As I have said in the past, I usually try to refrain from comparing movie adaptations too painstakingly to their original novels, and to try to judge them solely on their own merits. In the case of “The Giver,” though, based on the famous novel by Lois Lowry, it’s hard to shrink away from this, as the film version barely scrapes the surface of the novel’s more profound and interesting themes. However, there are at least some small aspects that keep “The Giver” from being a complete disaster.

“The Giver” is set in a futuristic society known only as the Community, where people are cut off from anything that could pose a threat to harmony. For example: everyone is forced to take pills to eliminate emotions, are born without the ability to see colors, are refrained from practicing beliefs and religion, and have their jobs chosen for them. Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) is a young boy that doesn’t seem to fit in with everyone else, as he is able to perceive things that others cannot. As a result, he is chosen to be the next receiver of memory, and is trained under a man known only as the Giver (Jeff Bridges).

At the start of the novel, although Jonas does not fit into the world like the others, he is at least satisfied with it. But by the end, he is willing to do anything in order to be free from it. This change in character is easily the story’s highlight. In the film version, though, the change is not nearly as impactful. In an effort to add extraneous characters and plot lines, the film sometimes sidesteps the heart of the story.

An example is the character of Fiona, played here by Odeya Rush. In the novel, she is seen as a potential romantic interest of Jonas, but he never acts upon it. Her purpose is merely for Jonas to open his eyes to the idea of love, and what we have given up by not allowing ourselves to feel it. In the film, though, there is much more interaction between the two. And it is an unnecessary distraction, adding little depth to the story. The character of the Chief Elder (Meryl Streep) is also elevated, perhaps due to the prevalence of immoral leaders in other young adult series, such as in “The Hunger Games” or “Divergent.” But the point of the novel is that there is not one person who was evil; it was society itself that was wrong.

Really, the focus of the story is meant to be on Jonas, and on his relationship with the Giver, who gives him memories of the world as it used to be. It is in these sequences that I was almost won over. When Jonas is touched by the Giver, he is instantly given a memory, such as a sailboat floating into a sunset, a happy group dancing at a wedding, or a vast field of colorful flowers. But there are also the bad memories, such as an elephant getting shot by a poacher, soldiers fighting at war, and sick children crying. The memories are exuberant and bright, in stark contrast to the dull, lifeless society that the Community currently lives in. Unfortunately, though, there are not nearly enough of them, and as a result they do not help the film rise above its flaws.

Jeff Bridges’ performance is another highlight. His gritty, low voice lends the right amount of sadness to the old Giver, and he appears almost exactly as I imagined him from the book. The scenes where he sits next to Jonas in his home, implanting memories in his mind and explaining each of them, are some of the best of the film. If there were only more time spent simply between these two characters, then the film may have been a success.

Perhaps the biggest issue with “The Giver” is that of timing. Due to the prevalence of young adult series being brought to the big screen, and seeing what made those successful, the filmmakers may have thought it necessary to follow suit, such as by adding a romantic subplot, an evil corrupt leader, or an ending that completes on a high note. It is a shame, though, because the novel “The Giver” surpasses most of the other young adult novels that people may compare it to. Although the film is not an absolute flop, I doubt that it will be mentioned years down the line.