By CHRIS PUNTO & NATALIE SACKET
Columnists
“Maze Runner: the Scorch Trials”
Chris: 2.5 out of 5
Alright everyone. You can blame Natalie for this terrible review. I haven’t seen the first “Maze Runner” movie, so I am completely and utterly lost as far as plot goes. My colleague knew this, but she’s too chicken to watch “The Visit.”
Anyway, here we go. Acting was pretty good for a teenage dystopian style movie. Something I can’t rightly say about movies like the “Divergent” series. This film stars Dylan Obrien, and now I can see why people wanted him to portray the next Spider-Man. He can pull off that teenage stud that so many actors his age want to get down.
As far as the movie itself goes, it seems like it would have been a good movie if I knew what it was about at all. I’m just kinda tired of this whole “in the future where the government is hiding something from you” storyline. It’s been done over and over, and, yes, Hollywood is making millions off the masses of people who watch them, but come on — something original is desperately in need.
Bottom line: I’m pretty neutral overall, I guess. Plot scores right in the middle because of how much I don’t know about it. Acting scores highly for me. And creativity scores low on my scale. I’m sure if I watch the first movie and then go back and watch this again, it’ll be a pretty decent movie. I apologize to the readers that expected more out of this review. Blame Natalie.
Natalie: 2.5 out of 5
The release of “The Maze Runner” last September delighted me. It was exciting, thrilling, and unlike the other young adult novel movies that have bombarded theaters in past years. (Sorry Katniss and Tris.) It maintained action, excitement, and sizzle, without losing sight of the unique plot. Because of this, I was thrilled to see what director Wes Ball would do with the sequel, “Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials.” Unfortunately, this film did not live up to my high expectations.
Not to spoil anything, but here’s a spoiler: this film becomes filled with zombie-like creatures called “cranks.” They’re more blood-curdling than your typical “Walking Dead” creatures, as these run. Fast. Terrifying.
Speaking of running, there is SO much running in this film. Running from cranks, running from lightning, running from guys with guns, running from responsibilities. Seriously, learn how to ride a bike or drive, or something. Despite all the running, this film certainly didn’t make it terribly far.
I still enjoyed “Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials;” don’t take my criticism too harshly. However, this series seemed to lose its imagination and ability to stray from the typical young adult film.
Rather than maintaining its creativity, it threw in zombies, betrayal and teen romance. The storyline did surprise me, as it was not at all what I expected. But that’s only because I expected much more.
I will say, if you haven’t seen the first film, this sequel will confuse you. (Sorry Chris.)They make numerous references to happenings of the first film, without any explanation. If you choose to watch this sequel, watch “Maze Runner” first. The sequel picks right up where the prequel ended.
Bottom Line: It’s not AWFUL; perhaps I’m just bitter because I expected much more. If you’re a fan of minimal plot development and zombies, this is a good way to spend an evening.