The Maze Runner
3/4
Starring: Dylan O'Brien, Aml Ameen, Will Poulter, Ki Hong Lee, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Blake Cooper, Kaya Scodelario
Rated PG-13 for Thematic Elements and Intense Sequences of Sci-Fi Violence and Action, including some Disturbing Images
With book series turned movies like "Harry Potter," "Twilight," and "The Hunger Games" making big money at the box office, Hollywood is buying up the rights and filming every teen sci-fi or fantasy book franchise they can find. Some, like the aforementioned box office kings, have done amazingly well at the box office while others such as "Beautiful Creatures" and "The Mortal Instruments" have disappeared so quickly I'm not sure even their fans knew they were made into a movie. "The Maze Runner" has already dominated the box office for a week, and the sequel has gotten the green light (duh), and while that's not always indicative of quality, the movie is good enough where I'm actually curious where the story is going to go next (although I think I'll wait until the movie comes out).
A young boy (O'Brien) wakes up in a rusted metal cage. He has no idea who or where he is. The cage rises up into a field, where he is met by a bunch of other boys. They welcome him, and after a rather violent rite of passage, he remembers that his name is Thomas. Thomas isn't the only one who has arrived in the field, which is surrounded by a stone maze the size of skyscrapers (which is of course impossible to get through or to survive the night in). There are a few dozen others, some of whom, such as Alby (Ameen), the leader of the group, have been there for three years. But with Thomas's arrival, things are changing. Some, such as Gally (Poulter), are hostile to the change, believing that it may make their situation worse. But circumstances may force these young lads into making a desperate escape attempt...whatever the cost.
Studios have nailed down what it takes to make one of these franchises to work: photogenic lead characters (preferably ones with arthouse cred), themes of persecution, the need for independence, and Machiavellian adults, and of course action and special effects (which must be kept at a PG-13 level). It's easy to be cynical about it, especially when they don't bother to submerge them deep enough in the story (the first two "Twilight" movies come to mind). But it's hard to to be at least somewhat entertained by what "The Maze Runner" has to offer. It's not a great movie, but for what it is, it's decent enough.
The common flaw in all of these franchises is the writing. All of them have had bad scripts to one degree or another, and "The Maze Runner" doesn't change that. It's not nearly as bad as Melissa Rosenberg's scripts in the "Twilight" movies (which contained more howlers than in most comedies), or even Steve Klowes' clunky "Harry Potter" adaptations. But it is most definitely pedestrian. The cast gives it their all, but the script doesn't allow them any good dialogue or much in the way of personality.
That leaves it up to the actors to fill in the gaps. A few, O'Brien, Poulter and Brodie-Sangster, are up to the challenge. Lee and Cooper are only memorable because they have a lot of screen time. The lone girl, Kaya Scodelario, shows up in the second half and doesn't have much to do. While there are a number of actors who can coast by on their charisma (such as Will Smith), it's unfair to ask any actor to do so.
Dylan O'Brien, who hit it big on YouTube, which eventually led to a role on the teen TV series "Teen Wolf," is an effective leading man. O'Brien is athletic in the role, but not an Adonis, which helps him emphasize his leadership and intelligence rather than becoming just another teen hero. British child star Thomas Brodie-Sangster also impresses as Newt, the best friend turned peacekeeper. Arguably the best performance is given by Will Poulter, who plays Gally. Poulter's efforts are pretty much wasted since the script doesn't allow him to become anything other than the obligatory idiot opponent who exists solely to provide conflict. All three actors are better than the material that they are given, which made me wish that the film had took the chance and done more with what it had.
Because this is a YA franchise, there's going to be action and violence. I have nothing against either, but there's something about what happens in this movie that rubbed me the wrong way. Unlike many movies about teenagers, the cast looks their age. When a character dies, as they surely must, it's a little disturbing to watch in a way that I don't think first-time director Wes Ball intended. There were times when I was wondering why the MPAA gave this a PG-13. Still, the action scenes are coherent and sometimes genuinely creepy and exciting.
There has been a lot of ballyhoo about the ending being disappointing, and I'm at a loss to understand why. It's a cliffhanger, and those are nothing new, especially if it's a planned franchise. There is closure while setting the stage for the next chapter (which comes out next year). What's wrong with that? The set-up is more problematic because it takes far too long to get going.
I don't see this movie having much appeal outside its target audience. Ball has decided not to open up to adults, and that's okay. I don't think that it would have much appeal for them anyway. But if you go, I don't think you'll be disappointed at the spent time and money.
Starring: Dylan O'Brien, Aml Ameen, Will Poulter, Ki Hong Lee, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Blake Cooper, Kaya Scodelario
Rated PG-13 for Thematic Elements and Intense Sequences of Sci-Fi Violence and Action, including some Disturbing Images
With book series turned movies like "Harry Potter," "Twilight," and "The Hunger Games" making big money at the box office, Hollywood is buying up the rights and filming every teen sci-fi or fantasy book franchise they can find. Some, like the aforementioned box office kings, have done amazingly well at the box office while others such as "Beautiful Creatures" and "The Mortal Instruments" have disappeared so quickly I'm not sure even their fans knew they were made into a movie. "The Maze Runner" has already dominated the box office for a week, and the sequel has gotten the green light (duh), and while that's not always indicative of quality, the movie is good enough where I'm actually curious where the story is going to go next (although I think I'll wait until the movie comes out).
A young boy (O'Brien) wakes up in a rusted metal cage. He has no idea who or where he is. The cage rises up into a field, where he is met by a bunch of other boys. They welcome him, and after a rather violent rite of passage, he remembers that his name is Thomas. Thomas isn't the only one who has arrived in the field, which is surrounded by a stone maze the size of skyscrapers (which is of course impossible to get through or to survive the night in). There are a few dozen others, some of whom, such as Alby (Ameen), the leader of the group, have been there for three years. But with Thomas's arrival, things are changing. Some, such as Gally (Poulter), are hostile to the change, believing that it may make their situation worse. But circumstances may force these young lads into making a desperate escape attempt...whatever the cost.
Studios have nailed down what it takes to make one of these franchises to work: photogenic lead characters (preferably ones with arthouse cred), themes of persecution, the need for independence, and Machiavellian adults, and of course action and special effects (which must be kept at a PG-13 level). It's easy to be cynical about it, especially when they don't bother to submerge them deep enough in the story (the first two "Twilight" movies come to mind). But it's hard to to be at least somewhat entertained by what "The Maze Runner" has to offer. It's not a great movie, but for what it is, it's decent enough.
The common flaw in all of these franchises is the writing. All of them have had bad scripts to one degree or another, and "The Maze Runner" doesn't change that. It's not nearly as bad as Melissa Rosenberg's scripts in the "Twilight" movies (which contained more howlers than in most comedies), or even Steve Klowes' clunky "Harry Potter" adaptations. But it is most definitely pedestrian. The cast gives it their all, but the script doesn't allow them any good dialogue or much in the way of personality.
That leaves it up to the actors to fill in the gaps. A few, O'Brien, Poulter and Brodie-Sangster, are up to the challenge. Lee and Cooper are only memorable because they have a lot of screen time. The lone girl, Kaya Scodelario, shows up in the second half and doesn't have much to do. While there are a number of actors who can coast by on their charisma (such as Will Smith), it's unfair to ask any actor to do so.
Dylan O'Brien, who hit it big on YouTube, which eventually led to a role on the teen TV series "Teen Wolf," is an effective leading man. O'Brien is athletic in the role, but not an Adonis, which helps him emphasize his leadership and intelligence rather than becoming just another teen hero. British child star Thomas Brodie-Sangster also impresses as Newt, the best friend turned peacekeeper. Arguably the best performance is given by Will Poulter, who plays Gally. Poulter's efforts are pretty much wasted since the script doesn't allow him to become anything other than the obligatory idiot opponent who exists solely to provide conflict. All three actors are better than the material that they are given, which made me wish that the film had took the chance and done more with what it had.
Because this is a YA franchise, there's going to be action and violence. I have nothing against either, but there's something about what happens in this movie that rubbed me the wrong way. Unlike many movies about teenagers, the cast looks their age. When a character dies, as they surely must, it's a little disturbing to watch in a way that I don't think first-time director Wes Ball intended. There were times when I was wondering why the MPAA gave this a PG-13. Still, the action scenes are coherent and sometimes genuinely creepy and exciting.
There has been a lot of ballyhoo about the ending being disappointing, and I'm at a loss to understand why. It's a cliffhanger, and those are nothing new, especially if it's a planned franchise. There is closure while setting the stage for the next chapter (which comes out next year). What's wrong with that? The set-up is more problematic because it takes far too long to get going.
I don't see this movie having much appeal outside its target audience. Ball has decided not to open up to adults, and that's okay. I don't think that it would have much appeal for them anyway. But if you go, I don't think you'll be disappointed at the spent time and money.
Comments
Post a Comment