The Maze Runner

The latest in a long string of Young Adult book adaptations about dystopian futures where teenagers are put into life-threatening situations and an A-List maternal actress plays the bad-guy (phew), "The Maze Runner" enters the fray, but kinda just limps to the finish line.

Based on the popular book series by James Dashner, three newish screenwriters tackle the novel about a young man named Thomas ("Teen Wolf's" Dylan O'Brien) who wakes up in a glade that is surrounded by a monstrous boulder (concrete?) maze. He is greeted by a gaggle of unusual-looking teenage boys that sort of welcome him into the pack and show him the lay of the land.

Basically, all of them woke up in the Glade with no memory of their lives. They have created a mini-society where everyone "does their part." It's basically a never-ending Boy Scout camping trip. But surrounding their camp is a giant maze whose massive doors open every morning and close every night. Boys chosen as "maze runners" run into the maze every morning to map it and then return before the doors slam shut. If they don't return it would mean certain death, as a pack of monsters lurks at night within the maze walls -- something they call the "Grievers."

There's lots of "somethings" in the script for "The Maze Runner," which makes scene after scene just feel expository. Since Thomas is the new guy in The Glade he is forever just asking what everything is by repeating it back. ("The glade?" "The maze?" "The Grievers?") Because of this, things might look pretty cool, but it bogs down the storytelling. And since there's not much going on in The Glade, we just want them to get into the maze.

Once they do (because Thomas is a go-getter and wants them all to be free) the film picks up a bit, with suspenseful chase sequences and nifty set pieces. But along with those, there are lots of questions. For example, why do they have to actually run through the maze every day? Is it because it's long and will take them forever? Is there something chasing them? Why are they always finding the exact place they want to be within seconds of entering the maze? For a maze, it's hardly confusing.

The whole affair is one part "Lord of the Flies"/two parts "Hunger Games," with Thomas starting to recall that some sort of covert group is responsible for sending him there. This memory fragment comes in the face of Patricia Clarkson as Ava Paige, who fills the Kate Winslet/Meryl Streep role in this latest YA adaptation. Whether it's the author's fault or the screenwriters, the film is very much a paint-by-numbers dystopian thriller that is really just one big set-up for the sequel. The ending is fairly unsatisfying, and raises more questions.

The good news is that lead Dylan O'Brien is magnetic onscreen, and sells even the cheesiest of dialogue. He also runs like a mother-f**ker. He has that goofy handsomeness that made Tom Hanks so popular, and could very well be a star in the same vein if given the right roles. He is the best thing about the film.

Other characters come across more as types, with Will Poulter as Gally being the Bully, Thomas Brodie-Sangster as the smart, kind one, and Blake Cooper as the young, innocent one. There's nothing that memorable about them aside from the general fact that we, as the audience, would prefer not to see anyone squished in the walls of the maze or torn apart by giant spider robots. That said, we are kept in the dark for so long that we really don't know what the stakes are. The Glade seems pretty benign, so until the gates suddenly stay open one night and release Grievers into the area, there's really nothing too bad for these kids. (All of whom are boys, by the way.)

Another plot point never discussed: One girl (Kaya Scodelario) is sent to The Glade, but we're never sure why there have been no girls up until that point. There's an unsettling reason that could have happened, but the movie plays more Disney than gritty, so her arrival is a bit of a shrug, except that she somehow remembers Thomas -- and this sets up the finale.

I could go on and on about the inconsistencies and oddities of the story. There is a slightly intriguing premise here, and O'Brien is terrific, but I can't imagine anyone but fans of the book will race to the theatre to see this. So the promise of a sequel that is so obviously stated at the end of the film might never come to pass.