The Maze Runner

[FArting]

Movie looks good

Has anyone read the book

 

[Brian in Mesa]

The Maze Runner

Release Date: September 18, 2014 (2D theaters and IMAX, p.m. screenings)
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Director: Wes Ball
Screenwriter: Noah Oppenheim, Grant Pierce Myers, T.S. Nowlin
Genre: Action, Adventure, Thriller
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for thematic elements and intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, including some disturbing images)
Website: TheMazeRunnermovie.com | Facebook | Twitter | Google+ | Tumblr

Starring: Dylan O'Brien, Kaya Scodelario, Aml Ameen, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Will Poulter

Plot Summary: When Thomas (O'Brien) wakes up trapped in a massive maze with a group of other boys, he has no memory of the outside world other than strange dreams about a mysterious organization known as W.C.K.D. Only by piecing together fragments of his past with clues he discovers in the maze can Thomas hope to uncover his true purpose and a way to escape. Based on the best-selling novel by James Dashner.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[UncleChris]

Looks like a top notch popcorn movie.

 

[cardncubfan]

Looks good. May have to go watch this one.

 

[Covert Rain]

My two older kids want to go see this over the weekend. I will probably take them.

 

[Chaplin]

Acting was pretty horrible, especially by one of the actors (you'll know who if you see it), but the story was pretty intriguing.

Spoiler

Except for the girl. What a waste of a character--she showed NO purpose at all in the movie except to be the carrier for the "cure" for getting stung. Of course, they could have done the same thing with the main character, but they needed the female presence. Which is funny because there is absolutely NO romance in this movie.

You could see a lot of Hunger Games influence in the film.

Fandango listed this movie as PG--it is most definitely not a PG movie.

 

[Covert Rain]

Acting was pretty horrible, especially by one of the actors (you'll know who if you see it), but the story was pretty intriguing.

Spoiler

Except for the girl. What a waste of a character--she showed NO purpose at all in the movie except to be the carrier for the "cure" for getting stung. Of course, they could have done the same thing with the main character, but they needed the female presence. Which is funny because there is absolutely NO romance in this movie.

You could see a lot of Hunger Games influence in the film.

Fandango listed this movie as PG--it is most definitely not a PG movie.

You referring to Dylan O'Brien? Man that bites if so. My son loves that show and I catch it on occasion. His scenes are usually pretty good and funny at that.

Didn't they also already announce a sequel?

 

[Chaplin]

You referring to Dylan O'Brien? Man that bites if so. My son loves that show and I catch it on occasion. His scenes are usually pretty good and funny at that.

Didn't they also already announce a sequel?

No, it was Will Poulter who was awful. A shame since I thought he was great in We're the Millers. Maybe this is just not the kind of movie for him. He was absolutely terrible. The script didn't help him, but he still didn't do anything with it.

The guy you're referring to was fine. Nothing outstanding, but he was competent enough.

Don't know if a sequel has already been announced, but there should be (should that be a spoiler?).

 

[Iceman]

So, Chaplin would you recommend going to it or waiting til rental?

 

[FArting]

Don't know if a sequel has already been announced, but there should be (should that be a spoiler?).

The sequel The Scorch Trials will be released next year.

 

[Bert]

If you haven't read the book dont worry because it was as much like the book as World War Z. Totally different.

Love the books, movie was blah and the things that they took out made the movie make no sense.

If you dont want spoilers, stop reading now.

Spoiler

This is just for anyone who was confused by the movie or is interested enough to want to know how it really went in the book, but doesn't want to read the book. I will just go over key highlights:

1. They have the serum the whole time.
2. Because people get stung
3. Once you get stung you go through the changing and you remember more of your past.
4. Gally had gone through the changing and he remembered the hell hole that the world had become, which is why he hated that change seemed to accompany Thomas, and that's why he hated him, because he loved it there and was terrified to go back out into the real world.
5. WICKED, not WCKD, I dont know why they changed the name, I guess to avoid similarities to the play? Anyway, wicked is watching them all the time, they know it. They call them "creators" and there are little robots with cameras flying around and watching them all the time. They know it, it's not a mystery.
6. On that note, the box provides them with pretty much anything they require. They are NOT living like lord of the flies. There are beds, electricity and lots of other comforts. That's part of the greatness of the writing. The "creators" or WICKED, constantly makes the boys as comfortable as possible, they give them the syrum, medicine, other supplies, it's a constant source of torment for the boys that they are being so brutally tested, messed with, tortured, tormented, hunted, yet, totally cared for all at once.
7. They banish the kid because he attacked Thomas, because he went through the changing and he remembers Thomas working with the creators, which is why he attacked him. He tells everyone this, but they just think the changing has driven him mad, everyone except Gally ofcourse.
8. WICKED has such control over them that they can go as far as to inflict pain or even control over them remotely. IE. Alby goes through the changing, wakes up and tries to tell Thomas what he remembers, and WICKED makes him try to kill himself.
9. Thomas and Theresa have a telepathic link and can have conversations without speaking, they dont know why.
10. Theresa gives Thomas tons of information that is not in the movie.
11. The ending is totally different in the book.
12. The maze was totally different, how it worked was totally different.

One of the BEST and CREEPIEST things in the book that they took out, which was totally stupid because it's amazingly terrifying in the book is that the doors do stop closing, that much was correct, however the sky also goes gray, (It does NOT rain in the glade or the maze btw) which leads them to believe that it's not a "sky" at all but some kind of projection. SO the sky goes gray and stays like that and the doors stay open, and every day at the same time the grievers start coming into the glade and taking one boy, one boy everyday until there is nobody left. Once the boys figure this out it obviously sends things into a bit of chaos and makes everyone want to figure out what the hell they are supposed to do. It's creepy because they are constantly terrified that they will be next, it's super awesome. Such a waste to not put that in

on and on. It was just such a poor adaptation, and drifted so far from the book, which was awesome, that I couldn't enjoy it.

 

[Chaplin]

So, Chaplin would you recommend going to it or waiting til rental?

Interesting question, it was still a bit teeny bopper for me, but not so bad as Twilight. As I said, it has more in common with Hunger Games. I saw it on the IMAX which helped in the action scenes.

Speaking as a non-book reader, I'd say its worth at least a matinee ticket.

 

[BigRedRage]

Acting was pretty horrible, especially by one of the actors (you'll know who if you see it), but the story was pretty intriguing.

Spoiler

Except for the girl. What a waste of a character--she showed NO purpose at all in the movie except to be the carrier for the "cure" for getting stung. Of course, they could have done the same thing with the main character, but they needed the female presence. Which is funny because there is absolutely NO romance in this movie.

You could see a lot of Hunger Games influence in the film.

Fandango listed this movie as PG--it is most definitely not a PG movie.

Why wasnt it PG?

My daughter is dying to see this.

 

[FArting]

Why wasnt it PG?

My daughter is dying to see this.

Rated PG-13 for thematic elements and intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, including some disturbing images. from imdb

 

[BigRedRage]

Rated PG-13 for thematic elements and intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, including some disturbing images. from imdb

Nothing bad in that description

 

[Chaplin]

Definitely would be some stuff that might be scary and a bit of blood. The Greavers that attack them are probably a bit intense for kids too.

 

[BigRedRage]

Definitely would be some stuff that might be scary and a bit of blood. The Greavers that attack them are probably a bit intense for kids too.

Oh ok, no biggie then. PG is 13+

Having a 12 year old in the house, blood and violence is nothing for todays 13 year olds. Shes been watching supernatural and says its quite a bit scary. Plays zombie games with me on xbox and etc.

Sounds like this one is a green light. Most every 13 year old girl has read the book too since dylan obrien is playing a leading role in the movie.

 

[Shane]

I liked it. It entertained.

 

[BigRedRage]

Acting was pretty horrible, especially by one of the actors (you'll know who if you see it), but the story was pretty intriguing.

Spoiler

Except for the girl. What a waste of a character--she showed NO purpose at all in the movie except to be the carrier for the "cure" for getting stung. Of course, they could have done the same thing with the main character, but they needed the female presence. Which is funny because there is absolutely NO romance in this movie.

You could see a lot of Hunger Games influence in the film.

Fandango listed this movie as PG--it is most definitely not a PG movie.

that was easily PG. Easily. No way it should have had a higher rating. My 6 year old could watch it with no issue. I've seen scarier scenes in disney movies.

No, it was Will Poulter who was awful. A shame since I thought he was great in We're the Millers. Maybe this is just not the kind of movie for him. He was absolutely terrible. The script didn't help him, but he still didn't do anything with it.

The guy you're referring to was fine. Nothing outstanding, but he was competent enough.

Don't know if a sequel has already been announced, but there should be (should that be a spoiler?).

I thought he did ok. Toward the end he was not as good but being the bully punk he pulled it off well. The spoilers about in the book why his personality is the way it is makes great sense.

Definitely would be some stuff that might be scary and a bit of blood. The Greavers that attack them are probably a bit intense for kids too.

Meh.



watched it the other night. fun movie.

 

[Chaplin]

I thought he did ok. Toward the end he was not as good but being the bully punk he pulled it off well. The spoilers about in the book why his personality is the way it is makes great sense.

Absolutely disagree, he was HORRIBLE as the bully. The guy has no acting chops whatsoever in this kind of role. Which as I said is a shame because I thought he did well as kind of an idiot in We're the Millers.

He couldn't deliver a single line well--I can't really blame it ALL on him, the director holds some responsibility as well, but he stood out so much against the other actors. It has NOTHING to do with his personality, only his performance. I saw the need for the character in the story (even if it was terribly cliched), but the actor had a lot of problems.

Do you watch PG movies? It absolutely isn't "easily PG". And in fact, Fandango was wrong and it was actually PG-13. Sounds like you've been desensitized by all the violence in movies. And I'm curious to know what you consider a scary scene in Disney movies.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Absolutely disagree, he was HORRIBLE as the bully. The guy has no acting chops whatsoever in this kind of role. Which as I said is a shame because I thought he did well as kind of an idiot in We're the Millers.

He couldn't deliver a single line well--I can't really blame it ALL on him, the director holds some responsibility as well, but he stood out so much against the other actors. It has NOTHING to do with his personality, only his performance. I saw the need for the character in the story (even if it was terribly cliched), but the actor had a lot of problems.

Do you watch PG movies? It absolutely isn't "easily PG". And in fact, Fandango was wrong and it was actually PG-13. Sounds like you've been desensitized by all the violence in movies. And I'm curious to know what you consider a scary scene in Disney movies.

I agree with both of you. He was believable as a bully, he just didn't pull it off well. I agree the acting on his part was pretty bad.

That being said I enjoyed the movie well enough and my 13 year old son did as well. My 12 year old daughter probably would have thought it to be too scary. Glad the PG-13 title was on there.

 

[BigRedRage]

Absolutely disagree, he was HORRIBLE as the bully. The guy has no acting chops whatsoever in this kind of role. Which as I said is a shame because I thought he did well as kind of an idiot in We're the Millers.

He couldn't deliver a single line well--I can't really blame it ALL on him, the director holds some responsibility as well, but he stood out so much against the other actors. It has NOTHING to do with his personality, only his performance. I saw the need for the character in the story (even if it was terribly cliched), but the actor had a lot of problems.

Do you watch PG movies? It absolutely isn't "easily PG". And in fact, Fandango was wrong and it was actually PG-13. Sounds like you've been desensitized by all the violence in movies. And I'm curious to know what you consider a scary scene in Disney movies.

He was fantastic for sure in We're the millers.

Yeah, I watch all movies. My daughter is 13 and we often look for pg13 or lower to watch with her. Some rated R I'll watch with her I just try to avoid anything with sex/nudity in it. Violence is whatever. Shes played call of duty and zombie games, she understands it is only media. Me and her are currently watching the walking dead together.

For my 6 year old I am far more selective but he can handle his own. If something is horrific I'm not going to watch it with him to avoid nightmares but that movie was very simple and not "scary" at all IMO. I guess it depends on the audience. Beetlejuice is scarier than this movie and I don't consider beetlejuice scary at all.

I remember being 6/8 years old and seeing nightmare on elm street. Now that was scary.

 

[Covert Rain]

I thought he did ok. Toward the end he was not as good but being the bully punk he pulled it off well.

Agree. He did just fine. It wasn't the type of part that required a ton of acting chops. Especially as written.

My kids really liked the movie and they are hoping for more.

 

[Chaplin]

He was fantastic for sure in We're the millers.

Yeah, I watch all movies. My daughter is 13 and we often look for pg13 or lower to watch with her. Some rated R I'll watch with her I just try to avoid anything with sex/nudity in it. Violence is whatever. Shes played call of duty and zombie games, she understands it is only media. Me and her are currently watching the walking dead together.

For my 6 year old I am far more selective but he can handle his own. If something is horrific I'm not going to watch it with him to avoid nightmares but that movie was very simple and not "scary" at all IMO. I guess it depends on the audience. Beetlejuice is scarier than this movie and I don't consider beetlejuice scary at all.

I remember being 6/8 years old and seeing nightmare on elm street. Now that was scary.

I don't think this movie was a "scary" movie, but there were instances where a young child could be a little frightened. Think about Gremlins or Temple of Doom. We as adults obviously don't think they are scary, but these are the first two movies to get the PG-13 rating and they earned it.

There's a big difference between this and Nightmare on Elm Street, for example, which was made to scare, vs. this movie which was made to thrill. Doesn't mean that some scenes wouldn't frighten a 10 year old.

 

[BigRedRage]

There's a big difference between this and Nightmare on Elm Street, for example, which was made to scare, vs. this movie which was made to thrill.

Well, obviously. My point wasnt stating otherwise. I just dont see why a PG rating would be bad on this. Thats what PG is for IMO. Hey parents, guidance suggested, mildly scary stuff in the movie.