Not knowing anything about this one beforehand, I was expecting a rehashing of too many young adult, coming of age, dystopian thrillers that have overwhelmed us in recent years. Looking like Lost or The Hunger Games but essentially (like each of these) an extension of Lord of the Flies, I thought this one looked particularly unlikable simply because of its all (okay, mostly)-male cast and high-tech, ultra-symbolic setting. Of course, each Lost and Hunger Games eventually had a high-tech setting, so I shouldn't have been so harsh. The story is obviously worthy and worth expanding, but I tire of seeing a new version (or two, or three) every year. Point being: This looked familiar and lackluster.
Lackluster it may be, but having finally seen it, I see that this adventure takes us into relatively fresh territory. To its credit, this particularly dark and gritty film avoids the enormous conspiratorial scope of Hunger Games and thus emphasizes its mysterious premise. The film's strongest element is its design: The weirdly geometric, industrial maze becomes a character on its own, edgy and sentient under its vine-covered walls. Though slightly overscored, the film feels larger and more significant than it should because its immense scale is matched by the exciting music. That's a dangerous gamble for first-time-feature-film-director Wes Ball, but it arguably succeeds.
Dylan O'Brien (Teen Wolf) is the only standout performance as Thomas, and his strong lead pulls the whole damn thing together. His solid supporters include Will Poulter (Voyage of the Dawn Treader) and Thomas Brodie-Sangster (Love Actually). The fabulous Patricia Clarkson steps in briefly as the Big Baddie, and we can certainly hope to see more of her. Others in the cast are fine, but mostly stick to their ensemble status, which is fine. Director Ball rightly restricts his focus in the large cast to his leads, though he also sacrifices some valuable emotional moments in doing so.
We unfortunately see most of the film through a shaky, eye-level camera. This can work in actions and thrillers, but it does not a good film make, and it does not work well in excess. It isn't as bad here as in other films, but more often than not it plays in opposition to the potential grandeur of the action. Don't get me wrong, Ball can certainly film a chase sequence, but moments like the attack on the glade are simplified and trivialized because we can't see the death and destruction. There's already a lot of mystery in this film, Ball, mostly because the premise is about being unable to see the horror around us. We need to see what we can in the meantime.
This may be a fault of the novel (I wouldn't know), but the fictional jargon gets old fast. Gladers, runners, grievers, creators, the "changing"; they aren't even remotely original. I understand the need to establish a specific, isolated world, but the hurried exposition makes it all contrived and inflated. Similarly, Thomas's nighttime visions of his past -- overcolored, underwritten, and disjointed -- seem unnecessary because they don't show us diddly. Finally, for a young adult franchise, I find myself utterly disappointed that there is no feminist or queer element whatsoever; fortunately we have a cast of mixed race, but they are all Westernized and speak English. It could be an interesting study of heterosocial masculinities, but those valuable moments are largely sacrificed for action sequences. The only thing that might assuage my "over it" attitude towards these elements is the knowledge that sequels are coming. As a stand-alone picture, this one leaves us wanting.
IMDb: The Maze Runner
No comments:
Post a Comment