I loved the movie adaptations of The Hunger Games and Divergent, and the preview for The Maze Runner (PG-13, 113 min.) had me pretty excited. But much as James Dashner's endings in all the Maze Runner books fell short of my expectations and hopes, this movie disappoints. I think, perhaps, if I'd not read the book (especially as recently as I have), I would have liked the movie better. But watching the movie first and finding out the ending would have ruined the mystery and tension of the book. So, I guess my recommendation is this: If you are a movie person, watch the movie first. If books are always way better than movies to you, read the book first. Enjoy the story first in the medium you like best, and if you must, check it out in the other, too.
The story is this (taken more from my memory of the book than from the movie, though they are relatively the same). Thomas awakes in an elevator box of sorts, moving slowly and mysteriously toward an unknown destination, but the worst of it is, Thomas remembers nothing about his life. He knows how life works and the names of objects. He just can't remember anything specific pertaining to him except his first name. But everything is about to get stranger. When the box opens, he finds himself in a community of teenage boys who are all like him, no memories, and who are stuck in a giant maze full of monsters. Thomas is supposed to do what he's told, have a good cry if he needs to, and adapt to his part of making their community work. But Thomas is too curious for his own good, and he's not just going to sit by and do nothing.
The premise was fascinating to me. I like stories such as Lord of the Flies, and the TV show Lost. And out of this whole series, The Maze Runner, most similar to those, is my favorite book. The ending is decent enough in that it provides some answers without needing to resolve everything (overall, I don't like how Dashner resolves everything in the series, but if you take this first book by itself, it's fine). I figured the adaptation to a movie would be pretty straightforward, and I was excited to see the story come to life in that way.
Now, hear me out. I know you have to change things when you adapt a book into a movie. Things have to be shortened, focused. If a story takes place in a character's head in the book, you have to figure out a way to translate that to a medium that's largely outside the character's head (unless you provide character narration, which some movies do). So, I get it. I'm not one of those who swears the book is the only way to go. This blog is about books and movies because I really like both, and I love to see adaptations. Now, the adaptations don't always work for me, but I can generally see a movie as a separate entity from the book and not be too disappointed.
But...(you were waiting for it, weren't you?), The Maze Runner movie annoyed me just a tad. It started with small details here and there, different from the book. I was prepared for the big cuts, but the small changes were surprising. They seemed unnecessary and made less sense than the way the details were written in the book. I will try to avoid major SPOILERS here, but if you are concerned, stop reading now.
Some of the changes didn't hurt the movie, but I don't think they helped either. They were just inconsistencies that bothered me, especially when I couldn't see the point of the change (for instance, in the buildings the boys built for themselves). One of those rather minor details that I do think does hurt the movie, however, is the presentation of the mysterious medicine vials. In the book, the medicine comes up in the shipments of survival goods the boys periodically receive from the Box. When they are attacked by the monsters, the boys use this medicine. In the movie, another character arrives with two medicine vials in a pocket, and the movie uses them conveniently for two major characters. Aside from that seeming very coincidental and accidental in the movie, it changes the story and doesn't make sense, to boot. It makes more sense for the boys to already have medicine they use as needed.
Okay, so I'm going to have to go into SPOILER territory (more for the book than the movie, though). If you were braving it out until now, congrats but you've been warned. One thing that really bothered me is that the sci-fi technology is dumbed down. There are some really cool things in the book like telepathy and invisible portals. That's not a spoiler for the movie because those things don't exist in the movie. So, yay, I didn't spoil it for you. The movie only spoiled the book. I can't figure out why the tech was changed. Some things in the book are just not explained. Could that be it? They wanted a more believable world than what the book presented? But that change is going to affect the rest of the story even more than it did the beginning. Stripped of some of those details that make this world so interesting, they're going to have to make up stuff that isn't in the books just to fill in the cracks in future movies. I already thought the pacing was a little slow for this movie, and now some of what makes the book more interesting is gone. And if they bring it back, it will seem inconsistent and have me wondering why they took it out in the first place.
Perhaps my biggest complaint is that the way the kids get out (and that's not spoiling because you knew they would) is totally different from in the book. Okay, "totally" might be an exaggeration, but it's enough different that it affects the story. And it's another change that just doesn't make sense with the way the maze is supposed to work and the answers we discover at the end of the story.
Well, I could go on. Even some of the last shots of the movie get details wrong, but those I actually do understand. It was done for the movie audience to have a better visual that the book doesn't provide. It was a change made for the movie to make a better movie. If you haven't read the book, it works. If you have, it's just one more way the tech is changed that disappoints.
Aside from being annoyed by detail changes, I do have one moral concern to share. The book and the movie have some pretty violent moments. Kids are killed, and the worst part is that hardly anyone stops to mourn or seems to care, except with the one character who's played up to get the audience to care. But PG-13 is an acceptable rating.
Having said all that, I'll admit I didn't dislike the movie entirely. It was enjoyable to watch one time and see the characters, like Newt!, come to life, though there weren't too many other stand-outs, even so. Here was a chance for the movie to improve upon a book that had a few faults of its own. It didn't. So, I give it a shrug and a throw-away three out of five stars.
Showing posts with label boys. Show all posts
Showing posts with label boys. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Friday, May 23, 2014
Maze Runner Trilogy, Books 2 and 3
I will try to be super vague about these books by James Dashner since they are sequels to a book you probably haven't read and might want to. This review is mostly my feelings about the sequels and won't contain details. If you want to know what the series is about, read my review of The Maze Runner.
The Scorch Trials (Maze Runner #2)
I had a hard time getting into this sequel. The end of The Maze Runner bothered me a bit, perhaps because the answers to the riddles of the maze were not quite what I was looking for. And those answers are kind of what the second book is about, so I just wasn't as interested. Also, the book seems to meander around a bit without focus. I guess the first book didn't feel like it was meandering because it was mysteriously building up to the reveal. In this installment, Thomas and his buddies are still looking for answers, but their environment is less controlled; perhaps that is then reflected in the writing. I did really get into the end of the book, though, and that happened in The Maze Runner, too, despite the unsatisfactory answers. Dashner is particularly strong when his characters have a mission and goal, when everything is action-oriented. Everything moves quickly then, and the books are hard to put down at the end.
The Death Cure (Maze Runner #3)
Though The Maze Runner is still my favorite book of the trilogy, I enjoyed this last book more than The Scorch Trials. By this point, I knew more or less what the author's big picture was, so I was able to enjoy the journey a little more. There weren't as many surprises, maybe, but the action, Dashner's strong point, was good. If I rated The Maze Runner four out of five stars and The Scorch Trials three stars, you'd think I would rate this book four also. Sure, there are minor flaws in all three of the books. For instance, sometimes when the reader might have a question about something happening in the book, the author appears to address it, but sometimes it feels like an afterthought, like (and I'm clearly paraphrasing), "Thomas wondered why so-and-so did such-and-such," but that's all we get. The reader wondered. The author acknowledged that we were wondering by also making Thomas think about it a bit, but no real answer was given. Like I said, that's a minor flaw that might take you out of the action for a second but that doesn't ultimately matter. A bigger issue I had with the books is that Dashner kills off a lot of his characters (in all the books, not just this one), and though Thomas is particularly sensitive to a few of the deaths, there's a certain "Oh, well" feel about the rest. I understand why Thomas feels the way he does (he's on a mission, and there will be sacrifices), but I wish there was more commentary on the whole thing. (SPOILERS to the end of the paragraph.) By the end of this third book, Thomas has had enough. He feels most of the deaths have been for nothing, so we do get some commentary but nothing that really feels satisfactory. In fact, the end of this book is a big reason it gets only three stars from me. It feels a little cheap, like the author couldn't fix the problems he set up. The idea is: "We can't save the world, so let's scrap it." I guess it's a consistent philosophy throughout the books (I can't save those kids who just died, so I'll push on.), but again, it's not satisfactory.
A Final Note on the Series: At this point, I do not plan to read the prequel to the trilogy, The Kill Zone, which is about different characters. But The Maze Runner is still an attention grabber, and I do plan to see the movie, out in September. The setting itself is fascinating, and that's probably what attracted me most to these books. Unfortunately, that setting is almost exclusive to the first book.
The Scorch Trials (Maze Runner #2)
I had a hard time getting into this sequel. The end of The Maze Runner bothered me a bit, perhaps because the answers to the riddles of the maze were not quite what I was looking for. And those answers are kind of what the second book is about, so I just wasn't as interested. Also, the book seems to meander around a bit without focus. I guess the first book didn't feel like it was meandering because it was mysteriously building up to the reveal. In this installment, Thomas and his buddies are still looking for answers, but their environment is less controlled; perhaps that is then reflected in the writing. I did really get into the end of the book, though, and that happened in The Maze Runner, too, despite the unsatisfactory answers. Dashner is particularly strong when his characters have a mission and goal, when everything is action-oriented. Everything moves quickly then, and the books are hard to put down at the end.
The Death Cure (Maze Runner #3)
Though The Maze Runner is still my favorite book of the trilogy, I enjoyed this last book more than The Scorch Trials. By this point, I knew more or less what the author's big picture was, so I was able to enjoy the journey a little more. There weren't as many surprises, maybe, but the action, Dashner's strong point, was good. If I rated The Maze Runner four out of five stars and The Scorch Trials three stars, you'd think I would rate this book four also. Sure, there are minor flaws in all three of the books. For instance, sometimes when the reader might have a question about something happening in the book, the author appears to address it, but sometimes it feels like an afterthought, like (and I'm clearly paraphrasing), "Thomas wondered why so-and-so did such-and-such," but that's all we get. The reader wondered. The author acknowledged that we were wondering by also making Thomas think about it a bit, but no real answer was given. Like I said, that's a minor flaw that might take you out of the action for a second but that doesn't ultimately matter. A bigger issue I had with the books is that Dashner kills off a lot of his characters (in all the books, not just this one), and though Thomas is particularly sensitive to a few of the deaths, there's a certain "Oh, well" feel about the rest. I understand why Thomas feels the way he does (he's on a mission, and there will be sacrifices), but I wish there was more commentary on the whole thing. (SPOILERS to the end of the paragraph.) By the end of this third book, Thomas has had enough. He feels most of the deaths have been for nothing, so we do get some commentary but nothing that really feels satisfactory. In fact, the end of this book is a big reason it gets only three stars from me. It feels a little cheap, like the author couldn't fix the problems he set up. The idea is: "We can't save the world, so let's scrap it." I guess it's a consistent philosophy throughout the books (I can't save those kids who just died, so I'll push on.), but again, it's not satisfactory.
A Final Note on the Series: At this point, I do not plan to read the prequel to the trilogy, The Kill Zone, which is about different characters. But The Maze Runner is still an attention grabber, and I do plan to see the movie, out in September. The setting itself is fascinating, and that's probably what attracted me most to these books. Unfortunately, that setting is almost exclusive to the first book.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Ender's Game
I'm back! It's been a crazy busy summer, and though I've been reading less than normal, I still have a handful of books and more than a handful of movies to potentially review. For now, I will start with the latest book I've read and possibly work backward from there, if life permits.
After enjoying Pathfinder, by Orson Scott Card, some friends encouraged me to also read Ender's Game, by the same author. But I confess, though I put it on my list, I didn't get seriously interested until I knew a movie adaptation was going to be made. Then, the only question was, should I read it beforehand or after? There are distinct advantages to each for a person who loves both movies and books. I opted for the book first this time, wanting to get into it and be surprised as I read, rather than getting the surprises out of the way in two hours and then going back and reading about how it all took place. I don't like spoilers. Having read it this close to when the movie comes out, I suppose I will probably be slightly disappointed with the movie. It's best to put some time between a book and a movie, I think. That way, you can enjoy both more fully and give the movie credit for being its own thing, rather than comparing two different story mediums that really aren't meant to be the same. On a side note, that's why I'm not going back and re-reading Catching Fire before the movie comes out in November. I don't remember much of the book, so the story will be fresh for me again. Then, I'll go back and enjoy a more leisurely pace through the details of the book afterward.
Ender's Game did not disappoint. It's an interesting genre, definitely science fiction but not necessarily young adult (and for sure not middle school), even though the story is about a young kid. Often, when you have a young protagonist, the book is automatically categorized as young adult, and perhaps that exactly what Ender's Game is to some, but it's a good example of a story that transcends both age limits and, almost miraculously for sci-fi, time periods. For instance, it was written in the 70's, but there's a very good grasp of the possibilities of computer technology and virtual reality. It's also just vague enough not to date itself, at least not too much.
Ender's Game is about a six-year-old boy, nicknamed Ender, who's a genius selected for training in Battle School to defeat a race of aliens called Buggers that almost wiped Earth out at one time. The theory is that a child with an adaptable mind is needed to confront the enemy, who anticipates actions and adapts quickly itself. So, little boys are monitored, and if they qualify, they are sent to space to train in battle games and learn how to work together or, in Ender's case, to lead. The odds are purposefully stacked against Ender to draw out his strengths as quickly as possible because the final war with the Buggers is nearly upon them, and it's kill all or all be killed.
What sets this book apart from young adult is that it's not written to a six-year-old audience. It's barely written to a young adult audience. In fact, Ender thinks and speaks like a middle school child at only 6, and there's precious little for same-age readers (even middle schoolers) to identify with in his character. Yet, we do identify with him. He's not just a machine. He's a boy who grows up too fast and lives with the weight of the planet on his shoulders but who doesn't want to end up like his evil older brother. He knows he's not a child. He knows it's not even really a possibility. But he does long for friends, and he hates the way he's forced to dominate his competition, isolating him from his peers. This book is powerful on both thematic and emotional levels, drawing tears to my eyes as I read. There isn't even romance, which is the typical tear-jerker stuff for me. It's about the bonds built between boys and peers and the bond of brother to brother and brother to sister and teacher to student and boy to duty. It's deep and heart-wrenching. It's intellectual. It's suspenseful. It's fascinating.
For its relatability to a different generation (which is extremely difficult to achieve in science fiction), for it's innovative ideas (before kids killed each other in the The Hunger Games, little children trained their childhood away in order to eventually command starships and fight aliens), for its emotional depth, and for its compelling tale, I give Ender's Game five stars and look forward to seeing how they pull it off in the movie this November, knowing it can't possibly be the same, by a long shot. However you choose to order your story mediums, be sure that if you watch the movie, you also read the book. In this case, I believe the experiences are going to be quite a bit different, and you want to get the full story, trust me.
ADDENDUM (9-25-13): If you have already read this blog once, you might notice that I changed a line in the last paragraph that could have potentially been a spoiler. I figure most people will avoid reading a review of something they are already intending to read or see, but for those of you on the line, I don't want to give away too much.
After enjoying Pathfinder, by Orson Scott Card, some friends encouraged me to also read Ender's Game, by the same author. But I confess, though I put it on my list, I didn't get seriously interested until I knew a movie adaptation was going to be made. Then, the only question was, should I read it beforehand or after? There are distinct advantages to each for a person who loves both movies and books. I opted for the book first this time, wanting to get into it and be surprised as I read, rather than getting the surprises out of the way in two hours and then going back and reading about how it all took place. I don't like spoilers. Having read it this close to when the movie comes out, I suppose I will probably be slightly disappointed with the movie. It's best to put some time between a book and a movie, I think. That way, you can enjoy both more fully and give the movie credit for being its own thing, rather than comparing two different story mediums that really aren't meant to be the same. On a side note, that's why I'm not going back and re-reading Catching Fire before the movie comes out in November. I don't remember much of the book, so the story will be fresh for me again. Then, I'll go back and enjoy a more leisurely pace through the details of the book afterward.
Ender's Game did not disappoint. It's an interesting genre, definitely science fiction but not necessarily young adult (and for sure not middle school), even though the story is about a young kid. Often, when you have a young protagonist, the book is automatically categorized as young adult, and perhaps that exactly what Ender's Game is to some, but it's a good example of a story that transcends both age limits and, almost miraculously for sci-fi, time periods. For instance, it was written in the 70's, but there's a very good grasp of the possibilities of computer technology and virtual reality. It's also just vague enough not to date itself, at least not too much.
Ender's Game is about a six-year-old boy, nicknamed Ender, who's a genius selected for training in Battle School to defeat a race of aliens called Buggers that almost wiped Earth out at one time. The theory is that a child with an adaptable mind is needed to confront the enemy, who anticipates actions and adapts quickly itself. So, little boys are monitored, and if they qualify, they are sent to space to train in battle games and learn how to work together or, in Ender's case, to lead. The odds are purposefully stacked against Ender to draw out his strengths as quickly as possible because the final war with the Buggers is nearly upon them, and it's kill all or all be killed.
What sets this book apart from young adult is that it's not written to a six-year-old audience. It's barely written to a young adult audience. In fact, Ender thinks and speaks like a middle school child at only 6, and there's precious little for same-age readers (even middle schoolers) to identify with in his character. Yet, we do identify with him. He's not just a machine. He's a boy who grows up too fast and lives with the weight of the planet on his shoulders but who doesn't want to end up like his evil older brother. He knows he's not a child. He knows it's not even really a possibility. But he does long for friends, and he hates the way he's forced to dominate his competition, isolating him from his peers. This book is powerful on both thematic and emotional levels, drawing tears to my eyes as I read. There isn't even romance, which is the typical tear-jerker stuff for me. It's about the bonds built between boys and peers and the bond of brother to brother and brother to sister and teacher to student and boy to duty. It's deep and heart-wrenching. It's intellectual. It's suspenseful. It's fascinating.
For its relatability to a different generation (which is extremely difficult to achieve in science fiction), for it's innovative ideas (before kids killed each other in the The Hunger Games, little children trained their childhood away in order to eventually command starships and fight aliens), for its emotional depth, and for its compelling tale, I give Ender's Game five stars and look forward to seeing how they pull it off in the movie this November, knowing it can't possibly be the same, by a long shot. However you choose to order your story mediums, be sure that if you watch the movie, you also read the book. In this case, I believe the experiences are going to be quite a bit different, and you want to get the full story, trust me.
ADDENDUM (9-25-13): If you have already read this blog once, you might notice that I changed a line in the last paragraph that could have potentially been a spoiler. I figure most people will avoid reading a review of something they are already intending to read or see, but for those of you on the line, I don't want to give away too much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)