Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar nuestros servicios y mostrarle publicidad relacionada con sus preferencias mediante el análisis de sus hábitos de navegación. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso.

ACCION: Reviews

ACCION: Reviews (68)

It’s better in every possible way than the previous movie. A breath of fresh air in the franchise with a scent to the original film by Steven Spielberg, served with great elegance and know-how by our J.A. Bayona, a director who has managed to carve out a career within our cinema full of incontestable successes and that also had the scent of Hollywood cinema, but they were very much Spanish films, such as The Impossible or A Monster calls, and that also served to draw the attention of the American film industry, who first offered him the sequel to World War Z and he finally refused to do that one, and took the leadership on this sequel to Jurassic World that is already the fifth installment of the most famous dinosaur saga of the history of cinema. To be honest, the change could not have been better. You all know the problems I had with Jurassic World, an entertaining movie, correctly shot, but without personality, leaning more on the pure and hard visual spectacle than on telling a good story, with characters often unbearable (those children…) and with a script that had too many mistakes to not tell anything new ...

I do not know to what extent they have allowed Bayona to get into the script of Colin Trevorrow and Derek Connelly, the creators responsible for this return to Jurassic world, especially Trevorrow who also directed Jurassic World ... I repeat, I do not know to what extent they allowed Bayona retouch some things on the script, although surely it has not been easy if he has achieved it, but the script is better, without being amazing, and the failures, weaknesses and faults of the film, are almost all due to that very same script that sometimes tends to think that, by the fact of having dinosaurs, the public will accept absolutely everything that appears on the screen without protest. And it is not like that. The resolution of some plot points are not very credible at best, some characters are still unbearable, and logic is not always present in the story... But it improves a lot compared to the previous movie. The plot is more elaborate, the protagonists are more defined and have evolved, the character of the girl is better developed than the children in Jurassic World... And incorporates elements of, for example, horror movies, which in the hands of the director, become key elements to the film.

Elements that appeared for example in the first movie, but that were lost piece by piece in time and with the sequels. But it seems that Bayona is willing to recover them, with a first part of the film with a more adventurous tone and close to The Lost World, which also pays tribute, and a second part of The Lost World, but also, and about everything, from the moments of Jurassic Park terror, the use of shadows, darkness, scares and even a pinch of violence that here appears in a very direct way , and that leads me to wonder how they will have avoided the R rate and achieved the PG13, in addition to avoiding explicit bleeding (because we have some amputation and quite graphic deaths, with a tribute to Jurassic Park included). And in those elements of terror, Bayona moves like a fish in the water, with signs of author but also elements that remind of Frankenstein (even with Doctor Frankenstein included), Little Red Riding Hood (including the encounter with the Big Bad Wolf) or Nosferatu, which gives a cinephile flavor of first category, of real talent.

The film, in addition to having these references to horror films, does not shirk the visual spectacle, especially in its walk around the island, with scenes that are memorable (the aquatic scene, the lava moments, the "farewell on the dock" ... ) and that then lead us to a far more intimate world, if that can happen in the universe of Jurassic Park, with a couple of more than interesting twists. That space where darkness is greater and where those moments arrive that are going to be the most remembered ones of the movie, even though they do not have so many visual effects. They have them, of course, but not so many or so big as in the island. And also throughout the film the director puts a lot of tributes to the Jurassic saga but much less evident than in the previous installment, whether in a shot, in a death, in a scene ... he does not point continuously on the homage, he places it subtly and let the viewer discover if is known or not. It is more effective in that way, because it requires, first of all, the attention of the spectator, it allows it to be like a game in search of Easter eggs that the director has hidden, which are not few.

The film runs for over two hours and entertains a lot. It makes us forget those little script failures, which are less than in the previous movie, and we also have the two leads from Jurassic World, Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard, displaying charisma and improving their characters, which evolve and grow, without as much nonsense as they had before (notice how they laugh subtly at the topic of the high heels of the first film, and notice how they resolve romantic relationships ...) accompanied by names like James Cromwell, Toby Jones (a villain as topical as adorable ... because the real villains are the dinosaurs), Ted Levine (another tribute to previous films ...) or Rafe Spall. Not forgetting the return of Jeff Goldblum, the always interesting presence of BD Wong as usual, and Isabella Sermon, the great debutante that makes us forget the mediocre children of Jurassic World. The presence of Daniella Pineda and, above all, Justice Smith, does not contribute much ... not because of the actors, but because of how the script deals with the characters ... Minor problems. It is a fun, entertaining film and, finally, a worthy heir to the original, with its mixture of horror and adventure genres for the whole family, with its great narrative pulse and with those details that give it the personality that the others did not have ...

Jesús Usero

COMENTA CON TU CUENTA DE FACEBOOK

©accioncine

VENGADORES: LA GUERRA DEL INFINITO XXXXX

Kong: Skull Island ****

02 Mar 2017 Escrito por
The best King Kong movie since the original. A character that since its premiere in cinemas in 1933 has become an icon for the cinema, an icon with two remakes, the last of them, directed by Peter Jackson. It is very difficult to revisit that character without repeating previous schemes and themes, and that is something that Jordan Vogt-Roberts film fully achieves. A trip to Skull Island in which we will not see New York, nor a Beauty and the Beast love story, but a display of adventure, action and great visual effects that on one hand brilliantly honors King Kong and on the other is a homage to the war movies of the 70s, with Apocalypse Now at the top.

No, I'm not comparing Kong with Coppola's masterpiece, much less. Neither in subjects, nor in depth ... Nothing has to do with it. But this film does offer various visual tributes to that and the Vietnam War in movies in general. To the cinema of the 70 in particular visually, to offer a visual spectacle of first order, pure entertainment that also keeps a couple of pleasant surprises. From the design of the island, Kong itself, the locations or the creatures that inhabit it (moving away from the typical dinosaurs to give us a new series of monsters ... like that terrifying giant spider), passing through the action of the movie, the tone of the film itself, more focused on Kong than in humans.

Silence ****

28 Dic 2016 Escrito por
Brilliant reflection on faith and religion in the hands of Scorsese. A brave movie, very brave, in these times when faith and religion are not exactly well considered, Martin Scorsese leads a story to honestly reflect on what makes men of faith, what faith generates around the catholic religion, and how to surpass the tests to which it is submitted over time, of very diverse nature, but above all, always, undoubtedly on the part of those who practice it. Do not be confused, Scorsese does not pose a criticism of religion or Christianity, quite the contrary. Praise those who believe and sacrifice, those who suffer and those who live the religion with honesty.

Two young Portuguese priests travel to Japan in the 17th century to investigate the disappearance of a priest who evangelized the area, at a time when Christianity was completely forbidden, forcing practitioners to abandon their new faith or be severely punished, even with death. In that amazing journey narrated as always with a brilliant pulse by Scorsese, we meet two young men whose mission ends up being a personal journey to analyze their own motives, their moments of weakness and strength. And not only theirs, but those of those humble people, who secretly seek the light of religion in which they believe, and who find no greater purpose than sacrifice for it. Become silent martyrs.

Assasin’s Creed ***

19 Dic 2016 Escrito por
One of the best videogame adaptations to cinema. Or probably the best. Yes, it is possible that from this moment the tomatoes begin to rain in this direction and some will attack my opinion, although it does not really matter too much. My job is to be honest with myself and the readers, and tell them what I think. And in this case also from the point of view of the followers of one of the most important video game sagas of the last fifteen years, loved by some, hated by others, but a reference in industry and, with some really brilliant games, especially in the second installment and its aftermath, when we took charge of the story of Ezio Auditore in Renaissance Italy, with a history full of nuances, betrayals, revenge and conspiracies, in the eternal fight between Assassins And Templars. And you have to take into account all that because Justin Kurzel, the director, has made the adaptation of a video game more different, risky and brave than I remember. What's more, it's one of the most risky blockbusters that comes to mind and so it's worth taking a look, even though it's not perfect.

Justin Kurzel is a strange director, capable of directing a film as different as his Macbeth, where he also had Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard as protagonists, and where he did not have the budget he handles in this film, but he provided us with a film very different from what everyone expected. Here he does something similar. Assassin's Creed is cryptic, is different, complex in many ways, although its plot is simple, and it is in part because it assumes that the viewer is a regular player of the saga and they will understand all the references and hidden messages that he has prepared for us during the movie. And as a fan, that is very enjoyable, although the character of Callum Lynch and Aguilar de Nerja, his ancestor, both played by Michael Fassbender, are new in this franchise. It does not matter. Either Kurzel is a player or he has been very well informed about the game (yes, it has changed the Animus, but that's the least important thing), and to understand it, you just have to see the macguffin in the movie, The Apple of Eden, something that will surely mislead many casual viewers, but the fans are going to thank him a lot. Or they should.

Passengers **

15 Dic 2016 Escrito por
An entertaining but too soft and predictable film. The new epic science fiction film from SONY has every opportunity in the world to become a mature, adult, intriguing or exciting story, all of them. And it loses them all. He lets them go because he does not know how to face those possibilities and decides that it is much better to become a kind of variant of Titanic in space, in which there is no force, tension or magic, simply the charisma of its two main actors and visual effects. It could have been a tribute to 2001, or to The Shining (it is something that is seen in the film, the seed is there) but it is not. He does not take advantage of it. It ends up resembling Wall-e to which it imitates even in the soundtrack ...

It is curious how a few days before seeing Passengers, science fiction cinema, with a spaceship, with those elements mentioned above, I saw La Land, a musical film, genre that I do not passionate in the least, and I loved the second one and left untempered from the first. The reason is simple, La Land rises with history and characters, gets deep into their personal history and avoids clichés or dodge them in the best possible way. It’s brave. It takes a risk. Passengers does not, because it seems that the director and the screenwriter are more interested in the romantic story than in the science fiction part, and that is something that ends up being paid. Moments of adventure, terror or action lack the strength to truly thrill the audience.

AntMan ****

10 Jul 2015 Escrito por
Ant-Man: a great surprise that expands efficiently the Marvel Universe in cinema.

I put four stars are deserving playing in their league and fun escapist cinema (I also read Sartre, but I do not happen while I'm watching a superhero movie) because I think one of the products more competent in their formula. 1. Great advantage to Michael Douglas. I feared another application of the formula Obi Wan Kenobi, with Douglas as a secondary star, guest star, stellar cameo or similar. Such as the contribution of Anthony Hopkins in The Mask of Zorro. Quite the contrary. Moreover style protagonist contribution of Sean Connery in The Rock. Here is Michael Douglas as protagonist and Paul Rudd himself. And it is very well used from the first moment on the screen until the last. The character grows with the story, showing that it has much more travel beyond the end of the film, which has much more to tell. Good sign. Douglas has a solid Hank Pym and also, this is another great success, very well recreated the mythology of the original character of comics, the idea of ​​scientific tortured. A contribution of Robert Redford level in Captain America winter soldier, with more prominence. 2. Evangeline Lilly is no mere ornament, not a simple addition of the male characters. Instead responds to the type of heroine of the Marvel movies, independent, competent and decisive. An equivalent of the Black Widow Scarlett Johansson for the future. Hope Van Dyne also works very well in that conflict with Hank Pym, making the most juice to good chemistry with Evangeline Lylly and Michael Douglas on the screen (in a similar situation the relationship Anthony Hopkins and Catherine Zeta-Jones in The Mask of Zorro was more topical and offered less developed). 3. Paul Rudd is revealed as the perfect actor to move deftly between comedy and superhero genre giving credibility to a character in the process of redemption which always moves along the razor's edge of the topic but never comes to fall, but it remains in perfect exercise maximum efficiency even in the toughest sequences in this type of formula which include the children. Rudd manages to give a touch of his character doing similar work to that last year did Chris Pratt in Guardians of the Galaxy, but less cartoonish style, even less cartoonish than the character itself Scott Lang in comics. In fact, I think the Scott Lang proposes Rudd is in some ways better than the comics, which has always seemed to me that trying to make him go through a simple variant of Deadpool, especially in his early adventures. Rudd and the film itself remain the essential keys that define the character in comics, but better and giving a stronger personality than looks in comics. 4. That trinity of characters Douglas, Lilly and Rudd, seem more interesting in terms of good dramatic and narrative game provided that Vision, Scarlet Witch, War Machine or Falcon in Avengers: the Age of Ultron. By this I mean, in my opinion, with Ant-Man Marvel franchise incorporates new weight to his range of characters. 5. The contribution of the secondary characters have successfully avoiding the risks of the topic at the same time cultivating the formula, which is not easy. In the case of the three humorous side buddies Scott Lang gets what based on good administration of humor, getting people that are familiar to the audience in record time, as if they were citizens of a television series. They are the comic relief of the humorous which is very well managed in the case of the main characters. For the villain, which is certainly closer to the topic of the whole film, he is saved because he has a good actor at the controls of the character, Corey Stoll, which certainly fans remember his great work on the first season of House of Cards series. The job playing the antagonist in this film is similar to that of The Strain, without fanfare, without much to hold on from the script, but nonetheless paying great strength and conviction to the character. As for the weaker characters, the ex spouse and new partner of the ex, plus the kid, could have been a hole in the water line of giant size, but no. Bobby Cannavale and Judy Greer, and even the girl, Abby Ryder Fortson, concerned with keeping those characters in one piece firm as rocks. 6. The last strong point: the ants, essentials for the character Ant-Man, are a perfect homage to the original comic, but also pay tribute to a classic, The Incredible Shrinking Man.

All these elements, plus a series of winks, cameos and surprises which of course will not reveal here, convincing me that in the future this Ant-Man can give much game in Marvel movie universe.

Miguel Juan Payán

COMENTA CON TU CUENTA DE FACEBOOK

©accioncine

The saga keeps well the type and shows no sign of wear against the first two.

I'm not a "jameswanaholic ", but I recognize that his contribution to horror film have personality and efficacy against many of his colleagues who try succeed in the territory of cinematic thrill. A priori distrusted this directorial debut Leigh Whannell, this third Insidious, further coated with the mantle of the prequel. A priori the matter had all the earmarks of being just an attempt to further exploit the two films directed by Wan and that he had told his colleague: "Come on, man, do it you I'm tired of the matter”.

But I have to admit that all these suspicions have been discarded, and although there is obviously a clear rationale for exploiting the saga this prequel, Whannell has been stepping to respect the essential keys that define movies directed by Wan not limited to copying Wan. Whannell has sought, and in my view has achieved, giving a personality to this third visit to the franchise. Its main success is not to get sucked into the illusion of overcoming the foregoing and modestly exercising their role as narrator in a territory that is not new at all, but know take advantage of a change of scenery and characters from previous films. For it is based primarily on an approach to the character of Elise (Lyn Shaye) either built from the script of the film itself and the work of the actress is even stronger than in his role as secondary in the first two installments. Whannell has not made the mistake of trying to change skin radically and hits the target building his film with good pace and thanks narrative solvency work begins on the script and is a smooth, consistent extension and balanced the direction. I think that's the secret to this film has not become something like the attempt to continue operating the franchise The Conjuring, another Wan film, with Annabelle. Quite the contrary: Insidous, Chapter 3, is a perfectly threaded piece with the two previous films that also serves as a prologue to the same consistent and knows how to take advantage of Elise's character, since the first installment was clearly the most interesting of the whole thing. And it does not melodramatic exaggeration: with elegant restraint, without making Elise in a kind of totemic figure for the showcasing of the actress, with moderation and a maturity that lend strength to the rest of the story, even this abound in the ceremonial known scares and thumping sound as an element that is also capable of manufacturing various shocks very accomplished. Whannell has also managed to move the occasional contact with the spectral life of Elise with a few strokes and maintaining an enviable balance between proven as director and newly opened effectiveness as director.

 

Miguel Juan Payán

COMENTA CON TU CUENTA DE FACEBOOK

©accioncine

It was hard but they have made it even better than the first film.

The makers of film have done what was necessary and reasonable: not to tell the same film. Avengers: Age of Ultron was not make the mistake of many sequels born within the purely commercial exploitation without anything new to say about the original film. On the contrary, it is a different movie. And that's good. Very good. Told again the same would have been a serious error. Good thing however manage to keep the spirit of the first installment. Maintain the essential keys, and on them build their evolving characters, situations and conflicts creating a product that develop its own personality. And progresses at maturity of the proposal. Avengers: Age of Ultron was very well developed characters presented to us in the first installment. And also surprise the viewer with the development towards maturity of characters apparently secondary to the heavyweights (Iron Man, Thor and Captain America ). Many thought that the surprise would be Vision. That view would be the equivalent of what was pleasantly surprised to Hulk in Avengers. But that would have been too predictable, and the secret of this saga is precisely the ability to surprise. So they wise maneuver to effectively Vision has a very effective prominent and leading role in the outcome of the plot, without necessarily limited to replicate the dramatic key wielded with the character of Hulk in the first installment. Quite the contrary: for this writer the big surprise of this second installment brings the character of Hawkeye played by Jeremy Renner, who is who at a certain point becomes dynamo on which the entire second half of the story is articulated as element between the characters. The development of the arc of the character from the first film to the second is a real lesson in how to narrate and bring an argument that began as superhero film to a higher level of dramatic strength. It is the character who best exemplifies the maturity of Avengers: Age of Ultron was against Avengers. Hawkeye is also key to its interaction with the other two great surprise of the second film: Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch. It would have been very easy to fall into the trap of simply adding more characters to the formula, but Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch are not mere ornaments side, do not respond to the collecting greed that is felt in other sagas willing to add characters fill new thinking shelves of toy figures and add merchandising revenue base. Quite the opposite. First, have a very defined role within the overall story of the other characters, and they bring their own personality to it. Have prominence is a difficult task, because the film handles larger number of characters here. But also grab your mark on the whole history and the rest of the characters is not merely anecdotal or accidental is a pleasant surprise. It conveys solidity and maturity with which this project was conceived. The superpower of the Scarlet Witch allowed into the account the dark sides of other Avengers, but through the same features characters and elements that provide greater strength and act as cement to build Marvel Universe continuity in film. It also opens step with subtle elegance to the progress of the role of Hawkeye in the overall plot, setting even step closer links between the main characters that allow give the viewer a more complete picture of them and lay the foundation for the development of superhero team going into the second part of the story and subsequent films. As for Quicksilver, its contribution to the story is more modest, even episodic, but gets more forceful in resolving the same outcome, and also stars in a final associated with Hawkeye in really great transport in their ability to define the goal of humanizing the superheroes who triumphed as a key first delivery and manifests itself even more strongly in the second. This process of humanization also affects characters as Black Widow and Hulk, who earn many points of development in this second film on a basis that recalls the legendary King Kong and with regard to the character of Scarlett Johansson introduces a vision of the past that incorporates essential elements.

That's one of the great successes of the film: the Avengers are here more human than ever, without ceasing to be superheroes. Moreover, the film manages to seamlessly integrate the elements and key figures for the continuity such as Nick Fury, War Machine, the Falcon, Maria Hill ... introduces the landscape of Wakanda giving a very interesting role and hopefully with a view to subsequent development broader Andy Serkis.

In addition to the above, which improves the first, the film includes more epic, more fighting in groups, more action, more "Marvel Universe" and especially that one Ultron absolutely dreadful, exemplary as supervillain and perfectly transferred to celluloid . A great exercise in interpretation of James Spader, who does much more than simply voicing the character. 3D is really complete, accurate, and makes it worthwhile to hold the glasses.
Miguel Juan Payán

COMENTA CON TU CUENTA DE FACEBOOK

©accioncine

Furious 7 ****

01 Abr 2015 Escrito por
One of the most popular action sagas in history returns with its best chapter so far. Because if something is clear to me is that the series can still improve and offer even more spectacular movies in the coming years, with new additions to the cast, despite the huge loss involving the death of Paul Walker in a terrible car accident. A fact that is incorporated into the film with great visual talent (the moments that Walker has been replaced with double or CGI are barely noticed) and with great taste. Fans of the series will feel that the actor has the farewell he deserves, with dignity and without being distasteful. And yet, it remains very emotional for everyone. They have done it very well. We wandered from the sad death of the actor how they will manage it in the movie, and the result can not be better in that regard. The fans will be delighted with the solution found and in the way, for sure they will drop a tear knowing what it means for a franchise that, lest we forget, has now seven films. The following, if any, will be without Paul Walker. Here is a perfect farewell.

The film is not perfect, far from it, but neither wants to be. Not looking to revolutionize the history of cinema, and win prizes. Despite declarations of Vin Diesel, which stated that action films are limited when winning awards like the Oscars come, the film is certain about what it offers and it does so without complex and enormous complicity with the viewer. Fast and Furious 7 knows its strength is in the action scenes, each more impossible than the last, in the charisma of its characters and its sense of humor, to prevent the viewer think that the film can be taken seriously . And it's not a bad thing. It is a virtue of the film that lets you get away from stuff where other films would be criticized mercilessly. From the fifth film, the series has been increasingly spectacular, more fun and less serious. Sometimes it's just what we need, enter a room knowing that all you will find is pure and simple fun and entertainment. And much better served than in products such as Transformers, seeking the same goal.

Maybe it's the fact that here the sense of humor really works. Maybe it's that the characters have real charisma. Maybe it's just that we have grown fond of Fast and Furious. But it works better than other products. And it works much better than in the previous films. Especially the first four. Fast and Furious was a film without luster and strength in reality, no matter how popular it is. The second was closer to the festive spirit of these new deliveries (forget the boring third one), while the fourth was a new beginning but did not reach the level that was achieved in the last three films. From the fifth we have new characters, new locations that are closer to a spy movie than a street racing film, which is where it all started. Now it seems like a satire of Mission Impossible. The key word is satire, because the action scenes are so disproportionate as wildly impossible and fun, turning the adventures of Ethan Hunt and company in a walk in the park.

There are two sensational additions to the cast of the film, Jason Statham's a perfect villain, and Kurt Russell, a leading security agency of the government willing to do anything to help Toretto and his family. Both actors add to the festive nature of the film, but that leads us to a couple of problems in the development of history. Elsa Pataky makes only a cameo. Lucas Black is not even that. Dwayne Johnson disappears for much of the film, and it is a pitty. Tony Jaa and Ronda Rousey are wasted in several sections (similar to what happened to Gina Carano in the previous film, but in this case Rousey makes even less and, let's face it, she doesn’t have the physical presence nor the potential of Carano). To forget those little details, the film shows us the most spectacular action scenes of the franchise. With fewer explosions, but more spectacular. The assault on the convoy, the Sheikh party, the fight between Statham and Johnson or between Statham and Diesel. The end... Everything is exaggerated to levels never seen before, which is saying a lot. Except for this franchise. From cars flying between buildings to people falling from the third floor. Or how to destroy a drone when you have no weapons ... you will applaud, laugh and jump into the chair, because the film deserves it.

Much credit is to the new director, James Wan, who gives continuity to the visual style of the series and bring some new tricks. Meanwhile the plot does not matter to anyone, it's an excuse to get us from one place to another and from one action scene to another. Paul Walker has, twist of fate, some of the highlights of the film in his "face to face" with Tony Jaa. It almost seems that we are watching a superhero movie with no powers, where the characters are faced with forces that overcome them, but with that feeling of family that makes them stronger and that is shared by the public, that also feels part of this particular family. If the saga continues at this rate, I don’t want to think what it can offer, perhaps in the the eighth installment. But please, do not forget to count again with Jason Statham and Kurt Russell, who have now become essential for the series with their presence in this film. Maybe then we can forget the absence of Paul Walker. If they are fans or sensitive, with kleenex to spare. And enjoy.

Miguel Juan Payán

COMENTA CON TU CUENTA DE FACEBOOK

©accioncine

The Maze Runner ***

04 Sep 2014 Escrito por
A thrilling adaptation of the young adult novel. It seems that Hollywood has found the key that opened the gold mine they found with young adult novels a few years ago, following the success of Harry Potter and Twilight, which arguably have nothing to do with each other or with this at hand, but that made the film industry realize the enormous economic and creative potential that was in this type of novel. The succession of titles linked to the genre has been enormous, but success has been limited to a short number of them, who have managed to fit better with the audience that has suddenly stopped beside certain types of productions and has opted for a more consistent to new tastes. For example, supernatural beings and do not seem to call the public's attention more than in television series, and vampires, wolf men have disappeared almost completely from this kind of movies, and failed after the Shadowhunters, or Vampire Academy or Beautiful Creatures, although the latter deserved much better luck than it had. The recent success of Divergent and shortly after, The Fault in our Stars, suggests that the public is now more interested in dystopian futures and real stories.

Obviously The Maze Runner falls within the first category, blending science fiction, action and intrigue. It plays in the league of The Hunger Games, one of the references that the author of the novels, James Dashner, has employed when referring to his novels, along with The Lord of the Flies and the series Lost. All are evident in a plot that puts young people in a hostile environment and fighting for survival, not really knowing what happens to them, or why they are in this situation or even who they really are. Because that is the start of the plot and the film. An elevator goes up, a young man inside, the doors open to The Glade, full of other young men and he barely remembers his name (in the novel, in the film takes to get the name). That’s how Thomas gets to the Glade, taken by other young people who show him how they live surrounded by a maze from which they have not found out an exit yet, the doors are closed at night, preventing terrible monsters access to the Glade. The arrival of a girl, the first one, with a strange message, completely change their lives, complicated enough, forcing them to find out the exit as soon as possible.

One of the best things about the novel is that, in fact, The Maze Runner is just a presentation, a first act of what is to come. We can’t almost intuit the world in which we are getting and the situation in which the characters are really, until you got to the second novel. And the film succeeds in that aspect, conveying the confusion, fear, constant danger and continuous action. The debutant director Wes Ball, coming from the field of art direction (always in computer graphics) and visual effects, makes an excellent job to show the universe in which these children live, the impossible maze with gigantic proportions and full of dangers. The same applies to the Grievers, one of the keys of the novel, which are the perfect enemies, blending machine and beast in an impressive way.

The pace of the film is great and keeps you glued to the seat throughout the film between races, fights, arguments, plot twists, discoveries and pure adventure. But that is charged on the characters, which prevents us to know them as we do in the book. Because even without memories, the characters have a personality, a way of understanding life, what happens to them and why they have to fight or not. And that is less exploited than it should, in favor of action and adventure, always with that tone of science fiction that has history and will, hopefully, be explored in the future. Do not forget the young actors, with a cast led by Dylan O'Brien, which gives his best both physically and psychologically, and is fully escorted by side, especially the trio of young British actors Thomas Sangster, Kaya Scodelario and the "villain" of the function, Will Poulter. In the three of them and the young Blake Cooper, is the key to the film, how with a few lines of dialogue make their characters into three-dimensional beings, despite the constraints of history.

I will not engage in polemics about faithfulness to the original text of the novel, which I've read previously. Yes, I understand the anger of some fans. No, I do not share it. I like that the film is different from the book, which has its own identity, to function as a free adaptation, not a carbon copy of the story you've seen in the novel. There are many changes. I accept and embrace all, though some are not suitable. One particularly damaging to the film, the reference to the Grievers sting and the Changing, which in the film, as it is told, it makes little sense. But the rest are welcome. Since the resolution of the maze to the story itself, from the design of the Glade to the characters themselves, I like the changes. They have made the film surprise me. For good. And leaves behind a very entertaining story full of action, with intrigue, adventure and certainly with disturbing moments, as well as laying the groundwork for the sequel and leave us wanting to know more about this world and its characters. Yes, it lacks some dramatic weight, some empathy with the characters, and you can tell. But the film is still a good action movie and science fiction. Hopefully, the beginning of what is to come.

Jesús Usero

COMENTA CON TU CUENTA DE FACEBOOK

©accioncine

Revista mensual que te ofrece la información cinematográfica de una forma amena y fresca. Todos los meses incluye reportajes de los estrenos de cine, analisis de las novedades televisivas, entrevistas, pósters y fichas coleccionables tanto de cine clásico como moderno.

     

Contacto

 
91 486 20 80
Fax: 91 643 75 55
 
© NOREA Y ALOMAN EDICIONES, S.L.
c/ La Higuera, 2 - 2ºB
28922 Alcorcón (Madrid) NIF: B85355915
 
Esta dirección de correo electrónico está siendo protegida contra los robots de spam. Necesita tener JavaScript habilitado para poder verlo.