The Giver (2014)

I went into the movie with high expectations after having read the book in high school. I absolutely loved the book and always imagined it to be a certain way. While some aspects of the film met my expectations in terms of visual delivery and execution of the novel, a lot of it did not. There were many scenes that I would have loved to see but were not included.

As a film on its own, I found some of the acting to be lacking in emotions and conviction. I did enjoy Meryl Streep and the Giver, but the rest were very average. Some parts of the film felt slightly rushed, missing out on the true essence and meaning it could have conveyed. I did not feel as indulged in the film as I was in the book. Perhaps this was because I loved the book very much, but I feel it was also because the film lacked passion and depth. The overall message and meaning behind the story was not adequately conveyed as important scenes were not emphasized on and were rushed. Jonas's character development happened too quickly and we could not create a connection with any of the characters in the film.

Overall, I found the film to be average. Those that have read the book will find it to be below expectations whereas others may enjoy it for the concept and meaning it attempts to convey.

Fmovies: Overall, The Giver was a good, quality movie. It conveyed an important message: we need the bad in order to appreciate the good. I definitely plan on buying it when it comes out on DVD.

First, what I thought wasn't great about the movie: I thought the first little bit of the movie was rushed, as well as another segment later on. I also don't feel that time was conveyed well—almost a year passes from the beginning of the movie to the end, but the movie portrays it as just a few days. As a result of the time warp, we don't properly understand how love develops between the characters. We also don't see enough of Fiona's and Asher's development—they play key parts towards the end, but their actions seem out of the blue.

Now, the good of the movie: Above all, this movie conveys what I think is a very important message about needing pain with joy. I also appreciated that they touched on the differences between simply "a family unit" and having a real family. The emphasis on love as overarching was also good and appropriate. I appreciated that the movie doesn't show details of the painful memories but still is able to convey a little of the sorrow from them.

Again, I think this is a great movie overall. And I left the theater wondering, "Will we remember? Will we remember that love is worth the price of sorrow?" I certainly hope we never forget.

The most obvious and cynical theory to come up with the existence of The Giver movie is the success of futuristic YA movies such as The Hunger Games and Divergent. Though, The Giver was never meant to be a YA book in the first place, and it's already a two decades old book that has been going through some controversies in the past. This movie is proof that Hollywood is just picking books randomly and turn them into movies to match the trend. The important question is does it stay true to what makes the story so great? Apparently not. Not because it's now starred with teenagers instead of twelve year olds, or it consists more action scenes. The film just hardly cares about the concept and gives more way to the corny clichés of the genre. The Giver does have a taste for a blockbuster, but the heart of the story is missing and that is definitely frustrating.

The film introduces the story in the most typical way possible, which has the hero doing voice-over narration for the audience. It doesn't trust the concept either, so it has to immediately push the story to the familiar elements of the genre. This is not a new case, of course. Many young-adult novels with better narrative have been manipulated by formula. But the story itself isn't about a revolution or a love story, its main center is to rediscover the old natural world, no matter how beautiful and ugly it was, and contrast it to the new rigorous society that is peaceful yet terrifyingly naive. The relationship of Jonas with the Giver and unraveling through sociopolitical conspiracies is what makes it engaging, but again the movie doesn't have the love for that. Instead it uses its length more on the visuals where the director can do what he does best, which is to pull off some set pieces and grand designs. Unfortunately those parts don't do much to the story, it's nothing more than an exposition that is meant build up a thrilling climax that isn't and never meant to be thrilling at all. And to stay faithful to the source material's larger theme, during the chase at the last act, one of the characters ends up preaching out a sheer sentimental speech to the elders that feels terribly forced.

How it created the communities looked cool though, with production and special effects that gives a spectacular sense of scale, and how the black-and-white world grow into colors is a fascinating watch, but I think those are the only things the filmmakers wanted to bring to life. Designing it as an action blockbuster doesn't necessarily sound like a bad idea, but skimming out the soul that made the story compelling is what tones everything down into another generic fantasy film. The acting is okay, as usual. Brenton Thwaites does have the looks of a hero, but he only leaves a few personality to the role, the most conspicuous one is the kid's curiosity. A more natural fit is Jeff Bridges who gives the gravity that should have been there throughout the film.

The Giver may have the external vision; the events, culture, characters, and language stayed intact; but again, everything else suffers the same problem. The rich world it already provides is no more than a cool design, while replacing the unique narrative with clichés. And it's not good at one of its clichés either, the additional more focused romantic subplot is as underdeveloped as the others out there. There just isn't much love to the subtext, the movie is basically just fitting in to the era of young adult novels with bad politics and rebellion; but again a

The Giver fmovies. Books are a means of allowing the imagination to unfold without a budget to hold back your creativity. Yet in Hollywood they are ultimately a means to write the next big blockbuster to draw people to the theaters. This weekend yet another adapted screenplay comes to life in the form of the Giver. Haven't heard of the book? Neither had I until about three weeks ago, so I was excited to see what this movie had in store. What were my thoughts on the film? Read on to find out.

The Giver is not the most exciting tale, merely another story about a utopia where everything is controlled and all negative aspects have been eliminated. At the beginning of the movie, the pace is a little slow, a mere introduction into the world and all its endeavors. It is not until we meet the Giver (Jeff Bridges) that things begin to pick up and thing become much more interesting. The Giver trains his protégée Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) to take on his new job as the Receiver, learning the memories of the past in order to guide the future. While not the most unique story, this tale is interesting in the way it is executed as both cinematography and acting come together to make a fantastic presentation.

We'll start with the cinematography and editing first. The black and white world hasn't been seen in a popular movie since the Artist, but this time we have sound to go along with our nostalgic filter. The lack of color sort of drains you of your emotions, which falls in line with the emotions of the town. As Jonas learns more about the past, things begin to change though and the developing team begins to subtlety introduce colors back to the film. It gradually adds excitement to the film, running parallel to the evolving story and characters within it, until the exciting, albeit downgraded, climax. Perhaps the greatest source of emotion though come from the memories that the two protagonists share. The directors selected great clips to entertain us with, starting simple at first and gradually diving deeper down the rabbit hole. Each memory brings about it a new set of feelings each further developing Jonas to make the choices he makes. Between each of these memories we have Jonas reintroduced back into the world, seeing it through different eyes as he contemplates the inner workings. Often these realizations bring back more colors, as well as further pieces of the puzzle to solve. It is balanced, and very good at teaching us lesson with the emotions that well up with each scene. Here I will warn you to exercise caution with younger minds, for some of the darker memories may be a bit too much, sad or disturbing, for smaller children to handle.

Of course the camera can only do so much, and movies require actors to assist in bringing the players to life. Bridges is my favorite of the bunch, his rugged approach to characters providing the right gruff to make anything both funny and serious at the same time. His sarcastic delivery and straight to the point approach provides both entertainment and lesson, helping to alleviate the tension that builds up in the movie. Thwaites' chemistry with him is good, the boy not only reacting to the new memories, but also trying to handle everything that comes with them. While a bit overacted at parts, Thwaites manages to pull off the role well and was quite enjoyable to watch. While these two are the bread and butter of the movie, the supporting characters have some good acting to further enhance the story. The talented Meryl Streep brings the Chief Elder to life, not necessarily evil,

I am the kind of guy who likes a movie with morals, art, music and emotion. This is that kind of movie and it was a pleasant watch.

Character & Development: The movie develops the characters well in my opinion. I like how the main character is not some celebrity hot shot that we are forced to love based on how they are in real life. Slow to start and nothing is rushed. Of course, it does not follow every detail from the book, but it draws the principles and ideals of it.

Art: the style is done very well. Plain and simplistic as most dystopian societies are portrayed. As the movie prolongs, the art in the movie expands more beautifully. Watch the movie if you want to understand what I meant by that.

Music: I enjoyed the music of this movie. Gave me chills since I love movies with great background music. Tingles everywhere.

I have seen reviews comparing the Giver (unfavorably) to other teen dystopian movies like Divergent and Hunger Games. That's actually a compliment, the Giver is not more of the same stuff, The critics seemingly can't accept that people are smart enough to get the point of Lois Lowry's book, and that people aren't smart enough to enjoy, much less understand, a character study and a societal study. Mindless action, needless violence, and transforming robots are all absent here. I have a feeling though, that people are smarter than they think. The book has been popular for at least 30 years, why would people balk at the movie adaptation? The Giver is a project that has been in the back of every movie maker's mind for years, now it's here. Go see it and judge for yourself.