The Giver

***DISCLAIMER*** The following review is entirely my opinion. If you comment (which I encourage you to do) be respectful. If you don't agree with my opinion, that's fine. To each their own. These reviews are not meant to be statements of facts or endorsements, I am just sharing my opinions and my perspective when watching the film and is not meant to reflect how these films should be viewed. Finally, the reviews are given on a scale of 0-5. 0, of course, being unwatchable. 1, being terrible. 2, being not great. 3, being okay. 4, being great and 5, being epic! And if you enjoy these reviews feel free to share them and follow the blog or follow me on Twitter (@RevRonster) for links to my reviews and the occasional live-Tweet session of the movie I'm watching! Hack comedians all over the world took a second away from their Taco Bell/Diarrhea gags and 4-hour erection jokes to declare the sequel should be called The Taker.




The Giver ? 3 out of 5

So, it seems The Giver is based on a book of the same name by Lois Lowry that came out in 1993.  It was one of those tween dystopian novels that are all the rage now but came out before they were the rage (so, can I say it is the grandfather of the subgenre?).  The book is quite acclaimed and loved by a lot of people and it has been fought to get adapted into a film for nearly two decades?by a man in the film, no less.  It?s not really surprising that since Twilight and The Hunger Games proved that adapting young adult novels into films?especially when they are about future worlds that are suppose to be perfect but are covering up all kinds of corruption and suppressing people?s desire to be free?basically results in the studio drowning in money, it?s no wonder it was easier to get The Giver made today than it was years ago.

Sure it's a screencap from the film but it also looks like it was taken from a Goo Goo
Dolls video.

Everything Bridges does just looks cool.

The world is a different place.  War, worry, disease, and suffering are all gone but it comes at a price.  The price is forgetting all that came before?with the exception of one; The Giver (Jeff Bridges).  When young Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) sees his day where he can be assigned a duty to the community, he finds that the Chief Elder (Meryl Streep) has elected him to become the Receiver of Memory.  His time with The Giver shows him the world that once existed.  A world with joy and sorrow, fear and sadness, hope and love, and one that was an all around melting pot of ethnicity and culture.  This breeds rebellion in Jonas and he longs to see the world beyond where the community ends; beyond the cliff?s edge?a place called ?The Elsewhere.?  As the memories from The Giver are?um?given to Jonas, he learns that he is in love with his friend Fiona (Odeya Rush), finds out that The Giver had once failed another Receiver of Memory (Taylor Swift), and that their utopia hides a terrible and deadly secret.  Soon, Jonas becomes hunted by the Chief Elder and he is forced to flee and now must fight to return the lost memories of his people back to them.

Hopefully they don't get the memory back of that "Because I'm Happy" song.

Well, hologram Streep is way less creepy than that
CGI Jeff Bridges from the Tron film.

Despite the fact I never read the book, the trailer sold me on this one and I thought it looked pretty damn interesting.  I was very excited to sit down with this one because it looked a lot more thought out than other tween dystopia films (probably because this is one of them that set the standard) and it looked like it wasn?t going to bow down to the tired trope of the two doughy-eyed main characters that fall in love without really knowing anything about each other beyond the fact they are physically attracted to them. Not to mention that powerhouse actors like Bridges and Streep were in it and that only adds to my interest level.  However, the end product just didn?t feel as emotional or powerful as it could have been.

One of her memories that her character had returned to her was being married
to a guy who was the poster boy to a religion made up by a bad science fiction author.

Visually, The Giver looks fantastic.  The stark grayscale that we see while Jonas is living a life under a metaphoric umbrella compared to the vivid color he sees once The Giver opens up his mind to the past may draw parallels to the film Pleasantville but it still worked incredibly well for the story that the film has.  Not to mention the designs used for this utopian society are pretty neat to look at, as well.  The designs made the world come to life and made it feel legitimate and authentic.  It?s also nice to see a dystopian society that comes under the guise of a utopia.  It?s a refreshing change from the usual broken down buildings and junk that we see in the likes of Divergent and The Hunger Games (not that I?m calling those movies ?junk,? fans of Divergent and The Hunger Games, I'm just talking about the sets and the dilapidated style of future they show).

This looks like an album cover to a Christian rock band...add in a cross on the horizon
and BOOM!

Additionally, the performances in the film were great.  Naturally, Meryl Streep and Jeff Bridges were amazing?but I knew that going into the film.  You could see the weight of each characters' responsibility in both actors and it added to the level of authenticity the film was putting off.  Both Streep and Bridges were playing opposite sides of the same coin and each were pulling in the direction of what they felt was good for the community and the people, and they performed this part amazingly well.

He just realized how the rug really tied the room together.

Even some of the smaller parts were done well and made the fictional world the film exists in seem real.  For example, Katie Holmes and Alexander Skarsg?rd play Jonas? parents and both played their parts exceptionally great?especially Holmes?whose time around Scientology might have helped with the emotionless zombie she was playing.  I also really enjoyed Odeya Rush as Fiona and seeing her journey of self-discovery as Jonas opens her eyes to all the things their utopia denies them was very interesting.  And I really enjoyed Shameless? Cameron Monoghan as Jonas? friend Asher who is forced to hunt Jonas down while he is passed the borders of their community.  Finally, I was a little taken back by how decent Taylor Swift was in her short role. 

I'm not going to say anything mean about Swift because I don't want to be a hater
that hates, hates, hates, hates, hates.

In order to make this film work, you needed the right actor for Jonas and, for the most part, I think the production made the correct bet on the right horse with Brenton Thwaites.  Despite having a short career, I?ve dug Thwaites performances in both good movies he?s been in and bad ones.  Overall, I think Thwaites really hit the right marks with Jonas and really showcased the confusion, fear, and hope he experienced as the Receiver of Memory and watching him try to come to grips with the reality behind the sterilized paradise he lives in and discovering all that his people lost in order to get it was performed wonderfully from him.  In fact, the visuals and the performances aren?t the issues this film had and what kept me from really getting into it the way I wanted.

I'm pretty certain that Meryl Streep wins awards for eating cereal now.

The only real problem I had with the film was the story just didn?t pack the emotional and dramatic punch it should have had.  With the story the way it is, the realization of the reality they live in when characters like Jonas and Fiona learn the truth should have come out of the TV screen like a fist and knock my teeth out with emotion and, as the internet says, hit me right in the feels.  But due to what feels like Jonas learning the truth too quickly and characters like Fiona and Asher coming to terms with Jonas? actions and forgotten memories returned and them being too quick to accept these revelations, the unveiling of what the utopia is really about doesn?t have the weight and gravity it should.  Not to mention that the ending is pretty lackluster and, according to what I?ve read on the internet, lacks the ambiguity that the book has.

Don't give me that look...I still liked the movie.

In all honesty, this is the only complaint I have about the film.  Besides that, I actually enjoyed The Giver.  Had the running time been slightly longer and many elements of Jonas? journey or the doomed first Receiver of Memory been feathered out slightly more, the film might have been a lot stronger and infinitely more dramatic.  As it stands, it?s a decent film that tells an interesting story but it just doesn?t do much to stand out.

Into the Woods

***DISCLAIMER*** The following review is entirely my opinion. If you comment (which I encourage you to do) be respectful. If you don't agree with my opinion, that's fine. To each their own. These reviews are not meant to be statements of facts or endorsements, I am just sharing my opinions and my perspective when watching the film and is not meant to reflect how these films should be viewed. Finally, the reviews are given on a scale of 0-5. 0, of course, being unwatchable. 1, being terrible. 2, being not great. 3, being okay. 4, being great and 5, being epic! And if you enjoy these reviews feel free to share them and follow the blog or follow me on Twitter (@RevRonster) for links to my reviews and the occasional live-Tweet session of the movie I'm watching! Pretty sure there's a porn parody of this called Onto the Wood.

Into the Woods ? 3 out of 5

Musicals are not really my thing. While I will admit that Les Mis?rables is ridiculously moving and The Book of Mormon might be the most brilliant piece I?ve ever set my eyes and ears upon, I don?t really seek out any other forms of musicals unless they are a Disney film, written by the geniuses behind Orgazmo and South Park, or contain Muppets. Since Into the Woods is a Disney film, I have to say that I was interested in this one, even though I was completely unfamiliar with the stage version?also, seeing Johnny Depp as a pimp wolf didn?t hurt my desire to watch this either.

Like all films he's in, there was no make-up artists for Depp.  He just showed up to
set already wearing this and taken from his private collections.

The joke is on Jack and the baker's wife.  That's
actually the golden kidney stone passed by the giant.

A witch (who may or may not be wicked) long ago placed a curse on her neighbor?s home and it has caused the son, a baker (James Corden), and his wife (Emily Blunt) to be unable to have a child. The witch (Meryl Streep) has offered to lift the curse if they can collect a few items for her; items like a cape as red as blood, a cow as white as milk, slippers pure as gold and hair as yellow as corn. Quickly the duo break for the woods to collect the items but, as they make their move, fate seems to play along and Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford) and her red cape make their way to Grannie?s house?as long as the Wolf (Johnny Depp) doesn?t get in the way, Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) is out to defy her Stepmother and sisters and make it to the ball and meet her prince (Chris Pine), and Jack (Daniel Huttlestone) is sent by his mother to sell their cow. Soon all their paths cross and it seems the curse will be lifted and everyone will have their happy ending?until the infamous beans that Jack sells the cow for work their magic and then all hell will break loose in the kingdom.

"Cinderella's hair isn't blond!  Stick to the source material."
That's my impression of the fanboys complaining on the internet.

Chris Pine's natural pheromones often cause open flames
to flare.  He's dangerously attractive, people.

Overall, I thought Into the Woods was okay. The performances are fun, the music is fantastically performed, the settings all look amazing and really helped create a whimsical atmosphere but, for the most part, the film did kinda bore me. Maybe the two hour running length is the cause but after a certain point, I found that I just could no longer stay immersed in the story. Maybe that?s because at one point, the film felt like it suddenly started all over again.

James Corden kinda looks like a chubby Star-Lord in the film...that's not
meant to be an insult.  I wish I looked like Star-Lord in pretty much any way,
even a chubby way.

The Earth got an erection again.

When the film begins, I was quickly diving into its events and was having fun with the songs, comedy, and the characters. However, at a certain point, the logical ending arrives and the movie feels like it should end but, in reality, it was really just the beginning of the final act; an act that involves the actions of all the main characters coming home to roost and causing mayhem, destruction and death. At this point, another point of conflict is created and the characters have to come together?while they are coming apart at the seams?and try and bring peace to their land. This is all find and dandy and contains some more of those lighthearted and brilliantly performed songs but, by this point, the film feels like it is firing up its sequel and the whole ordeal starts to feel tedious and I found myself getting very bored.

Dammit, Streep.  Stop being so likable and talented.

I've been there, Red...and I've also used the excuse
that they are "for Granny."

That?s the real killer of this film for me. The performances are fun?there isn?t a single player I didn?t care for?, the songs are enjoyable, and the film has some very moving and amusing moments. However, I just ended up getting very bored with it. It?s still very well made and I enjoyed the first half but there is no way I could ever sit through it again because of its second half and the film definitely didn?t interest me in seeing a stage production of it either. While mostly decent and fun, Into the Woods just dragged too badly in the second half for me really to get into it any more than a single-shot viewing.