Movie Reviews

Film Review: The Giver

The Giver image

When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong. Every single time.” ~ Chief Elder

My bookclub recently read the book The Giver by Lois Lowry which resulted in an interesting and lively discussion, so I was quite excited when I heard that the book was being made into a movie. I saw the movie the other night and I absolutely loved it! This was not one of those movies that was completely true to the book as there were a good number of differences between the two but overall, I was pleased with the director’s interpretation.

The Setting

The Giver takes place in a colorless utopian society where there is no inequality, competition, anger, pain, hunger, war, fear, lust, sexual attraction, or different races. It is a place where the safety of sameness is the aim and differences of any kind are not tolerated. The community operates on a strict set of rules and not following them results in being released to Elsewhere. Everything is gray, sterile and orderly but nobody seems to unhappy. In fact, the community citizens seem quite content with their emotionless day to day lives.

The Hero

The story centers on Jonas, a young man seemingly satisfied with his place in the community. During the yearly ceremony where those graduating are told what their life’s work shall be, Jonas is set apart from the rest of his classmates. Rather than given a typical occupation, is told instead that he has been chosen to become the community’s next Receiver of Knowledge, an honor that is rarely bestowed as there is ever only Receiver in the community. Jonas is to begin his training immediately with the current Receiver, played by Jeff Bridges. In the book, Jonas is 12 years old, the age where each person in society is given his or her official occupation; that is to say, the role they are to play in the community for the rest of their lives. In the movie however, the character of Jonas is played by Brenton Thwaites who appears to be about seventeen or eighteen years old (I don’t recall if they mentioned Jonas’s actual age in the film), as do Jonas’s friends, Fiona and Asher. Jonas’s age in the movie is quite a departure from the book and from what I’ve heard, some people took issue with the change. Truth be told, while I was reading the book, I had a difficult time believing that Jonas was only twelve years old, especially given the enormous responsibility laid on his shoulders and the level of maturity he displayed. Portraying Jonas’s age closer to that of a high school senior makes more sense to me.

Enter The Giver

The Receiver (or Receiver of Knowledge) is the sole keeper of all of the community’s memories. Nobody, including the governing elders, knows anything about human history or their ancestors’ past – all memory of it has been erased from their minds. The Receiver is the only individual in the community who retains all of the memories from the past and using those memories, he is called upon from time to time assist the elders in making difficult decisions. Since Jonas has been designated the society’s new Receiver, the current Receiver then becomes “The Giver” and his role is to pass on all of his memories to Jonas, which he does by touch. The film starts out in dim black and white but gains more color as Jonas gains an understanding of real life. As Jonas receives more and more memories from The Giver, he begins to question the wisdom in removing all those memories and emotions from everyone’s mind – and once he begins to receive some of the more painful memories from The Giver (and the painful emotions that go along with them), his questions become even more profound. On some level, he understand why his ancestors did away with all the painful emotions, memories and even colors – but he begins to think that the sacrifice in attaining a safe society wasn’t worth what humanity has lost in the process. He starts to comprehend all too well what shutting down emotions and memories did to their community – everyone had stopped truly living. Once he learns his society’s secrets and darker truths, Jonas’s sense of morality grows, and with it, his need to see things restored to the way they should be. Finally he and The Giver, in a race against time, embark on a plan to set the community back to the way it once was – complete with memories, emotions and colors. It is time to right the wrongs.

Racing Agaist The Clock

The ending of the movie includes some aspects that were not included in the book which I felt worked well. For instance, the movie raised the stakes of Jonas’s success – and it becomes a matter of life and death, not just for him but his friends as well. I liked the extra suspense that the movie added to the story and I thought Jonas’s relationship with the Head Elder (played my Meryl Streep) was expertly handled. There seemed to be much more depth to the character of the all-powerful Chief Elder in the movie than in the book, no doubt helped by Steep’s stellar performance. On the opposite end however, I felt that the movie did leave out some important details – details that helped to support the central themes of the book

The Conclusion

Though there were several changes to the details from the book to the movie, the director left the conclusion/denouement of the film idential to that of the book so much so that with the exception of the age of Jonas, the ending of the movie was nearly exactly what I had pictured in my head while reading the book. Sure, several of the events leading up to the ending changed in the movie, but the actual ending stayed true to Lowry’s novel. What is interesting, is that at first glance, the film’s ending seems cut and dry. But there is more than one possible interpretation of what really occurred, which by the way, led to quite an interesting and emotional discussion during my bookclub’ meeting’s discussion of the story. What are these two interpretations or understandings of the ending you might ask? You shall have to watch the movie (and perhaps read the book as well?) to find out.

The Verdict

I was amazed by the lukewarm response that this movie received. While the film certainly could have perhaps delved a bit deeper into the main ideas of the book, I still thought it was an excellent interpretation of the original story with well-developed characters and superb acting. The Giver is not a light, fluffy movie given that it deals with topics such as a freedom, liberty, totalitarianism, what gives life meaning, conformity, freedom of expression and even murder. The Giver is also not an action-packed thrill ride. What it is, is a film that illustrates big ideas – ideas that cause us to contemplate, wonder and ponder. It’s a haunting movie that will stay with you long after the film is finished. Recommended! Note for True Blood fans: Alexander Skarsgård (Erik Northman in True Blood) plays Jonas’s father.

Film Review: The Giver Read Post »

Review of the movie G.B.F.

Gbf

I just viewed a fun & wacky indie YA comedy called G.B.F. and I loved it! Unfortunately, this film didn’t receive a lot of press and as such, only played in select theaters. If you wish to see it, you may have purchase or stream it on Amazon.

Jockeying For Position

G.B.F. stands for Gay Best Friend and takes place in a suburban high school. Here we are introduced to three female divas all of whom are battling each other for supremacy of the school. Each one decides that in order to the queen bee, she needs obtain for herself a gay best friend. Not an easy task, considering that there are no out gay students at the high school. But that’s all about to change.

Who’s Out & Who’s Not?

Flamboyant Brent (played by Paul Iacono) is hungering to be popular and sees this as his opportunity for school stardom. But his plan backfires and instead of outing himself, his shy best friend, Tanner (played by Michael J. Willett) ends up being the one who is outed. The three wanna be school queens spend the rest of the movie vying for Tanner’s attention and jump through outrageous hoops to obtain him as her exclusive new GBF.

Stereotypes for Days

The movie pokes fun at many high school stereotypes which some people may or may not find offensive. For instance, the cattiness and vindictiveness of the three young school divas during their quest to have Tanner be their own personal GBF made me think of the sterotypical high school mean girls. The movie also poked fun of those religious folk who do not walk their talk; such as ‘Shley (Andrea Bowen), a mormon who likes to drink and have sex and her mormon boyfriend ‘Topher (Taylor Frey) who has a bad habit of trying to seduce his gay classmates.

Witty Dialogue

In addition to poking fun at stereotypes, the film was rife with witty, fast-paced one-liners and jabs and I found myself roaring with laughter many times throughout the movie. The scene where Brent and his mother (played by Megan Mullally, who played Karen on Will & Grace) watch Brokeback Mountain together was hysterical. At one point, she says in regards to the movie, “Oh Heath, it’s freezing. Swallow your pride and go into the tent. Well, I guess necessity is the mother of invention.”

But it’s Serious, too

While this film certainly can be classified as trite, silly, wacky fun, there is also a serious element to it. This is not simply a story about three stuck-up girls who use a young gay student as a fashion accessory; it is also a tender best-friends love story with an emotional depth that renders it heartfelt. It’s an inspiring film that treats the subject of choosing between popularity and friendship with emotion and humor. This is fast-paced story filled with laugh-a-minute dialog, love, hope, friendship and some angst, that will touch anyone’s heart. And though Tanner and Brent go through some real turmoil, they experience real growth and change – and they come out in the end better people for it.

If you get a chance to see it at your local theater, I recommend you do so (it’s always great to support independent films). It’s a delightful tale of school popularity and friendship that doesn’t disappoint. You can also get it from Amazon HERE. Recommended!!

Review of the movie G.B.F. Read Post »

Robocop Mini-Review

Robo

Went to the movies last night to see Robocop. I saw the original way back in 1987 when it came out and recall that I enjoyed it at the time, although I don’t remember too much of the plot. I wasn’t sure what to expect with the 2014 version as often, I’m disappointed with remakes (with Carrie being a prime example). But I ended up enjoying the movie much more than I thought I would. While there indeed was a lot of shooting, I seem to remember the 1987 original as being much more violent — but perhaps time has affected my memory.

The year is 2028. OmniCorp, a center for worldwide robot technology, has succeed in placing robot drones on the streets as peacekeepers in many countries, with the United Stated being the exception. In the US, a law prohibits the use of drones. Just when it looks like OmniCorp’s latest attempt to instill drones in the US will fail, Alex Murphy, a Detroit Police Officer played by Joel Kinnamon, is critically wounded in an explosion after investigating some possibly corrupt officers on his force.

The CEO of OmniCorp played by Michael Keaton, seizes this opportunity and uses what’s left of Office Murphy to create a half-man, half-robot police officer called Robocop (actually, he’s more robot – not to much left to him beside brain, heart, lungs and one hand). He is put on the streets and almost immediately, crime in the city is reduced by 80%. But there is a lot more going on here, from corrupt police officers to evil corporate maneuvers — and of course, one key fact that the scientists and corporate monkeys seem to have forgotten: it is still a man inside the machine, complete with fears, anxieties, love and a thirst for vengeance.

While there were several clichés present in the movie such as “one man stands alone against the evil corporation”, I enjoyed the film. It was fast-paced with well-orchestrated action scenes and great acting all around. Samuel L. Jackson (he’s been in everything lately) does an fantastic job as a pro-drone over-the-top game show host and Gary Oldman who plays Dr. Dennett Norton, the scientist responsible for Murphy’s transformation from man to machine, is convincing as his portrayal as the corporate scientist with a heart.

While the 2014 movie might not be as bloody as the original, there were a couple of cringe-worthy scenes, one during which the machine is stripped from Office Murphy and we see how little of Robocop is actually a man — all that’s left of Murphy is his exposed brain, heart, lungs and right hand — an eewww moment for sure. Speaking of his hand, I thought it amusing that when he was first revealed, it was his left hand that was human but later on in the movie it was his right. Whoop….little continuity problem there. But confused hands aside, I enjoyed the movie and feel that it’s worth a view.

Robocop Mini-Review Read Post »

Scroll to Top