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.
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.