"The Maze Runner" Review

The Maze Runner

3 out of 5 stars
Recommendation: Wait for it to come to Redbox or Netflix

Family appropriateness rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars
Rated PG-13
-Images of monsters may be scary to young viewers
-Some disturbing, bloody images
-Mild language









It possesses a sense of mystery to keep you interested, but "The Maze Runner" is blander than it should have been.

Thomas (Dylan O'Brien) has been thrown into a society of boys living in a large field. No one knows where they came from. They only know their names and the fact that the answers to their questions are somewhere beyond the walls that surround the field. A large opening appears every morning that leads to a maze. In order to get to the outside world, the boys have to find their way through the maze, but no one has ever done so.

The boys seem content with being there and not finding their way out of the maze. The reason for this seems to be that they have already tried everything and are hopeless. Thomas is different from the rest and wants to find his way out, despite what the designated leader, Gally (Will Poulter), says. Gally thinks the established rules are of upmost importance. When Thomas starts disobeying them, the leader gets angry at him.

The movie stays interesting in that the details are mostly unknown, and very little is ever discovered until the end. However, had it been in the hands of more capable writers, it could have been so much more.  Being about a society built by boys, it could have been a modern-day take on "Lord of the Flies," contrasting the personalities of each boy and juxtaposing their community with real world society. 

Instead of that, the script gives little more than exposition. The characters are simply there to talk about the fact that there is a society and that there are rules in it. There is little character development, and little discussion as to why the society works in the first place.

Though Thomas is different, the writers do not give him or most of the other boys very much personality. The characters are all there just for the purpose of pushing the plot forward, and it is difficult to identify with any of them. There is also a female character introduced later in the film named Teresa (Kaya Scodelario), but the filmmakers do not seem to know what to do with her. She could have been cut out of the movie, and it would not have changed anything.

Will Poulter delivers the best performance as Gally, who is most defined character. He is a stubborn boy who has a by-the-book view on morality. However, a lack of depth given to the society raises a lot of questions as to his motivations. In the end, he is a two-dimensional character who comes off as annoying.

Like my page on Facebook: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"Get on Up" Review

Get on Up

3 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Rated PG-13
-Moderate amount of profanity including two uses of the f-word.
-Moderate amount of sexual content. One scene shows two clothed people having sex standing up, another scene shows a man taking his shirt off as he kisses a woman, but the scene ends after that.
-One scene shows a topless woman hiding her breasts with her arms.
-Several depictions of domestic abuse.






There is no question that Chadwick Boseman does a great job in his portrayal of James Brown, but "Get on Up" is a disorganized look at the singer's life.

James Brown is well known for singing popular songs like "I Feel Good" and "Get Up Offa That Thing." He is an excellent entertainer who knows how to please a crowd, but he is not a very nice person. Brown is a control freak, and he thinks he is God's gift to the world. His personality drives other people away.

His abrasive personality happens to be why he is so successful. He knows what he wants and he will stop at nothing to get it. One scene in particular shows how creative he is in business as he ingeniously promotes his show without hiring a promoter. He decides that he can very well do it himself. He does not want to pay someone to do it for him.

Chadwick Boseman does a great job in his portrayal of the main character. It would not have been an easy role to play. James Brown is a loud, energetic man who has moments of tragedy. The performance was believable, and I came out of the theatre knowing better what what the man was like.

As in recent biopics, this film seems like the CliffsNotes version of his life. It shows various events, but it feels rushed. The way the film is organized does not seem logical especially in the beginning. It starts in one year, then it goes to several decades before, then it shows Brown's childhood and then back to another period. The chronology is confusing, and I do not understand why it was edited that way.

James Brown also gets in relationships with a few different women in this film, but it does not address this aspect very well. The way the audience knows about one of them is because Brown tells his friend/singing partner, Bobby Byrd (Nelsan Ellis), that he plans to get married to Velma (Jacinte Blankenship), who is either not shown before this or the audience is never given any reason to recognize her. The film never addresses whether or not he got married to her, but it shows him several years later leaving his house, kissing her and his infant. It was not until I looked it up on Wikipedia that I found out he did get married to her.

He later ends up in another relationship with a woman named DeeDee (Jill Scott). It shows them together, but it never addresses whether or not they are married -- which according to Wikipedia, they were. It shows him see her, and in the next scene, they are together. The film addresses something dark that happens within this relationship, but I was so confused about what they were that I did not care as much as I should have.

That is how the whole film is. It glosses over important details, especially about his relationships with important people in his life, and it awkwardly transitions into different time periods. I know James Brown's personality better after having seen the film, but I do not know his personal life as deeply as I should.

For a good example of what a biopic should be, see "Walk the Line." Johnny Cash's relationship with his wife in that film is well-defined, and it is easy to see where their marriage goes wrong. It also does a great job at developing his relationship with another woman he falls in love with. "Get on Up" fails at establishing basic relationships the main character has, which would have made it a more powerful film.

This is not by any means a horrible movie. It is just disorganized and does not know what it wants to focus on. I recommend seeing it when it comes to Redbox rather than in theaters.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"X-Men: Days of Future Past" Review

X-Men: Days of Future Past

5 out of 5 stars

Family appropriate rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars
Rated PG-13
-Quite a bit of brutal violence including stabbings, but nothing gory.
-Two instances of sexual content.
-One instance of backside male nudity.
-Moderate language including one f-word.






"X-Men: Days of Future Past" utilizes a unique, comic booky plot to beautifully continue the character arcs that left off in both "The Wolverine" and "X-Men: First Class."

Humans and mutants are at war. The mutants are losing because of the Sentinels, machines built by the government that have the ability to track down and kill them. Furthermore, these machines have the ability to mock mutant powers, which is why they are so successful.

They were designed by a scientist named Dr. Trask (Peter Dinklage) in the 1970s. Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), angry at what he was doing, assassinated him and was captured on the spot. This gave humans even more motivation to get rid of the mutants, and they studied Mystique's body. It was through this that they were able to give the Sentinels the ability to mock mutant powers.

In the present, there are only few X-Men left, and they want to stop this war, reversing the devastation that has been happening. The way to do this is to stop Mystique from killing Trask. Kitty Pride (Ellen Page) has the power to send a person's consciousness back in time to his or her past self. Because it is so difficult for someone to go that far back without being killed, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) — being invincible — volunteers to go.

In the past, he must utilize both past Professor Xavior (James McAvoy) and past Magneto (Michael Fassbender) to stop Mystique. Of course, things are a lot more complicated than that, which is what makes this film great. There is non-stop conflict that is believable given where the characters have left off.

This continues the events from "X-Men: First Class," in which several of Xavior's friends have left him to join Magneto. He is in a very confused state-of-mind, and he is very different from present Xavior (Patrick Stewart), a Gandalf-like man with a lot of wisdom to offer. Past Magneto is just as extreme as ever in his worldview, and there are parts where Xavior seems to agree with him.

At the end of "The Wolverine," the title character finally accepts the fact that he needed to kill Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) in order to save the world. Not only does "Days of Future Past" address this, it continues his character. He is now charged with the responsibility to be the mentor rather than the mentored. Every performance in this film is believable enough to carry on all of these established character arcs.

The plot is simple enough to follow but complex enough to keep the audience involved. Without overcomplicating things with useless subplots, it is very straightforward with a ton of twists and turns that makes it hard to predict what will happen in the end. It goes above and beyond the conventional super hero flick with an overarching theme of redemption and change that is beautifully placed rather than forced in.

This film has just the right amount of high-energy action to keep it fun. There is not too much — like the "Transformers" movies — but it is not bogged down by too much dialogue. Every action scene is well-choreographed and helps move the story forward. The best sequence involves a new character named Quicksilver (Evan Peters) and his mutant power of super speed.

At first, I had a problem with the way the movie ends. It is believable enough given the rest of the storyline, but it fails to explain how everything works. However, this is actually a good thing. It does not give all of the answers. It forces the audience to really think about what happened, and it gives another reason to anticipate what is next for the franchise.

Specific thoughts on the ending (spoilers): After having taken part in changing history, Wolverine wakes up in the mutant academy. He goes to Xavior's office, who finds out that his past consciousness has finally caught up to himself in the present. The professor welcomes him and says they have a lot of catching up to do. There are also characters who died in previous installments who are presently in the mutant academy, which suggests that the entire timeline has been altered.

This raises a few questions: why does his consciousness come back to the present? How does he still make it to the mutant academy even though the timeline should be very different? Does everyone else involved in protecting Wolverine and Kitty Pride remember everything? If not, why is Wolverine the only one who does remember it?

I have some tentative answers to these questions. A lot of it is he is the only one whose consciousness is in a different place from his present body. Since the timeline is altered, which causes Kitty Pride to let go, his consciousness has to come back to himself in the current present. I do not think everyone else remembers everything because Bobby (Shawn Ashmore) seems to be dating Kitty Pride at the beginning, but when Wolverine comes to the alternate timeline, he is dating Rogue (Anna Paquin) again. Professor Xavior only knows about the mission Wolverine is back from because he remembers the events of the altered timeline.

What do you think of the ending? Do agree with my thoughts on it? Go ahead and comment what you think. Just be sure to warn other readers of spoilers.

"Godzilla" Review

Godzilla

3.8 out of 5 stars

Rated PG-13
Moderate violence involving creature destruction
A monster gets its head torn off, but its too darkly lit for blood
Very mild sexuality between a husband and wife: they kiss and it is obvious it will lead to something more, but they are interrupted.
Mild language





"Godzilla" is a series of incredibly-shot scenes that make up a sub-par storyline.

I was excited for this film because one of my favorite actors, Bryan Cranston is in it. He plays Joe Brody, a scientist who sees that there are some irregular movements below the earth at the time of a huge earthquake that takes down a large nuclear facility in Japan in 1999. Fifteen years later, he sees the irregularities come back. When he goes to investigate it with his son, Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), everything goes wrong, and a monster emerges.

Before seeing this film, I watched an interview with Cranston by AMC Theatres in which he plays up the character development in the film. He said since "Breaking Bad" had such phenomenal writing, he was nervous that whatever he chose next would be compared to it. When he got the script to "Godzilla," he thought it was one that no one would even think about doing so. However, after reading it, he realized that it is a story that is very character-driven. Here is the full interview:



I wonder if he was smoking Heisenberg's meth before the interview because "Godzilla" is not like that at all. His character is a main character for only a small portion, and then the focus goes on his son, Ford. Not only is Aaron Taylor-Johnson a less experienced actor, the character is bland. I don't know much about him aside from the fact that he is a family man who is an expert at bombs. There is a hint of a character arc at the beginning in which he has been estranged from his father, but in the end, there is no reason for this to be shown. His character does not seem to change in any way. He is perfect throughout it.

The film certainly tries to develop the characters, but it rushes way too much. In fact, I would argue that "Transformers" has a lot more development than this film. Though that movie is more cheesy, I know who Sam Witwicky is, and he is likable. In this movie, all of them are just there to move the story along, which is pretty slow at the beginning.

When it picks up, it is essentially the average monster-movie, but there are some good twists to it. Without spoiling anything, there is more than one monster, and they fight each other.

Though the film is a little disappointing in its characters and story, seeing the monsters on the big screen is well worth the price of admission. Director Gareth Edwards seemed to have spent most of his effort getting some really cool visuals down, and it pays off. The most awesome shots involve seeing the monsters from the point of view of civilians. Like the dragon in "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug," a lot is done to show just how enormous Godzilla is.

The lizard's design definitely pays homage to the original look. It is more updated, but it does not look like it came from Jurassic Park like the 1998 version does. It looks like the original Godzilla.

Overall, I recommend seeing this film in theaters. It has flaws in the story's construction, but there are some awesome, intense scenes that make it worth seeing. Just don't expect the high-emotion drama of the year.