John Wick

John Wick is a hitman coming out of retirement seeking revenge on the mob family who stole his car and killed his puppy. It sounds pretty dubious, but it works, and here's why: It doesn't pretend to be anything other than a good old-fashioned action revenge flick. It is short enough to captivate the audience's attention, rarely taking the foot off the accelerator. It's directed by a pair of veteran stuntmen, so the action is somewhere in between a B movie and a top shelf Hollywood action film. And finally, it doesn't attempt to create unnecessary character depth or back story. It knows what it needs to do, and it delivers.

John Wick (Keanu Reeves) is a legendary operator in the community of wet work, and he's respected and feared by everyone. Since retiring and settling down with a family, his wife gets sick and dies, leaving him a puppy as his only remaining link to her memory. A reckless son of a Russian mobster breaks into his house, steals his car, and kills his dog, unleashing the fury and rage that has been building within Wick. What unfurls is a killing spree in a series of action sequences that keeps the momentum and the tone of the film light enough to fully enjoy, but fast enough to appreciate.

Reeves is in his element, and at 50 years old, is showing that he's aging gracefully in the path of Tom Cruise. He seems to get better with age, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Keanu make his presence known in the action arena over the next 10 years. His next project is titled Rain. He plays John Rain, an assassin who makes his victims look like they died of natural causes. Is there a trend developing here? Long thought to be a joke of an actor, with some pretty memorable lines throughout the 80's, 90's, and even through his Matrix trilogy, he is more soft-spoken in John Wick, and delivers a self-knowing, mature performance. Not to be taken seriously, but comfortable and confident where he is. One thing is certain, he is pretty solid at action.

The directors, David Leitch and Chad Stahelski have been around Hollywood for years as stuntmen, so their experience is vast, but their shelf-life as directors is probably going to be limited. They create a pretty cool movie however, and the action sequences are solid. Nothing particularly noteworthy, but definitely popcorn friendly.

A Swede and a Brit play the father/son Russian mobsters, and although convincing, it's nothing that we haven't seen before. Willem Dafoe makes an appearance as a fellow assassin and John's seemingly only friend (although everyone who knows him pays him the respect of a king). Adrianne Palicki is the femme fatale, but doesn't get much screen time, nor are her best assets featured very prominently. It's alright though, because it's not that type of movie. It's about revenge.

John Wick is a surprisingly entertaining movie, and although its body count is pretty high, it's not done gratuitously, which makes it kind of fun. Reeves is a gunfighter, and this is 90 minutes of macho fantasy. Besides, any movie with Lance Reddick as a hotel concierge has to be pretty cool. 7/10.

Interstellar

"Do not go gentle into that good night" Dylan Thomas wrote way back in the mid 20th century, and there's a resounding sense of fatalism and fearless exploration in this villanelle that sums up the essence of Interstellar. Of course, when Michael Caine reads poetry, nearly anything can sound beautiful, haunting, and deep.

Tell me that Christopher Nolan and his brother wrote a sci-fi film that has deep personal meaning to them, and that Christopher is behind the camera, and I'll pay full price anytime. He is the master of modern sci-fi action films (sorry Ridley Scott), and not in the Michael Bay way, I'm talking about the way that is respected among audiences, critics, and frankly, Hollywood.

Interstellar is a film in two parts, the first is the Earthbound character development that seems a bit rushed, but also drags out as anticipation of part two lingers. We are in middle America, in the not so distant future, and it's not so much dystopian as it is a cautionary tale addressing both overpopulation and destruction of the environment. We are entering a 21st Century dust bowl, and life is looking bleak. Corn is the only crop that grows and scientists outlook isn't optimistic. Something drastic needs to be done to save the human race.

Enter Cooper (McConaughey). He's a former NASA test pilot who never got a chance to do what he was trained to do. With the collapse of social services comes the abolition of extra programs like space exploration, so the engineer finds himself out of work, and manning a respectable if not inane life as a farmer. He desperately wants better for both of his kids, nudging them into the sciences, droning on to anyone who will listen about how adventure and exploration are lost arts, and that agriculture is simply boring. Anyhow, he stumbles upon his long, lost brethren and they welcome him back, introducing him to the last bastion of hope for humanity, the Lazarus project. Headed by the indelible Michael Caine, a staple in Nolan's recent films, the Lazarus has the remaining NASA scientists; the best and the brightest, working on breakthrough quantum physics theories since discovering a black hole near Saturn.

Of course it's ridiculous, but Nolan spins a moderately believable yarn. Jumping on the idea that gravity is the only thing keeping humans from leaving Earth in a Star Trek fashion, it is the one theory that Caine's Professor Brand is dangerously close to cracking. In the meantime, they plan to send out brave astronauts through the black hole in search of an inhabitable planet for humans. Pretty grandiose idea.

The four-person crew is led by Cooper, and Brand's daughter, Amelia (Anne Hathaway). I'm not usually a fan, but performance/character is surprisingly likable. The other two are Wes Bentley (where has he been?) and David Gyasi as physicists, engineers, or some other sort of mission specialist. This begins part two. The space sequences are beautiful, and the excitement of the possibility of undiscovered science making science fiction just plain science is both fascinating and captivating. Part two is where the magic happens. The crew races against time (literally) in their search for the brave pioneer astronauts who sent their data out years ago, and as they explore interstellar space, there is a sense of claustrophobia as well as awe, and what unfolds is a very clear combination of Contact, Armageddon (yep, I threw a Bay film in the mix), and 2001: A Space Odyssey.

As the film reaches its inevitable and climactic conclusion, we are reminded that this is nothing short of a Christopher Nolan masterpiece. After pondering my slight disappointment, I realized that Nolan films are larger than life. There is no way that the film could ever meet expectations, and that is what makes it a must-see. He is a genius at his craft, plain and simple. The Dark Knight and Inception were two of the best films of the past decade, not just for content, but for layered thematic story lines and incredible character portrayal. Interstellar's characters aren't quite as memorable as the Joker, or DiCaprio's Cobb, but they are certainly better than Jodie Foster, or Bruce Willis and his crew. I imagine it will draw comparisons to last year's Gravity, but they are different creatures in different genres (I would call Gravity full-on realistic, but I'm not an astronaut, so I can't be quoted). Both hold strengths, and I would say Nolan is channeling his inner Stanley Kubrick more than anything else, and for that, he should be celebrated. 2001 was iconic in so many ways, it set the bar and hasn't been touched. Hell, Kubrick can't be touched in the pantheon of cinema, but Interstellar certainly makes a valiant effort.

There can be flaws noted, particularly nearing the climax and how it explains subtle clues from earlier in the film, but not in the giddy way that Inception demanded a second viewing, even though that's what I was expecting and hoping for. The theme of man's follies in destroying the beautiful planet is a bit heavy, as is the humanist spirit to protect it. And there is a sequence of Red Planet/Mission to Mars inspiration that is somewhat unnecessary, but it's really more of a speed bump than a road block. The music drowned out the dialogue at times, and seemed a bit overbearing, but the music was such an important part of both 2001 and Inception, so I can certainly see why they went that direction.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great film all around. A magically original story with high level science explained as if it were from a State University 101 class. Very smooth. I guess I wish that the 2 1/2 hours had gone on much, much longer. And that's why I'm giving it a 9/10.

Fury

Fury is a hellish look at WWII's final days through the eyes of a battle-hardened tank crew, and a pacifist newbie thrown in to replace a dead crew member before one last run into Germany. It's ugly, dirty, violent. But writer/director David Ayer wouldn't have it any other way. Colin Powell commented "This is really how it is" after watching a screening, and I can't help but agree (speculation, I've never been in war). There is very little glamour, and death is waiting for all of them at any given moment. The unnerving constant is how each of the men deal with the harsh reality of their own mortality.

The crew of Fury, the Sherman tank mobile home for a 5 man crew, is led by Brad Pitt, a man who is stoic and hard in front of his men. Brave and unshakeable. But he has his personal moments of silent insanity when nobody is watching. He knows that a true leader in war needs to be strong and confident, or else his crew will fail. He promises all of them that he will keep them safe if they follow his directions, and they all believe him; with every last ounce of their lives. Michael Pena (End of Watch) plays the driver without much emotion. He's a little bit too calm throughout the fray, but he is assuaged by Pitt's words of wisdom. Jon Bernthal (The Walking Dead) plays the muscled crazy crewman who is the loader. Grimy and dirty, his job is to keep loading hulking shells, one after the other, and he gets a euphoric rush every time one of them is fired. Shia LeBeouf is the gunner, and although he's fallen on some harsh criticism since his Transformers roles, he is the centerpiece of the full emotional spectrum played out on the screen. A great role and great performance.

The focus of the film, however, lies in the heart of Logan Lerman's character. A brand new army typist, drafted right out of innocence, and thrust in to the war as a replacement gunner on Pitt's Fury crew. He's in way over his head, having never been in a tank, and never wanting to fire a weapon. There's a constant look of palpable fear that slowly wears away, like Novocaine subsiding, until the final act when he becomes what he fought so hard to avoid, a war machine.

There is constant tension through the claustrophobia inherent in the idea of a fortified mobile enemy target. Three well executed battle sequences show some of the harrowing faces of death, and Ayer does a nice job creating some dramatic shock value to amp up the tension. The idea that one well-placed rocket can cause an inferno, cooking the 5 men inside is a pulsating fear that slowly grows over the course of the film.

I've never seen a truly well done tank battle scene in the movies. Best I can recall, Patton and Courage Under Fire are the only 2 that come to mind, and their action is muted by the acting and the character studies. Fury's action scenes blow them away, bar none. Four Sherman tanks taking on the massive fortress of a German Tiger Tank is one of the coolest choreographed battle ballets intermixed with violence, blood, and explosions that I've seen in recent film. A truly remarkable achievement.

As the battle-torn Fury finally falls apart (not a spoiler, it's in the trailer), the men are faced with the ultimate decision. Fight or flee. Life or death. The final fight is a bit rushed, and a bit one-sided compared with what might have been the reality, but Fury leaves its mark.

Fury is the type of film that won't get the awards attention that I thought it would before viewing. It has the grittiness and violence of Saving Private Ryan, but it's missing something. Director David Ayer has carved out a Hollywood niche, and as long as there are profits, he'll keep making his movies. The human characters could use a bit more depth, and that's what I've thought since he broke on the scene with Training Day. Every subsequent film he's created has lacked character development.

Terrific action however, and brutally graphic death scenes. Ayer's next film falls in line with his wheelhouse, a remake of the Sam Peckinpah classic The Wild Bunch set in modern day Mexico. That will be a cool movie.

Fury is absolutely not for the timid, not for the masses. If your gut turned watching the violence of Saving Private Ryan, you might want to skip this. For the action film junkie however, Fury is pretty good. Dialogue and character development are certainly the weaknesses, but otherwise it's a very worthwhile use of two hours. I loved it and hated it, a rarity in my experience, but because of its strengths, I have to give it a 7/10.

10 Movies you need to see not titled Hobbit, Hunger, or Horrible

I was trying to come up with a good title, and didn't want to exclude the two blockbusters and one comedy that will likely rule the winter box office. Here are 10 films you need to see between now and January 1st, and why.

Fury - David Ayer is a hit or miss writer/director with such films as End of Watch, Training Day, Harsh Times, Sabotage, SWAT, and Dark Blue under his belt. See a trend? He takes his wheelhouse to a whole new level with the help of what appears to be a stellar cast, led by Brad Pitt. A World War II tank crew find themselves stranded in Nazi Germany and have to fight their way out. His films have a way of killing off main characters/protagonists pretty frequently, so expect the unexpected as it comes to a conclusion. There hasn't been a good tank action film in awhile (ever?), and Pitt was exceptional in Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds, so it should be a very entertaining film.

Whiplash - I'm hearing a lot of buzz about Whiplash. Particularly the acting of Miles Teller as the drumming protege, and JK Simmons as the angry mentor. The director, Damien Chazelle is new, but this is a very intriguing character study and relationship around the pursuit of musical perfection. It's something different, but likely will garner some awards talk.

Birdman - Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu is a fantastic director, part of the trio of Hispanics who hit the scene hard in 2006 with his film Babel (Guillermo Del Toro's Pan's Labrynth and Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men were the other 2). Michael Keaton plays an aging former film star whose Birdman hits very close to home in its verisimilitude. Keaton played Batman all those years ago, and although he's had a successful career, there are more than a few parallels from what I hear. The fascinating thing about Birdman however, is Inarritu's decision to film it seamlessly. The sequences are in some cases up to 10 minutes long, and the whole film appears as one long take. It was a big deal when Brian De Palma did an extended opening sequence with Snake Eyes, and it's been attempted in the past, but with technology, it just might work. Either way, I'm excited.

Nightcrawler - Jake Gyllenhaal continues to make great choices, and Nightcrawler just might be a vehicle good enough to get him a Best Actor nomination. He's due, and playing a gaunt, aspiring crime journalist who gets a bit too involved in his scenes, this might be the film to get him into the top 5. The film has potential to lose audiences due to content, and director Dan Gilroy's inexperience (he's married to Rene Russo, also starring in the film). Look for a strong performance nonetheless.

Interstellar - Anything Christopher Nolan touches turns to gold, and this just might be the second coming of 2001. His vision has no limitations, and with an A list cast, good word of mouth, and an astronomical budget, this will be THE sci-fi film of the year. Of course, it's one of the only sci-fi films of the year, but that doesn't matter. It's one of the most difficult genres to do well, but Nolan is the master. This will be a must-see. Probably in IMAX and/or 3D to achieve maximum enjoyment.

Foxcatcher - Oscar nominee Steve Carrell. Yep, it's going to happen. This film has been on the shelf for over a year, but Bennett Miller (Moneyball) is carving a niche as the dramatic sports biopic champion. Carrell, in heavy makeup, plays John DuPont, the millionaire heir who sponsors the Schultz brothers (Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo) to train for Olympic wrestling. There is murder, deception, and the truth is stranger than fiction, but one thing is for certain; Steve will have at minimum a Best Actor Academy Award nomination.

Wild - Who was the biggest snub last year? There are arguments, but I would say Dallas Buyer's Club director Jean Marc-Vallee. He champions two actors to Oscars and isn't nominated himself. Shame. Anyhow, he might be the next David O. Russell, and this time his film follows Reese Witherspoon as a woman on an 1,100 mile solo hiking journey to find herself. Sounds very Kerouac, but reminds me of Krakauer's Sean Penn adaptation Into the Wild (Emile Hirsch was robbed). It seems to be one of the only noticeable strong female performances slated at this point, but we will see.

Inherent Vice - Paul Thomas Anderson films are mesmerizing. They are so deliberate and noir that you are sucked into the setting and just plain captivated by the performances. His use of music, and sucking the best possible characters out of his actors is unmatched in the industry. Joaquin Phoenix headlines his latest concoction, playing a seedy detective in 1970's LA. It's not likely to be accepted by the masses as PT Anderson normally isn't, but it will surely be admired.

American Sniper - Films aren't often moved up into December from January, but American Sniper is gaining some attention for its performance by Bradley Cooper. Clint Eastwood is one of the greatest directors in the game, and this biopic is a little bit Hurt Locker and a little bit Lone Survivor as Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle recounts his tours in Iraq and Afghanistan over a ten year period. He came to be known as "The Devil" by his enemy, and was respected among his military brethren capturing the honor of having the most confirmed combat kills in American history. Heavy stuff, and a great biography. Sadly and ironically, Kyle was killed a few years ago at a gun range in his hometown in Texas. After retirement and documenting his story, he took to helping soldiers deal with their PTSD by taking them to his gun range. One of them turned a gun on him, killing Kyle. Bradley Cooper will certainly receive a nomination for his performance.

Unbroken - The true story of Louis Zamperini, underdog survivor of childhood delinquency, athletic competition, WWII combat, survival at sea, and an extended stay in a Japanese POW camp. Unbroken is based on the novel by Laura Hillenbrand and is directed by Angelina Jolie. The screenplay was written by the Coen Brothers, which is a very exciting prospect for me. They are one of my favorite film making teams. The cast isn't headlined by anyone recognizable, but Jack O'Connell might become the next big thing if everything works out for him. This could be the film to beat for Best Picture, making Angelina Jolie a front-runner for Best Director right off the bat.

Gone Girl

The latest pop-culture darling novel-turned film pairs Gillian Flynn with master adapter, David Fincher. The novel, Gone Girl has been a runaway success and it was only a matter of time until it was made into a film. Much like the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, the book isn't all that captivating. I may ruffle some feathers, but I was disappointed in the ending, and didn't find myself wishing for anything but unhappy endings for the two main characters. Perhaps that is the point. Fincher captures that emotional abyss in a way that only he can; The ominous direction, dark settings, and matter-of-fact characters that are all the hallmark of his craft. It's the brave, first serious contender to foray into awards territory this year, which usually is a curse, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a handful of nominations.

Nick (Ben Affleck) and Amy Dunne (Rosamund Pike) are an educated, middle-class married couple transplanted from the busy high life of New York to a slow, Americana-esque town in Missouri. The story follows a short span of time from the day of their 5 year anniversary on a sweltering 4th of July through the summer, in dramatic fashion. Over those long few weeks, Amy mysteriously and under suspicious circumstances disappears. As is customary in missing persons cases, Nick, the husband, is the prime suspect. The story is told in two parts with flashbacks thrown in the mix. It's a he said/she said thriller from start to finish, and the ending is something you might not see coming, but will certainly polarize audiences.

Don't read the book first. If you have, you will be impressed by Fincher's attention to detail and Flynn's seamless adaptation of her own material. If you haven't, you will enjoy a wild psychological thriller that highlights the highs and lows of marriage and showcases the idea that you never really know someone, even if you've been sleeping next to them for years. The book builds to a crescendo, then crawls to the finish line in a lackluster final act. The film makes just enough slight changes at the end to satisfy the viewer in contrast to the written companion. Much like Dragon Tattoo, it's not an ending intended to wrap things up in a nice little bow, but when has Fincher ever shied away from leaving audiences hanging?

David Fincher is the greatest film maker not to have an Academy Award on his mantle. There, I've said it. You might make an argument for Christopher Nolan as a modern day visionary, but Fincher is consistently overlooked in the category best described as dramatic award bait. His two previous nominations are for The Social Network, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and he will likely receive another nomination this year, but unfortunately he won't be celebrated yet again. Here's why. Fincher's films stand alone on a ledge. They are edgy, thrilling, beautifully accompanied by very intentional visuals and sounds, and he teeters on a darkness that is best seen in The Game, Zodiac, and Dragon Tattoo. Hell, Fight Club, Seven, and Alien 3 as well. Gone Girl follows this line moreso than The Social Network or Benjamin Button, and the source material is perfect for his style. His darkness will scare away the awards crowd. He is fearless in where he is willing to go with his films. I liken it to last year's Prisoners. I absolutely loved the film. It was one of the few daring and original films I can recall from 2013, but it got no love because of the graphic and possibly gratuitous nature of the story. Gone Girl and Fincher achieve this level of shock. The film plugs along nicely, a cute thriller about a cute couple, but then it delves into darkness. Not to the extreme of some of his previous films, but there is one particular scene maybe 15-20 minutes from the end that is classic Fincher, and really jumps at the audience out of seemingly nowhere. That scene is what makes this film an R rating, and what will cost him serious consideration. Hollywood loves a rebel, but usually rewards the darling. I think the film is better for it, but it's Fincher's Achilles heel.

Ben Affleck is a good choice for this role mostly because it's not a very complex character. Not to knock Affleck as an actor, but Nick is a bit of an everyman and Affleck fits. He is a more talented director than an actor, but people give him a lot of flack that isn't warranted. As Christian Bale's replacement as Batman in the upcoming Dawn of Justice, and eventually the Justice League, he will make or break his acting career, but with 2016's Live by Night, an epic Dennis Lehane film that may be the next Scarface, Affleck may just move into the directing stratosphere with the greats (if Argo wasn't enough). It's just too bad that he has cast himself as the lead role (should have gone to someone lesser known).

Rosamund Pike is perfectly cast, and steals the show as Amazing Amy. She's a privileged debutante who finds herself miserable despite outward appearances being perfect. Her New Orleans accent could use a little work, but otherwise she gives the performance of her career, and will undoubtedly receive an Oscar nomination, if not a win. It remains to be seen what her competition looks like, but she gets a nomination.

The supporting cast is highlighted by Neil Patrick Harris as the wealthy ex-boyfriend, a spectacular Kim Dickens and understated but very effective Patrick Fugit (where has he been since Almost Famous?) as the police tandem working the case, Tyler Perry as the gregarious and sleazy-chic defense attorney, Tanner Bolt (great sleazeball name), and Carrie Coon as Nick's only supporter, his twin sister Margot Dunne. It's a good choice all around by the casting director, and I was particularly drawn to the police duo's chemistry and banter. I would love to see Patrick Fugit build up his resume as he has grown up since 2000, and has been around Hollywood, but hasn't landed a leading role. He's ripe for something big right now.

The film has its flaws, it isn't perfect, but given the material and my opinion of the book, the production team does an outstanding job. Fincher is amazing as always, and Pike gives the best acting performance by an actress so far this year. Brace yourself for a shocking scene near the end, but otherwise, enjoy the thriller. You might enjoy it more (or less) if you haven't read the book, but it's worth the price of admission. Go see the first award-worthy film of the year. 9/10.

The Maze Runner

The book was better. Or so the old axiom goes. I'm not a book snob, but I do enjoy reading these types of novels before watching the films, and I will say that in this case, the movie was better. Quite a bit better.

Teenager Thomas awakens in an elevator, rising rapidly and opening to bright sunlight and a curious group of teenage boys. He has no memory of how he ended up there, or who he is for that matter. All he knows is that he needs to escape. It turns out that this elevator arrives monthly, and has for the past three years, depositing a single boy into "The Glade". This group of misfits have built a civilization in this over-sized football stadium that is surrounded on all sides by four perfectly squared walls. The only escape is through a doorway that opens every morning, and closes every evening. Brave, athletic boys, dubbed "runners" travel outside the wall through a maze, ever searching for a way out and hopefully, home.

All this is thrown into chaos with the arrival of Thomas, and the subsequent arrival of the first girl, Theresa. Their harmonious community begins to fall apart. Not quite Lord of the Flies apart, but definitely dystopian future sci-fi young adult novel apart as they are forever monitored and chased by giant cyborg spiders called grievers, and they finally decide to invade The Glade.

The book is the first in a series, and a sequel film is in the works. Hollywood is always on the lookout for the next big adaptation. Harry Potter did pretty well at the box office, as did Twilight and The Hunger Games (a hint of sarcasm. They killed the box office). Ender's Game and most recently, Divergent fared well enough, while the Lois Lowry classic The Giver didn't do as well. The point is, where there's young adult material, there will be adaptations. Maze Runner may not be as popular a novel (maybe it is, I'm not totally sure) and in reality, it isn't very good. There are too many extraneous story lines that don't find any resolution at all. That's where the film does right. It passes by the material that is irrelevant and goes straight to the heart of the story; the mystery of the maze. It is suspenseful, and is certainly an interesting idea up until you see what's at the end of the maze. I kept thinking of a recent film that I loved, but the mention of it might be too much of a spoiler. Needless to say, the story isn't original and is a bit of a letdown.

Director Wes Ball is a novice and gets a pretty nice debut film to direct. Writers Noah Oppenheimer and Grant Pierce Myers do a nice job with the script, particularly with streamlining the final fight, modifying the ending, and eliminating some of the more unnecessary sequences. The pace only drags a few times, but it's only for a few minutes at a time. The film makers deserve the credit for making that happen.

Thomas is played by Dylan O'Brien, who does his best Logan Lerman impression through the whole two hours. He's a young, good-looking kid who might make something of himself depending on how far the Maze Runner series continues. The rest of the cast is mostly unknown actors who have experience, and may be recognizable if you follow a particular television series. Most notably, Thomas Brodie-Sangster as Newt, the likeable veteran who befriends Thomas. He was the kid in Love Actually, and is on Game of Thrones (I knew I recognized him!). Will Poulter is probably the biggest name as the villainous leader of the boys, Gally. His foray into physically intimidating is a bit of a head-scratch-er as he was the doofus, Kenny in We're the Millers last summer. It doesn't really fit. The story isn't about any of the characters though, so it doesn't matter. The real star is the Maze, which underwhelms in its potential magnitude. The runners spend entire days scouring its nooks and crannies, yet it's portrayed in a pretty boring manner. Bleak, slate gray walls and ivy adorning the insides and outsides. Narrow channels where they run around.

I went and saw the film with a group of 6th graders, and they were impressed, so I am clearly not the target audience. I left with two distinct questions: Did they have a lawnmower in The Glade? Because the grass was beautifully trimmed. And why didn't they climb the walls, and cross the channels with wooden ladders until they found a way out? I guess I would have been the first one to escape if it was me.

Great film for the target audience, and fans of the book will be impressed. Not so great for the adult crowd. 5/10.