The Giver (2014) User Reviews

The Giver Review

[jackgradis · 5/10 · 11 August 2014]

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?

promising but doesn't completely deliver

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 21 May 2015]

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.

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

[cosmo_tiger · 7/10 · 23 November 2014]

"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+.

Beautiful Emotions and Decent Acting

[rgkarim · 7/10 · 16 August 2014]

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

A Good Effort!

[namashi_1 · 6/10 · 16 November 2014]

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.

Lackluster

[vibha101 · 6/10 · 14 August 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.

Interesting Premise

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 18 July 2015]

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")

How could I have not known this film existed until now?

[Her-Excellency · 9/10 · 3 November 2019]

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.

Let down by the ending

[nymeria-meliae · 7/10 · 19 January 2016]

Overall I enjoyed this film. I would've loved to have seen some of the things brought up in the film explored in greater detail... such as the notion that without words for colour there is no colour... They could've done an entire film just on that idea alone... certainly when we covered this concept at university we spent hours upon hours exploring the power of language in defining our world.

Also the critique of community could've been explored much better. The result of the film is that we end up with more of a critique that borders communism rather than communitarianism and as such we get a THX-1138 or 1984 feel of this society. Although in all fairness the book emerged around the same time as Etzioni was redeveloping communitarianism into a means of government and Bauman's critique didn't come out until much later... as such, my guess is that the book was more of a promotion of neo-liberal individualism rather than a proper critique of communitarianism and as such it is understandable how the concept of community comes across as being more about communism and socialism. However, from talking to those who have read the book, there are enough changes in the film to have allowed the screen writer and director to bring the book up to date with more recent history by taking a communitarian critique and possibly weave in some similarities to things said and done during the Blair and Clinton administrations where government was defined in terms of community.

Meanwhile, the division of labour based on attributes seems like something taken straight from the Divergent... however, this is one of those cases whereby the films of the books have come out differently to the books - in other words, the book 'The Giver' came out a lot earlier than the book 'Divergent' and as such Divergent has probably borrowed from 'The Giver' rather than the other way around - although, I've not read either books and I am basing my review solely on the film.

The acting in the film was quite well done for such young actors. The photography and effects in the film were also well executed. There is also a big morality question over hanging all of this that mirrors that of 'After the Dark' (aka The Philosophers) (2013) concerning whether it is right for a few to die in order the rest to live harmoniously.

Although I would've loved to have seen a bit more development of the issues raised in the film (although it might be difficult to do that without making the film an epic in length), the main disappointment to the film was the ending. It made zero sense at all that the way in which to restore feeling was to break through a 'force field' on the edges of society. It would've made much more sense in the case of the film (I believe the book is slightly different) to have had Jonas do something to the injections that we are led to believe in the film were the cause of suppressed emotion (see THX-1138). Escaping to the edge of society seemed like a cheap ending to the film and if anything gave the film the impression that it had just ripped off THX-1138... and yet through the exploration of the power of language, the critique of community, and morality the film had the potential to be so much more than another THX-1138 rip-off.

The other major plot hole was the restoration of memory in people who had not experienced those memories. It made no sense whatsoever as to why someone who had not been born before the community was created to experience memories from before the community's creation, just because Jonas had passed through the edge of society. While I think tackling the injection would've been the way to have gone, had there been something at the edge of society that allowed Jonas to invade the consciousness of those within the community in the same way that the Giver shared his memories to Jonas via touch... then that may have solved the problems with the ending... it may be something along those lines in the book (I don't know) but if so, it wasn't very well explained in the film - and once again, it would've been better for Jonas to have discovered that he was able to project memory and feeling to others without the need of touching them as being the catalyst for the providing the community with a collective set of memories and emotions.

Overall... I enjoyed the film but felt it was let down by the ending.

Hollywood vs Lowry

[bonniejoy-978-68763 · 5/10 · 9 December 2016]

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.

Entrusted with the memories of the past

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 12 January 2015]

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.

not horrible, not great.

[katiefanatic-791-306918 · 7/10 · 12 August 2014]

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.

Fitting In

[billygoat1071 · 4/10 · 28 August 2014]

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.

Ever seen the movie Equilibrium?

[lauravankessel · 6/10 · 13 September 2014]

So... first of all, I have not read the book so this is not a comparison. Not to the book at least.

But the story... It's not an original one, to be honest. And, as a movie at least, it's told and shown less alluring then the movie I know that tells a similar story; Equilibrium.

Some other reviewers also state that you don't really get emotionally connected to the characters, with which I have to agree.

All in all it's really not a bad movie and the underlying moral is beautiful! But if a movie tells a story you've heard before it's easy to compare it with each other and, in my opinion, the other told it better.

So; if you did like it or liked the story but missed the connection; Equilibrium!

Not bad but didn't blow me away

[xaniver · 6/10 · 13 January 2015]

Had I known Taylor Swift was in this movie, I might have been less enthusiastic about the film, however, I can promise you that any Taylor Swiftness on posters and in promo is all a marketing ploy. She has a tiny – if important – role in the film and has very little screen time. The real star of the show is Brenton Thwaites as Jonas and he's really quite lovely in his role as the compassionate and curious Receiver.

The Giver film is competing against franchises like The Hunger Games, Divergent and even The Maze Runner. In order to give The Giver more teen appeal and to capture The Hunger Games/Divergent audience, the movie tried to be a lot that the book was not. The movie – despite being adapted from the predecessor of the modern dystopian trend – feels a little too familiar and cliché because it tries a little too hard to fit in aesthetically and tonally with the other YA adaptations. I wish the film had foregone the shiny technology additions and stuck with the utilitarian world-building of the book. I can also understand why the film producers chose to up the age of the protagonists and up the angst as well, but I'm not sure it really added all that much to the overall story except making it feel like another teen movie when it should've been so much more than that.

Where the film did excel was in the cinematography and use of black&white and color. This is described well in the book, but the visual medium of film really brought this to life. I do think they could've done even more with that, although I think they were trying to stay true to the book here. I was also hoping for more of an emotional impact from certain scenes between the Giver and the Receiver in the film. Some of those scenes in the book are brutal and really broke my heart for Jonas. It didn't have quite the same impact for me in the film – perhaps because the character was older.

The ending of the book disappointed me but the film managed to deliver a very similar ending in a way that stayed true to the book while also providing a greater sense of closure. Where I think the book meandered into allegory, the movie developed the plot and made a more compelling story overall, even if some of the 'science' of how all this was possible is dubious at best.

A major highlight from the film for me was seeing the usually uber sexy and seductive Alexander Skarsgård playing a nurturing father figure who worked in the nursery with newborns while his wife – played by the petite Katie Holmes – was involved in politics. Seeing 6'4 Eric Northman – sorry, Alex Skarsgård – so tenderly caring for tiny babies really highlighted the gender dynamics and theme of equality in the book. It was a very clever casting choice.

Overall, this movie was fine but not amazing. Given the source material and how beloved this story is I felt they could've done much more with it.

Adding technicolour to a monochromatic world

[russellingreviews · 7/10 · 19 November 2014]

Love, hope and joy are central themes of the book, but will this film convey the same message?

Walking into the cinema... The dystopian, young adult fiction genre is getting a bit tired. It is understandable that film makers are trying capitalise on the Twilight and Hunger Games successes. The challenge for these films is finding an original theme. The Giver seems to be putting forward a different storyline and it includes Jeff Bridges and Meryl Streep. Does it have hope for some originality?

Cinematic value: 3.5 stars Family value: 3 stars Overall rating: 3.25

You have to ask, 'Do we need another dystopian, young adult drama?' After Twilight, The Hunger Games and Divergent, it feels like this genre has hit its maximum capacity. Genre fatigue will be a major hurdle for The Giver, which was written prior to the other book series, but took some time to get released and, surprisingly, does give a new spin to this worn out genre. After reading the book, I understand why some fans would be upset by the changes, but they were needed to appeal to a broader audience and makes the film worth considering.

Phillip Noyce (Salt) manages to lay out a monochrome setting for the setting of the film in the utopian Community. A society that has eliminated war, pain and suffering, but there is something missing in this seemingly perfect society. Noyce seems to be preparing the film's artistic canvas before adding the desired colours. As with most artists, he begins by drawing a monochrome picture before starting work on his cinematic work. After the establishment of black and white portrayal of the community, we are introduced to a special ceremony for young graduates and their roles in the society. The central character, Jonas (Brenton Thwaites), is given the unique role of Receiver of Memories, a position that has not been given to anyone in 10 years. He enters into training with a mysterious elder called The Giver (Jeff Bridges). The development of their relationship is the basis for the slow incorporation of colour into the palette of the society and on the screen. With the introduction of the realities of the truths of the "real" world, Jonas finds that things are not as they seem within this utopian community. The richness of life brings forth the technicolour that he had realised was missing from The Community and his life. The beauty of the story is like watching a painting slowly come into reality. Jonas has to make decisions about what to do with these new truths. The story does not have children killing or fighting other children and does not incorporate too many action sequences. It is more philosophical and provokes the bigger questions of life. Jeff Bridges as the brooding mentor, helps to convey the weight of responsibility of one who holds the truths of the society, but has to have restraint in sharing with the broader society. Once he is allowed to share with Jonas, he has difficulty with the pace of release of information and pushes Jonas into making decisions that will effect all of the controlled society. The experience is like watching a colour by number painting being painted by Jackson Pollack. Philip Noyce manages to take a worn out genre and broaden the perspective of the viewer. The black and white filming is intentionally unnerving until the colour of the story and Jonas' life come into focus. The colours play beautifully against the backdrop of the greys of a society left without love and hope. One of the refreshing components of the storyline is how it pushes against the boundaries of political correctness and some of the key failures of humanity. Noyce manages to paint a picture of the realities of society and the awareness of what adds to the beauty to life. Admittedly, the film has an Oblivion and Enders Game feel without the action sequences and will inevitably suffer from comparison to many of the dystopian films that have come before and because of the lack of action it will not appeal to some of the audience of the The Hunger Games. Yet, due to the thought provoking message of life makes attending this film worthwhile for adults and teens. This recommendation comes with a warning. There are scenes of infanticide and references to euthanasia that are unnerving for the characters of the film and for the audience. Noyce does not take the topic lightly and does help to promote the sanctity of life. These crimes on humanity, the philosophical nature of the film, and the lethargic pacing will cause unfair comparisons to other series within this genre of film. It is thought provoking and refreshing, but does cover some disturbing content. The Giver is not a masterpiece, but it does have an aesthetic appeal and philosophical value.

Leaving the cinema... The last expectation of this film was to have deep theological and philosophical discussions with my young adult children, but that is what ensued. In amongst the young adult drama was the discussion of life, love, hope and joy. It had significant changes to the book, but necessary for a more mature audience. This film will have to get over the hurdle of genre fatigue, but commendations have to go to the screenwriters for their bravery and originality and I would recommend The Giver.

What are some of the bigger questions to consider from this film? 1. What does God and the Bible have to say about the value of life? (Genesis 1:27, Isaiah 46:3-4) 2. Do we have a role in our society? (John 13:35, 1 Peter 2:17) 3. Where can we find real love, hope and joy in this broken world? (Acts 24:14-16, Romans 8:24)

Written by Russell Matthews based on a five star rating system @ Russelling Reviews #russellingreviews

Yet another young adult film

[siderite · 7/10 · 25 December 2014]

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!)

The Giver

[stefan-alev · 8/10 · 10 July 2015]

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.

Forgettable, bland flick

[a1_andy_11 · 11 October 2014]

The Giver shares an uncanny resemblance to Equilibrium, which in itself is a rehash of 1984/Fahrenheit 451/Brave New World. However at least Equilibrium had a real sense of danger and suspense.

This film is one of a long line of dumbed down teeny bopper movies that are dominating the cinemas as of late. They seem to follow a safe, homogeneous formula that most young people won't realize has been served up numerous times before.

I'm trying to balance my review with some plus points, and I'm struggling. Jeff Bridges certainly has a few good moments but everything else about this film is forgettable, and unremarkable. Even the CG is bland.

If you catch this film for free on Netflix, it's worth a watch, but don't pay money to rent it.

Divergent, Equilibrium, And Pleasentville Had A Baby

[rich-35-260484 · 6/10 · 1 May 2022]

And that baby's name was The Giver.

This entire movie felt like I'd seen bit and pieces of other stories. As stated in my headline, those are the movies/books that came to mind.

I scored it a six because it was mildly entertaining. The acting was good, the setting was well-done, but it felt like the wheel was being reinvented to be another wheel.

What a terrible departure from the book

[drajon-671-218054 · 1/10 · 13 August 2014]

I shall start this review with the staple comment. I loved the book. This movie is awful. And I don't mean "they changed a couple of things and now I feel it is true to the original". I mean, they changed a lot, including the subtext, it has internal inconsistencies, and it is no longer the same story. I couldn't even stay to finish the movie, and below I will state where I departed. For this reason, I give it the score as low as possible.

Please don't continue reading if you do not wish to be exposed to the spoilers below.

To start things off, what is the first colour that Jonas sees in the book? Red, he sees a red apple. A little bit into the story, after they have described the setting of the community to help people understand what the world is like. A description they have skipped over in the movie, they just show funny shaped houses, funny shaped bikes and a futuristic community. Weird. And Jonas "always knew he was different" since he has been seeing green tree leaves... Well, that is a departure from the original. Not ruinous, until he then sees Fiona's hair and gets all moon-eyed at her. The impending love story crushes my hopes. Then, they skip RIGHT to the graduation ceremony and kind of blur over the sheer doldrums of the event, with a witty joke told by the Chief Elder who LIES to them, although she immediately comes clean. So lies aren't allowed except with humorous exceptions... Oh, and Asher the best friend is now a drone pilot, so that will explain how he and Jonas will fight for the girl, even though Asher has no feelings, so the jealousy he keeps showing is... well, impossible, but definitely present. The Giver starts sharing with Jonas (thankfully, the sled is the first memory) they choose to omit the poignant fact that the giving removes the memories from the Giver, so only the new Keeper has them. Then, as Jonas gets more memories, he tries to share them with the girl he is falling in love with... wait, that didn't happen and if it had, as a drone of the society, she would have turned him in. He also shares things with his sister and Gabe sleeps in her room because nobody realizes Jonas can calm him. The Chief Elder sees some of these interactions and becomes paranoid that Jonas is also reacting to the sharing of memories, just like Rosemary (who is now the daughter of the Chief Elder and the Giver). OK, I can go on and on, but I will skip ahead to where I had to leave the theatre. The Chief Elder sends her military police force after Jonas, then after the Keeper, whom they zap with their batons, something that shouldn't be acceptable in their anti- violence and war society and here is about where I left, as the Chief Elder directs Asher to fly a drone after Jonas to "lose" him, which seems an odd colloquialism for "gone elsewhere" that the story has used to that point.

So all in all, the society eschews war, but not the chief elder (somehow), feelings abound even on the feeling dampening drugs the society takes, and people are fine with violence from the military police. Not the story of struggle against a world so absorbed in being the same that feeling and being different are something to hide until one can escape to freedom outside the community. It is now a horrible love story, a horrible love triangle, and a story of a mother who hates the father of the child she lost.

What a garbage rendition. They should have let any of the other films with these plots continue to tell them instead of corrupting this story to the point of unrecognizability.

A colorless life, but a vibrant tale

[aharmas · 8/10 · 17 August 2014]

"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?

Not bad...needed more of a dramatic punch though.

[RevRonster · 6/10 · 26 December 2014]

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.

Good message, however...

[texastay · 2/10 · 14 November 2014]

This movie is essentially a sci-fi version of the 1998 movie "Pleasantville". Both movies have similar themes and the same core message. Watch Pleasantville instead, it tells the story much better.

The Giver takes itself too seriously and there are so many details in the movie that just do not add up.

Like for example, why does the role of "the giver" even exist when the rulers of the community obviously want to keep the truth a secret? Why not get rid of the role of the giver all together and not have to worry about the truth coming out???

If you were disappointed by this movie then PLEASE watch Pleasantville.

Underrated

[Giselle1710 · 7/10 · 23 August 2020]

It's such a unique concept not too deep to be an Sci fi though which I loved! Good looking cool acting cast! Give it a try