Recensioni degli utenti

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 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?

"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+.

Moving and attractive Sci-Fi set in a dystopian society in which a brave teenager takes on lots of dangers and a horrible truth . This exciting flick boasts a good cast , that's why it will appeal to Meryl Streep and Jeff Bridges fans , who're really terrific . Thrilling film dealing with an allegedly perfect dystopian society in which an intelligent adolescent becomes involved into lots of dangers, risks, emotion and chases . Set in the far-future, following a great war called "The Ruin", a community in North America has lived in tranquility without the existence of emotions or color, as these would produce conflicts. The citizens have also had their memories wiped. We follow young teenager called Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) , as he rides his bike with his two best friends Asher (Cameron Monaghan) and Fiona (Odeya Rush). The society Jonas lives in is a peaceful one, in large part because their collective memories have been entrusted to the Giver (Jeff Bridges). Jonas lives at a tranquil home with his father (Alexander Skarsgård) , mother (Katie Holmes) and younger sister Lilly (Emma Tremblay) . It is the day before their Ceremony in which they will be assigned their positions in the community, something that makes Jonas rather nervous. As Jonas realizes that his only hope of saving the ones he loves most is to flee and he will be forced to make complex choices about sacrifice, loyaly, courage, love , redemption and allegiance. He searches answers beyond the wall borders , unlocks secrets , and, finally, discovering the shocking truth, as he comes to realize that everything he knows is a lie. You can make things better !.

This is a Science Fiction and drama film based on Lois Lowry's book and an interesting script from Michael Mitnick and Robert B. Weide . This fiilm contains thrills , a sensitive love story , breathtaking state-of-art-special effects, enough characterization , and violent happenings . Here our starring Jonas learns that the wisdom he now holds could dictate the fate of the entire society. As Jonas faces one impossible challenge after another, as he unreveals the truth about the past and, ultimately, the meaning of the strange and mysterious location beyond wall , as well as the dark future on his sad world . And finally, the conclusion in an unexpected denouement . Stars Brenton Thwaites as the valiant teen who learns that the wisdom he now holds could dictate the fate of the entire society. Thwaites gives nice acting as the brave teen who is really haunted by new visions , as well as he must confront the tyrannical dictatorship . There stands out Jeff Bridges as a mysterious yet seemingly benevolent figure, the Giver is the sole guardian of the community's dark and hidden history. Accompanied by a very good cast , such as : Meryl Streep , Alexander Skarsgård , Katie Holmes, Odeya Rush, Cameron Monaghan, Emma Tremblay and singer Taylor Swift.

The picture has a colorful and brilliant cinematography by Ross Emery. And a thrilling and rousing musixal score by Marco Beltrami . The motion picture was compellingly directed by Phillip Noyce . He is a good professional director who has got some successes as cinema as TV. Expert Australian director filmed compellingly this successful Dead Calm (1989) , starring Nicole Kidman, Sam Neill and Billy Zane , it brought Noyce to Hollywood, where he directed 6 films over the next decade , including Patriot Games (1992) and Clear and present danger (1994) starring Harrison Ford, and The bone collector (1999) , starring Oscar winners Denzel Washington and Angelina Jolie. And following other hits as The Quiet man, The Giver , Rabbit-proof-fence , Catch a fire , Above suspicion , among others . As Noyce has directed notorious films as : Patriot games, Clear and present danger and TV series and episodes as Billion, Books, the jury TV, The asset TV, among others . Noyce's smoothly persuasive direction attracts reception by the public and being a success at box office . Rating : 7/10, better than average .Well worth watching. Rating : above average. This decent Science Fiction movie that will appeal to teenagers.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I read the book when I heard it was going to be made into a movie. As I was reading I wondered how they could film it. The answer is that they can't. Instead they took the concept and worked out a three act story line with hero and villains. I'm sure the dissatisfaction I've read here is partly due to trying to make something that is almost unfilmable a movie. It's well made. If you've read the book, it's worth seeing how they made it into a film.

I've shown this to my high school classes several times and they have loved it. It presents a simple idea that resonates. The characters might behave differently than you'd expect given their upbringing, but if you're going to watch a movie whose premise is that two people can collectively hold the memories of the world in their minds, roll with that discrepancy and enjoy what the movie has to say.

It's weakest point is the ending, not in the outcome but in the physical distances they cover. If you pay attention to the timing the film makers went too far in trying to be cinematic given the time frame they had to work with. Again, given the premise, it's forgivable -- and beautiful.