The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Welcome back to FlashBack Friday! A little last minute this week, but from now until The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is released in theatres, I will be reviewing The Lord of the Rings each Friday. Please see my "Archives" section above if you'd like to see my reviews of the two Hobbit movies. I find tackling films to this magnitude incredibly daunting, so I apologize if I come off a little reverential at times. Like the one ring, this trilogy is precious to me. There's so much depth and meaning to every character that it's impossible for me to touch on all of it, but I hope to at least scratch the surface as I revisit what I consider to be the greatest film trilogy of all time.

Middle Earth is ruled by rings of power, given to dwarves, elves, and men to govern their respective races. However, the Dark Lord Sauron forged a master ring to rule them all and cover all the land in darkness. In a final battle for the freedom of Middle Earth, elves and men united at the foot of Mt. Doom, and Sauron is defeated as the one ring is cut from his hand. The ring contains Sauron's life force, however, and has a will of its own. It betrays its new owner and fades out of all knowledge until it's found by the creature Gollum, who is consumed by it. After 500 years of isolation in the Misty Mountains, it is picked up by a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins, who takes it back to the Shire (following the events of The Hobbit). There it remains until the Dark Lord regains enough strength to begin his hunt for it, and an unwitting hobbit is the only hope of preventing Sauron from finding the ring and reigning over Middle Earth once more.

That summary covers just the first six minutes or so of the film, but it contains a lot of necessary information for people who may not be completely up on the history of the ring, or don't know why it's so important to the story. This isn't a story to be watched passively, as it's jam-packed with crucial story details and subtle nuances that can only be appreciated by the attentive viewer. Take it from my wife (who wasn't necessarily looking forward to our foray into Tolkien), this movie rewards those who are willing to put forth the effort to get something from it.

When sitting down to watch The Fellowship of the Ring, the first thing that instantly sets you in Middle Earth is the tremendous score by Howard Shore. The music has an eerie, mystical quality to it that makes it seem otherworldly. Throughout this film the score immerses you in the story, elevating the material to amazing heights. It's perfect at eliciting emotion at the exact right moment, whether its the sorrowful events following the Bridge of Kazhad-Dum (which I'm not ashamed to admit brings me to tears every single time), or the incredibly intense horseback chase from pursuing ring wraiths, this music is flawless at every turn. I've never heard a better score in my life than in these three films, and Fellowship may be the best of the bunch.

Every technical aspect of this first film was not only a landmark for its time, but still holds up incredibly well to this day. It's hard to believe sometimes that this film was released thirteen years ago, but most of it looks as though it could have come out yesterday. The effects will continue to get better throughout the course of this trilogy, but from the beginning they had a tone and style that would forever be associated with this franchise. The amazing scenery of Middle Earth, the craftsmanship of the sets and wardrobe of the characters (watch any behind the scenes features about this movie if you want to see the amount of work that went into creating this world) all contribute to a one-of-a-kind experience that no other fantasy film has ever been able to capture - not even the Hobbit films, if I'm to be perfectly honest.

Beyond the visuals and the gorgeous music, I think I've always related to the story being told on a personal level as well. Part of that comes from my childhood, as I was practically raised in the Shire (aka Heber City, UT). Growing up and moving on from my comfortable surroundings felt very much like Frodo leaving his home and taking on a difficult and dangerous task - though not quite as dramatic. Particularly when travelling abroad and being thrust into unfamiliar territory, it's easy to stay in your comfort zone rather than face the unknown. Frodo's determination and selfless attitude are truly inspirational, as he's the smallest and weakest of the secret council that meets in Rivendell, but is the first to volunteer to destroy the ring rather than use it for his own selfish desires. Throughout this series he will endure immense trials, and he's often a symbol of something far greater that I always aspire towards.

Every one of the actors in this incredible cast is extraordinary, but it's Sir Ian McKellen that delivers a truly standout performance (and deservedly received an Oscar nomination as a result). His epic delivery of "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!" has become the stuff of cinematic legend, and still gives me goosebumps to this day. Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn is probably the coolest of the fellowship, and his sword-fighting antics are even more impressive given the actor's abbreviated preparation time (he was cast only a few days before his first fight scene was filmed).

However the heroes wouldn't nearly be as memorable were it not for the formidable foes introduced in this film. Sir Christopher Lee gives a truly creepy performance as the good wizard turned evil, Saruman, and his battle with McKellen's Gandalf is both captivating and horrifying in equal measure. Even this pales in comparison to the ultimate embodiment of evil, the ring wraiths. Clad in black cloaks and shrieking the most terrifying noise you'll ever hear, these ominous spectres ruthlessly pursue Frodo and his friends despite Aragorn and Arwen's best efforts to combat them. They're seriously the stuff of nightmares, and even the dementor's from the Harry Potter franchise pale in comparison to the agents of Sauron.

Some people may complain about the length of these films, but I think they've perfectly streamlined this incredibly dense story so as to highlight all of the meaningful character arcs and dilute the world-building exposition to a more manageable level. Even the least important members of the fellowship (Merry and Pippin) end up finding a way to show their courage at the end of the film. Perhaps the unsung hero of this entire movie is Boromir, the oft-misunderstood warrior of Gondor who desires the ring to protect his people. He is frequently categorized as a villainous presence, but shows his true colors in a finale that truly tugs on the heartstrings.

There are so many things to praise here that I know I'm going to leave something out. Suffice it to say that this film legitimized the fantasy genre like The Godfather did for the crime genre, or Star Wars did for sci-fi (though it has some fantastical elements as well). It was the perfect way to start out this trilogy and paved the way for some truly spectacular sequels. Whether they will top this initial effort remains to be seen in future weeks, but I can say that this is a near perfect film that I cannot recommend highly enough. I give The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring the strongest of four-star ratings.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING is rated PG-13 for epic battle sequences and some scary images

**How much do you love The Fellowship of the Ring? Let me know in the comments below!**

Interstellar

Anybody who knows me could have told you that I have been dying to see Interstellar. Christopher Nolan's reputation is that of a visionary filmmaker of the highest order, and his stories expand beyond what typical blockbusters even attempt, let alone accomplish. I for one would start to choke up just watching the trailers for this film, and the early buzz about it being Nolan's best yet launched my expectations into the stratosphere. However, something happened about a week and a half ago that I never really expected - early reactions to the film were somewhat mixed. The awards analysts who had this film projected as a juggernaut for every Oscar for which it qualified were suddenly jumping ship. Even I, who couldn't wait for this film, was a little shaken by this unexpected reaction, and I can't deny that my enthusiasm was somewhat dampened by it.

I eventually diluted those early reviews down to the subjective opinions that they were, and regained most of my excitement for the film... though with slightly lower expectations. With all that background, I have to apologize in advance for my lengthy and essay-like entry as I attempt to deconstruct my thoughts. As most people haven't seen the movie yet, I am going to take a cue from Nolan himself and stay as far away from spoilers as possible.

A few decades from now, humanity is pulled back into a time of economic and technological famine (not to mention the actual famine). Dust storms ravage the landscape, and the only remaining crop is corn, though its days of sustainability are numbered as well. This kind of agricultural lifestyle is particularly difficult for a man like Cooper, a trained pilot and engineer who worked with NASA before the environmental disasters that led to these conditions. He bemoans the limited possibilities available for his children, and longs for an opportunity to inspire future generations not to give up hope. Such an opportunity comes when unexplainable circumstances lead him to reunite with his longtime mentor, a physics professor who is planning a heroic quest across galaxies to save our species from extinction. Given that Cooper has the skills and experience they need, he is recruited to lead the interstellar expedition... though he must leave behind his children in order to do so.

Hopefully that doesn't give anything away, but most of my plot summary does appear in the trailers as well. I want to say up front that you need to go into this movie with a bit of preparation: first, this movie is nearly three hours in length (a little more on that later); and second, there are ideas and plot points here that will challenge your mind. More so than even Inception, this movie demands a lot of its viewers. The overall experience is going to be a whole lot more rewarding if you understand those things before sitting down to consume this incredibly dense film. Even some Christopher Nolan fans might be surprised by this, as it's completely unlike anything he's ever directed before.

Now, about those negative reviews... don't listen to them. People have such mixed reactions to this film that there's hardly a single complaint (or nitpick) that even seems valid, particularly since the criticisms about it almost contradict themselves. There are probably flaws in this film, but there are flaws in every film, and those in Interstellar aren't greater than those in any other film that the naysayers profess to enjoy. People always seem more willing to forgive the mistakes in films that are easier to digest, and I don't hold it against this film that it isn't "perfect". No doubt about it, this is a challenging experience with really complex concepts that stretch beyond our understanding. However, its ambitions are unparalleled, and I'm more than willing to meet a film with this much substance to its ultimate destination. Just as you'll see in the film, great things are rarely (if ever) just given to us. Even when a wormhole seems divinely placed in our solar system to rescue us from extinction, we still need to get there ourselves.

Like I said, this movie has really big ideas, and perhaps not everyone contemplates these things on a regular basis. Surely those who are perfectly satisfied with the earthbound rewards our society is driving us towards will see little value in a vision as vast and far-reaching as Interstellar. It stretches our understanding of the universe and imagines the endless possibilities of the cosmos in spectacular fashion - one of the major themes in this film is Murphy's Law (whatever can happen, will happen), after all. But even then, it still has its roots buried deep in the earthbound, but no less important relationships with our loved ones. Its depiction of the transcendent quality of love is truly beautiful (if not a little too obvious), and is quite as awe-inspiring as the humongous canvas on which this universe-spanning epic takes place.

Lest you think this movie is all about existential philosophy and theoretical physics, however, there is also a thrilling story that will pull the audience through moments when they may not fully comprehend the deeper meanings embedded within the narrative. There are plenty of extra-terrestrial dangers and suspenseful situations to keep your blood boiling throughout the three hour run time. I wish I could go into detail about all of the captivating scenes that not only necessitate the film's length, but also gives the story its power. However, at the risk of going into spoiler territory, suffice it to say that you will never be bored watching Interstellar.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this film takes quite a bit of inspiration from Stanley Kubrick's 1968 classic, 2001: A Space Odyssey. While I can definitely appreciate that landmark sci-fi titan for what it did for the genre, I think there are monumental problems with it that people are willing to overlook because it's considered a "classic". Perhaps I'll do a separate review of that film one day, but the incomprehensible nature of it and the laborious stretches of technological gimmickry for the sake of it can definitely test one's patience. Unlike Interstellar, that film has no concrete meaning and relies entirely on whatever the viewer can come up with to make sense of what they just saw. Perhaps in fifty or so years people will finally realize how hypocritical their readings of Nolan's latest masterwork are, especially when comparing it to a film that suffers from far more critical flaws in my (surely unpopular) opinion.

If I haven't alienated all of you yet, let me start in on what I believe makes Interstellar so special. This movie speaks to a generation in a far more inspiring way than I've possibly ever seen. The story is more or less designed to demonstrate the limitless potential of the universe, and to lament our conditioned satisfaction with introverted technological achievements. Some of the greatest struggles of humanity may have solutions somewhere in the endless arena of space, but we'll never know unless we embrace our pioneer heritage, as it were, and seek them out. We stand on the shoulders of innovators and visionaries, but our selfishness may be getting in the way of our own advancements. Like the film says, we can't think of ourselves as individuals, and though we may not think of ourselves as a species either, we should think of ourselves as families. That message carries through with a theme that everyone, everywhere can relate to. Throughout the movie we see people supposedly self-sacrifice for the good of mankind, but it eventually shows that those impulses can really only be motivated by the love you have for others.

Of course, not everyone is going to get that from the film, and that's okay. One of the things I love about artful movies is how they can be interpreted multiple ways (as long as it has some kind of structure... ahem, 2001...). Perhaps you do have to approach this material from an almost spiritual perspective in order to grasp its complexity. If not, you still have what may be the best thing about this incredible movie to suck you into the journey - Hans Zimmer's masterful score. Zimmer is easily my favorite composer working today, and I thought it was very interesting how none of the trailers (save for the teaser that premiered almost a year ago) featured any of his original music. Apparently he and Nolan are on the same page with their secrecy for this project, because reportedly Zimmer didn't want anyone to hear his music until the film was released. Man, am I glad I didn't know what to expect coming in, because the discovery of such powerful music paired with the dazzling visuals on the massive IMAX screen was unlike anything I've ever experienced in a movie theater. I will be appalled if his music doesn't at least garner an Oscar nomination, as it may be the best work he's ever done (which is truly saying a lot).

I grew up being completely fascinated by outer space (a fascination no doubt born from the early consumption of Star Wars movies), and I still get goose bumps considering the never-ending expanse above us when I look at a clear night sky. The visuals of this film are not only the best I've ever seen, but they truly transport us to another glorious vista. If last year's Gravity gave us the feeling of floating in space, Interstellar gives us the mind-boggling experience of transcending space and time. It's truly a remarkable technical achievement, made even more impressive thanks to Nolan's thoughtful approach to the storytelling. You may never see anything so awe-inspiring in a film as when the space vessel Endurance orbits the fiery rings of a black hole, or bends through time and space in a wormhole. Seriously, see this on as large a screen as possible.

Another aspect of this film that really brings the story to life is the acting. When it was first announced back in 2013 that Matthew McConaughey would be starring in this film, I thought it was a very interesting choice (see my review of Mud). Though not much of his previous work resembled what I expected Interstellar to be, I always enjoyed his presence on screen and could see his potential even from the dumbest rom-com roles. Amazingly, his performance in this film is nearly on par with his Oscar-winning part last year, and the emotion he brings to the screen as well as the unexpected humor throughout the movie instantly gets you on his side. It's perfect casting in that his skills as an actor as well as his overall charisma helps to sell even the most confusing aspects of the story. Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain are exactly as good as you'd expect such high caliber actresses to be, but perhaps the standout was young Mackenzie Foy, who plays Cooper's 10 year-old daughter. She has the unenviable task of having to match McConaughey's emotional range in this film, and she pulls it off completely. I don't think I was ever as heartbroken during this film as when her father has to leave her behind in order to save the world.

Bottom line: this film is a fantastic vision and a tremendous exploration of the human soul as well as the very depths of existence. Not everyone is going to love this film as much as I did; it's already proven to be quite divisive among the film-going public. What I can say is that everyone around me was singing the praises of the extraordinary experience we shared, and the applause we gave at the end is exactly what I hope to have encapsulated with my review here.

I've wondered whether this would be my favorite film of the year so far. There have been some great movies in 2014, but this outstrips them all by light-years, in my opinion. It's definitely up there with Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight films and Inception as one of his best. Though the ending will definitely baffle a lot of viewers, those who go in with an open mind to the expansive, thought-provoking ideas presented will not be disappointed. Interstellar deserves nothing less than four stars.

INTERSTELLAR is rated PG-13 for some intense perilous action and brief strong language

Gone Girl

I debated whether to see this movie or not, just as I debated whether or not to give it an official review. It's not that I didn't expect it to be good, or that I didn't enjoy the film after seeing it (as you can clearly see by my star rating), but it's a very dark movie that most people I know probably wouldn't necessarily enjoy seeing. If you want a good comparative for Gone Girl, just look at director David Fincher's previous works: Fight Club, Se7en, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, among others. I recently started to appreciate Fincher's works after the incredible film he almost won the Oscar for, The Social Network. He has a very distinct visual style that I actually really enjoy, even if he doesn't direct films I tend to consume. We probably wouldn't have seen this movie if my wife hadn't read the novel by Gillian Flynn, which is full of twists and surprises. Just so you know up front, there won't be any spoilers discussed in this review, so feel free to continue reading past this point.

On a seemingly normal morning, Nick Dunne goes to the bar he and his twin sister co-own where the two discuss his troubled relationship with his wife Amy over a game of LIFE. He recounts their picture-esque courtship and how devoted they were to each other at the beginning. Since then, he feels their relationship has deteriorated mainly as a bi-product of Amy's selfishness and her unrealistic expectations for him, punctuated by the fact that it's their fifth wedding anniversary. Every year she sends him on a complex scavenger hunt as if to highlight his failings as a husband. After their conversation, Nick returns home to find that the house appears to be broken into, with all the signs of a struggle within. What's worse is that Amy is nowhere to be found, and all signs point to him as the primary suspect.

I don't dare go any further into the plot, as the unfolding narrative to this mystery is one of the most satisfying parts of Gone Girl. Fincher sets the stage perfectly by giving us a struggling couple and a perfectly ambiguous leading man. Ben Affleck's characterization of Nick is a flawless portrayal of a broken man who's made poor decisions and who finds himself in an unimaginable situation. In any other movie a performance like his would certainly be the main focus of the story, but Rosamund Pike's portrayal of Amy is absolutely mind-blowing. To talk about the specifics of her performance would certainly break my promise to remain spoiler-free, so suffice it to say that she is the highlight of a very, very good film.

All of the performances are top-notch here, but one of the unlikely standouts was actually Tyler Perry as the hot-shot defense attorney brought in to represent Nick after public perception reaches a horrifying low. Perry is the perfect blend of confidence and intensity, and I wouldn't have thought it possible before seeing it for myself. This is, after all, the man who brought us innumerable "Madea" films. Neil Patrick Harris also acts contrary to type, as a slightly obsessive former boyfriend of Amy. Also, Carrie Coon put in an emotional performance as Nick's supportive twin sister, Margo. Her range is really impressive, and as the film progresses we see more and more of her acting chops as Margo realizes the truth about her brother.

Gone Girl has all the hallmarks of a David Fincher film: it's incredibly intense at some parts, it has a haunting score delivered by Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross, the cinematography beautifully utilizes a lot of steady cam, wide and slow zoom-in shots, and the actors are uniformly excellent. Despite the undeniably polished production, however, the content itself is very raw. There's a lot of harsh language, some very violent scenes, and a few moments of nudity. Unlike most R-rated films I've reviewed, this one definitely earned its rating for a reason. This isn't an uplifting experience in any way, shape or form. Gone Girl is a gripping, tragic, cynical take on domestic life and pop culture's perceptions of crime based on media outlets. The social commentary throughout this film is spot-on, showing both extremes for what they are.

Once credits roll, I don't think most people will know quite what to think. The ending doesn't necessarily offer a lot of closure, but that was never this story's M.O. It's about the ideas and the psychology of the characters, and what they will or won't do to find something they can live with. It's full of thought-provoking and dark themes, and though it isn't one that you'll probably want to watch over and over, I think it would definitely reward repeat viewings. The screenplay is expertly written, and the twists and turns of the novel translate seamlessly to the screen by author and screenwriter Gillian Flynn. Most novelists struggle transitioning to writing screenplays, but Flynn did a remarkable job and may earn an Academy Award nomination for her efforts here.

Again, I don't want to encourage people to go see this if they're wanting something wholesome or inspirational. That isn't what Fincher's films are about. If you want to see an excellently crafted and disturbing crime drama, then you have found it with Gone Girl. I think it's easily one of Fincher's best (#2 to The Social Network, in my opinion), and it's also one of the best films of the year. That isn't to say that it's the most entertaining or enjoyable film of the year, but it's the most engaging and challenging film I've seen in quite some time. It isn't a film that everyone will or should seek out, but I have to give Gone Girl four stars.

GONE GIRL is rated R for a scene of bloody violence, some strong sexual content/nudity, and language

**What did you think of Gone Girl? Did it keep you guessing or were you bored with the mystery? Let me know in the comments section!**

The Book of Life

This year hasn't had a lot of animated features, but the ones I've seen so far (The LEGO Movie & How to Train Your Dragon 2) have both been excellent. I didn't necessarily have the same expectations for the somewhat under-the-radar release that was The Book of Life. With it's unique, almost stop-motion animation style, I anticipated something along the lines of Corpse Bride when I went into the press screening last weekend. The one thing that gave me hope in this picture being worthwhile was the involvement of Guillermo del Toro, who directed the recent Pacific Rim and many other visually resplendent films.

A small group of semi-delinquent school children are taken to a museum, where they are led to the Mexican section and shown a glowing text called "The Book of Life". They are told about a young man named Manolo who is competing for the affections of the beautiful Maria against his friend, Joaquin. Overseeing this struggle for Maria's affections are two gods, La Muerte, ruler of the Land of the Remembered, and Xibalba, ruler of the Land of the Forgotten. On the annual Day of the Dead celebration, the two deities make a wager to see which of the two boys will go on to marry Maria. However, Xibalba has an ace in the hole after bequeathing a magical medal to Joaquin that will make him invincible.

My first impression of this film wasn't necessarily a positive one, as the goofy humor at the beginning reminded me of a direct-to-DVD Tinkerbell film or something (don't ask why that's my go-to reference). As the story progressed, however, I found myself enjoying the characters more and more. The fact that this is all more or less based on actual Mexican folk-lore was really intriguing to me, as that particular culture's mythology isn't often explored in cinema. The animation of the characters almost made them appear doll-like, as if carved and assembled entirely from wood. Some of the visuals go a little overboard at times, harkening back to action movie tropes that seem somewhat out of place, but otherwise I really enjoyed the animation in this film.

What I didn't enjoy quite as much were the musical choices. Taking recognizable (if not exactly fitting) songs and giving them a Mexican flare worked well in some instances, but was mostly a little pandering and unnecessary. Strangely, one of the few songs that was clearly an original composition stood out to me as easily the best in the entire film (titled, "The Apology Song"). It's not often you hear bands like Radiohead and Biz Markie in children's entertainment, and they definitely took me out of the movie every time they were used.

Other than that, I actually enjoyed this movie quite a bit. A lot of the story elements aren't that original, but the creative visuals and some of the surprisingly comedic dialogue carried my enjoyment through the weaker parts of the film. While I wouldn't say it's great, I do think this is a solid film that most kids are going to enjoy. It introduces some interesting ideas and folk-lore that we aren't often exposed to, and I appreciate the unique perspective director Jorge Gutierrez brings to the table. It isn't going to be in my top 10 for the year, but I'm happy to give The Book of Life three stars.

THE BOOK OF LIFE is rated PG for mild action, rude humor, some thematic elements and brief scary images

**Have you seen The Book of Life? If so, what did you think? Let me know in the comments section below!**

The Giver

It seems like this happens every year, and I apologize for the long gap between reviews. Man, it's been a slow at the movie theatres since Guardians of the Galaxy came out at the beginning of August. Luckily a friend and I were able to attend Salt Lake Comic-Con last week, or else the time really would have dragged. While we were pre-registering for our tickets, however, we decided to watch a movie neither of us had seen. Since we'd already watched TMNT and Guardians, we eventually settled on The Giver. Having never read the book on which this film is based, I had to rely on my friend's expertise regarding the differences between the movie and its source material. I wasn't totally hyped for the movie, despite the praise for Lois Lowry's novel, mostly because of the lukewarm critical response. However the saving grace of this film for me was the fact that the YA dystopian trend all kind of started with this story. With that and the star power involved, I was hoping this movie would defy the negative word-of-mouth and actually be an entertaining adaptation.

In the year 2048, society has been crippled by wars and forced to adopt a strict uncaring attitude towards all things. Citizens are given curfews, uniforms, and even pills to eliminate color from their vision.  There's no allowance for lying, cheating, stealing, or violence of any kind. Everything is incredibly orderly and structured for each individual and the society at large. Jonas, a seemingly ordinary teenage boy, is about to receive his appointment from the society that will determine in what way he is meant to contribute. However, all of his friends and peers are chosen before him and he is singled out by The Chief Elder in front of the entire population. Jonas is thereby given the position as Receiver of Memory, which entitles him to daily instruction from the current Receiver and the ability to bend the rules that normal citizens must abide. However, once Jonas is taught about life before the wars that tore their society apart, he sees flaws in the system and begins to silently rebel against protocol... which triggers the unwanted attention of the brutal Chief Elder.

So, right off the bat it's pretty plain to see that The Giver might not be the freshest idea for a film adaptation in 2014. These kinds of ideas are everywhere in popular young adult fiction, not to mention those that premiere on the big screen every couple of months. It's sad that the source material was so fresh at the time and clearly inspired the works of many copy-cats to come (Divergent probably being the biggest offender).

Despite how revolutionary this story once came across, the overabundance of dystopian screen adaptations has really overexposed most audiences to the intriguing concepts presented in this story. The Giver deserved better than that, given its ground-breaking source material. It also deserved better than to be given a mere $25 million dollars (even Divergent cost $85 million to produce) as well as a director who clearly lacks the vision and the passion to make this anything more than a run-of-the-mill YA adaptation. Some of the directorial choices are nice to see such as the black and white film slowly transitioning to color as Jonas's meds wear off, but are also kind of obvious and not exactly revolutionary techniques in storytelling (see The Wizard of Oz).

Most of the problems I have with this film, however, is the way in which it was adapted from book to screen. When you look at the best on-screen adaptations of these kinds of novels (The Hunger Games, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc.) the screenwriters take elements that wouldn't necessarily translate well to a movie and make them much more cinematic. There were so many missed opportunities to do this in The Giver, and instead they set out to make as literal an adaptation as possible rather than make an entertaining movie.

So many examples of this come to mind that I could write a whole separate post about it, but the easiest one is the character development. I get that the characters are boring by design and that the society making everyone become this way is one of the major conflicts. The problem is that with such bland characterizations it makes it almost impossible to invest in anyone's plight. I can see what Jonas looks like and try to relate to him on that level, but he behaves in such a childlike and uninteresting manner that I really have a difficult time caring what happens to him. In a book you're privy to the thoughts and feelings of the protagonist in a natural way, but voice-over narration while Jonas rides his bike is not a recommended tool for character development. It might be interesting to read about someone experiencing colors and bees for the first time, but it isn't very interesting to watch.

Another annoying thing about this movie is the casting. First off, this film was produced by the Weinstein Co. In other words, one of the most powerful names in Hollywood when it comes to Oscar campaigning. So it doesn't surprise me to see two Oscar-winning actors taking on key roles (though the film oddly doesn't feature them much) in a pandering attempt to get some kind of legitimacy from the general public. In all honesty, I thought Jeff Bridges was actually a really great choice for the role of The Giver, and I would have liked a story that focused more on his character. His immediate dismissal of the ridiculous social niceties Jonas tries to enact was a breath of fresh air, bringing much-needed levity to this otherwise joyless affair. Other than Bridges, however, no one else in the movie makes much of an impression. Their line-readings are so robotic that if they didn't look like different people I wouldn't be able to distinguish one character from the other. Even Meryl Streep is completely wasted as the authoritative Chief Elder, bossing people around and showing little to no emotion.

I also think the story can be a little manipulative at times, particularly when it's revealed what it means to be "released". The debates are so one-sided that I hardly even get a chance to contemplate the different sides before one is shown to be so heinous as to remove any sense of ambiguity. Good versus evil seems like an interesting conflict on paper, but only a handful of stories are actually able to do that conflict justice. Most of the time it's the philosophical debates and the morally gray areas that are more interesting to see play out. Even in The Hunger Games with such an undeniably corrupt government there are interesting moral conflicts that demonstrate the paradoxical nature of the human condition.

I've gone on a bit of a rant here, but I do think that despite its many, many flaws this still isn't a terrible movie. At the end of the day it's simply a bland, uninteresting experience that doesn't really have much to say that hasn't been said repeatedly - and frankly in much better ways. Perhaps this story doesn't naturally lend itself to a big-screen adaptation, to which I say they shouldn't have adapted it to the big screen. Lovers of the book will probably find something to enjoy here (if simply by watching their imaginations visualized), but there aren't many other reasons to seek out this film. While I don't recommend this movie, I actually do recommend checking out the novel, which I am going to do myself. I'm interested to see how much better this comes across on the page than it ended up on the screen. I give The Giver a generous two and a half stars.

THE GIVER is rated PG-13 for a mature thematic image and some sci-fi action/violence

**What did you think of The Giver? Let me know in the comments below!**