The Maze Runner ***

What do you get when you cross Lord of the Flies with Lost? The answer is The Maze Runner, a screen adaptation from the first novel in the trilogy series by James Dashner. It has an appeal for all – the idea of living hand to hand and fending for ourselves in some great dystopian existence, but it’s certainly a ‘first film in the saga’ crafted flick, designed to prick the interest of those not familiar with the books as to what lies behind the maze. Who is in control? With snippet flashbacks and an intriguing ending, it’s guaranteed to get return visits for the sequel, if only to find out what the hell is going on?

Sixteen-year-old Thomas (Dylan O’Brien) wakes up to a crowd of similar-aged boys looking down at him in a cage lift that lands in what’s known as ‘The Glade’, a lush area of land/woodland surrounded by the high rocky walls of a maze. He has no recollection of who he is, and he wants to know why he is here – as does each boy. The answer seems to lie in the maze, but the only people allowed to enter are ‘Runners’ to collect more answers. They must return before the maze closes at dusk and transforms.

This has fantasy, sci-fi and social drama all mixed up into one film. Naturally, the hook is the very same thing that the lead character wants to know: who put him there and why? Unlike Lost that cleverly throws in the odd puzzle to keep us occupied and things ticking along evenly, this is a one-trick pony of ‘finding a way out of the maze’ to find the answer. It means that the mystery dulls at points, where our interest in the living arrangements should pick up.

Indeed, there are some nice performances from some of the leads, including the Brits, with an all-grown-up Thomas Brodie-Sangster of Love Actually fame as the affable, level-headed Newt, and Will Poulter as feisty, paranoid Gally showing his exciting acting talents once more. O’Brien more than ticks the attractive lead box too. The politics in The Glade are interesting enough to carry the film – the idea of breaking down social conditioning to rebuild a simpler existence. However, even though we need to remain more in The Glade to establish the order and the role playing, this does slow the pace down – our interest in danger of waning. Hence those who have not read the books naturally questioning what’s not translating well to film? Are we missing out on key suggestions as to the characters’ psyches?

The action in the maze is fun enough, complete with the Grievers, great spider-like hunters that seem to be the boys’ initial first-line enemy. These Terminator-style entities hold far more clues than first thought. However, before challenging them, what is fascinating is the boys’ varied reaction to their ‘imprisonment’ by them. It’s the ‘fight or flight’ scenario; some are ready to confront them to get to the faceless ‘authority’ behind them in order to bring about freedom and change, and others wish to live in a gilded cage, a captive environment. It’s this predicament that the story explores through the boys’ actions that is far more interesting than action in the maze itself. Though the latter has its moments, it’s been seen and done many times before.

So we will just have to wait and see in Part II. It’s the hope of being rewarded for our patience, and the ending has enough fascination to drive that curiosity until next year with The Scorch Trials. Meanwhile, like the other futuristic utopia, The Hunger Games, The Maze Runner needs to gather more pace in the next installment to make any lasting impression. Though once this first film is seen, it’s a guaranteed money spinner at the box office, ironically with what is essentially, an old hap plot done better in Lost.

3/5 stars

By @FilmGazer

Follow on Twitter