The Film of the Giver Jonas Easy Drawing
Entrusted with the memories of the past
If you think that the world that George Orwell created in 1984 was a rigid one they were positively hedonistic compared to the society shown in The Giver. Playing the title role is Jeff Bridges who is called that because he has a very special duty to be the one entrusted with the memories of the past. The ruling body of the society has to be able to refer to the past to be guided in making decisions. But we can't have everyone knowing about lest they long for the good things of the past. It's all been abolished the good and the bad, conformity and sameness is the order of things. Color is not even allowed everyone wears drab clothing like they were in prison. The family is abolished, kids are born and then assigned to nurturers, women particularly go into that occupation and it is an occupation like being a plumber.
A new group of young people are being given new assignments and young Brendon Thwaites sits eagerly awaiting his occupation. He gets the prize as he is chosen to be the Receiver of all the past knowledge from Bridges. His training is to telepathically connect with Bridges all the experiences of the past, the good and the bad.
The use of color in film is never thought of this day, it's simply assumed that films now will be photographed that way. But The Giver takes its place along side Schindler's List and Pleasantville in using color sparingly and to make a point. Color comes into Thwaites world as it has been in Bridges' and the equation of knowledge with color is a point well made.
When Thwaites decides that there's something more out there than what he's grown up with, society shakes. None other than chief elder Meryl Streep wants measures to be taken to stop Thwaites from questioning the order of things.
Thwaits, Streep, and Bridges head a cast that tells a thought provoking tale of curiosity and rebellion and curiosity in seeking something better always proceeds rebellion. The film ends abruptly and I suspect there's some box office soundings being taken to see if a sequel is to be made. I hope one is, but if it's not The Giver can certainly stand on its own.
50 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
promising but doesn't completely deliver
After the Ruin, the Community was build as an utopia where everybody is the same, emotions are suppressed and memories of the past are restricted. When Jonas turns 18, he's selected to be the community's Receiver of Memories. His best friends Fiona and Asher also turn 18. He goes to train with The Giver (Jeff Bridges) to learn the memories of the past. Meryl Streep plays the Chief Elder. Katie Holmes and Alexander Skarsgård play Jonas' parents. The previous Receiver Rosemary (Taylor Swift) 10 years ago came to a tragic end.
The idea of colors and memories are interesting. I especially like the idea of memories which reminds me a little of 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'. This is not nearly as artistic or compelling. There is just enough that one gets a small taste of something much better and what this could have been.
I also have questions about this world. This world feels incomplete like the author explained it in a paragraph and the reader fills in the gap. The movie just hasn't filled those gaps with enough precision. I do have to praise this franchise. It seems to be a little bit more ambitious than the others but I wouldn't say it's complete. Also it fails as a movie to be intense. The climax is there but without much excitement. The final scene is really just asking for a sequel which is probably not coming.
The acting is functional. Most of them are required to be distant and controlled. Jeff Bridges, Odeya Rush and Brenton Thwaites are the only ones required to act out emotions. Meryl Streep may actually be acting too much. I have to say that I like Katie Holmes acting removed which kind of fits her. Thwaites is asked to calibrate his acting and he does a reasonable job. Rush is pretty effective and quite touching. Jeff Bridges is doing basically the same note.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
How could I have not known this film existed until now?
What a simple, yet beautiful film. It is by all accounts, what should quantify and qualify as the real definition of a "feel good" movie.
I can only imagine that those who rated this subtle, unembellished, yet exquisitely moving film any lower than a 7, have lost the ability to be moved by anything.
As for me, I am so glad I live, love, laugh and feel.
--------------------------------------------
... A definite must-watch when you want both to smile, and for your heart to ache just a little.
46 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I expected another teenager-y save the world movie so I sat down with low expectations. I was very surprised at how much I liked this
"I know there is something more, something that has been stolen." It is choosing day and Jonas (Thwaites) is told that he is to be a receiver of memories. He meets The Giver (Bridges) and is amazed at what he shows him. Jones learns quickly that the Utopia that everyone lives in is not as perfect as it seems. After experiencing color and emotions Jonas wants to show everyone what he knows. The Elders are not happy with what is going on and they do all they can to stop Jonas, but he will stop at nothing to make everyone remember. I had no idea what to expect from this movie at all. I never read the book and only caught glimpses of trailers. I expected another teenager-y save the world movie so I sat down with pretty low expectations. I have to say that I was very surprised at how much I liked this. The easiest way to describe this is a combination of Divergent and Pleasantville. When you watch you will see exactly what I mean (as long as you have seen both of those movies). This is a great family movie and my entire family loved it. It is rated PG- 13 and I think it is because of one small part but you will not have to have your hand on the pause or fast forward button if you are watching this with your family. Overall, this is just a good movie that the whole family will enjoy. I give this a B+.
19 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A colorless life, but a vibrant tale
Warning: Spoilers
"The Giver" from the movies is certainly different from the original text, yet one can't be disappointed because it remains faithful to many of its elements. Looking at the incredible work done by the designers, one has to admit that this is a fairly accurate representation of what a sterile, safe, and totalitarian society probably would like in the future. The general population follows the rules automatically, with minor exceptions, and the illustrious leaders make sure their presence is respected and understood. People appear to be content.
As usual, some people might wonder how some very substantial parts of the novel are dealt with in a very rushed manner when so much care was given to bringing the book to life, and this includes acting by most of the seasoned actors. Streep should be proud that her elder role can join her best work, and Bridges was born to play the unhappy title character.
A much older Jonas is now the official receiver of memories in this society, and he's the hope that can restore stability to this utopia. It looks like the previous candidate wasn't able to handle the demands of the assignment. This is a crucial role in the book and relegated to a few minutes here, and mercifully so because it's played by a non-actor and couldn't probably hurt the movie.
The Giver and Jonas meet to perform their expected duties. Here is where one can see that the Giver has specific plans. Somehow the lead Elder suspects this but allows the plan to go on. There's a tacit understanding of what is needed in the society, and in a parallel way, the Elder and the Giver have parted ways, though it looks like they were either very close or related in the past.
Whereas the book allows you to meditate about what's happening to Jonas and his transition into "adulthood" is more traumatic because of what he discovers through the Giver's intervention, here the older Jonas still suffers through the sudden trauma of being exposed to the dark periods of man's history, it doesn't quite hit us with the pain of a 12 year old that suddenly has his beliefs shattered when he discovers the truth behind his perfect world and family.
There are remarkable improvements as the world is graphically depicted so we can see how technology serves many purposes, among them the comfort, safety and protection of its inhabitants. However, it is very clear that the reins are tight, and this requires a special forces that spies on every aspect of its people. It's chilling to see when files are pulled how there's absolutely no privacy for anyone here.
The casting is very good, giving us a coldly efficient Holmes, playing an official of some kind who fears that her family and her world are destroyed by chaos. Her husband is even more interesting because he's the softer of the two, but what truly astounds us is how he's unable to really bond with anything. He knows the expressions he's supposed to use, but they're robotic deliveries, and this is horrific to see when he deals with the problem of having to release one of the twins during his daily job.
People might be either very pleased with the last scenes in the film when we see Jonas try to escape from his world to save himself, Gabriel, and eventually the rest of the world. The film makes perfectly clear that he somehow achieves his goal, but just like the book, there is a doubt that this is all wishful thinking or a dream because. Here we are next to the idyllic dream of his, a place where love, family, and warmth coexist peacefully, or don't they?
72 out of 103 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Giver Review
I know, I know, that score makes you want to hate on me already. First, let me say that I have read the book and really enjoyed it. It was thought provoking, emotionally engaging, and intelligent. Second, while I enjoyed the book, I am not passionate about it like some people are. So I went into the movie with a completely open mind, just wanting to experience the movie.
First, the positives. Jeff Bridges and Meryl Streep are fantastic as expected. Both bring wonderful layers to their character. Also, the use of going from black and white to color was used real well to demonstrate what the characters see. The film looks good and is acted well.
Now my complaints. First of all, the setup of the supporting characters felt off to me. The society they live in have a certain set of rules that everyone follows because they were taught to their whole lives. But all the characters broke the rules multiple times in the beginning of the film. That takes you out of the overall feeling the movie is supposed to give you, the message it has to offer.
Next, while the book got you emotionally attached to Jonas and what is happening to him, the movie falls flat. Their are certain moments that have to have the audience fully involved emotionally, but just don't. That is a big negative unfortunately, because you want to care, but the film is too lazy setting you up for the emotional blow.
Finally, the pacing is way off. The middle part with Jonas coming to the realization of what is really going on, is rushed and he makes up his mind like that. That is the most important part of the movie, and sadly it is rushed. Then the movie slows down, and that leads to a VERY anti-climactic ending.
Overall, if you are a die hard fan of the book, then obviously you should see it. Who knows, I may be the only one who doesn't drink the coolade for this movie. But the tone and storytelling are to sloppy and the movie fails to get you emotionally attached. So the result is a mediocre film for me. I still recommend you see for yourself, but just ask yourself: Did I love the movie or did I want to love the movie because of the book?
312 out of 416 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Beautiful Emotions and Decent Acting
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, but with evil like qualities she used to maintain order. Streep's voice was perfect for the role of a supreme leader, and her elegant features complemented the monotone suit well. Playing kind of the second in command is Katie Holmes, whose track record has been mixed in terms of acting quality. For this reviewer, she did a great job playing the stern mother, using her stoic facial features from the past to really bring a sense of threat and discipline. Holmes has played plenty of no nonsense roles and she slips right back into the role that both annoyed and impressed me at the same time. Odeya Rush is a very cute actress, who has a great talent for line delivery, executing her lines with the right emotions with the right emphasis. She does have to work a little on her voice breaking, because some her lines sounded more like whining than acting for me. Yet she does a nice job of changing out her acting style as the characters change. Even Taylor Swift makes an appearance in this movie, though her acting hasn't greatly changed from her earlier roles.
To wrap this review up, The Giver is a thoroughly enjoyable movie by how fantastic the emotions are presented. This is a movie that does a great job at teaching lessons, and doing it without the cheesy dialog that often makes Facebook quotes. The combination of visuals and acting are some of the best I've seen in a while, and have not been overshadowed by high explosive special effects. Yet it is not the most exciting movie and has some stretches to accept in order to get the full effect. Is it worth the trip to the theatre? I would say not necessarily so, because there isn't a lot made for the big screen, though I'm not saying you are wasting your money if you do go see it. My scores for The Giver are:
Drama/Sci-Fi: 7.5 Movie Overall: 7.5
40 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fitting In
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 and again the story is never about them. It's neither about the love story or the teen angst. Whatever point it tries to say, it would only lie at the idea, and the movie didn't spend much time to that. There is some interesting visuals to spare, but what's left here is just another bland teen fantasy movie.
95 out of 161 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Interesting Premise
Warning: Spoilers
After The Ruin, a colorless equalitarian society is formed without memories and everyone follows rules established by the Chief Elder (Meryl Streep) and the Elders. The population uses drugs to stay happy and on the day of the graduation, the teenagers leave their childhood and are assigned to a career chosen by the Elders. Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) lives with his parents and has two best friends, Fiona (Odeya Rush) and Asher (Cameron Monaghan), and he feels different from his friends. He is assigned to be the Receiver of Memories and he is trained by his mentor, The Giver (Jeff Bridges), who gives memories of the world before The Ruin. Jonas learns emotions such as love and fear and the concept of family. When he discovers that the baby Gabriel that he loves as a brother will be eliminated, he decides to change his society but the Chief Elder will do anything to stop him.
"The Giver" is a film with a story with and interesting premise about a "perfect emotionless society". The execution seems to be a combination of the black and white of "Pleasantville", "Brave New World" and the lack of emotions through the use of drugs of "Equilibrium" for teens. The result is a reasonable and forgettable movie, with poor development of the characters and situation. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "O Doador de Memórias" ("The Memories's Donator")
17 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Good Effort!
Based on the 1993 novel of same name by Lois Lowry, 'The Giver' is a well-made film, that has dazzling visuals as well as soul. The only problem in this Social/Sci-Fi film, is its slow-pace, which needed some serious persuasion!
'The Giver' Synopsis: In a seemingly perfect community, without war, pain, suffering, differences or choice, a young boy is chosen to learn from an elderly man about the true pain and pleasure of the "real" world.
'The Giver' makes good use of its interesting premise, by translating it into a good effort cinematically. But, as mentioned before, the slow-paced narrative bores, at least in the first-hour. The story moves on a lazy tone & that definitely puts you off. The second-hour is engrossing & the culmination, also, is very engaging.
Michael Mitnick & Robert B. Weide's Adapted Screenplay takes its own time to catch momentum, but once it does, it arrests you with force. Phillip Noyce's Direction is fantastic. He has handled the entire film commendably. Cinematography is excellent. Editing is lazily done. Art Design & Visual Effects are flawless.
Performance-Wise: Jeff Bridges as The Giver, is restrained. Brenton Thwaites as Jonas/The Receiver, is earnest. Meryl Streep is masterful, in a negative role. Cameron Monaghan is impressive. Katie Holmes is alright.
On the whole, 'The Giver' isn't without its flaws, but it also has enough merit to earn itself a viewing.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Giver
When I saw the title I asked myself what we give. When I saw the movie I asked myself what we have given up.
The simple and clear message in the movie is what makes it interesting and good. I saw so many simple things explained in such a profound way. Things such as friendship, family, love, emotions, humanity.
After all this is a great movie that shows what humanity is all about. What emotions are, how we see the world because of them. About what is right or wrong. What we sacrifice to create one Utopia. We see in this movie the good in people, but we also can see the cruelty that we are capable of.
To be completely honest, I saw a little resemblance with another movie. Despite that, It is a movie that I wanted to watch again.
49 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Don't Judge a Movie by Its Book
One thing to consider before watching this film: Lois Lowry, the author of the book it's based off of, genuinely loves this film. In fact she feels like it is better in some ways. If she likes it that much, then it's certainly worthy of being viewed with an open mind.
If the book hadn't been written and this movie was the first time this story had been told, it would have at least a 7 or 8 star rating. People are comparing it to the book and their prior expectations too much.
Considering this adaptation of less than 2 hours is very impactful, and captures the most important aspects of the book, I think it's a great adaptation.
One thing it really takes advantage of is the visuals. The way it utilizes color, black and white, and even faded color to show the story's progression is such a clever idea.
Some say the film isn't dark enough. It's exactly what it needs to be for the story to work, especially in the way it shows how horrible things can be without emotion. Could it have been darker? Of course. Would that have made the film better? I don't think it would. This film encourages you to think and apply things to real life. No need to be shown more and more darkness when we can already envision that happening in our own real world.
Jeff Bridges and Meryl Streep are fantastic in their roles and really help carry the impact of what's happening. In fact, I like the performance of all the main actors. It's challenging to portray characters who only show fleeting feelings rather than lasting emotions, but they were quite successful.
Ultimately, I consider this film to be underrated and it has not gotten the respect it deserves due to preconceived ideas from people who read the book. Movies will never capture the same magic of the book they're based off of, but this film is a great representation of the ideas and thoughts presented in the book.
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Yet another young adult film
I have not read the book and certainly will not after seeing the movie. Basically it felt like a mash up of several recent films, combining the futuristic and oppressive world where people are not allowed to feel, the rules that are "for the good of the people" and where people are being assigned their roles in life, where everything is iPhone white and boring gray and where there are some young adolescent heroes that are willing to change the world. The movie ends with a horrible deus ex machina that makes everything work out fine, despite any reasonable expectation.
Now, I rate this film an average because people acted well, the film was reasonably well directed and at no moment in time did I feel like there was any attempt to do anything more than what was on the screen. So the film does not fail as a cinematic endeavor. It does fail personally, for me, as it made me feel nothing except "oh, this is taken from Divergent! Oh, this is from Equilibrium! Look, they couldn't afford Tom Cruise, so they cast his ex wife".
Bottom line: nice looking and boring, just like the future society the main character fought against. The imagery and emotional content was as heavy handed as a woodsman's axe, the ideas unoriginal, the story uninspiring. Another Apple movie (yes, I know it's red!)
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
BRAVE NEW DIVERGENT WORLD
Warning: Spoilers
Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) lives in an isolated futuristic utopian society complete with genetic engineering, void of emotion, and people control through daily chemical injections. It is an artificial society that appears to be black and white. When the students graduate (Hint at target audience) they are assigned professions based on their observed talents. Jonas was special and is to receive special training from "The Giver" (Jeff Bridges who never says "man" or "dude"). Jonas is to learn pain, emotion, and be given memories of the past world and life, the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Following the formula, Jonas believes this clean utopian society is worse than the world we lived in and sets out to change things.
This is another teen saves the world film. Fans of Divergent, Hunger Games, etc. should find interest in this picture. The film spent a lot of time in the beginning setting up the world and getting Jonas into training. The end felt hurried and I suspect dragged out longer in the book. With fifteen minutes left, I was thinking it should have another thirty to forty minutes to go.
Yes this is another deep profound utopian society film that asks the same questions as all the other deep profound utopian society films.
I felt it was overrated at PG-13. No swearing, sex, or nudity. Infant is given an injection to kill it. Boy punched in face. Flashes of war scenes.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fantastic and Faithful Adaptation
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.
162 out of 265 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
not horrible, not great.
saw 'the giver' last night at the fathom events screening. It was my favorite book growing up when i read it in school and maybe the reason I wasn't horribly disappointed was because it didn't even look great from the previews. nonetheless, i watched the movie. having recently read the book in preparation for the movie, the first thing that stood out to me was how quickly they jumped into the memories. It takes about ten chapters of the book to get there, and the movie gets there in less than ten minutes. it cuts out all the build up of the book and depending on how you like the speed of your films, this could be good or bad. this could pinpoint to why the movie didn't completely work. the script was rushed. it is definitely a case of 'when good actors happen to bad scripts'. because of the nature of the script (or because the nature of the movie, who knows?) the actors aren't given much to work with. this may not be their fault as the whole point of the story is a dystopian society where they don't allow you emotions, but to watch actors have straight faces for 94 minutes isn't exactly a pleasant experience. it leaves you feeling meh about the whole thing as i did. shame.
49 out of 85 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
To bring such a loved and popular book, with tons of deep ideas and themes, and execute as wonderfully as Director Philip Noyce and company do, is great.
Full of theories on life and enough ideas to cause you to rethink your own ideas, The Giver is an intense film about the effects of accepting the good and bad things memories of life.
Being a huge Meryl Streep fan (Chief Elder), I was very excited to see her performance and, I was not disappointed. Jeff Bridges' (The Giver) performance gives this film a veteran presence that adds to the wisdom their characters possess. As for Brenton Thwaites (Jonas) and Odeya Rush (Fiona), their performances show great promise for their careers. Their youth and lack of experience add a sense of naïveté to their characters that beautifully contradicts with the characters played by both Streep and Bridges.
I find the script a bit pretentious but necessarily so. The premise itself is very complex but suitable for the subject matter. What could have 90 minutes of melodrama turns into brilliant and intelligent conversations thanks to the skills of the ensemble. I give an Oscar nod for both Meryl Streep and Jeff Bridges.
There is a scene towards the end of the film where The Giver and Chief Elder debate on the pros and cons of memories and allowing people to make decisions. That is one of the very best acted scenes I've seen this year. The dialogue is so poetic that we're drawn into the fantasy instead of repulsed by its theatrical nature.
My favorite part of the film, second to Meryl's performance, is the beautiful cinematography by Ross Emery. Mr. Emery and Editor Barry Alexander Brown really come together wonderfully to create awesome moments of visual storytelling. The mixture of black and white with color, and the short shots of real life events give this film a certain vivacity the book is unable to give.
This film is really quite an achievement. To bring such a loved and popular book, with tons of deep ideas and themes, and execute as wonderfully as Director Philip Noyce and company do, is great. I give this film 4 out of 5 stars and really hope you see it. It opens theatrically on August 15. Due to the mature themes and ideas, I recommend this film for ages 14 to 18.
Reviewed by Willie J, KIDS FIRST! Film Critic.
20 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hollywood vs Lowry
Warning: Spoilers
I read the book in eighth grade and loved it more than I thought I would. It was basically about a 12 year old boy named Jonas who gets assigned to be the Receiver of Memory. In the new job, he understands everything that the community he lives in, tried to block out, such as deep emotions, color, smell, music, and so on. Through this job, he discovers how his world was not as perfect as he and his community always supposed.
While reading the story, I kept thinking "Hollywood would do a great job with this story." However, when the trailers did come out, fans of the book (including myself) cringed at the amount of color shoved onto the community, the romance, Jonas' age change to 16, the way the giver himself transfers memories to Jonas, and how Jonas gets caught by a search plane. It seemed like the directors were deliberately going against the book's design. Although, when I finally saw the movie, I found myself conflicted a bit.
The problems I have with the movie are many, such as: why make them teens? There's a reason why Jonas and his friends were grown up at 12 and not 16. It was because that was the early age of puberty and everything that came with it had to be gone. At 16, they're past it and it doesn't make as much sense. It's like the directors were trying to make it marketable by making the main characters high schoolers. Also, in the book, though everyone but Jonas lacked deep emotion (like joy or depression) they were still likable and made you feel sorry that they couldn't understand Jonas when it came to love, pain, or joy. Here, they're all sticks in the mud, even Jonas' best friend, Asher, who was basically the funniest guy, but now all that humor's given to Jonas. This all ends up making the community rather hostile, which they're not suppose to be. This isn't the Hunger Games where emotions are intentionally stolen and the community leader is an antagonist, this is The Giver where Jonas is learning about hard emotions and memories, and seeing that the community legitimately tried to create a utopia freed from hate, heartbreak, racism, religion, pain, difficult weather, and all the world issues we suffer today. But he also sees why this kind of utopia can't exist if we are to survive.
To be fair to the movie, there are some good elements. Of course Jeff Bridges as the Giver is spot on casting, and I can't think of anybody better to play the lonely, frustrated, and occasionally amusing character. Also, Jonas, though very bland in the movie, does shine when showing his curiosity about the lost memories. And even though the trailers marketed the movie to be technicolor, the color only comes in when Jonas is "seeing beyond" and the effects are what I always imagined in the story when reading it. Also, everyone keeps up the rules of the book such as precision of language, Ceremony for the 12's, accepting apologies, and release. Also, kudos for making Taylor Swift unrecognizable. She plays a minor character and doesn't stand out more than the main characters. In my book, that's 5 points in this movie's favor.
To be fair, this is a hard story to adapt to film, and I give the directors credit for trying at least, even if it didn't quite work out. I heard that the author Lois Lowry backs this up, but I have trouble seeing that in this film. Technically, it's not a faithful adaptation, and as a stand alone movie, it almost seems like a boring Hunger Games wannabe.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's pretty, and romantic, but it's slow and totally lacks originality and conviction
The Giver (2014)
Pain is good. That's the bottom line. Or love is good. Pain and love are good. There. That's it. Oh, there is the black and white photography which I love, and the bits of color, and then the uber-color. And the music will soar at the right moments (think the ending of "Soylent Green") and bring tears to your eyes. If you let it. But the experience is superficial, and the ideas as thin, and as fresh, as parchment. A deadening experience for me, and I almost walked out.
So other people love this movie? I mean, love love love this movie? Yes. It's actually a feel good young person's romance. It brims with optimism and storybook romance, and even though couched in a layered world of autocratic cruelty it leaves you knowing you can be free, have emotions, fall in love, and be an individual.
But wait—we can already do all that! What this situation gives is so linear, and it tips over with so many clichés, it's amazing it can last an hour and a half. But it does. And it's a simplistic bore.
Those of you who have read the book(s), go ahead, give this review a thumbs down. If think this is wisdom and creativity at its best, open up to the future, which will be your reward. I don't blame anyone for letting this stir your young soul into bright eyed wonder.
That doesn't make this a good movie. Or put better: this could have been a good, very good movie.
Here's what's wrong.
1) There are many stories and movies where the future is bleak, and the citizens are being made into submissives. And where one of the masses (usually only one) sees the wrong in this and rises up to overturn the horrors.
2) There is only one main story line, which is about this particular individual having a chance to rise up, and he does.
3) There is almost no character development. Yes, everyone is meant to be drugged into boredom and sameness, but that's no excuse for letting us into people's nuances— especially the main character (Brenton Thwaites) and the title character (Jeff Bridges).
4) The concept is filled with inconsistencies and logical gaffes.
5) It's a tiny world, like the size of a college campus, and so where are the factories, the farms, the power generators?
6) Why only one "giver" and one "receiver" and what happens if they die before they are supposed to?
7) Everyone's conversations are recorded, and yet no one gets in trouble for breaking the rules until much later, when things have gone awry.
7) Murdering babies? Blasé? Whatever.
Etc.
What's right here? Well, Meryl Streep makes a good matriarch, and she gives the movie its one truly felt portrayal, especially in her last long scene. And the photography is slick and appropriate (though not groundbreaking or remarkable on its own). The buildings are cool, and the waterfall fountain brilliant.
C'est la vie.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Actually, a strong argument for Security over Choice, albeit unwittingly.
Warning: Spoilers
At its core this is a movie with a very worn out theme of Ubertypical American-ness: Communism vs Capitalism (the latter is often inaccurately labeled as Democracy or Market Freedom). It's about the choice between strong, oppressive(?) community values versus individual choice. Absurdistic forms of 'sameness' have been explored in Kurt Vonneguts Harrison Bergeron, and in every movie with alien beehive societies, which are thinly veiled mockeries of communism. For example, the aliens in Starship Troopers and Battle Star Galactica.
A more individual society, or one with strong communal values, well, both have their ups and downs. The world of the Giver is bland, but safe and secure. There's joy, happiness. People know what to expect. At the same time, there's little choice. Your job is state-assigned, but to be fair, it's what the person is most competent in.
Our world is less secure, but we have choice and color. We also have much unhappiness and pain.
It's a little like Northern Europe+Canada vs America. In America, the potential for wealth is theoretically at least stronger than in Europe, while the potential for poverty is very strong. In Europe, it's harder to get mega-rich, but it's not easy to be poor either. And what Americans are starting to realize is that while we're told that we can be a millionaire at any moment, it's not happening for 99.9 percent of Americans.
If the question is asked "would you give up security for freedom"? most liberals would think of the Patriot Act and say NO. But the Sameness world of the Giver is so peaceful and beautiful, even I as a liberal, am strongly inclined to like that world, because unlike the real world, the collective centralized government is functioning extremely well.
The cheap shot that Lowry and the film take is the black and white gimmick. With that gimmick the film wants to drive home (with a ten foot baseball bat) that the Sameness society lacks in color and individuality, it's all black and white. That's pretty cheap.
Conservatives are by definition quite hypocritical about all of this, they preach government hate, but don't mind abusing government to impose their values upon others, they will gladly use government to enforce vaginal probes (which is actually rape) in Virginia. They will sell this movie as the ultimate argument against "communism" but strongly support the communism that still exists in Utah. There's no real difference in oppressive social controls via religion or via the state. For all intents and purposes, rank breaking Mormons will pay a high price to be different, and the same goes for every so-called Christian town/state. Mormons can't really leave their church, because they have strong business ties to their community.
While this is a decently made movie with good acting, pretty actors, and nice graphics, I find that the message of the movie is flawed because of the easy potshots it takes on the Sameness world: "Oooooh, a highly government run worlds will lead to a bland, grey-ish society where everything is in black & white.
The Melancholic Alcoholic.
15 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Odeya Gives.
Warning: Spoilers
The Giver (2014): Dir: Phillip Noyce / Cast: Brenton Thwaites, Jeff Bridges, Odeya Rush, Meryl Streep, Katie Holmes: Set in the very distant future blanketed in a black and white atmosphere thus eliminating feeling, emotion, race, and basically, conflict. It is a film about connection and experience. In a curious setup that may remind some viewers of Divergent, everyone is split into particular groupings depending on stature and ability. Jeff Bridges plays the Giver, the key holder of the world's past, memories and emotions. He lives at the edge of this isolated community surrounded by books. Brenton Thwaites plays Jonas, who has been assigned to be the next Giver. The elder Bridges grasps his hands and shows him a past earth full of love, fear, hate, envy, and desire. He discovers what love is and desires to share it with Fiona, a friend since childhood. This causes tension when the chief elder learns that the Giver is training Jonas to travel to the outer limits thus breaking their controlled society. Provocative themes throughout with ideas and visual wonders that may leave viewers wanting more by its lingering conclusion. Director Phillip Noyce presents a lavish of black and white spectacular with occasional colours emerging. Thwaites is decent casting as Jonas. Bridges as the Giver is given background regarding his daughter, a previous pupil. Odeya Rush plays the fresh face Fiona full of life. Meryl Streep is underwhelming deadpan as the chief elder. Katie Holmes is subdued and terrible dialogue as Jonas's mother. While often corny, the film presents a perfect society that is not so perfect when the seemingly balanced is hardly a given. Score: 7 ½ / 10
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Short movie, but simply amazing! Adds further depth and closure not given in the book.
Everyone is judging this movie based on its accuracy to the book, which is understandable. I re-read the book 2 days ago, so it would be fresh in my head before viewing the movie for the first time. I absolutely love the book, and I had heard varying opinions about the movie (mostly negative), but I wanted to watch it with an open mind and present my own opinion. I must say: this movie is simply amazing. Firstly, the acting is top-notch: Meryl Streep and Jeff Bridges were perfect of course, but Brenton Thwaites and Odeya Rush also brought depth to their characters. I loved seeing Taylor Swift make an appearance in the film, and she gave life to a character who was only mentioned in the book. Katie Holmes and Alexander Skarsgård showed flawless acting in their supporting roles as well. The movie excelled in more than just its acting. There were so many powerful "chilling" moments, particularly with the portrayal of the memories. The contrast of the sensory-rich memories of the past with the colorless and boring Utopian community is what brought real depth to the film. My favorite aspect was the slow transition from black-and-white to vivid colors. My only true complaint about the movie is that it was too short. I didn't want it to end. As far as staying true to the book, there were minor changes, such as the ages of the characters and the career assignments, but these made sense. People must understand that when a book is adapted on screen, there are certain things that must change for viewing continuity purposes. I will say that, as always, the characterization was better in the book, and I was able to form a connection with the characters quicker with a written description. The movie jumped right into the plot, which was good for the pacing of the story, but this meant it took longer to really understand the characters. Having already read the book, this was not a problem for me. The overall themes and concepts (such as sameness, colors, emotion, and love), were portrayed ingeniously throughout the movie. As much as I love the amazing use of imagery in the book, being able to actually visualize the transition from a dull community to a vivid, colorful world was breathtaking. Also, without giving spoilers, the movie gives explanations to concepts in the book, especially with the "memory boundary" that separates the society from Elsewhere. The movie doesn't stray from the book, it just provides more clarity. Finally, I loved the ending of the movie. It gives more closure, and was even more satisfying than the book was. My overall conclusion is that this movie serves as an excellent counterpart to the book. The detailed characterization of the book and the sensory stimulating scenes in the film complement each other nicely to make one cohesive, stunning, and powerful story.
118 out of 191 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lackluster
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.
79 out of 136 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sorry? Did I miss something?
Warning: Spoilers
How predictable was that?
Seriously this movie was at best a 30 minute episode of a forgettable TV series. The concept is stolen from and poorly developed into a futuristic version of The Village. It was so clear from the the start that the lead character(Jonas?) would be come a rebel and try to upset the society.
This future society is extremely simple in it's construction...oooh everyone is assigned a role for life ...never heard that before! Medication keeps peoples emotions in check, never heard that before. Etc, etc.
It's easy to be dropped several hundred feet into white water at the foot of a large waterfall and then swim to safety while holding a new born baby. Priceless. Ooops, small flaw, there is no swimming in the future world so how did he know how to swim anyway.
In the end I'm not even sure why I gave this a 3. How on earth does this have 6.9 as a score?
Seems like only Tom Cruise has access to original/interesting sci-fi scripts these days.
24 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not bad...needed more of a dramatic punch though.
Warning: Spoilers
For the most part, I liked "The Giver." There are some problems with it that really just makes it middle-of-the-road but those problems are never excruciatingly bad or even mildly irritating.
Visually, the film is a feast. I love the costumes and the set design really made for a believable utopian future that the story takes place in. I also love the way the film used grayscale and color to represent the level at which Jonas came to remember the world the way it was. The story is also very interesting and is filled with interesting characters. Finally, all those characters are played by very talented actors and the cast is excellent.
The only problem I had with the film was the fact the drama and emotion in the story lacks any weight to it and didn't have much of an impact. The story is still interesting and slightly engaging but I felt like there should have been a bigger punch to all the events of Jonas trying to change the established order. Maybe with a slightly longer running time the story could have been further developed to help this because, as it stands, the film feels like it moves too fast.
"The Giver" isn't terrible but it didn't live up to what it could have been. I still found the film entertaining and did enjoy it…it just wasn't what it could or should have been.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
scottclereatifich.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0435651/reviews
0 Response to "The Film of the Giver Jonas Easy Drawing"
Post a Comment