'Maze Runner: The Death Cure' Review: A Dystopian Romp but a Heartful Finale

Dystopian future films based on popular YA novels are commonly a hit or miss. It’s either they get praise for doing the book justice, or the movie gets butchered by fans and critics. Enter “Maze Runner: The Death Cure”—despite the disappointing follow up to the first film, made a lasting mark as a good enough way to end the franchise. Having read all the books (yes, including The Kill Order)  in my late teens, it’s one of those stories you’d go crazy about if you were into the angsty “they-don’t-understand-us-cause-we’re-the-chosen-kids” book vibe. In the film adaptation, however, much of James Dashner’s original vision in the novel was changed significantly—echoing the mistake of “The Scorch Trials” but winning nonetheless.

Minor spoilers ahead.

Thomas (Dylan O’Brien) and his ragtag group of dystopian boys (called the Gladers) embark on a mission to save their captured friend, Minho (Ki Hong Lee). Following the events of “The Scorch Trials,” the mission is to save Minho and dismantle WICKED second—a massive deviation from the book. Surprisingly, “The Death Cure” opens in a beautifully-shot and choreographed action sequence a la “Mad Max” showing the boys dangling from their trucks and engaging the WICKED SWAT Team in an unbelievable shootout. Then this scene reminded me of how O’Brien got the short end of the stick when he got his ribs crushed, causing the production to halt for a couple of months. This had to be the scene in question.

That said, the action is well interspersed throughout the “The Death Cure,” and it’s evident how director Wes Ball made a drastic change to the overall theme of the final entry of the “Maze Runner” trilogy. Despite the film deviating from its source material, Ball did the book justice by establishing a theme that’s closer to how one could imagine the elements in the novel’s setting. But with every dystopian YA film, you’d notice that they all have one thing in common—laboratiories, exploding cities, walls and the overbearing sense of danger lurking in every corner. “The Death Cure” has that sort of feel, albeit making it tasteful compared to its predecessors (squinting and glaring at you—”Hunger Games” and “Divergent.”)

One of the things that made “The Death Cure” somewhat odd, though, was the narrative’s pace. If you’d summarize the film in two parts, Mission: Save Minho took over the entire run of the film, with Operation: Smoke WICKED Out Of Its Wits only coming in during the final act of the movie. The book had a different pace and a higher stake, whereas the movie only focused on saving a friend—which isn’t bad, given how Ball might’ve wanted “The Death Cure” to take on a cheesier theme for its characters.

Significant changes in ‘The Death Cure.’

As for “The Death Cure’s” strengths, the apparent elimination of the romantic storyline made it work. One would think, without reading the book, that Thomas and Teresa (Kaya Scodelario) would get back together for a happy life under the decaying sky. Wrong. The book established two character deaths; while the movie did follow this plot point, their deaths changed significantly. Just when you thought Teresa would be back in Thomas’ arms, the building collapses, taking her with it (the book also had her die by being crushed by debris, although in a very different situation and emotional attachment to Thomas). Newt (Thomas Brodie-Sangster), on the other hand, still begged Thomas to kill him, but didn’t get shot. Instead, Newt stabbed himself during his near-Crank phase. These significant changes were made to accommodate one idea—that it was, at some point, Thomas’ fault for being the only cure for the zombie-like virus that turns people into Cranks.

Mission: Save Minho was a disastrous plothole. In the first act of the film, Thomas and his friends successfully extracted a trailer containing kids who are immune to the virus. They were being transported to WICKED’s labs, but thanks to Thomas’ gung-ho heroics, the kids were led to safety. However, Minho wasn’t there. The same dilemma repeats twice in the film, with Thomas close to finding him, but turning out otherwise. It’s a frustrating addition, what with the misleading scenes that point to Minho’s “rescue.” Part of me felt like Ball had to prolong the movie, and seeing no other way to achieve this—especially with his desire to stray far from the book’s events—had to delay Minho’s rescue repeatedly.

Meanwhile, the WICKED’s forces, led by Chancellor Ava Paige (Patricia Clarkson) and her Assistant Director Janson (Aidan Gillen) had a slightly forgettable role in establishing the menace and threat that is WICKED. For one thing, Ava’s death in the hand of Janson was a bit forced and a little shallow. Ava wanted to give up in looking for a cure for the sickness, but Janson wanted a continuous study. He was succumbing to the virus himself, which gives him a reason to defy Ava, but not enough to the point of killing her as a comeuppance. Ava’s character was a prime example of “the ends justify the means” protagonist but failed to portray it convincingly. She was just cruising along, and at one point, it even seemed like Teresa was in control. Janson, on the other hand, despite lacking evil motive, was the perfect fit to the dystopian big baddie in black bully stereotype.

Notable strengths and weaknesses

“The Death Cure’s” two-hour and a half runtime were a bit too much for a movie with such a straightforward narrative. It starts out strong, with the action sequences taking a slow downhill for the worst. The tongue in cheek writing and dialogue could’ve drastically improved if Ball borrowed significant elements in Dashner’s book (Thomas’ brain probe and solitary confinement would’ve worked well, The return to the Glade should have been explored).
The action sequences were a welcome addition to the Maze Runner trilogy. This element was the one thing that lacked from the previous films, and Ball did a stellar job in choreographing a coherent direction for every scene, especially the last war sequence. War and violence weren’t explored much in most of the dystopian YA novel films, and “The Death Cure” adapted this theme with brilliance and effectiveness. The runtime might be too long, but it doesn’t necessarily make the film boring.  “The Death Cure” was a fun movie experience—and it ends there.

The movie ends with an emotional tribute to everyone that the Gladers lost. And throughout the entire film, one would notice that Thomas takes friendship seriously. And by “seriously,” I mean with-utmost-desire-to-kill-everyone-standing-in-their-friendship seriously. It’s a heartwarming ending to the “Maze Runner” trilogy, and despite losing most of their friends, they remain intact, with the positive sense of hope permeating throughout their entire group. This act, with everything that they’ve all been through, cements one thing in the Gladers’ and other immune’s hearts—they are the future and mankind’s only hope for survival in a ravaged world.

‘Maze Runner: The Death Cure’ Overall Verdict

If nothing else, “The Death Cure” isn’t exactly a bad movie; for what it’s worth, it’s the strongest film of the three movies (but I’d still pick “The Maze Runner” as the best one). It wraps up the trilogy in a finale that gives up everything it used to hold on to, ultimately rewriting the novel albeit giving poetic justice to Dashner’s vision. “The Death Cure” is an okay film, a mildly entertaining dystopian romp that works its way through your emotions because of it’s higher stakes on friendship and human connection. Although you feel these kinds of things while watching the film, it doesn’t change the fact that the writing and visuals don’t come at par with a masterpiece. Despite the failures of “The Scorch Trials” in establishing an uphill track for the trilogy, “The Death Cure” is merely a heartful and fitting end to an otherwise divisive franchise.