But let’s back up for a minute. Was the book brilliant to the end? I will say that the momentum that carried the story through the first year following the heartbreaking rape and murder of 14-year-old Susie Salmon created one of the best segments of a book I’ve ever read. The writing, which seemed fluid and effortless, wove together complex themes of coping with the loss of a loved one: shock, unexpected reactions, harsh honesty and at times selfish acts, which is true to life. Susie seemed to float around her loved ones in a way that made the reader feel as if they were also ethereal and drifting in and out of the organic scenes created by this amazing writer. But once everyone around Susie’s lingering presence (which was caught in limbo) started aging and moving on, the book became stagnant, directionless, unfocused, and I had a hard time following through with it, especially with the anticlimactic way the fate of Susie’s murderer was handled in a mere paragraph, brushed aside like he wasn’t important enough for the gruesome ending everyone hoped for him. I didn’t think the second half of the book was nearly as good as the first. It’s almost as if Sebold got tired and didn’t feel like putting the same amount of effort into the second half of the book as the first. So instead she just kinda abruptly ended everything not-so-well and passed out from exhaustion like after a college all-nighter.

But the movie did a very decent job of capturing this truly dense and confusing tale—likewise imperfect yet lovely—of what possibly happens when we die, how there are no real answers that are fulfilling or neatly-tied, and how it’s probably nearly impossible to let go on both sides.

Sure, the movie fell short of the book in its level of detail, which is always true of a movie, but Jackson was pretty faithful to the book. He wasn’t guilty of changing major details or even plot points as those in Hollywood seem to feel privileged to do for no apparent reason (see “The Time Traveler’s Wife”) though he was certainly guilty of leaving out many interesting things that viewers would’ve liked to see. Though this lack is be expected with a novel this rich being forced into a two-hour film, I would’ve preferred it if Jackson spent more time on details and character development than fancy heaven scenes.

All the characters surrounding Susie (who was perfectly played by “Atonement” actress Saoirse Ronan) were flat instead of whole (except for Susan Sarandon, who did an amazing portrayal of the saucy alcoholic grandmother, and Stanley Tucci, who brought oh-so-many layers of creepy to the murderous neighbor) but Mark Wahlberg, who has proven himself an amazing actor in “Fear” and even in bit roles like in “The Departed,” was wasted in this film; he didn’t seem to get much screen time or even many lines! But I will say—considering that adaptations tend to suck entirely—not bad, Peter Jackson. This was not an easy book to capture and it didn’t seem to completely elude you. But let’s hope for an extended version.

It’s probably no secret by now that these Chicksters have succumbed to all the sparkly Twilight hysteria. We admit it. We’re addicts of the books and the movies. So it’s only fitting that after seeing New Moon that’d we want to gab about it together.

K: Edward’s hair was not poofy enough. I liked his Goku-like hair in the first movie and was disappointed that it got shorter.
S: I didn’t really mind the hair being shorter, primarily because all my attention was focused on his jawline throughout the movie. It’s pretty incredible.
C: His hair was impressive in the first movie, but I didn’t mind the change. Maybe I was distracted by all the sparkling?

K: I missed all the music from the first movie. They couldn’t keep that really cool angsty reoccurring song? It really set the mood. I also missed Edward and Bella’s piano song and thought it should be in there somewhere.
S: Definitely preferred Carter Burwell’s score from last time around, but honestly, I preferred the soundtrack this time. I thought all the sadder sounding songs fit the tone really well, and the placement was nice.
C: While I liked how Debussy and Bella’s theme played into the first movie, I thought French music composer Alexandre Desplat’s piano work this time around was gorgeous and really set the tone. Some of my personal soundtrack highlights were Lykke Li’s “Possibility” (used nicely in the movie I thought, with a sweet circling camera to show passage of time while Bella sits unmoving in her chair staring out her bedroom window), Grizzly Bear with Victoria Legend on “Slow Life” and, of course, the Bon Iver and St. Vincent pairing on “Roslyn”.
S: Can I add the Editors’ “No Sound But the Wind” to the soundtrack highlights? I’ve been listening to the soundtrack a lot, and it’s really a lot better than it has any right to be, considering the last one included Linkin Park.

K: I also liked how Twilight was filmed in cool blues and kinda missed that. Why did they fire that first director anyway? She obviously made a good movie! It was popular and just flowed well.
S: The look of this movie was totally different. I wonder if they intentionally used warmer and richer tones since Jacob is supposed to be Bella’s sun in this one. (Did anyone else wish they’d left that line out? The sun/moon mixed metaphors that Stephenie Meyer seems hellbent on using annoy the crap out of me.)
K: I do agree that they used more browns because of the werewolves and that probably is appropriate.
C: I agree they shouldn’t have been so quick to dismiss Catherine Hardwicke, she helped create a lucrative movie franchise from something that was supposed to be just a low budget cult film. That being said, I liked the richer and more vibrant look of this movie, and the fast forward and slow down shots totally beat the cheesy sped up sprint shots from the first film.

K: I didn’t like Alice in this movie. She seemed really off. Her voice was different. Her acting seemed strange and she dressed like a grandma in the scene where she should’ve been wearing something awesome because she was in a fast sports car!
S: Dude, we were so different on this! I liked Alice much more this movie. She seemed more girly, which I thought was more in keeping with the book. Speaking of looks, did Kristen Stewart get a new make-up and hair artist? Her make-up and hair looked really different this time around.
C: I was eager to find out more about Alice in the first movie, she seemed quite mysterious. I didn’t feel she was quite as odd this time around, and that was a little bit of a disappointment. Honestly, I don’t know why she would want to be such good friends with Bella…
S: Haha, I don’t get why anyone wants to be such good friends with Bella. She’s so whiny. But yeah, I wish they would have put some of Alice’s backstory from the first book into one of the movies. Or any of the Cullens’ backstories. The only one we really got was Edward’s.
K: I liked Alice in the birthday scene but then not as much after that and I kept wondering if she were even the same actress. Her voice sounded wrong to me! And was she so hostile towards Jacob on the book? I don’t remember that. I remember Rosalie being the problem. Bella’s hair and make-up were awesome. I think it was different because she was depressed so her hair was greasy and her make-up looked as if it wasn’t there…
C: I always like it when actresses actually look like they are going through a tough emotional time. I dug the dark shadows under her eyes…I mean it’s supposed to be tragedy.
S: I actually meant I thought she looked prettier this time, haha. I guess depression suits her.

K: Other than that I thought it was really good actually. Jacob’s character was executed perfectly. They really followed the book which I loved. Dakota Fanning was AWESOME as Jane and so perfect for that part. I liked the whole Volturi cast.
S: Amen about the Volturi being awesome! Loved Michael Sheen and Dakota Fanning. And yeah, I never liked Jacob in the books and have really not gotten the whole Team Jacob thing, but he was great in the movie. And I think I’d rather rewatch the movie than reread the book, if only because Bella’s whining got distilled to one hour instead of dragging on for 300 pages.
K: She was only supposed to hear Edward’s voice not see him. I thought that was corny-looking but obviously they did it to keep the teenie boppers from freaking out since he’s bascially only in the beginning and the end.
S: I hate to admit this, but I was kind of grateful that they did that. He’s just so nice to look at.
C: I am with Kelly on this, I hated that Edward kept popping up all shimmery and then fading away. Come on! Isn’t it enough that he sparkles? Edward left! He needs to deal with the consequences, even if it means less face time on screen. Should have thought of that before he LEFT Bella to be EATEN like a heartless bastard.

If I had a time-traveling mailbox (like the one featured in the movie the Lake

To those more concerned with crowd-pleasing than delivering an appropriate adaptation,

The Time Traveler’s Wife is a novel of the highest literary standards that is also filled with complex emotions and mature subject matter that may not be appropriate for some audiences. If you’re going to commit to make this movie you need to accept the fact that some people will not like it and object to it for reasons of moral ickiness. However, these people probably didn’t read this book, and if they did, they put it down before getting to the really pornographic details like Henry performing oral sex on himself when he was 15 (because what guy wouldn’t try that if he could time travel?) or Claire and Henry stripping a teenager naked and tying him to a tree for roughing Claire up on a date when she was 17, so they’re most likely not going to show-up and picket your movie anyway. So you are free to actually use the novel as a basis for your script and not hide within a horribly sappy romance with no direction or plot or even comprehension that even the masses you were attempting to pander to won’t like.

No one is a fan of pedophilia or anything that even hints at it, but Henry is in a unique situation as he is a time traveler and your audience will understand that, especially if they read the book and chances are, as it was a bestseller, they did. Henry meets the love of his life when she’s 20, marries her and then meets her when she’s 8 and she grows up knowing him as a friend. So what? He doesn’t touch her until she’s 18, so why completely cut all the background information necessary to understand their romance instead of exploring it, leaving us to wonder why they’re together as their love seems to be based on absolutely nothing? Don’t shy away from the subject matter so much that you actually turn your back on the very thing that makes the story different to create something that doesn’t resemble the book it’s based on in any way outside of the character names and some poorly selected scenes.

What are you thinking? Please re-write this script so that we don’t have another Eric Bana/Hulk situation on our hands where someone comes along only five years later to remake your movie—starring Edward Norton this time—because you did such a bad job. But since me sending this letter would result in a paradox if this actually worked (meaning, I would never send you this letter from the future if you actually made a good movie), go ahead and ruin one of my favorite books with your inadequate movie. Someone else will remake it in five years anyway, and Edward Norton is a good actor and could actually handle the part. (Rachel McAdams can stay. She’s awesome, and it’s not her fault you’re bad writers and complete prudes. Seriously, the Notebook was racier than this.) But it’s going to be awkward for you when McAdams eventually accepts an Academy Award for a movie with the same title as yours.

Sincerely,

Kelly E. Lindner

Chickstermag.com