The Giver Reviews

God, how many more Young Adult novels can you find to adapt on the screen? They keep making those movies when, in fact, out of 5 adaptations, maybe one will be actually fairly successful while the rest will pretty much crash and burn at the box-office and it was definitely the case for this movie. By now, I have become so bored by the genre. Especially,  in this case, it is always the same story: it is usually about a dystopian future and it is about a young boy or girl who decides to defy the status-quo. Actually, I felt bad for Jeff Bridges as it was apparently a pet project of his and he had been trying to have the movie made for nearly 20 years. I mean, it is not that it was completely worthless,  like always with these stories, there was actually some potential but,  even though they tell you that the main character has to overcome some great challenges, it is actually nothing challenging at all for the viewer and it all feels terribly generic and predictable. To conclude, I thought it was rather boring and I don't think it is really worth a look, except maybe if you're a fan of the genre. 

At the beginning it looks like a cheap copy of "Divergent". The purpose of the movie is good, but its development... not so well. Maybe because the main character is a teenager with concerns like "finding his first love" the movie has a childish and superficial touch. Perhaps if it were longer and with deeper characters, it would have reached its philosophical meaning. However, it is only a narrative of a boy trying to find himself, a cliché. Great performance by Jeff Bridges.

Brenton Thwaites is really making a name for himself in the film industry having only just started making films in 2013 (at least in my books). I also think the cast is a pretty good selection, although, I haven't read the book to actually confirm that the choices are spot on. I do think it's weird that Taylor Swift is in this, but I think everyone deserves a shot to try something different. I admire the look and feel of the film. It's nice to see some black and white in this day and age. It's interesting to see how color can effect the look and atmosphere of a film. It kind of compares to Divergent or the opposite of The Hunger Games. There is always a twist to living in a perfect society. The truth is the perfect society can never really exist. People may theorize of ways to reduce the clashes of society, but reducing is the only thing that is actually possible. Taylor Swift didn't have much she had to do so it worked just fine. It was well executed and well acted. Jeff Bridges really knows how to pick the right roles. Mankind needs emotion in my opinion. The ending was interesting, but a little cliche to be honest. I was a little annoyed when they constantly said the equivalent to watch your language. I felt something was missing though. It could have used some tweaks and also replaced Katie Holmes. Anyways it's a good watch.

Frustration, thy name is The Giver. Based off of Lois Lowry's book of the same name - which I should add that I have read several times - The Giver has plagued us with terrible marketing and bizarre casting long before its release. I sat in my chair, waiting for the movie to start with intense dread. With so much love for the source material, how could I possibly enjoy this movie that was supposed to be unfilmable? And then the movie starts. And it's surprisingly not awful. In fact, it's rather good. Unfortunately, at the start of the third act, the movie whips its head around, gives you a mischievous wink, and seems to do its best to tarnish any goodwill you directed at the film beforehand. This is not a bad film. This is two-thirds of a good film, and one-third of an awful one.

It would pain me to give you the plot synopsis, as it requires spoiling some brilliant plot twists from the book that are actually established fairly early on in the film (some within seconds). So, despite the fact that the trailers have already spoiled the best twist from the book, I will instead give you a brief summary of the premise. The Giver takes place in the year 2048. Everyone lives in highly regulated "communities," and everyone acts the same. No one has opinions, and no one is allowed to be different. You are not allowed to be rude, not allowed to pursue your own career, as everyone has a lifetime job assigned to them at the age of 18. Our leading protagonist, Jonas, is given a very special job. One that is unique and different from any other. One that will change his life, and everyone's around him.

It is difficult to avoid talking about the book when discussing the film, so I will only do so when necessary. Just bear in mind that if you haven't read the book, I sincerely believe you will like the movie significantly more than if you had read the book.

The first two-thirds are competently done. The story moves along at a nice pace that doesn't feel too fast, nor too slow. The premise is explained efficiently, and while changes are made from the book, they generally work in the film well enough. In fact, many expansions to the culture of the community greatly enhance the world of the film.

The most impressive aspect of the film are the visuals. A crucial element of the book and film is color. As such, color is handled remarkably well in this film. I won't spoil how it is used, but it is done highly effectively. Had The Giver garnered the attention it was likely hoping for, there might have been hope for Oscar nods in the Visual Effects and Art Direction categories.

Unfortunately, the last third is dreadful. The Elders of the Community, who are in charge of reinforcing the laws they create, were not intentionally bad nor good in the book. In the film, all ambiguity is traded in for bad-to-the-bone villains that are not complex, nor interesting. In addition, the brilliant ambiguous ending of the book is changed into a stereotypically Hollywood happy ending that reeks of commercialism, and destroys much of the integrity of the novel. The book contained an aura of uncertainty, though the film turns everything (pardon the expression) black and white.

The adult actors in this film are surprisingly good. Jeff Bridges - who has wanted to make this film for many years - portrays The Giver. His character is a bit more smug than the fatherly persona that the book suggests, but he retains many likable qualities, and ultimately makes the character every bit as delightful as his novel counterpart. Meryl Streep plays the Chief Elder and her performance is surprisingly nuanced, despite portraying a bland character. Unfortunately, one her long speeches at the beginning seems to have been severely edited, eliminating a lot of its potency. On a less satisfying note, Katie Holmes as Jonas' mother is gratingly bad, though this is almost entirely due to the script, as her dialogue is obnoxious.

And then there are the teen performances. In the book, Jonas and his friends are 12 years old. In the film, they've been aged up to 18 (and their real life actors are a few years older than that). Now, there are two reasons for a film to increase the age of their leads:

1). Because child actors are difficult to work with, and don't always produce satisfying performances.

2.) Older teens have more appeal to teenage girls (the primary audience of most YA novel adaptions).

It is clear that this age change was for reason two. My evidence for this is that Jonas (portrayed by Brenton Thwaites) and the love interest, Fiona (portrayed by Odeya Rush) are nauseating attractive. My other evidence is that neither one can act a smidgen. Neither of their performances feel genuine (a problem that likely could have been avoided with younger actors), and the kissing scenes that occur cheapen the film and de-evolve the production into your run-of-the-mill YA film. These are puppy-dog performances with no substance, no charm, and no talent.

The score, by Marco Beltrami, is actually, quite beautiful. There are several moments where otherwise ordinary scenes were transformed into something wonderful because of Beltrami's work. The score is graceful and melodic, two phrases that can rarely be applied to the music in YA adapted films. The use of a (somewhat repetitive) piano theme played by some of the characters also produces an occasionally haunting effect, though it's in desperate need of development.

The Giver is an uneasy mix of genuine art and corporate product. The film is a watered down version of the book that replaces its challenging questions with cheap answers. The Giver tries to duplicate the success of the source novel, but without taking risks, a challenge that proves ridiculous and fatal to the film. Had the film followed the book through the last third, and relied on the strength of the first two acts, The Giver could have been a successful adaption. As it is, however The Giver fails to give audiences a film that intrigues beyond the closing credits. With all the answers right in front of you, where's the discussion? Where's the relevance? Where is there room allotted for audiences to actually use their brains and think and develop their own opinions and theories? If The Giver truly wanted to be a smart film, it wouldn't spoon-feed the audience. And that's why I can deduce that The Giver was not made as film, but product.