I Know "The Giver" Looks Like All Those Other Young Adult Dystopian Movies, but It's a Bit Different...and It's Decent...Watch It, I Guess...or Don't...Whatever.

The Giver

This is The Giver at its best...save the chase sequences for Divergent.

Young adult (or YA) dystopian thrillers are quite prevalent of late with the popularity of The Hunger Games series to the point that many films, such as Divergent, don’t feel very different.  Because of this popularity, it was inevitable that Lois Lowry’s beloved novel The Giver would be up for adaptation.  Fans of the book will likely come away pleased (as long as they are willing to accept the inevitable changes an adaptation brings), though regular audiences might not see enough here to differentiate this from other properties.  The Giver deserves a bit of attention, however, if for no other reason than the fact that the filmmakers refrained from tacking on a love triangle.

The Giver is similar to other properties (or other properties are similar to it, since the book was written long before most of the other franchises) in that it takes place in a vaguely futuristic society in which individualism is seen as dangerous, and everyone should accept whatever fate the elders hand down to them.  The other mainstay of YA dystopian thrillers concerns the past.  In films like The Hunger Games or Divergent the characters know of a past that led them to their “harmonious” societies, but it is a fictionalized past drilled into them by the ruling class.  In The Giver, they simply don’t know about the past…and don’t want to.  It was decided that only one person, the Receiver of Memory, will keep all of humanity’s memories (good and bad) as a way to guide the elders so that the same mistakes are never made again. 

This makes the central idea behind The Giver compelling, both on the screen and page.  The message that the world, no matter how ordered and peaceful, isn’t worth living in if actual humanity ceases to exist is important, especially for younger viewers.  In fact, it might be even more worthwhile for older viewers who might be jaded about how awful the real world can often be since most can probably agree that our sometimes crappy reality is much more worthwhile than a society in which we have family “units,” receive daily “injections” that destroy our emotions, and are allotted “comfort objects” as children. 

Director Phillip Noyce (Salt) does an excellent job of making the world of The Giver the type of place a modern-day audience member would despise.  First off, it’s in black and white.  The world itself, not just the movie.  In an effort to create “sameness,” the creators of this society removed color along with memory, freedom, independence, and pretty much anything else that makes life enjoyable.  I was happy to find that the bulk of the movie is in black and white.  I was worried they would change it up fearing that teens would avoid a black and white movie (the previews, however, were almost completely in color).  The stark images of this society capture the mood of the book.

Of course, any adaptation of a book is going to include changes to the source material.  I was okay with most of the changes, but a few hurt the movie more than helped it.  First off, the attempt to add action to the climax of the film felt like pandering to an audience used to brutal fight scenes in their YA movies.  It didn’t look very good, and it just prolonged the movie rather than add suspense.  Second, and more importantly, it changed the world a bit in that it made it seem like more people knew about the past other than the Receiver and the Giver, and regular people seemed to be capable of feeling emotions at times, even if they had their injections.  All of this was done to add conflict, but breaking the rules of the established world weakens and/or alters the film’s message.  But perhaps I’m just being nitpicky since I read the book very recently.

Slight issues aside, The Giver still sets itself apart from the rest as a more thoughtful film.  This is helped immensely by the casting of Jeff Bridges as the Giver.  He looks a bit goofy (he tends to stare around with his mouth open) at times, but in his scenes with the Receiver (Brenton Thwaites, who holds his own in scenes with Bridges but seems to be on autopilot in the rest of the film) Bridges shows that he was the best choice for the role.  His voice is naturally tailored to deliver sage-like advice.  In fact, the film’s biggest flaw is that there are too few moments between Bridges and Thwaites.  It seems that the film is in too big of a hurry to insert some unnecessary action.  Ironically, those action moments are incredibly boring compared to the scenes with Bridges in a library.  Ten more minutes of memory sharing with Bridges would’ve have improved the film immensely. 

The rest of the cast is impressive, featuring Alexander Skarsgard, Katie Holmes, and Meryl Streep.  (Oh, and Taylor Swift is in the film for no discernible reason.)  Skarsgard and Holmes are fine as the Receiver’s brain-washed parents, and Streep is fine, but she seems unnecessary.  For one thing, her character, the Chief Elder, barely exists in the book, yet here she is given the villain role.  It would have been more effective if the villain had remained the faceless “Sameness” that pervaded society.  Also, it isn’t a good sign that her character first appears as a hologram.  It made me feel like the rest of her performance, and character in general, was phone in.

The Giver, despite its flaws, ultimately stands apart from the rest of the pack of YA stories.  Its message is similar, but dealt with in a more somber fashion.  In fact, the film is only weak when it tries to be like the films it should be striving to be different than.  This movie was never going to out-gross or replace The Hunger Games, so it’s unfortunate that the filmmakers even tried.  Despite itself, The Giver is a movie worth seeing, and, more importantly, thinking about.

Random Thoughts

I'm just going to ramble a bit about differences and interpretations that bothered me a little bit.

The mopeds or whatever were silly.  So was the Asher/drone scene.  It just took the whole escape-with-a-baby thing (which is pretty silly already) about five steps too far.  I can't help but laugh at the image of Brenton Thwaites (or his CG approximation) plunging into rapids clutching a baby.

Meryl Streep flat out mentions war.  How does she know about war?  If she's so afraid of information getting out, why allow the Giver to live at all?  Just kill him...problem solved.

I get the sled theme and all, but that ridiculous sled ride on lunch trays (or whatever they were) looked like garbage.  

This movie would have just been so much better had they not felt the need to pep it up.  It's as if someone was on set saying, "This for teenagers!  Remember that!  Every ten minutes someone either needs to do something slightly sexual or violent or both!  Otherwise everyone will already fall asleep!  Don't give me that look!  I'm already letting you do the artsy-fartsy black and white!"  Obviously I'm joking a bit, but it felt that way every time some random moment like that happened.  I get that the book isn't action-packed, but people obviously read it without throwing it down because of the lack of action.  I mean, if there can be teenage movie about romance that don't have tacked on action sequences, why can't teenage movies be about society and humanity without tacked on action sequences?

The Giver receives a:

"TRON: Legacy"

TRON: Legacy - Directed by Joseph Kosinski, written by Edward Kitsis & Adam Horowitz, story by Kitsis & Horowitz and Brian Klugman & Lee Sternthal, starring Jeff Bridges, Garrett Hedlund, Olivia Wilde, and Michael Sheen - Rated PG

TRON: Legacy made my eyes and ears bleed in the best possible way.

The original TRON is an unlikely movie to receive a sequel. It was considered visually interesting, but there wasn’t much to it (I am inclined to agree, but will admit that if I had been in my teens when that film came out 1982, I may have loved it). On top of that, it didn’t become wildly popular. But TRON did gain enough of a cult following for Disney to put up some money for a sequel. Though strangely enough, Disney has pulled copies of the original TRON from stores leading up to the release of TRON: Legacy, perhaps hoping that this new film is the first experience many viewers have with the world of TRON.

Keeping new viewers out of the loop may be a smart movie for Disney, especially since this new TRON starts off with Flynn (Jeff Bridges) recapping the first film by way of a bedtime story to his son, Sam. New viewers simply do not need to see the original. All new viewers need to know is that TRON is about a human entering a physical world of computers/videogames known as the Grid, where programs are personified…and hostile.

After the introduction/bedtime story, TRON: Legacy really begins with Sam (Garrett Hedlund) dealing with the disappearance of his father, who went missing right after telling young Sam that bedtime story. You can probably guess that Flynn is actually stuck in the Grid, and Sam ends up going after him.

The Grid is the true star of TRON. The world created (or I suppose “updated” would be more accurate) by the filmmakers is fully realized. It’s dark, yet filled with neon light. It’s a dead world, yet populated with millions of programs/people. It’s loud and it has its own soundtrack (a perfect fit of a score by Daft Punk). The Grid is absolutely visually and audibly arresting (especially if you get the chance to see it in IMAX 3D). Aesthetically speaking, TRON is one of the best films of the year; you feel like you’re in the Grid with Sam and Flynn.

It’s important that you feel like you’re in the Grid because action is always better if you feel like you’re involved. The famous (or famously parodied, I should say) light cycle races from the original are back and better than ever. The other gladiatorial game involving the light discs (think fatal Frisbees) is amazing as well. TRON is primarily an action movie and it is an entertaining action movie at that.

Visuals aside, TRON is still an interesting film, for the most part. Most people can identify emotionally with the father-son relationship, but the actual struggle of the film has its moments as well. Flynn is not just stuck in the Grid, he is there to try and stop Clu, a program he created in his own image that has become overlord of the Grid. This is the where the story starts to struggle a bit. There are ideas tossed around about how certain types of programs can change the outside world, but Clu had them wiped out in a computerized genocide. It’s all better if you try not to think too hard about it.

It’s easy to forgive TRON for its story issues because of the sensory qualities and because of the cast. Hedlund does a fine job as Sam. He’s not given too much to do, acting-wise, but he is charismatic and likable. Bridges, on the other hand, is given a bounty. As Flynn, he gets to play this Buddha-like character, proclaiming non-violence and inaction as the correct path. As Clu, he gets to sneer, yell, and give dictatorial speeches. He must have had a lot of fun in this movie because he is very fun to watch.

Rounding out the cast are Olivia Wilde and Michael Sheen. Wilde plays Quorra, a wide-eyed program eager to learn about the real world. Wilde is great at portraying wonderment and she looks amazing as well. Sheen plays Castor, an eccentric club owner. (Why is there a night club for computer programs? Who cares?) Castor is basically a coked up David Bowie, so Sheen obviously gets to ham it up in this role and it is very entertaining.

The acting, action, and score of TRON are all great, but most people seem to be interested in Jeff Bridges as Clu. It’s not because he’s playing a villain, though. It’s because he’s playing a villain that looks like Jeff Bridges twenty years ago. It’s being argued about on the message boards, but I thought it looked decent and even realistic at times. In a few scenes, Clu looked like he was made of plastic, but that problem can be argued away with the fact that he is a computer program, not a person (but that’s venturing into hardcore dorky argument territory there). Anyway, the de-aging will work for some, but it will take others out of the movie. It’s hard to imagine how it could “ruin” the movie for anyone, though.

Arguments over de-aging aside, TRON is great to look at and listen to. The story might be convoluted or nonsensical at times, but you should be able to get past that and enjoy yourself. This is a film about physically entering a videogame, to put it simply, and it should be treated as such. Put on some 3D glasses and enjoy the show.


Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Early in the movie a potential rival to Sam appears in the way of Ed Dillinger's son, Edward, played by Cillian Murphy. At first, I thought, "Cool, Cilliam Murphy's in this movie. I didn't even know about that." But he's only in that one early scene. Don't get me wrong, cool cameo, but I was really hoping for a bigger part for him. Maybe it's all just a setup for a sequel...

Not since Nick Cave's appearance in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford has the musical score provider(s) cameo been more justified. It was pretty damn cool to see Daft Punk in the Michael Sheen club scenes.

That dorky argument stuff above about the de-aging? Well, that only works in the Grid. The film does start with a de-aged Bridges in the real world and he does look a little strange. I'll accept the Grid argument for scenes in the Grid, but I have to admit that the de-aging looked a bit weak in that first scene and no computer program argument can explain it away.

Finally, a few questions that I don't feel like thinking long enough about to come up with an answer. How was Quorra able to go with Sam into the real world? Her information disc was left in the Grid. I thought you had to have your disc with you to travel to the real world. If that's the case, then Flynn should have made the journey with them since Sam had his disc. Did I miss a major rule about traveling between worlds?

Oh, and is there any doubt that the explosion at the end didn't actually kill Flynn (or possibly even Clu for that matter)? I suspect Flynn survived somehow (he is the God of the Grid, after all) and if there's a sequel, Dillinger (Murphy) will be the one trying to mess things up.

"True Grit"

True Grit - Written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, starring Jeff Bridges, Hailee Steinfeld, Matt Damon, Barry Pepper, and Josh Brolin - Rated PG-13

The Coens made a neo-western with No Country, now they've made a plain old western. I'm glad they did.

Remakes seem to be almost universally hated in the film community these days but there are some (including me) that don’t get up in arms about every single remake. Why is it so terrible that filmmakers want to give their own spin on a story? Worst-case scenario: it sucks; you ignore it, and then watch the original again. Case in point, True Grit, the latest remake from the Coen Brothers, will probably not replace the John Wayne original in most viewers’ hearts, but it doesn’t hurt to see a new take on the Charles Portis novel, especially when it’s made by the Coens.

The Coens, no strangers to the remake game after 2004’s The Ladykillers, have said that their new version of the story is a new adaptation of the novel rather than of the screenplay and that holds true. This version is definitely darker and more violent than the original. It’s not just about darkness and violence, though. The novel had a bittersweet quality to it and more of a focus on the young heroine, Mattie Ross; whereas the 1969 film focused a bit more on the grizzled antihero, Rooster Cogburn. Enough about the original, though, True Grit is its own film.

True Grit takes place in Arkansas in the latter half of the 1800s. Fourteen-year-old Mattie Ross (relative newcomer Hailee Steinfeld) takes it upon herself to track down her father’s murderer, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), who has fled into Indian territory, which is a haven for outlaws. She enlists the help of a hardened, drunken U.S. Marshal, Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) and receives unwanted aid in the form of a Texas Ranger named LaBoeuf (Matt Damon).

At its heart, True Grit is a film about determination and retribution, but it is also a film about the friendship, or lack thereof, between Cogburn, Mattie, and LaBoeuf. There lies the true action of this film. LaBoeuf and Cogburn trade barbs while Mattie decides which man is more admirable. At certain points, it seemed like the two men were more worried about maintaining their dignity in front of Mattie than actually finding Chaney.

Mattie is the focus of the two male leads of the film and she is the rightful focus of the film itself. The rough Old West lawman has been done to death, but the determined fourteen-year-old girl of the Old West is untouched material. Thankfully, the film doesn’t get stuck on the ridiculousness of a young girl hunting a fugitive (although the acknowledgment of the fact does lead to a good laugh or two). Instead, the focus is on her character. Mattie is a stubborn girl who argues for what she thinks is right no matter what. And Steinfeld completely inhabits the character. From her first moments, her steely gaze convinces you that not only can she handle the character of Mattie Ross, but she can even outshine the likes of Matt Damon and Jeff Bridges. She handles the Coens’ rapid-fire witty dialogue with complete sincerity and ease. Steinfeld is easily the best part of the film and deserves some recognition this awards season. (For the record, she did win the IFJA’s Supporting Actress award.)

Steinfeld is more impressive than her co-stars, but that doesn’t mean their performances are weak. Bridges does a fine job and gives a very amusing turn as Cogburn. He basically plays it as if Bad Blake from last year’s Crazy Heart was a lawman and there is nothing wrong with that. No one is going to forget about John Wayne or anything, but Bridges does a great job. Damon is just as entertaining as the egotistic LaBoeuf. Josh Brolin and Barry Pepper (who is nearly unrecognizable here) also turn in good performances, Pepper more so than Brolin.

Humor might seem like an odd word in relation to what’s supposed to be a dark western, but this is a Coen Brothers western. The dialogue of any Coen Brothers film is a star in itself and that applies to True Grit. The bickering between LaBoeuf and Cogburn, the bartering of Mattie, the rambling of a strange bear hunter/dentist, etc. is all great and makes what could be boring scenes become funny scenes.

This isn’t a complete comedy, though; True Grit does contain some scenes of sudden and brutal violence (don’t worry about that PG-13 rating, this movie has blood). It is all very effective, but more importantly, it looks beautiful at times. Director of photography Roger Deakins has filmed yet another beautiful film. Teamed up with the Coens, Deakins creates slow, meandering tracking shots, interesting wide shots of great locations, and low-lit scenes of intensity. Add an effective, old school score by Carter Burwell (with great touches that are reminiscent of Miller’s Crossing) and True Grit is a very aesthetically pleasing film.

True Grit may not be the action packed western some may hope for, but if you let the film sink in you realize how effective it really is. Most effective, though, is the Coens’ slavish devotion to the source material. Much like No Country for Old Men, the Coens never stray very far from the novel the film is based on. The ending of the film truly benefits from this. Others may find the film’s finale a bit abrupt or anti-climactic, but it is in keeping with the realistic tone of the rest of the film.

The film is not without its faults, though. The devotion to the source material may go too far at times; most notably with the mentally challenged outlaw who makes animal sounds. A reader will recognize that character, but a viewer may be left confused. Aside from that, there is really nothing wrong with True Grit. If anything, though, a Coen fan may be a bit disappointed by how straightforward the film is. The discussions created by last year’s A Serious Man (my #1 film of 2009) are nonexistent here. You can’t fault a film for abandoning the deep end, but it may keep this film off of top ten lists and the like.

Top ten lists and awards probably don’t mean much to the Coens. They are more likely worried about making an enjoyable and beautiful film and they certainly have accomplished that with True Grit. If you want John Wayne and an ending that comes complete with a bow on top, then by all means, watch the classic 1969 film. If you’re looking for something fun, well-acted, dark, and beautiful, then watch this new version. Remember, it’s not a really a remake, it’s just the Coens’ own vision of a novel and it’s a vision worth seeing.


Random Thoughts

Barry Pepper plays Ned Pepper. I just thought that was amusing. Not since Kevin Dunn acted in a film with a character named Kevin Dunn (Snake Eyes) has such a coincidence occurred. Aside from that, I can’t stress enough how vastly different Pepper looks in this film. His performance will make you wish he had been the main antagonist throughout, although Chaney isn’t truly an antagonist, either, to be honest.

I dug Cogburn’s intro via an outhouse, just a really great way to introduce the character.

I can’t find any confirmation of this, but I am 99% sure that the voice of Lawyer Daggett is none other than J. K. Simmons. It was a nice touch adding his voice, assuming I am correct, that is.

The nearly word for word adaptation of the court scene from the novel was great. It was as if the Coens handed the actors a copy of the novel rather than a script, which is a possibility.

"Crazy Heart" / Mini-Reviews: "Flammen & Citronen" ("Flame and Citron") / "Daybreakers" / "Cold Souls"

Crazy Heart - Adapted and directed by Scott Cooper, starring Jeff Bridges, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Colin Farrell - Rated R

The Evil Kurgan likes hard livin' characters.

Okay, so it's Oscar time, which means the limited releases are starting to expand into the smaller Midwest markets. This means I had three options over the weekend: Crazy Heart, A Single Man, and An Education. Nothing against the latter two options, but I didn't think twice about which nominated performance I wanted to see. I'll take Jeff Bridges as a hard drinking washed up country music star any day of the week over a coming of age British girl (Carey Mulligan) or a British professor (Colin Firth) contemplating suicide after the death of his lover. I still want to see both of those films, but I wanted to see a good American performance and that's exactly what I got.

Bridges plays Bad Blake, a country singer who is way past his prime. Bad makes his way around the southwest playing anywhere he can. The movie starts with him arriving at his latest gig. We're introduced to Bad Blake as he gets out of his vehicle, belt unbuckled (which it is through most of the film), and empties out a jug of his own urine. He's been driving for hours to reach his venue: a bowling alley. The venue is funny for two reasons. 1. It's a bowling alley, not exactly a prime spot to play live music. 2. It's great to see Bridges back in the bowling alley. I couldn't help but think of The Dude from The Big Lebowski during an early scene at the bowling alley's bar. Bad heads to the bar because not only is his career at rock bottom, but he also has a bit of a drinking problem. I know this sounds like the setup of a depressing, miserable movie and it might even sound like the country music version of The Wrestler, but it really is its own movie and it's a bit more light hearted than The Wrestler. Maybe alcoholic has-been doesn't sound like a light hearted character, but Crazy Heart does have a decent amount of comedy. It goes to show that you can show alcoholism without it being complete melodramatic misery (even though the film does venture into that territory near the end, it quickly rights itself).

This movie is being compared to The Wrestler for one more reason: it features a powerhouse performance. Bridges is favored to win the Academy Award for this film and I hope he does win it because he carries this movie. First off, he looks the part. Bridges embodies unhealthiness; he's overweight, constantly needs a shave and a haircut, and seems to struggle for breath (due to his constant smoking). Second, he finds a way to be charismatic despite his disgusting appearance. It's even believable that a younger woman (Maggie Gyllenhaal, also nominated, but has no chance of winning) would find him attractive and even start a relationship with him. Finally, the man can play the guitar and sing...and he's good.

Which brings me the music of the film. For the most part I am not a fan of country music...well, popular country, that is. I do enjoy the older stuff and that's the sound T-Bone Burnett and Ryan Bingham went for in Crazy Heart. So I loved the music of the film even though I am not a huge country fan, but I don't think you'll like this movie as much if you truly hate all things country. There are quite a few music scenes and if you don't like the music, it's going to be hard to like the movie. If you like country music at all, though, you'll probably be like me and you'll get home and buy a few songs from the soundtrack (I suggest "Fallin' & Flyin'").

The music scenes are where director Scott Cooper gets to insert a little style. He's fond of showing the music from the musician's perspective by zooming in and moving the camera to the side. He uses the same angle multiple times but I thought it was a great way to film each song.

Aside from that, Crazy Heart isn't really a visually appealing movie and it doesn't need to be anyway. It's all about performance. This is Bridges' show, but he does get a bit of help from some talented supporting players. Colin Farrell is surprisingly good as Bad Blake's protege turned superstar (he even does his own singing on a couple of songs...and he can actually sing). Robert Duvall does well in a small role as Blake's hometown friend. And Maggie Gyllenhaal does a decent job sharing the screen with Bridges. But I think she only got her nomination because there are so few good roles for women these days and it was all they could think of.

Did I skip the plot summary on this one? I guess I did, but I'm not fond of giving too much away when I write these reviews and honestly, if you want to see this movie it's because of Bridges' performance, the Bad Blake character, and the great music. So check this one out if you get the chance and be sure to root for Bridges for Best Actor and "Crazy Heart" for Best Song.

Mini-Reviews

Flammen & Citronen (Flame and Citron) - Co-written and directed by Ole Christian Madsen, starring Thure Lindhardt, Mads Mikkelsen, and Stine Stengade - Not Rated

Flame and Citron is the true story of WWII Danish resistance fighters Flame (Lindhardt) and Citron (Mikkelsen). It's a well done period piece (apparently it's the most expensive Danish film ever made) and it's quite powerful. I cared about each character and was cheering them on as they killed Nazis. But don't start thinking this is the buddy movie version of Inglourious Basterds or anything, this film is deadly serious and brings up a few tough questions when it comes to loyalty, the definition of a traitor, and trust. Great drama mixed in with some decent hit man/espionage type action. It's available on Watch Instantly right now on Netflix and will be on DVD/Blu-ray in a couple of weeks.

Daybreakers - Written and directed by the Spierig Brothers, starring Ethan Hawke, Willem Defoe, and Sam Niell - Rated R

I checked out Daybreakers a couple weeks ago and I decided that it was not worthy of a full review since it's already disappeared from theaters. Let me just say that this isn't a bad film. It's a fun B-movie that's certainly worth a rental. Hawke kind of sleepwalks through it all, but Defoe gets to ham it up and have fun with all his ridiculous similes ("Living in a world where vampires are the dominant species is about as safe as bare backing a $5 whore.") and Sam Niell gets to evil it up in his few scenes. Aside from that, the all vampire world created for the film is pretty convincing, even if it turns out that vampires are terrible at planning ahead. How did they not have better plan for keeping a blood supply? They just drain humans dry. If they take their time they can breed humans and also, they could take just a little bit of blood at a time and let the humans replenish it, then repeat the process. Whatever, right? As long as a vampire or two blows up into a fountain of blood, who cares?

Cold Souls - Written and directed by Sophie Barthes, starring Paul Giamatti, David Strathairn, and Dina Korzun - Rated PG-13

This movie was forgotten upon its initial release and has finally been released on DVD. I can understand why it was forgotten. It plays a bit like a Charlie Kaufman movie, except it's easier to follow, but it doesn't pull you in like Kaufman films do. Giamatti is great and all, but he has little to work with. That's not to say the film doesn't have its moments. The premise, that you can remove your soul, is amusing, especially when you see that everyone's soul is different and disappointing: a chickpea, a jelly bean, a prune, etc. The scenes in the soul extraction clinic are the best and the movie might have been much better if it had all taken place at the clinic, because that's where Strathairn's character is, and he should have been in the movie more.