The Maze Runner Review

Starring: Dylan O'Brien, Aml Ameen, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Ki-hong Lee, Will Poulter, Kayla Scodelario, Patricia Clarkson

The Maze Runner is the newest young-adult series to get a film adaptation. Now, while The Hunger Games and its sequels have gained immense praise from both fans and critics alike, and pulled in huge amounts of cash, only Divergent has come close to that success, and Tris only pulled in 40% of what Katniss did on her first film outing. Countless flops have been released, like Inkheart, Eragon, Ender's Game, Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief, and so many more. I'm happy to say that this movie reaches far beyond the standard YA adaptations we're all used to. As a reader of the book, I can also say that fans of the book will most likely be very happy with it.

The Maze Runner centers around Thomas, a teenager who awakens in a rusty elevator being delivered to a strange place, with no memories. He discovers that he, along with the other boys who are sent monthly, are delivered to the center of an intricate maze, and sets off a chain of events that start to give them their first clues to escape. The whole premise is that Thomas has no idea who he is, or what anything in the maze is, so exposition is hard to come by. You learn everything as Thomas learns it. Some details are very vague, so if you can't stand not knowing what's going on, be warned, there's a lot of mystery. The ending reveals mostly every secret the movie had in the last 90 minutes, but this movie is definitely pointing to a much more intense sequel.

The Hunger Games was praised by critics (84% Rotten Tomatoes), and fans of the book did enjoy the film, but The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was immensely loved. With 90% of critics behind it, everyone was pretty much in unison that it immensely improved upon its predecessor, and even made it look bad in comparison. I think that's what The Maze Runner is doing. It's a compelling first attempt, that's good in its own right, but I think the sequel, which after an impressive box-office debut of $32 million, is coming in 2015, will greatly improve on the premise presented to audiences, and make for a great movie. I loved The Maze Runner, and encourage everyone to see it.

Rating: 4/5 stars

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay- Part 1 Trailer+Review

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay- Part 1

Starring:
Jennifer Lawrence- Katniss Everdeen
Josh Hutcherson- Peeta Mellark
Liam Hemsworth- Gale Hawthorne
Woody Harrelson- Haymitch Abernathy
Elizabeth Banks- Effie Trinket
Julianne Moore- President Alma Coin
Philip Seymour Hoffman- Plutarch Heavensbee
Jeffery Wright- Beetee Latier
Jena Malone- Johanna Mason
Sam Claflin- Finnick Odair
Natalie Dormer- Cressida
Stanley Tucci- Caesar Flickerman
Donald Sutherland- President Coriolanus Snow

So this is by far the most anticipated movie of the fall season in the country. I realize not everyone is a fan, but speaking for the general public, this is the movie on just about everyone's radar. The Hunger Games opened in March 2013, with $152 million, and made $408 million in the country, making it the 15th highest grossing movie of all time stateside. Worldwide though, it was a bit of a disappointment. Obviously the states were much more interested in Katniss than the world. That all changed last fall, when The Hunger Games: Catching Fire debuted to not much more, $158 million, but at the end of its run, made $864 million worldwide, $424 of which was made in the US and Canada, making it the 10th highest grossing film of all time in the country. This movie is only expected to go up, maybe even breaking the billion dollar club.

What do we see in the trailer? We see Katniss, after the previous Quarter Quell games, (SPOILER ALERT to anyone who hasn't seen Catching Fire) and she's learned by now, that her District 12 has been bombed, and Peeta is either been killed or captured by the Capitol. Plutarch and Haymitch are leading a rebellion among the tributes, and Katniss is the "mockingjay" or symbol of hope. For anyone new to the world of Panem, jabberjays were a genetically engineered bird released by the Capitol to spy on the Districts, and they could repeat any conversation. When people caught on, they tricked the birds into spreading lies, so the Capitol abandoned the birds to die in the wild. However, they bred with mockingbirds, and made the mockingjay, which was a slap in the face to the Capitol. Katniss acts as the mockingjay from District 13, where the rebellion is led by President Coin. They plan to use propaganda to take down the Capitol.

For readers of the book, there is no surprise to see Peeta. Peeta and Johanna, captured at the end of the last movie, are acting as the Capitol's robots, to be used just as Katniss is by District 13. The main difference of this installment is the subject. There are no Games. I was one who was a little disappointed with the first movie, but the second?  So much better than the first, and maybe even better than the book. But Mockingjay has no games, and is very political. As you can see, it's all out war. It's slow, and drags on. Many people who have read the book, as far as I know, were very unsatisfied with it. This is only Part 1, but so many people downright hate it, I'm not so sure how it or how the final installment in the franchise will fare.

The Giver Review

Starring: Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep, Brenton Thwaites, Alexander Skårsgard, Katie Holmes, Odeya Rush, Taylor Swift

 The Giver is the adaptation of Lois Lowry's Newberry Award winning novel of the same name. I'm sure most kids like myself have had to read it for school at one time or another. But this book was released twenty years ago. Why is there a movie just coming out now? We can have The Hunger Games adapted in two years, and this book made some real noise when it was released. So why hasn't this been the next Divergent or The Hunger Games? In twenty years, the fanbase for this book has basically evaporated into thin air. That's just my introduction to the source material, let me get into the actual dissection of the movie. Is it a bad movie or a good movie? That is a difficult question to answer. For now, I'll just say it's interesting.

The Giver takes place in the future, in a "utopian" society in which different colors, races, and emotions have been removed. People live in Communities and are ruled by a group of Elders that make decisions. When a child reaches a certain age, a job is picked for them. Some are birth mothers (children are not born from their parents), some are nurses, and Jonas (Thwaites) is chosen to be the next Receiver of Memory. The Receiver (Bridges) is an old man who has all the memories of the past the Chief Elder (Streep) has had erased, and delivers them to Jonas, who is able to see colors, feel love, and realize that they do not live in a utopia. It's one of the greatest world-building attempts I've seen in any sort of media. World-building, for those who are not aware, is a film technique to create a world or timeline that presents an explanation for its events as well as provide entertainment. The best examples of this are The Incredibles, Avatar, and Star Wars. They're crazy concepts, but lack clear explanation. The Giver's plot is seamless. There is not a hole to be seen. So where does the problem lie?

For me, the problem lies in the execution. The acting performances are somewhat mediocre and bland, but for a society with no emotions, that's how they're supposed to be. Katie Holmes plays the perfect mother in this setting, so flat and emotionless she makes you angry. Jonas is well-acted, as he comes to terms with the revelation that he and his world are not what they seem. The two standout performances are as many would expect: Jeff Bridges and Meryl Streep. Now, I warn fans of the book, Meryl Streep's character is the big change between the book and movie. In the book, Elders exist but they don't really do anything. Here Streep is the Chief Elder and she stages an all-out manhunt against Jonas. I can see why they'd do that, but in the end it's not just me siding with the original book, it just confuses things a lot. Halfway through the movie, not just the color changes, everything gets flipped. Suddenly Taylor Swift is there, and it's all conspiracy, and takes a political tone instead of a sci-fi/fantasy one. I feel like there was such a better way to execute this, and give the great novel the treatment it deserves.

So is this a great movie? By no means. Is it a bad movie? Not entirely. I know a lot of critics have been really bashing at this movie, and I'll admit, the bad word of mouth definitely did have me scared going into the movie. It just goes to show what audience reactions can do to a movie, because this movie is a huge flop right now. I don't think it deserves that. The Giver is a decent movie, that fails horribly in some aspects, but is a great success in others. At the end of your showing, you have to ask yourself which one weighs heavier, the good or the bad?

Rating: 2.5/5 stars