Skip to main content

It’s not a prison. It’s a test.

The Maze Runner
(2014)

(SPOILERS) The first hour of The Maze Runner provides a set-up as arresting and intriguing as that of any mainstream movie unhindered by the label “Young Adult”. It is less overtly constricted by pandering to a niche (teen) audience, while clearly influenced by the likes of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies and Vincenzo Natali’s Cube. Unfortunately it is also afflicted by the curse of the J J Abrams, or more precisely Damon Lindelof. What makes it so involving cannot possible pay off.


Nevertheless, there’s good reason many greeted this as a surprising breath of fresh air in the glutted Young Adult marketplace. There were few expectations, and debut director Wes Ball does a determined job of making the movie pacey and involving on a restricted budget. Perhaps crucially, its issues are the precise opposite of 2014’s other YA franchise-starter, Divergent. There, anyone could see the set-up didn’t make a blind bit of sense from reading a brief synopsis but was quite entertaining if you could move past it. In contrast, The Maze Runner is all about the mystery. So, by the time you realise it’s very nearly as silly as that picture, it’s almost over and pushing for its sequel (it surely no coincidence that of the three credited writers, T S Nowlin, Grant Pierce Myers and Noah Oppenheim, one of them, Oppenheim, is working on one of the second Divergent sequel).


Thomas (Dylan O’Brien) wakes up in an elevator with no memory, en route for a grassy clearing in maze complex where other boys are imprisoned.  Led by the longest resident Alby (Aml Ameen) and Newt (Thomas Brodie-Sangster) they have formed into a regimented micro-society with individually delegated set tasks. Thomas is most intrigued by the role of the maze runners, who leave the area in the morning when the entrance to the maze opens and return in the evening just before it closes.


Thomas’ arrival appears to set off ructions within the delicately maintained order of the Glade (the grassy clearing), personified by the aggression of Galley (Will Poulter), but further demonstrated when Thomas takes it upon himself to enter the maze to help Minho (Ki Hong Lee) and a wounded Alby. Just as they return (no one has ever survived a night in the maze, thanks to vicious bioelectronics guardians known as Grievers), a girl arrives by the elevator (Teresa, played by Kaya Scodelario), further upsetting the applecart.


The Maze Runner is designed as a puzzle, not just geographically but also in terms of the whys and wherefores of the place and its subjects. Thomas dreams of experiments undertaken on him, and he and Teresa remember each other’s names. The danger of this sort of deal is the one that faced Lost, just in more truncated form. The possibilities go unsatisfied by the reveal. So it is that by the time the credits roll, The Maze Runner has crossed from potentially the best YA to a merely so-so appetiser for a take-it-or-leave-it movie series. Although, since it made a lot more than Divergent for a fraction of the cost, its continuation is a no-brainer.


Newt goes to the trouble of laying out a series of rules and place markers (no one has ever gone beyond the walls, no one has ever survived a night etc.) that effectively identify Thomas as an ever popular chosen one when he surmounts them. There are also cryptic elements (“It’s called the changing” “WICKED is Good”) that are much less evocative once explained, and it’s understandable questions don’t go away.


Like, why no one can scale the walls when there are clearly vines going right the way up at least some of them (this is surely the most repeated complaint about the obvious plot holes).  Coming in a close second is that, for a movie with this title, there is very little in the way of exploring the mazes. There was a surely lot of potential for constantly changing structures and losing one’s way in the labyrinth, but it doesn’t happen. It’s all a bit linear, alas.


Mainly, though, The Maze Runner has been lacerated for affronting viewer intelligence. The reveal concerning what this is all about makes no sense. The kids are immune to a virus that decimated humanity (turning them into zombies of the 28 Days Later variety) after a solar flare devastated the Earth. They were corralled into the maze as a test, to map out their brains’ responses to the challenges within, and what makes them different. And so provide hope of a cure. Okay…


It’s all a bit tenuous, isn’t it? The classic problem of a viable concept with little means to thrash it into something satisfying and useable. The subjects are both vital and wholly expendable (project leader Ava, Patricia Clarkson, expresses surprise that so many survived). However you cut it, such as making excuses based on other tests being conducted prior to entering the maze, this precise scenario is entirely batty. The criteria and objectives won’t be clarified because nothing would satisfyingly explain them. Presumably this is also a very broad-spectrum test as, aside from the three or four runners, the lads do sweet FA aside from a spot of gardening.


There are a few decent reveals; that Thomas and Teresa were actually testers (Gally was right to be suspicious; it’s notable that his approach of safety first, not bucking the system and rule and order, is the closest the movie comes to reaching for a critical subtext beyond its mystery box), the fake-out of the terrorist attack on the facility. Others – Galley miraculously appearing having traversed the maze solo – bear as little scrutiny as the project goal. For a YA movie this is also impressively un-sentimental in killing off sympathetic characters or in unpleasant ways. The Grievers are familiar and generic, but Ball handles the maze sequences with energy and flair; it’s a shame there aren’t more tight scrapes as the close shaves are gripping when they come.


The young cast also give a good showing. The Maze Runner’s failings are purely material-based. The trio of writers should probably have forsaken more of James Dashner’s novel than they did. Dashner still seems to be banging the series out (his fifth is due next year), so perhaps he’ll digest some of the criticisms and come up with something coherent in time for finale. At least with this number of novels, provided audiences don’t get bored and the series is curtailed, there should be no need for Fox to follow the route of every other YA and split the last entry in to two. Although, the same could have also been said of Harry Potter.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

There are times when I miss the darkness. It is hard to live always in the light.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

I had that Christopher Marlowe in my boat once.

Shakespeare in Love (1998)
(SPOILERS) You see? Sometimes Oscar can get it right. Not that the backlash post-announcement would have you crediting any such. No, Saving Private Ryan had the rug unscrupulously pulled from under it by Harvey Weinstein essentially buying Shakespeare in Love’s Best Picture through a lavish promotional campaign. So unfair! It is, of course, nothing of the sort. If the rest of Private Ryan were of the same quality as its opening sequence, the Spielberg camp might have had a reasonable beef, but Shakespeare in Love was simply in another league, quality wise, first and foremost thanks to a screenplay that sang like no other in recent memory. And secondly thanks to Gwyneth Paltrow, so good and pure, before she showered us with goop.

Move away from the jams.

Aladdin (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was never overly enamoured by the early ‘90s renaissance of Disney animation, so the raves over Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin left me fairly unphased. On the plus side, that means I came to this live action version fairly fresh (prince); not quite a whole new world but sufficiently unversed in the legend to appreciate it as its own thing. And for the most part, Aladdin can be considered a moderate success. There may not be a whole lot of competition for that crown (I’d give the prize to Pete’s Dragon, except that it was always part-live action), but this one sits fairly comfortably in the lead.

What you do is very baller. You're very anarchist.

Lady Bird (2017)
(SPOILERS) You can see the Noah Baumbach influence on Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut, with whom she collaborated on Frances Ha; an intimate, lo-fi, post-Woody Allen (as in, post-feted, respected Woody Allen) dramedy canvas that has traditionally been the New Yorker’s milieu. But as an adopted, spiritual New Yorker, I suspect Gerwig honourably qualifies, even as Lady Bird is a love letter/ nostalgia trip to her home city of Sacramento.

The Statue of Liberty is kaput.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)
(SPOILERS) William Goldman said of Saving Private Ryan, referencing the film’s titular objective in Which Lie Did I Tell? that it “becomes, once he is found, a disgrace”. “Hollywood horseshit” he emphasised, lest you were in doubt as to his feelings. While I had my misgivings about the picture on first viewing, I was mostly, as many were, impacted by its visceral prowess (which is really what it is, brandishing it like only a director who’s just seen Starship Troopers but took away none of its intent could). So I thought, yeah Goldman’s onto something here, if possibly slightly exaggerating for effect. But no, he’s actually spot-on. If Saving Private Ryan had been a twenty-minute short, it would rightly muster all due praise for its war-porn aesthetic, but unfortunately there’s a phoney, sentimental, hokey tale attached to that opening, replete with clichéd characters, horribly earnest, honorific music and “exciting!” action to engage your interest. There are…

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

I’m the spoiled toff who lives in the manor.

Robin Hood (2018)
(SPOILERS) Good grief. I took the disdain that greeted Otto Bathurst’s big screen debut with a pinch of salt, on the basis that Guy Ritchie’s similarly-inclined lads-in-duds retelling of King Arthur was also lambasted, and that one turned out to be pretty good fun for the most part. But a passing resemblance is as close as these two would-be franchises get (that, and both singularly failed to start their respective franchises). Robin Hood could, but it definitely didn’t.

I should have mailed it to the Marx Brothers.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
When your hero(es) ride off into the sunset at the end of a film, it’s usually a pretty clear indication that a line is being drawn under their adventures. Sure, rumours surfaced during the ‘90s of various prospective screenplays for a fourth outing for the whip-cracking archeologist. But I’m dubious anyone really expected it to happen. There seemed to be a natural finality to Last Crusade that made the announcement of his 2007 return nostalgically welcome but otherwise unwarranted. That it turned out so tepid merely seemed like confirmation of what we already knew; Indy’s time was past.

It’s the Mount Everest of haunted houses.

The Legend of Hell House (1973)
(SPOILERS) In retrospect, 1973 looks like a banner year for the changing face of the horror movie. The writing was on the wall for Hammer, which had ruled the roost in Britain for so long, and in the US the release of The Exorcist completed a transformation of the genre that had begun with Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby; the realistic horror film, where the terror was to be found in the everyday (the home, the family). Then there was Don’t Look Now, which refracted horror tropes through a typically Nic Roeg eye, fracturing time and vision in a meditative exploration of death and grief. The Wicker Man, meanwhile, would gather its reputation over the passing years. It stands as a kind of anti-horror movie, eschewing standard scares and shock tactics for a dawning realisation of the starkness of opposing belief systems and the fragility of faith.

In comparison to this trio, The Legend of Hell House is something of a throwback; its slightly stagey tone, and cobweb…