Maze Runner the Death Cure

Spoilers ahead.

The question I had going into this was, can this film cure the death of the Young Adult film genre. Everybody knows that the YA genre, has not had a good past few years with the end of The Hunger Games, and Divergent, the Mortal Instruments and The 5th wave crashing and burning; it looked like the genre was at an end or at least slowing down. However, one high profile YA series remained and that was Maze Runner. First off I think the delay in release date was a genuinely good thing for this film, as it allowed it to stand a good distance apart from the other YA films of years past, and command more attention. This film is a bit of a mixed bag because a lot of its strengths are also its weakness and vice versa. The first such example of this is the runtime, 142 minutes seems extortionately long for this kind of movie, and yes it does bring with it quite a few pacing issues; with some parts feeling needlessly long and other not flushed out enough. However, with this long running time, it avoids what has pretty much become a trope of the genre and that is splitting the last film into 2, I would say that the film benefits overall from this long running time, and it allows it to tie up all the loose ends and go out on a high note. Furthermore, the performances here are also a mixture of highs and lows. On one hand there are tremendous actors such as, Aiden Gillen and Walton Goggins, who play Janson and Lawrence respectively; however, both characters are barely used with Goggins in particular only being in the movie for a few short scenes. Gillen’s Janson does manage to be a memorable villain, being both aggressive and slimy at the same time, and whilst his character was previously built up in the series unlike Goggins, he still is given very little to do. Where the performances shine through are in the younger actors, specifically in Dylan O’Brien (Thomas), Thomas Brodie- Sangster (Newt) and Rosa Salazar (Brenda). The friendship between O’Brien’s Thomas and Brodie- Sangster’s Newt, is the emotional core of the movie, with Thomas trying to find a cure for Newt whilst also searching for their friend, both actors give amazing performances making this friendship both believable and relatable in all the best ways. The untimely death of Newt towards the end of the third act hit me with much more emotional impact than the death of Theresa, (Kaya Scodelario), whose character is the one of the weakest and most boring of the whole movie. This is a shock as the relationship between Thomas and Theresa has been built up for 3 movies, and the end of that build up felt rather anti-climatic and just poorly done. In addition, there is the usual YA problem of the plot being laughably dumb, and this movie does suffer from that, I don’t think someone who hasn’t seen at least one of the previous two movies would be able to jump into this and understand what is going on; which is a large issue. Finally, I just wanted to briefly mention, Rosa Salazar’s performance as Brenda, I found her to be a wholly enjoyable character, and very easy to root for; being able to pull off both comedy and drama with ease. Her performance in this makes me a lot more confident, for Alita Battle Angel that she is staring in later this year. Her scenes were my favourite part of this movie.

Anyway, though the film suffers from some issues, (many of which are commonly found in the genre), and does waste some of its actors, it is still enjoyable. This film feels like a good mix of Mad Max and The Hunger Games and is most certainly a very good final entry in the series.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Commuter

This Liam Neeson lead action film is the latest collaboration between, Neeson and director Jaume Collet- Serra. This is, in fact, the fourth movie that the duo has worked on, with the others being Unknown, Non-Stop and Run All Night, and this film is much of the same fair as the rest. It is nice to see Liam Neeson a man of 60, still being given action hero lead billing, and more importantly still being believable. Neeson is as charismatic as ever in the role of Michael MacCauley, a man recently without a job and put in a dangerous game, on his train ride home from work. Enter Vera Farmiga’s enigmatic Joanna, who gives MacCauley the chance to win big money if he does, “one little thing”. Whilst she isn’t present much Farmiga shines in every scene, easily being the best thing about this movie; being able to present a genuine threat. The opening sequence that cuts together multiple mornings to make it appear all as one, is quite a nice directional choice and gives an impression of the monotonous effect of not trying anything new in a while. This contrasts nicely with the unexpected nature of the later events, which highlights both situations well. However, that is where the praise ends, there are a plethora of issues that plague this film. Firstly is the plot, which is at best wholly unbelievable, at worst ridiculous, with as many plot holes as there are passengers on a busy train. These, however, aren’t critical issues, as these leaps in logic are typical of most action movies, and really should be expected. The movies most dire issues are twofold, firstly is the wasted side characters, whilst a little light is shined on these characters back stories, (really just enough to make them interesting), it never feels enough. These characters feel almost entirely one-note and ultimately bland, you will not remember them when you leave the cinema. Furthermore, to add to this problem the little that is shown of these side characters back stories set up subplots, and these are never satisfactorily resolved, leaving you feeling less than satisfied. The second key issue is that the twists and turns the plot take feel played out and obvious, with everyone in the audience working out who MacCauley is looking for a good half the film before he does. Furthermore, the twists regarding, Patrick Wilson’s character are signposted a mile away, and a bit off topic but why Wilson took this role is a good question because his character is entirely forgettable. Ultimately, this isn’t a bad movie, it’s well shot, well acted by its two leads, but at the same time, it’s entirely forgettable. The film itself is a waste of potential really all round, with it just being kind of a generic action movie, which maybe check it out one day when it’s on Netflix, but for now, unless you’re a hardcore for the action genre give it a miss.

2/5

reviewed by Luke

All the Money in the World

This film is a testament to Ridley Scott as a director, with him replacing an actor and reshooting all his scenes only months before release. Whats more these scenes are hard to tell apart from the rest of the feature, blending in well; in contrast to other recent releases such as Justice League. Christopher Plummer portrays the role with equal parts ruthlessness, and a sheer sense of greed that perfectly encapsulates the character of J. Paul Getty. The film itself centers around the kidnapping of Getty’s grandson Paul, (played here by Charlie Plummer), and Getty’s refusal to pay any money in random. At its core, this film is defined by 3 key performances, Christopher Plummer’s Getty, who is tremendous throughout. With the performances of Michelle Williams, (Gail Harris), and Mark Wahlberg, (Fletcher Chase) also being critical. This is where the film fumbles, Michelle Willimas is perfect with her performance of a mother in crisis, trying to get her son back being both believable and the emotional backbone of the film. For anyone who has read any of my other reviews, they will know that so far this year I ‘ve been a big Michelle Willimas fan, with her role in the greatest showman being one of the best and most believable parts of that movie. However, it is the third key role that falls flat and that is Mark Wahlberg’s Chase Fletcher, who feels bland and uninteresting, really his role could be played by anyone. The strange standout social relationship of this film is between Charlie Plummers Paul and Romain Duris as Cinquanta, who are both excellent characters in their own right, but together they’re somewhat of an endearing pair. Duris’s Cinquanta is a sort of father figure to Paul and provides an interesting contrast to the usual stereotype of the despicable criminal. Through the character of Cinquanta, Scott explores the idea of a family with this man who is a criminal, who is one of the men who abducts Paul ultimately caring about him just as much as his mum. Furthermore, Cinquanta, when juxtaposed with Mr. Getty, is shown to be far more caring towards Paul than his own grandfather. This portrays one of the victims of the film as ultimately one of the antagonists. The negatives for this film really come from pacing, the film is paced badly, with the second act feeling dull and ultimately unnecessary, with too much time spent looking at the Chase, Getty relationship which ultimately goes nowhere. There were points in this film where it lost my interest to such a point, I debated the merits of going to the toilet for a prolonged break. Also, there were subplots with characters such as Pauls father which again feel like they go nowhere, with his character going through big changes in the first act without much explanation. The film could have benefited greatly from focusing more on Michelle Willimas’s character, and ditching Wahlberg outright. This is a gripping story sadly it’s just too long and not interesting enough, though I did appreciate the unusual captive captor relationship.

2/5

Reviewed by Luke