Wes Ball directed 2014’s The Maze Runner.  In short, the film feels like The Hunger Games remixed.  Angst filled teens are manipulated by the unseen “creators” of the maze.  The maze offers just enough comfort to keep them complacent and just enough terror to push them outward.  The “grievers” chase Thomas and company through the maze.  You look at the machine-monster hybrid and it looks like an oxymoronic fat-skeleton.  There aren’t moments of sheer terror or jump out at you frights, but there are lots of scenes where the audience could scream, “Run! Faster, Faster!”  The acting is not distracting.  Most of the scenes amount to the characters looking down corridors in fear.  But, actor Thomas Brodie-Sangster’s portrayal of Newt stands out.  The character of Newt is the only one that goes through personal growth.  He moves from compassionate rule follower to daring risk taker.  So perhaps the acting stands out precisely because Brodie-Sangster actually had a fuller character to act out.  Finally, the twist ending is predictable and serves more as a teaser for a sequel than to provide any finality to the story.

James Dashner wrote The Maze Runner in 2009, and he successfully channels Golding’s 1954 Lord of the Flies.  A society built by kids falls apart, and most of the characters go insane or turn into terrible people.  Unlike The Maze Runner film, the heart of the novel is Thomas coming to terms with his lack of innocence, his guilt.  Thomas got the “gladers” in this mess. He vows to get them, especially Chuck, out.  The first half of the novel is an expose on life in the glade.  Thomas goes from job to job and is trained or repulsed by “keepers” who serve as experts in basic farming tasks.  Dashner is answering the question, “What would daily life be like if a bunch of teens were locked in a box that had a farm in it?”  An interesting question, but unfortunately, a question no one was asking.  This makes for slow reading.

Overall, the book is superior to the story in the movie because the characters are more dynamic.  Each character is uniquely responsible for the state of affairs.  And they have to personally change to change things.  Alby has to stop leading.  Chuck has to become brave.  Newt has to break rules.  Thomas has to admit his guilt.  Etc.

The movie is superior to the book on two points.  In the film, the grievers are self-consistent.  Their physiology doesn’t make sense, but they don’t change behavior or abilities.  For example, they are fast on straight ways and climb slow.  If they caught a kid, they would kill him.  In the novel, the grievers are sometimes plodding, and sometimes agile, sometimes aggressive, and sometimes tactical.  In both stories you know that a griever won’t kill the hero, but the novel seems to adjust their abilities to keep the characters safe.  Therefore, the grievers simply stop being scary in the novel.  That would be fine, but the final battle is supposed to be a street brawl with them.

Also, the puzzle in the movie is much more enjoyable.  The novel is a Sudoku race.  It is hard to get excited about sorting papers.  The movie’s puzzle involves more resourcefulness and daring.  Even when the characters are ready to head off to the door, there is little assurance the plan will work.  The movie feels more like, “Do whatever it takes to escape,” but the novel’s puzzle preaches, “Don’t forget your book learning.”

In short, the novel barely edges out the film.  Its characters are more fun to learn about.  Also, Gally is spooky dude who comes back from the dead and throws knives at you.

Greenie, Shank, Klunk, Glade, Runner, Keeper, Slicers, Track-hoes, Griever, Wicked, Med-Jack

Words, Words, Words