms. And while #TheSparksOeuvre isn't exactly romcom territory, the time spent there the past several months has been an inescapable residence in romance and love. 

Love in the Sparks world is about finding the one. His romances feel epic and life-altering because all of his couples are finding their one. Of course note every love story told is about finding the one, but that's not what Sparks is interested in. His couples fall in love fast because they each know that this time it feels different. And I imagine that's what it feels like when people find their one—everything feels different, and maybe it can't be explained because how do you explain why it's this one person and not the person you were dating before (or are currently dating, more on that later)? 

In the words of Ted Mosby, it's ineffable. 

One thing that maybe doesn't get discussed about Sparks stories is how much cheating is involved. Allie cheats on her fiance Lon in The Notebook. Savannah cheats on John while he's deployed in Dear John. Amanda cheats on her husband with Dawson in The Best of Me. Gabby cheats with Travis in The Choice. In all these cases it's the woman who is in an existing relationship when the cheating occurs; the men are essentially single and have held a flame for decades (Noah and Dawson) or knew immediately they were in love with the woman (John and Travis). 

It's an interesting dynamic that Sparks has set up. Certainly I don't condone cheating, and I don't think Sparks necessarily does either. He full on recognizes that people are messy and relationships are messy and sometimes people make bad choices but that doesn't make them bad people. No one is cheating out of meanness or spite or anger; it's always about love, and though it may sound like a bad excuse to some I tend to give it a pass. To Sparks, love is important. Life-altering. And worth making bad choices for, because loving someone fully and whole-heartedly is to be alive. (Small sidenote that in Safe Haven the novel Katie specifically does not sleep with Alex because she is still married, even though she's run away from her husband who is abusive.)

Many critics are unfairly harsh towards Sparks adaptations. They get called out for being unrealistic, cheesy, simple. But so rarely is the same harshness and critique applied to films that are made for a different, perhaps more "masculine" audience. Big action movies are also unrealistic, cheesy, and simple - is a dude really going to need to defend their family from invaders, or fight off cars that turn into sentient bots hellbent on destroying earth, or drive cars fast and furiously through exotic locales? Movies like that are mass marketed and have huge appeal, even if some do get harsh reviews from critics. The point is that they are seen as entertainment that can make money because their target is men. 

But Sparks movies are known to be exclusively for female audiences, and anything made for females is immediately seen as inconsequential or ridiculous. Think about the reaction to Twilight, boy bands, fashion, decorating. Superficial and frivolous, and would only appeal to women. But I ask what is more likely to be a part of most everyone's life: falling in love and building a relationship and life with someone, or becoming a vigilante to protect your family from intruders (or driving cars fast and furiously)? 

That was all a bit off-topic, so thanks for reading my short diatribe about taking films centered on love and romance and geared towards a female audience more seriously, or at least not completely dismissing them. 

I truly enjoyed my time with The Sparks Oeuvre, experiencing people falling in love, staying in love, fighting for love, and losing love. Some were better than others, and overall I probably enjoyed the films more for their tighter storytelling and great actors and directors (and all the other important crafts-people that contribute to a film: make-up, wardrobe, lighting, location, editing). Here's my ranking of the book and movies, plus a few "favorites":

	Book	Movie
1	The Longest Ride	A Walk to Remember
2	Safe Haven	The Lucky One
3	The Notebook	The Choice
4	Message in a Bottle	The Notebook
5	The Lucky One	The Best of Me
6	Nights in Rodanthe	Message in a Bottle
7	Dear John	Safe Haven
8	A Walk to Remember	Dear John
9	The Best of Me	The Longest Ride
10	The Choice	Nights in Rodanthe
11	The Last Song	The Last Song

Favorite Male Lead (movie)
It's probably a tie between Landon Carter in A Walk to Remember and Logan Thibault in The Lucky One

Favorite Female Lead (movie)
I like Beth a lot in The Lucky One because she starts out tentative and a bit harsh but slowly loses that. And I like Theresa in Message in a Bottle because she's juggling different roles but is deep down a romantic. 

Favorite Male Lead (book)
I'm going to go with Luke in The Longest Ride. 

Favorite Female Lead (book)
Gotta be Katie in Safe Haven. She's got determination and a lot of strength, and I was hooked while reading her escape plan from her abusive husband. 

Biggest Change from Page to Screen
Probably A Walk to Remember because it completely changes the setting from 1950s to present day.

Adaptation that stays most true to the source material
The Last Song (obviously, Sparks wrote the screenplay the same time he was writing the novel)

Most Disappointing Adaptation
The Longest Ride, because I liked the book so much and had never seen the movie before I had high expectations.

Best First Kiss
Tie.
A Walk to Remember because we are treated to the classic line of "I might kiss you." and Jamie responding with, "I might be bad at it." And you know Landon loves her because he then says, "That's not possible." but it's entirely possible she could actually be bad at kissing :)
The Choice because it's lit and staged really well, and then has this great exchange - Gabby: "Why are you walking slowly towards me?" Travis: "Because if I ran I'd scare you." 

Best Sex Scene (movie)
The Lucky One
Sparks is generally pretty PG when he writes sex scenes. Sometimes he just writes "they made love" and sometimes he'll go into very simple explanation of actions leading up to sex. And his leads are always in love when they have sex. The only characters that don't have sex are Jamie and Landon in A Walk to Remember (book and movie), Ronnie and Will in The Last Song (book and movie), and Katie and Alex in Safe Haven (book only). 

The Sparks Oeuvre: The Choice (movie)

Tagline: Let your heart decide. 

IMDb description: Travis and Gabby first meet as neighbors in a small coastal town and wind up in a relationship that is tested by life's most defining moments. 

Roger Ebert review: sadly, Roger Ebert passed before this film was released, and therefore the review on his site is not by him. 

Female protagonist: Gabby Holland (Teresa Palmer)

Male protagonist: Travis Shaw, changed from Parker in the book (Benjamin Walker)

Star supporting cast: Tom effin' Wilkinson as Travis' dad; Maggie Grace as Travis' sister; Tom "Superman" Welling as Gabby's boyfriend

Background: Despite being the sixth book published, it was the eleventh (and so far last) to be adapted to a movie. I can't find any information on why, so I've gone ahead and made the reason be that the book was not well-liked so it just languished. That doesn't explain, though, why it was even chosen for a movie adaptation when they are other Sparks books that could have been chosen! I guess we'll never know. 

First off, let's discuss the movie poster which so obviously deviates from the now-standard "two people about to kiss as a light shines between them". This poster has the lovers not even facing each other! And it has a weird color palette (clearly subjective, I know). Every time I saw this as a thumbnail when scrolling through Netflix or Amazon Prime I just thought it looked ugly so I never bothered to watch it. 

The film is still the story of Travis and Gabby, neighbors that fall in love despite him being a playboy and her being completely annoyed by him (but is she??). Oh, and Gabby also has a long-term doctor boyfriend which is a huge DESPITE as well. Small things though when you find your real person. Travis and Gabby soon fall into something over a weekend when her boyfriend is away. The book doesn't really have any tension on whether Gabby is going to tell her boyfriend and end up with Travis. The movie, though, goes a bit cliche and has her unsure of what to do or who to choose. It comes to a head when her boyfriend returns home early and, while out with Gabby and his parents at the local restaurant, Travis also happens to be there. 

This leads to  a showdown between Gabby and Travis. She tries to be like "well, we didn't define what this is." And Travis is like "Oh, so you have fun time with country boy and run back to your rich boyfriend." I don't entirely buy this direction of the argument from Travis; he acts as if he's some poor country boy (like Noah or Dawson) when he actually owns a vet practice with his dad, has a home on the shoreline, owns a boat and a motorcycle, and is well-respected in the community as a vet. The dude speaks with a country accent, but that doesn't mean he's poor. When Gabby is trying to find some footing she claims that she doesn't even know how he feels. To which Travis grabs her face and says HE LOVES HER. He says it over and over. And even though the timeline is still ridiculous, I roll with it because both of the actors really sell it. 

She ends up telling her boyfriend, who is mad at her at first but then proposes. And she says yes, which she tells Travis in a note she leaves for him. Only in movies do people say yes to proposals from the wrong person just to prove a point. They of course make their way back to each other and we see only our second Sparks wedding (the other being in A Walk to Remember). 

There's a nice montage of their life together, until the Sparks Tragic Occurrence that has Gabby in a coma after a car crash and Travis left with the difficult choice of having to pull the plug. He doesn't and she eventually wakes and everything is great. 

Not a lot changes from the book. It's mostly small inconsequential stuff (random name changes, adding a side story for his dad) that generally helps tell a tighter story. The timeline is still very fast, but for whatever reason the actors sell it (Benjamin Walker more so than Teresa Palmer) so when Travis tells Gabby in his southern drawl (the first actor in a Sparks adaption to actually use an accent after Rachel McAdams in The Notebook) that he loves her I believe it. 

I know I give the timeline of the falling in love a lot of heat, but it's an interesting thing to think about. Gabby has been with her boyfriend a long time, and if she had never met Travis she likely would have married him and been happy. Travis would have gone on being a bit of playboy. But they meet each other and it's like Oh THIS is actually my person. It must be a strange thing to experience. Relationships can be messy, and I guess as I get older I just acknowledge that more and realize that most people are honestly doing their best. 

Since I disliked the book so much, I had very low expectations for the movie. Which ended up serving me well, because it wasn't terrible and I mostly enjoyed it.

The Sparks Oeuvre: The Longest Ride (movie)

Tagline: can’t find one. 

IMDb description: The lives of a young couple intertwine with a much older man, as he reflects back on a past love. 

Roger Ebert review: sadly, Roger Ebert passed before this film was released, and therefore the review on his site is not by him. 

Female protagonist: Sophia (Britt Robertson)

Male protagonist: Luke (Scott Eastwood)

Star supporting cast: Alan Alda as Ira (played as a young man by John Huston, with his young wife Ruth played by Oona Chaplin.....lots of children/grandchildren of Hollywood icons in this film)

Background: The Longest Ride was released way back in April 2013, a little over a year after The Best of Me. This is the first in the Sparks Oeuvre that I knew literally nothing about (I mean obviously I had just read the book but before that this was not anywhere in my consciousness). I hadn't even seen the trailer before I settled in to watch it! Having watched them now....wow, they are something. It's not unheard of for a trailer to be nothing like the film, but it is always fun when one is found. The trailers lean heavy in to the sexy aspect of the film and honestly I did not find the film to be that sexy. After watching the movie, it felt like the scene used at the beginning of the trailers was shot specifically for the trailer because it was awkwardly placed in the movie and didn't make a lot of sense. 

I really wanted to like this because I genuinely enjoyed the book. But the movie changes all the big and small details to make a more-cliched movie (which is saying something when it's adapted from a Sparks book). Most of the acting is pretty bad. Scott Eastwood is attractive but I never quite believe him, and the script has him be mean in one scene that is entirely untrue of his character in the book. The dialogue is very bad, including the last line of the film that makes absolutely no sense (why does Sophia ask Luke "What took you so long?" when at that point they are already married and their relationship wasn't over an extracted length of time?). Scenes are awkwardly staged and make no rational sense sometimes. 

A few good things though. The bull-riding scenes were actually staged pretty well and looked good. The characters of Ruth and Ira were excellently portrayed and had a lot of natural chemistry. But these are both very small parts of the overall film. 

The Sparks Oeuvre: The Best of Me (movie)

Tagline: You never forget your first love. 

IMDb description: A pair of former high school sweethearts reunite after many years when they return to visit their small hometown. 

Roger Ebert review: sadly, Roger Ebert passed before this film was released, and therefore the review on his site is not by him. 

Female protagonist: Amanda (Michelle Monaghan, Liana Liberato: young Amanda)

Male protagonist: Dawson (James Marsden, Luke Bracey: young Dawson)

Star supporting cast: Gerald McRaney (Major Dad) as Amanda and Dawson's mutual friend/caretaker/guardian/good  person

Background: This is the ninth Sparks movie adaptation, following a string of near-annual releases since Dear John in 2010. It's also the first to have a repeat actor! James Marsden played Lon in The Notebook, a truly lovely character who just happened to meet Allie at the wrong time. Here Marsden is the long-lost love from youth that gets the second chance (according to IMDb Paul Walker was originally cast but sadly died before filming started). I originally stated that I had seen this movie before, but I was wrong. I've seen parts of it because I knew the story and key plot points, but I had definitely never watched the entire film before. For whatever reasons my view on the film was negative and I was kind of dreading watching it. 

But I actually liked it! Weird, right?! 

Dawson and Amanda meet as teenagers in high school in small town Louisiana. He's from a bad family that does bad stuff; she's from a rich family. But they like each regardless and form a connection that is quite lovely. Dawson is taken in by Tuck, and both Dawson and Amanda see Tuck as a father-like figure, a friendly widower who loves them both. Dawson ends up going to jail for a truly accidental death, and rather than let Amanda wait for him he tells her he won't take her visits. She's devastated (and folks, I was invested enough in the characters that I was too). 

Twenty (one) years later, Tuck has died and his estate lawyer summons both Dawson and Amanda to their hometown per Tuck's will. Turns out he plays matchmaker from the grave, as he wants both of them to spread his ashes at his charming cottage retreat (where Dawson and Amanda spent some steaming time as teenagers). At first they are a bit cold to each other, stung by past pain and hurt. 

But, they also feel incredibly at ease and comfortable with one another. Honestly folks, it truly is a great feeling to be around a person/people that just "get" you and know how to love you. Dawson has never stopped loving Amanda, as he says during one of their chemistry-fueled dinners. Amanda is married and treading carefully, but it's clear she's also never stopped loving Dawson. (I have to suspend my own disbelief at this as I don't really think people carry torches that long, but then again I've never been in an all-encompassing, this-is-my-soulmate love so what do I know.)

Whereas the novel spent a chapter giving the background on Dawson and Amanda, the movie spends equal time with them as teenagers and as adults. This is key to why the story works better in the movie. I really feel the love and loss between them. Also, both the young and older actors playing the couple have effortless chemistry. You believe why they would be drawn to each other as teenagers and why that would last through to being adults. I mean seriously folks, every time they are on screen it's fire. 

The movie also switches up the tragedy that causes them to lose touch. The movie has the character accidentally killed be a family member and it immediately makes Dawson's story make a lot more sense. Also, their estrangement makes a lot more sense, too. In the book, I don't recall a scene of Dawson in jail telling Amanda to move on and not visit him and I was always so confused why she didn't just wait for him. Why did she get married? The whole narrative is adjusted and it makes for a better story.

The film isn't perfect. It's still burdened with Sparks' characterization of Dawson's extended family and the layers and layers of tragedy. Even with that, though, I like the characters a lot and feel even more impacted by the sad ending handed to them. Amanda, though, is at least divorced from her husband at the end of the movie and that's a win in my mind (again, I don't readily advocate for divorce willy-nilly, but it's a legitimate choice and very often the right one - happy marriages don't end in divorce and this was the right choice for Amanda). 

The Sparks Oeuvre: The Best of Me (novel)

The Best of Me is Sparks' 10th novel, released a year after Safe Haven. He's definitely gotten into a certain mode at this point, but also trying to mix things up just a bit and trying his hand at larger casts, more tragedy, and outright villains. The Best of Me has all of that, but it's also essentially the same story as The Notebook. 

Dawson and Amanda meet as teens in small town Louisiana. He's from the well-known for all the wrong reasons Cole family, and Amanda is from the upstanding Collier family. Despite social and economic divides, and the strong opposition from her family, Dawson and Amanda fall in love. After an incident with his family, Dawson is taken in by Tuck, a local widower who becomes a loving paternal figure to both of them. Tragedy strikes, though, and Dawson is the cause of the death of a local doctor after a car crash one night. He gets sent to jail and him and Amanda lose touch. 

Until twenty-five years later, when Tuck dies and his lawyer contacts both Dawson and Amanda as they are requested to spread his ashes at his requested place. Is this their second chance? Dawson has never lost his love for Amanda. Amanda is married to a man who became an alcoholic after their youngest daughter died of cancer. Over the weekend that they spend together, orchestrated by Tuck from the grave, they know that they still love one another. BUT. 

Amanda is married. Y'all, I know that marriage is a big deal. But I also know that sometimes people shouldn't be married anymore. It's not a failure to recognize that one's marriage is no longer working and it can't be fixed. That's especially true if you love someone else. Amanda admits to Dawson that on her wedding day to Frank she was thinking of him. If her and Dawson hadn't been reunited due to Tuck's passing, she would just go on living her life with an unfulfilling marriage. 

Her weekend with Dawson is a chance for her to assess what she really wants and make a choice. But she doesn't do any of that. She tells Dawson to tell her what to do. When she goes through the reasons why she can't end her marriage they are all based on the emotions of others and not what she wants or needs. Frank wouldn't be able to handle it, he'd drink even more. The kids would be traumatized. She'd be breaking up her family and leaving them.

None of that is true though. Of course she shouldn't be callous to Frank's feelings, but his reactions and how he handles a possible divorce are on him. The kids would likely not be traumatized, as long as her and Frank are still both committed parents. And she would not be breaking up the family. It's not as if her and Dawson are planning to run away together to Italy and never see her kids again. Getting divorced isn't "breaking up the family"; you're still a family regardless if you're divorced. As a child of divorce myself, I know that it can be hard. But it's truly better for everyone in the long run when it's the right choice to make. Parents are people outside of being a parent, and they deserve happiness too. Life is too short to be in a relationship that isn't right. It's good for kids to see their parents be in healthy relationships (be that with another partner or staying single). 

But Dawson and Amanda don't talk about any of that. They choose to be martyrs, as if it's virtuous of them to neglect their own happiness and well-being to "do what's right." That's not virtuous, because at some point the kids will grow and move out of the house and then it's just these two people who aren't right for each other. 

So, unlike Allie in The Notebook who realizes she can't marry Lon even though she made a promise to him because she loves someone else, Amanda chooses to return to her home and husband. Just in time for her son to get in a car crash and need a heart transplant. At the same time, Dawson is involved in a family altercation which, sadly, makes him an organ donor. You can deduce what happens next. 

Sparks fills his story with a large, yet mostly unimportant, supporting cast. Where he used to keep his stories limited to his main couple with a few people around them (generally disapproving parents or a close confidant), he now spends time with Amanda's son and husband, Dawson's cousins that are out to get him even still, his cousin's girlfriend, the widow of the local doctor he accidentally killed in a car crash, plus her son. It is A LOT and most of the time I don't enjoy Sparks' characterization of supporting characters, and it always feels a bit silly when he writes "bad" language or describes a character's sinister thoughts. I would have preferred a story that was confined to Dawson and Amanda, but then I guess it would have really just been a retelling of The Notebook. 

Since I didn't grow up in a small town and I never had a high school romance with someone who was from "the wrong side of the tracks", I always feel like the emphasis on those things are super extreme. Do parents really forbid their children from seeing someone because they are from a bad family? Are the strict social roles that people adhere to really a thing? It just always rings so false to me. 

I thought I wasn't going to like this book because I had seen the movie and considered it "the cheating movie." Well, first, I thought I had seen the movie but when I watched it last night it turns out I hadn't seen it other than maybe twenty minutes. And second, it's not really a cheating movie, depending on what constitutes cheating to you. Dawson and Amanda don't cross that line (even though Sparks makes us think they did until several chapters later) but they do kiss and share emotional intimacy. 

If I'm meant to believe that Dawson and Amanda are soulmates who have carried torches for each other for over twenty years, then of course I'm rooting for them even if Amanda is married. Which is a weird thing to do. I don't condone cheating, however I also see the intricacies involved that led these two people to make the choices they did. I'm not here to judge them on that; I'll just comment that if Amanda was truly happy and fulfilled in her marriage a weekend with Dawson would not have posed a problem. 

I didn't dislike the novel, but I oftentimes felt frustrated with Dawson and Amanda for not being more assertive and honest in their feelings for one another. Amanda's mom straight up tells her that she's too afraid to make a choice and wants someone to do it for her, which is basically the worst person in the world making a correct statement. And in the end Amanda doesn't actually have to make a decision anymore, because Dawson dies. The tragedy was a bit much in this one and I honestly just wanted them to be happy together. 

The Sparks Oeuvre: Safe Haven (movie)

Tagline: You know it when you find it. 

IMDb description: A young woman with a mysterious past lands in Southport, North Carolina where her bond with a widower forces her to confront the dark secret that haunts her. 

Roger Ebert review: sadly, Roger Ebert passed away a couple months after this film was released, and therefore the review on his site is not by him. 

Female protagonist: Katie (Julianne Hough)

Male protagonist: Alex (Josh Duhamel)

Star supporting cast: just Cobie Smulders as Katie's friendly neighbor, Jo

Background: This is the 8th Sparks movie adaptation, coming just a year after The Lucky One. By this point, the studio knows exactly what they're doing to promote this film and who the audience is - it's released on Valentine's Day and announces that it's from the author of "The Notebook" and "Dear John". It's always "The Notebook" that is referenced, as it's seen as the high-water mark that all other adaptions should strive to emulate. It also references "Dear John", which seems a bit weird to me because "The Lucky One" is a better movie and the more recent of the two. Julianne Hough was starting to make a name for herself separate from Dancing with the Stars, and Josh Duhamel was dipping into leading man/rom-com roles after stints in the Transformers movies (and starring as Tad Hamilton in one of my cheesy rom-com favorites, Win a Date With Tad Hamilton). 

Katie (Hough) is quite literally looking for a safe haven. She's arrived in Southport by catching a last minute bus after fleeing something dangerous. She's on the run, but we don't yet know why. We do know that she wants to be alone and live a quiet life, just living in a small cottage in the woods and waitressing at a local restaurant. Katie doesn't have a car, so she walks everywhere including the local "grocery store" run by handsome widower and dad of two Alex (Duhamel). He gives her a bike, they spend a day at the beach with this kids, they fall in love. But what is Katie's secret past?!

The movie wants us to think Katie has done something truly terrible because a cop is chasing her. When Alex sees her face on one of those "Wanted" posters he is incredulous that the woman he's just fallen in love with is in trouble with the law. He confronts Katie and she decides to leave. Alex recognizes his mistake and has the classic "chase after someone before they leave" moment, this time at a ferry. She then tells Alex she's not running from the cops, but A cop: her abusive husband. 

This is entirely different from the book and I hate the change. In the book, Katie is secretive about her former life with Alex because she's afraid of being caught by her husband if she gets too comfortable. Alex intuits a lot about her based on his background as a criminal investigator in the military (this back story is completely gone in the movie). He pieces a lot of it together but tells Katie she only has to tell him what she's comfortable telling. And then she does, because she's building trust in their relationship. The movie just ruins all of that for the cheesy "oh no I made a mistake I need to run after them."

In my opinion, the novel tells the story in a better way. It doesn't make us guess about Katie's background, and it tells how she tried to get away several times and she planned her escape for months. It's great character-building for Katie, and a lot of that is lost in the movie (although I do think Hough does a decent enough job). 

This is the second time that a Sparks adaptation is directed by Lasse Halstrom (he did Dear John, too). He's the only director to repeat in the Sparks Oeuvre, which I guess is something. He's a good director, but I think he's saddled with a somewhat bad script. The script jettisons much of the backstory of both Katie and Alex, to the detriment of both. They then become just attractive people that fall in love, which isn't bad but also leaves this film a bit....shrug, I guess. 

The Sparks Oeuvre: The Lucky One (movie)

Tagline: I can't find one. 

IMDb description: A Marine travels to Louisiana after serving three tours in Iraq and searches for the unknown woman he believes was his good luck charm during the war. 

Roger Ebert review: two and a half stars ("Luck is putting it mildly")

Female protagonist: Beth (Taylor Schilling)

Male protagonist: Logan (Zac Efron)

Star supporting cast: Blythe Danner as Beth's nana; Jay R. Ferguson as Beth's ex-husband, Keith Clayton

Background: This film is the first Sparks adaptation to be directed by an Oscar-nominated director! Scott Hicks was nominated for Best Director for "Shine" back in 1996. He didn't win, but he directed Geoffrey Rush to a Best Actor Oscar. This film came out four years after the last High School Musical movie, and it's Efron's push into being seen as an "adult" actor and not just that kid who made musicals for Disney. It works because he is....not a kid in this movie :)

The movie starts with Logan (Efron) providing voiceover about how life can change quickly and we never know when it will. We then go to Logan in Iraq. A morning after a night raid, he just standing around the rubble when something gleaming in it catches his eye. He steps over to it and finds a picture of a woman with the words "Be safe" written on the back. Then an explosion occurs right where he had been standing....finding the photo literally saved his life. He keeps the picture (after asking around to no avail to see if it belongs to someone), and he ends up surviving a few other near-death experiences. His friend and him joke about how the woman in the picture has made him lucky. 

Logan returns home and, feeling awash and that he owes this woman a thank you, he sets out on foot from Denver to Louisiana (he did some internet sleuthing to find the town where the picture with the woman was taken in. Just go with it; as Ebert says in his review: "I'm not going to say anything at all about the odds of that happening. The odds are overwhelming against anything in any movie happening, so I should just shut up and pay attention.").  

He finds her, he doesn't tell her at first why he's there, he starts working for her and her Nana at their dog kennel, they fall in love, she finds out he has the picture and is angry, he feels bad, someone dies, and they end up kissing in the morning sun. It's all very romantic. 

The film keeps the basic story of the novel, but tightens it up. It spends much less time detailing Logan's time in Iraq (it's just the opening scene) and gets way less into the detail with Beth's ex, Keith (the novel has chapters that were from his point of view and I hated them). It also doesn't explicitly address that Logan is kind of a stalker. In the novel Beth actually confronts him and tells him he's a stalker. The movie softens this a bit and never outright says that his behavior is definitely obsessive. However, when a person is attractive or we like them, then actions that would generally seem stalkerish and obsessive get overlooked (especially in movies!). 

I've said it many times before, but having a good director that can get good performances from his actors makes all the difference. It's what elevates mediocre Sparks adaptations to great ones. Zac Efron gives a wonderful performance; he's quiet, contemplative, never moving more than he has to, forceful when he needs to be, charming, and romantic. Taylor Schilling, at this basically unknown and starring in her first movie (lucky her!), really sells Beth. She plays every emotion across her face and in her eyes, she's vulnerable and a little unsure of herself and when she gets her big moment of standing up for herself she nails it. 

This is also probably the most sexy of the Sparks adaptations. I know we have The Notebook, which has really been the only one to have an out-and-out sex scene, but to me this one is better (and hotter). It's a different relationship between Logan and Beth. Noah and Allie fell in love young and are both loud characters; Logan and Beth are the opposite and while their connection is no less strong, beautiful, and passionate it is displayed and conveyed differently (and really directed and acted well by everyone involved). 

This is likely in the top three of Sparks movies for me, probably second after A Walk to Remember, even with it's slightly melodramatic ending that sees someone die (this IS Sparks after all). Logan and Beth are characters I like (and her son Ben is truly adorable in every sense). I accept the misunderstandings and untold secrets because they are two lonely and lost people that needed to find each other and I want them to get their happy ending. 

The Sparks Oeuvre: The Last Song (movie)

Tagline: A Story About Family, First Loves, Second Chances, and the Moments in Life That Lead You Back Home

IMDb description: A rebellious girl is sent to a Southern beach town for the summer to stay with her father. Through their mutual love of music, the estranged duo learn to reconnect. (this description is so weird because music is honestly not what helps them reconnect)

Roger Ebert review: two and a half stars ("Miley Meets Cute over a spilled milkshake")

Female protagonist: Veronica "Ronnie" Miller (Miley Cyrus)

Male protagonist: Will Blakelee (Liam Hemsworth)

Star supporting cast: Greg Kinnear as Ronnie's dad; Kelly Preston as Ronnie's mom; Bobby Coleman as Ronnie's brother (I only note him because he was the kid star of the movie I worked on in 2009, Snowmen 

Background: the second Sparks adaption to be released in 2010, the only time there were two Sparks in one year. This came two months after Dear John and was the first to have a screenplay by Sparks himself. He actually started the screenplay first as a vehicle for Miley Cyrus, which made reading the book interesting. This film is also infamous/famous for being how Miley Cyrus and Liam Hemsworth met. They dated on/off for ten years before getting married in late 2018 and then divorced in 2019. (Yes I know too much because it's one of those celebrity relationships I was inexplicably invested in.)

Since the screenplay is written by Sparks, there's not too much that's different from the novel. Sparks is still trying way too hard to make Ronnie an outcast. When she first arrives, against her will, for a summer with her dad and brother, she walks on the beach and gets stared at by all the other girls there in their swimsuits. Because Ronnie is wearing jeans and boots. That would get stares from anyone; it does not make Ronnie an outcast or the others girls mean. 

Sparks, however, loves his gender stereotypes and almost all of the girls are mean and have it out for Ronnie. The mean girls try to break up Ronnie and Will by giving her bad information. Will even says the classic, tropiest of lines "You're not like other girls." Yes, Ronnie is different because she wants to save sea turtle eggs nesting near her dad's home and is....nice. It's all very surface-level. 

Which is to be expected, as this is a story centered on teens and their drama, angst, and love. It's fine for certain demographics, but I'm beyond the age where any of it feels compelling. 

The story ends in sad tragedy, as Ronnie's dad is dying of stomach cancer. He's kept it a secret (is this a thing people do in real life?) so he can enjoy one final summer with his kids. He and Ronnie patch things up before he passes, and it's actually very sweet that Ronnie chooses to stay and take care of her dad when the summer is over. 

If you're curious about seeing a celebrity relationship where it began, this could be a good watch for pure anthropological purposes. If not, then it can definitely be skipped. 

The Sparks Oeuvre: Dear John (movie)

 Tagline: What would you do with a letter that changed everything?

IMDb description: A romantic drama about a soldier that falls for a conservative college student while he's home on leave (this is truly a strange description that labels Savannah as "conservative" which has no bearing on the story). 

Roger Ebert review: two stars ("....heartbreaking story of two lovely young people who fail to find happiness together because they're trapped in an adaptation of a Nicholas Sparks novel.")

Male protagonist: John Tyree (Channing Tatum)

Female protagonist: Savannah Curtis (Amanda Seyfried)

Star supporting cast: Richard Jenkins, the best character actor out there, as John's coin-collecting dad; Henry Thomas as Savannah's friend/future love 

Background: This is the fifth Sparks adaption and also the fifth Sparks book! The movie was released in February, which is a perfect time for a Sparks movie to hit theaters as by this point a Sparks movie was shorthand for a romantic "chick-flick" and it likely had a marketing campaign geared towards Valentine's Day. Also, for whatever reason this film was not produced by Denise Di Novi, who had a producer credit on all previous Sparks adaptations except The Notebook. 

I think I like the movie adaption more than it's source. The movie makes some weird changes with characters that aren't necessary, but it also cuts out some unnecessary elements that make the story tighter. As with most Sparks adaptations, the movie leaves out all the religious stuff (it's pretty minor in this book). The director is truly the key to a good Sparks adaptation, and Lasse Hallstrom does a decent job with this one (he's the only person to director two Sparks adaptations). He has very pretty if not exceptional actors in Channing Tatum and Amanda Seyfried, but he manages to give each of them two knockout scenes. 

For Tatum, he actually gets two knockout scenes, which is fine because he's the main character. The first is when he's returned home immediately after 9/11. He gets a short leave before presumably re-enlisting, but doesn't know how to tell Savannah since he had been nearing the end of this commitment and both were excited for planning their future together. Faced with John being gone even longer and in a more dangerous situation is more than Savannah can take. John has a moment with Savannah where he just pours his heart out and ends with "just tell me what to do?". Tatum plays this so well, showing John's struggle between his commitment to Savannah and to the military. 

His second comes in my favorite scene (probably of all Sparks adaptations). His father is in the hospital near the end of his life. John and his dad have had a strained relationship most of his adult life, not for lack of love but for understanding. But since Savannah he had started seeing his dad differently and was understanding him better. He writes a letter to his dad, a letter that encompasses all his love. At first he just gives it to his dad to read later, but he realizes that's not possible and decides he'll read it out loud to his dying dad. Tatum knocks this out of the park. He has just the right amount of emotion. The quick tears leaving his eyes. And his dad slowly puts his hand on his head and the two hug and cry together. This brings me to tears every time I watch it. Both Tatum and Richard Jenkins kill in this scene. 

Savannah makes some truly baffling decisions, with the motivation seemingly being that she's in a Nicholas Sparks adaptation so there has to be angst. I don't want to downplay or overlook her feelings and how having John gone and the stress of worrying about his safety while's deployed affected her. BUT. Instead of, I don't know, talking through it with him or a professional, she instead starts writing less. Then makes the truly baffling decision to instead get married to a family friend who is sick with cancer and has an autistic son. She believes that being a wife, mother, and caretaker is an easier choice than waiting for John to come home. 

For most of the film, Amanda Seyfried plays Savannah as sweet and loving and frankly she doesn't have much to do. But near the end of the film she's given a scene that lets her showcase Savannah's pent up anger and exhaustion, as she tells John how difficult it was for her when he was away. I feel her struggle and pain. I just wish she had found a way to express that before she decided to tell him she was engaged when she Dear John'd him (also, the letter serves as a breakup letter but it's also her announcement to John that's she's engaged, so technically she cheated on him and that's not cool).

There is one truly baffling scene (it's in the book, too), where John is visiting Savannah in her new life. Somehow wine is spilled on both their shirts; John goes to the bathroom to wash it out (what??) and Savannah goes into her room to completely change her blouse (okay?). These are both baffling choices, but there are more! Savannah doesn't close her door when she's changing her blouse, also is not wearing a bra even though she was out riding and working with the horses earlier (not one to judge other women not wearing bras, but it seems highly unlikely in this scenario she wouldn't be wearing one), and John sees her in the mirror from the bathroom. They just stare at each other for a moment and it is truly bizarre. 

As mentioned previously, the truly moving relationship of the film is the one between John and his father. Richard Jenkins, who is marvelous in everything, plays John's father so quietly perfect of an adult man that was never officially diagnosed as on the Autism spectrum. John is always a little bit exasperated by him, as he's a good father that has provided for him but John has never been able to connect with him. They once shared a love of chasing and collecting coins, but John grew out of that. 

I feel like this review craps a bit on the movie, and gives the sense that I didn't care for it. And maybe it's not my favorite because of the scenarios that seem to only exist because a Sparks plot dictates strife and tragedy. However, the scene with John and his dad always redeems it for me. Give it a watch if you've never seen it. 

The Sparks Oeuvre: Dear John (novel)

 Nicholas Sparks' fifth novel is Dear John, published in 2006 and 4 years after his previous novel, Nights in Rodanthe. It's in stark contrast to that novel - focusing on young love, autism, duty to country after 9/11, being in the military, and moving through and past relationships. It was inevitable in my eyes that Sparks would write a story that uses 9/11 as a story device. Lots of people have done it since then, and art is nothing if not a reflection of the time it is made in.  

This Sparks story gives us John Tyree, on home for two weeks of leave in Wilmington, N.C. (classic Sparks setting) where he meets college student Savannah Lynn Curtis. She's also there for a few weeks building a home for a family, Habitat for Humanity-style. They meet when he retrieves her bag when it falls off the pier and into the ocean. In true Sparks fashion, they fall and it's deep and fast in two weeks. John has to leave back to Germany due to his commitments to the Army, and they agree to write to one another while he's gone. Their life and plans for the future are interrupted by the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and after he reenlists much to Savannah's dismay he eventually receives a "Dear John" letter. 

The story is told from John's point of view, and it, surprise surprise, starts in the present and then has John tell us the story. This is entirely unnecessary; it doesn't add any suspense to the story and it's only used at the beginning and the end. Several of his other novels had the narrator checking in during the present but that doesn't happen here. For whatever reason, Sparks likes his readers going into his stories questioning if the characters are still together. 

Because of this choice, Savannah isn't really a full character. She's kind of like Jamie in A Walk to Remember. She's there to help the main character on his journey. That's not a bad thing outright, but I kind of like his stories more when they focus on both the male and female protagonists. Sparks writes her as deferential. Whenever her and John get into an argument, she always says "You were right." even though, in my opinion, that is incorrect! 

For his part, John has what I would say are some issues with anger. Savannah shares an honest thought about John's dad with him, and while possibly a bit out of line it wasn't hurtful or mean. John yells at her, then gets in a fist fight with the dudes Savannah is working on the house with. When Savannah shares that she was sexually assaulted her first year of college, John's reaction is not to comfort Savannah but instead say that he'll beat the guy up (and Savannah sincerely is like "thank you so much that means a lot" like whaaaaaat?). When they get into another argument based on competing expectations of their time together when he's on leave again, he's rude and again yells at her. And she again is like "You were right, I'm sorry."

Also, John and Savannah's guy friend, Tim, talk a lot about Savannah in a way that seems....not inappropriate but slightly uncalled for. Tim provides a lot of feedback and acts as a sounding board for John, when really he should have been talking to Savannah. The gender dynamics are a bit weird, to say the least. 

Sparks gives Savannah and John a real predicament in their relationship - how to keep it strong and together when one half of the relationship is across the world? He does highlight the strain it puts on the relationship during the small interludes they get when John is on leave. However, he squanders most of it by having Savannah send the "Dear John" letter because basically the two can't communicate. It feels like a Katie/Greg from The Bachelorette situation and it's overall just frustrating. 

What's interesting about Dear John is that Sparks has a secondary relationship that feels just as important as the romantic one - the one between John and his dad. It really is quite beautiful to see John accept his dad for who is, and then to take care of his dad as his health deteriorates. In some ways it's better than the relationship between John and Savannah. 

The book is good, not great.

The Sparks Oeuvre: Nights in Rodanthe (movie)

 

Tagline: It's never too late for a second chance. 

IMDb description: A doctor, who is travelling to see his estranged son, sparks with an unhappily married woman at a North Carolina inn. 

Roger Ebert review: one and a half stars ("A Leaky Weeper" is the title of a truly great review)

Male protagonist: Dr. Paul Flanner (Richard Gere)

Female protagonist: Adrienne Willis (Diane Lane)

Star supporting cast: Viola Davis as Adrienne's best friend; Christopher Meloni as Adrienne's cheating husband; uncredited James Franco as Paul's son; Mae Whitman as Adrienne's daughter

Background: Gere and Lane starred together as married couple in 2002's Unfaithful, the Adrian Lyne sexy thriller that earned Lane an Academy Award nomination for Best Actress. That same year, Nights in Rodanthe was published, and made it's way to this adaptation in 2008. As the fourth Sparks movie adaptation (and fourth adaption!), it's the first to nearly completely miss the mark. 

For the most part, the story from the novel is the same. However, for the first time in the Oeuvre, the changes that were made for the screen feel detrimental to the film. The biggest change, for me, is the update in Adrienne's marital status. In the novel, she's been divorced for three years, but in the movie she's just separated from her cheating husband. Separated is still married, and I just don't like that this means Adrienne is technically cheating. This change effectively removes the lovely arc in the book of Adrienne and Paul both having the new versions of themselves post-divorce be discovered and loved by someone else. 

The book uses the Sparks-loved device of flashback to tell the story. None of the adaptations have kept this device (except, of course, The Notebook, as it's actually integral to the story) and this is the first time where I felt like it was actually needed. Without it, we lose all sense of Adrienne's journey. We lose the scope. We lose meaning in her choices and the way she has learned to live with the loss. None of it translates with the shortened time frame of the film. 

 Nights in Rodanthe underscores how important the director is in making a Sparks adaption really work. Director George C Wolfe has a great cast, but he mostly squanders it. Gere and Lane were great as a married couple in Unfaithful, and they do their best here but are saddled with a bad script and very bad staging. Wolfe bizarrely stages a dinner scene between the two where I was sure Gere wasn't actually there and Lane was acting against a stand-in; then he frames them each against a yellow wall in medium close-ups and it looks so very bad. He can't direct a proper kissing scene, as I was sure Paul was going to devour Adrienne's face. The visual effects are terrible, and the post hurricane scenes are laughable when their intent is to be tragic.  

This adaptation felt distinctly like most involved did not understand the essence of the book, and just wanted to cash in on the popularity of the last Sparks adaptation, The Notebook; at this point in the timeline of the Sparks Oeuvre it's become the standard and created/enforced the shorthand we know today as "a Nicholas Sparks movie." Unfortunately, it takes more than attractive actors to make a good Sparks adaption. 

The Sparks Oeuvre: The Notebook (movie)

 

Tagline: Behind every great love is a great story. 

IMDb description: A poor yet passionate young man falls in love with a rich young woman, giving her a sense of freedom, but they are soon separated because of social differences. 

Roger Ebert review: three and a half stars

Male protagonist: Noah Calhoun (Ryan Gosling, young; James Garner, old)

Female protagonist: Allie Hamilton (Rachel McAdams, young; Gena Rowlands, old)

Star supporting cast: Pulitzer Prize Winner Sam frickin' Shephard as Noah's dad, Joan Allen as Allie's mom

Background: This was Sparks' first novel, but his third to be adapted to a film. However, according to his commentary in the DVD extras, the film rights were sold before the film was even finished. There were various directors and actors attached (Spielberg, Cruise) but for whatever reasons nothing was ever a go and it ended up being the third film adaptation. Whatever those reasons were seem to have worked out just fine, as the film was a smash and is generally seen as the quintessential Sparks movie. 

If I had read the book first, well before it became a movie, I likely would have been pretty pleased with the adaptation. It stays pretty true to the story and characters, but adds a lot more to the beginning of the story. In the book, Noah and Allie's summer romance takes up about 2-3 pages. The movie, though, spends almost half of the movie on the summer romance. We see them meet, dance in the street, ride bikes together, meet parents. We experience the passion and sometimes volatility of their love. They fight and don't always agree, but they always make up because they truly love each other. 

This extra time with Allie and Noah is pivotal to understanding their relationship. We've seen them fight and laugh and get frustrated with each other. Most notably in their break up at the end of summer, when they go from declarations of love to crying to screaming to apologizing to leaving. When they have reunited, and Allie must choose between Noah and her fiance, Lon, she's given the straight truth by Noah - sometimes they'll fight and he'll tell her when she's being a pain in the ass but they'll work on it because they love each other. 

I used to think their fighting was a bit much. However, I watched the film with the director Nick Cassavetes commentary and it changed my perspective. He said he made Allie and Noah fight and yell in the film because, being Greek, he felt that was normal in relationships (and then said that perhaps those from colder ancestries maybe felt different and I felt that as a person with Danish ancestry haha). Anyway, Cassavetes made great choices with the film that really set it apart and I think he was perfect for it. I especially liked his stance on Lon - that if Allie had met him first he likely would have been her one true love, but it was really a matter of timing not him being a bad person. James Marsden plays Lon so perfectly. 

The film holds up really well after all these years, I think because of the great actors involved and a director who knew exactly what he wanted. It feels the most grandiose and epic and passionate of the Sparks films (to this point) and I recommend it. 

The Sparks Oeuvre: The Notebook (book)

Well, I've made it to THE Nicholas Sparks book--The Notebook.  It was Sparks' first published novel, arriving in 1996 and becoming an immediate bestseller. It's the standard that all Nicholas Sparks novels (and movies) are compared to. Since I'm reading in order of the films being released, I'm reading this third and it's interesting to read this knowing what comes after. 

The Notebook is about love. First love, reunited love, and forever love. Noah and Allie meet one summer when her wealthy family is summering in his town. They quickly fall in love, but get separated due to class, miscommunication, WWII, and just time. Fourteen years later, Allie is engaged and, when she sees a photo of Noah in the paper with a home he refinished, impulsively decides she needs to see him. Despite being engaged, she and still has feelings. So does Noah. Their young, first love is the real deal and Allie has to make a choice between her fiance, Lon, and Noah. The story then goes back to the present, with Noah reading the story to Allie from a notebook because she has Alzheimer's and reading to her is his daily task. Of course Alzheimer's is degenerative and memories don't come back, but this is a story about love and how it can create miracles. For brief moments Noah will get Allie back. But Noah is also old and his body failing, and the two share their final(?) moments together laying next to each other. 

Sparks is able to fit in all the stages of love by skimming over over Allie and Noah falling in love (seriously, it's like 2-3 pages) and spending the bulk of the story on their reunion. This mostly works, and probably is helped because I have the movie in my mind while reading and it spends a lot more time on the falling. But he nicely works in background details through their conversation and inner thoughts. He then spends the last quarter or so of the book with older Noah and Allie. They married and had kids and were happy, until she was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and eventually had to be placed in a care center. They're past the passionate, reunited love stage of their relationship that dominated most of the book and are in caretaker mode. It's no less full of love though, as it's Noah's love for Allie that keeps both of them going. She wrote out their love story before her memory was completely gone and asked him to read it to her. 

It has become clear that Sparks has a few storytelling devices he likes to use. First, he loves to start a story in the present day and then spend the book having a character(s) look back on the past and their relationship. Theresa does it with her and Garrett's story, Landon with his and Jamie's story, and now Noah does it with his and Allie's story. However, with The Notebook, the device actually feels integral to the story. Noah is reading his and Allie's love story because she is suffering from Alzheimer's and actually can't remember their love story. This is inspired. The other books use the device as a crutch, either to lend some mystery to what happened or just because he wanted to set a story in the 50s. 

I don't think the fourteen years between their reunion works. I get that WWII probably hindered Allie's dating life a little, but it seems fairly unrealistic that a woman of her class and wealth would still be unmarried at 29 in the late 1940s. Noah, as a man in a world that catered to men (especially in the post-WWII America) could absolutely still be single at 31; he wouldn't need a wife to enjoy or participate in society the way Allie would need a husband. 

In this first novel, Sparks really sets a tone for what kind of stories he wants to tell. He hits all the best marks that have become his calling card. There's a reason why you never forget your first. 

The Sparks Oeuvre: A Walk to Remember (movie)

 

Tagline: She didn't belong. She was misunderstood. And she would change him forever. It all comes down to who's by your side.

IMDb description: The story of two North Carolina teens, Landon Carter and Jamie Sullivan, who are thrown together after Landon gets into trouble and is made to do community service. 

Roger Ebert review: 3 stars (he calls it "a small treasure")

Male protagonist: Landon Carter (Shane West)

Female protagonist: Jamie Sullivan (Mandy Moore)

Star supporting cast: Peter Coyote as Jamie's dad and Darryl Hannah (in a truly terrible wig, per the DVD commentary) as Landon's mom

Background: This film came out at the start of the second semester of my freshman year of college in January 2002. I feel pretty sure I saw it at the theater in Ephraim, UT but I can't find my ticket stub. However, I remember very clearly my BFF, Lindsay, and I being obsessed with it that summer when we returned to Pocatello. We rented it (bought it?) and watched it several times. We even watched it with the commentary from Adam Shankman (the Director) and Shane West and Mandy Moore. We were obsessed with the soundtrack (it slaps y'all). Lindsay even got her hair cut like Mandy Moore (not in the film, but in the "Cry" music video). Lots of nostalgia wrapped up with this one. I did my re-watch for this project with my friend Rachel and we had a great time watching it. 

As with Message in a Bottle, the basic story from the novel makes it's way to the screen. But once again, the medium of film brings the story to life and adds to it. First, the film swaps out the 1950s for present day; this change feels critical. Second, movie-Landon is more of a present-day cool kid (in the book he's Student Body President and planning for college, in the movie he's smart but doesn't really try at anything because that's not cool), and movie-Jamie gets a lot more personality and feels like a person rather than a device. 

The love story in Message in a Bottle was adult and earnest. In A Walk to Remember, it's two high school seniors falling in love so one might think that it's more simple, or trite, or even silly. While Theresa and Garret had to deal with very adult things in their adult relationship (dead wives, careers, different states), the obstacles Landon and Jamie face to their love are no less compelling or real; one just has to remember what it was like to be a teenager and to care what people thought of you and if you were cool. I don't entirely buy into school cliques and cliches because that wasn't my high school experience, but I do remember thinking what my friends would think if they knew I had a crush on a certain guy who wasn't our brand of cool. 

Landon thinks he knows Jamie because they've been in school together since kindergarten; he can list off outward things about her - she wears the same sweater, sits at uncool Lunch Table 7, tutors kids on the weekend, and looks at her shoes when she walks - that he thinks means he actually knows her. It's like when we stalk our crush on the internet; we find out things about them but it doesn't mean we know them. Jamie knows that's what people think about her and she doesn't care because she knows those are just things about her. Landon is amazed by this; all he does is care what his friends think about him. So much that he can't really be true to himself.  Jamie is a chance for him to forget about outward things and focus on real things. 

When Jamie takes her turn to assess Landon, she does so with deeper things than just his outward characteristics. She recognizes the part he plays as the cool kid in school who has no cares because he's "too young to die." Which is especially poignant giving that Jamie is herself dying (though he doesn't yet know that and neither does the audience). It's interesting that Landon gives no real thought to the future; his only goal for the future is to just get out of Beaufort. He sort of lives in the moment. Jamie of course does think of the future because she knows she's sick and hers is limted. When she decides to take a chance on Landon, their first date is all about Landon having her live in the moment and Jamie having him think more concretely about the future. When he's confronted with her sickness he has to really think about the future, but he also finds a way to be present and in the moment with Jamie in her final months and that's really lovely. 

That's why I love their love story. Lots of romances and love stories (even many by Mr. Sparks himself) have intense passionate love (what T. Swift would call red love). Landon and Jamie's is no less full of passion, but it's more stable and built on shared respect, support, and love. They bring out the best in each other and support one another (what T. Swift would call golden love). To learn, feel, and have that kind of love at 18 feels pretty remarkable, and that it's pulled off with such care throughout the film is pretty remarkable.  

Lots of credit for the film goes to the director, Adam Shankman. He had only directed one film before this one, the Jennifer Lopez delight The Wedding Planner. But he was already known in Hollywood for choreography - he choreographed the out-of-nowhere prom dance sequence in She's All That and the Buffy musical episode "Once More With Feeling". He doesn't do anything terribly flashy with the camera, but he is able to get great performances from his leading actors. With his choreography and music background, I feel like he was particularly a good choice for relatively new to acting Mandy Moore, who had this point was mainly a pop star with only a small part in The Princess Diaries on her resume. At times you can tell she's working hard (the credits list "Mandy Moore acting coach", no shame, kudos to her for working on her skill) to convey all the right emotions. There's only one scene where I feel like she gets it slightly wrong, and that's when she tells Landon she's sick. He first misunderstands her as not feeling well based on the way she phrases it. When he says he'll just take her home and she'll feel better, she responds angrily as it it's his fault he's misunderstood her and it feels off to me; her tone needed to be more heartache than anger in my opinion. But she mostly plays Jamie as sincere, but also confident. 

Music and wardrobe really have an impact on the story as well. The soundtrack is absolutely killer, with perfect songs at the perfect moments. The New Radicals singing over the montage of Landon practicing and rehearsing for the play, ending with him and Jamie passing in the hall IS SO PERFECT. Who doesn't remember being in high school and waiting for the moment(s) in they day when you would pass your crush in the hallway?! And wardrobe. I mean Landon in button-ups and baseball shirts is swoon worthy, and is epitome of cool guy. Jamie dresses simply but not frumpy; she is consistently and emphatically herself with her "uncool" outfits. She's always in stark contrast to the two "cool girls" that are part of Landon's friends group, and, thankfully, never has to suffer the indignity of having a makeover or changing her wardrobe once she starts dating Landon. 

In the book, Jamie always has her in a bun UNTIL she starts dating Landon, at which point he comments that she starts wearing it down. In the movie Jamie is always wearing her hair in a low ponytail UNTIL she starts dating Landon at which point she starts wearing it down (or in a half pony sometimes, which honestly looks great). Nevermind that I think this is dumb because guys rarely IMHO notice things like that (and also I personally hate wearing my hair down) and why would Jamie even think about that every day, but whatever this was written by a guy who seems to think hair is an important part of a couple's relationship. (Not that hair isn't important....who hasn't drastically cut their hair Felicity-style after a breakup?! I just feel like Sparks gets the sentiment of a woman's relationship to hair in our relationships wrong - it usually changes as a result of a bad end not a fresh start. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.)

(Random aside: when I watched the DVD commentary, Adam Shankman said he actually received complaints that having Jamie in a ponytail perpetuated the stereotype that unattractive women wear ponytails. He was so taken aback because, he said, if that was true then why did he have Jennifer Lopez, an objectively beautiful woman, in a ponytail basically the entirely of The Wedding Planner?!)

Minor changes from page to screen include Landon being estranged from his dad because his parents are divorced, rather than his dad just being gone all the time because he's a Senator; the play is put on by the school in the spring instead of by the church at Christmas time; Jamie's dad, Reverend Sullivan (a great Peter Coyote), is a lot more likable and isn't crazy old (in the book he married a younger woman later in life and was quite old); and there isn't a weird family grudge between Landon's grandparents and Reverend Sullivan. Still the same: Landon's terrible friends.  

The film is lovely and overall tells a better, more complete and engaging love story than the novel through direction, acting, music, and wardrobe. I say definitely give this one a watch.