Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials
for extended sequences of violence and action, some thematic elements, substance use and language.
Reviewed by: Pamela Karpelenia
CONTRIBUTOR
| Moral Rating: | Very Offensive |
| Moviemaking Quality: |
|
| Primary Audience: | Teens Adults |
| Genre: | Teen Sci-Fi Action Thriller Sequel |
| Length: | 2 hr. 11 min. |
| Year of Release: | 2015 |
| USA Release: |
September 18, 2015 (wide—3,791 theaters) |
FEAR, Anxiety and Worry—What does the Bible say? Answer
bravery, courage
substance use
attempting to cure a pandemic
zombie craze in entertainment
death and final judgment
FILM VIOLENCE—How does viewing violence in movies affect families? Answer
| Featuring |
Dylan O'Brien … Thomas Kaya Scodelario … Teresa Thomas Brodie-Sangster … Newt Nathalie Emmanuel … Harriet Aidan Gillen … Janson Katherine McNamara … Sonya Patricia Clarkson … Ava Paige Giancarlo Esposito … Jorge Ki Hong Lee … Minho Barry Pepper … Vince Lili Taylor … Mary Cooper See all » |
| Director | Wes Ball — “The Maze Runner” (2014) |
| Producer |
Gotham Group TSG Entertainment Temple Hill Entertainment |
| Distributor |
It’s time now to begin Phase 2.
Prequel: “The Maze Runner” (2014)
Sequel: “Maze Runner: The Death Cure” (2018)
“The Scorch Trails” starts up right where we left off it the first film “The Maze Runner.” Thomas (Dylan O'Brien) and his fellow teammates are taken to a safe bunker where they are given shelter, food and an escape from the Maze. They learn that they were not in the only Maze, and there are many other similar survivors. They trade stories and speak of hope of a safe haven, where those who are in charge of the bunker promise to take them, a few at a time.
Almost immediately, Thomas has an unsettling feeling about his new surroundings. He soon finds confirmation of a possible rebellion and decides to inform his friends, and they devise an escape. They escape into the Scorch, a post-apocalyptic wasteland, where a zombie-style illness is widespread, and the infected roam the land. Thomas and his crew journey to find the rebellion… and answers.
This is a tension-filled intro to the sequel. Let’s start with the acting. Thomas (Dylan O'Brien) and Ki Hong Lee are stand outs in a well constructed cast. I have not read the books, but the story is truly eye-catching and told very well, and it’s easy to follow and understand, if you watched the first film. The cinematography is appealing and believable.
Now to the objectionable content, the violence is intense, but not gratuitous. However, the language is much worse in this film. I counted 15+ sh**, hell (5), damn (4), SOB (2), and a several profanities, which are beyond unnecessary—Jesus (3), God (2), My G*d (1), Oh my G*d (1).
As for a biblical perspective, there is a lot about standing up against a tyrannical establishment. Plus, a resounding theme of hope. In these uncertain times, we must remember where our hope lives. Jesus is our hope, as Romans 12:12 says,
Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer, reminds us of this.
I personally liked the sequel, minus the swearing and other objectionables, I mentioned above. This film served as a great sequel and good prequel to the next film “Death Cure.”
Violence: Heavy to extreme / Profanity: Moderate to heavy / Sex/Nudity: Mild—male showering (head and shoulders), passionate kiss, women who may be prostitutes
See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers.
With that in mind the movie was fairly okay. The language was present, but far and few in between. There is one suicide scene, I should add, but the actual death occurs offscreen. The violence, of course, is heavy in the movie. I definitely liked and preferred the first movie better.
As I mentioned before in the second paragraph, I recommend parents review the movie first before letting kids see it, as it does contain gruesome images and jump scares.
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 5
Yes, they talk about Evolution. …yes, there is a lot more sexual and drug overtones, but it is treated disdainfully. The biggest offense for Christian audiences (in my humble opinion) isn’t the subject matter or profanity, it’s the complete lack of intellectual or psychological stimulation.
Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 2½
I preferred the story line of the first movie and the suspense, and there was less human violence. I felt disappointed to think, this is “YA” entertainment, Young Adult movie based on a Young Adult series of books. Problem is, it’s not 20 somethings watching this, it’s teens. The book is sold at book fairs in middle schools, and the movie is a draw for these kids.
One character seemed to really like the S-word, as she said it often enough. Then there is the scene where they have to drink something before they can enter. Once they did I thought, ooooh, where are they going with this. Fortunately, clothes stayed on, but it certainly presented itself as an establishment of ill repute. All in all, I was not impressed, but disappointed. Give me the humor and family friendliness of “Goosebumps.”
Can we just keep our young teens innocent a while longer? Can we not have them exposed to such violence in film, books and games? I’m not an old fuddy duddy, but enough with the violence.
Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4
You knew it was some kind of drug, mind altering substance… and, sure enough, after he is coerced into drinking it, his mind gets “woozy” and the place they went in to was filled will images that no follower or Christ would want to subject themselves to. (Ephesians 5:11) (Myself, being saved by God from a life of drugs, alcohol, and sex… I was very uncomfortable with those scenes in particular)… although no sex was SEEN, it was definitely implied by the atmosphere… See all »
Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality:
PLEASE share your observations and insights to be posted here.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4½