http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvp6FnYWRZU
Metacritic: 47 out of 100 | User Rating: 6.0 out of 10
Rotten Tomatoes: 35% out of 100 | 61% out of 100
Box Office | Domestic: $41 Million | Global: $18 Million | Totaling: $62 Million | Budget: $25 Million
The giver hasn’t bombed at the box office per se. It seems to have used a smart budget that was not overblown by today’s standards. While it did close to 1.5 times over its budget, this film is another bad example of dystopian science fiction. Even though this book was published in 1993, prior to Harry Potter, the film itself feels like a Harry Potter clone. I’ll leave the discussion of which came first to you (the readers). Everything from suspension of disbelief to the general concepts being portrayed, such as emotion? Do these characters have or don’t have emotions? If they don’t, why do they express emotions in the film? If they do, how are simple concepts completely lost? The film made no sense in terms of the aspects they wished to convey believably. It’s a mechanism we’ve seen in Equilibrium, but it was done more poignantly and appropriately robotic, with a properly setup villain that was a villain, not someone functioning normally without any understanding of their behavior.
In a film world without Harry Potter, this one is yet another entry trying to take a hallowed spot among young adults and teenagers as a coming of age story with another chosen one concept. Especially with the sorting into specific parts of the society depicted. While this is an aspect taken from the book, it is arguable whether or not both writers created two separate stories with similar concepts. However, with the film being produced recently, it is obvious the production took a more Harry Potter-esque turn in its character development and rebellious world view similar to what made The Wizarding World so compelling. The book is a better read due to it delving deeper into the questions and scenarios these young characters face and the film doesn’t actually have a real villain. As I pointed out above, it’s a flip-flop natured character that seemingly was portrayed like Dougray Scott from his role in the aforementioned Equilibrium. You expect that Meryl Streep’s reveal would lead to her not being under the influence of their societies medication. But she in turn was revealed to be a normal everyday person following the rules absolutely. Leading to a simply bland character whose development breaks a contract with the audience. Because you dislike her intensely and now you’re forced to accept her ignorance and blindness similarly to everyone else. It created massive plot holes that made no sense what-so-ever as a side effect. The movie tip-toes around the issues in the novel and barely scratches the surface. Likely watered down for an American audience as opposed to hitting the material hard and living in the concept. It is however relatively enjoyable as a movie, despite all of this (to the age group it targets) and will likely complete its novel quartet adaptation to film.
Personal Ranking: ★★★
