New Maze Runner 2, Scorch Trials movie got mixed reviews from top critics. 20th Century FOX released their new action/sci-fi flick, “Maze Runner 2: The Scorch Trials,” into theaters today, September 18th, 2015, and all the top movie critics have submitted their reviews.
It turns out that it got a mediocre mixed response with just an overall 43 score out of a possible 100 across 28 reviews at Metacritic.com.
The movie stars: Starring: Aidan Gillen, Dylan O’Brien, Giancarlo Esposito, Kaya Scodelario and Thomas Brodie-Sangster. We’ve added blurbs from a couple of the critics, below.
Brian Truitt from USA Today, gave it an ok 75 score, saying: “Katniss and Tris might still be queen bees of the genre, but Thomas (Dylan O’Brien) and his fellow Gladers find a satisfying, teen-friendly way to combine rebellion, politics, science and a lot of jogging for a broad audience.”
Michael Sragow over at the Los Angeles Times, gave it a 70 grade, stating: “Ball and his cast overcome clichés with gusto.”
Katherine Pushkar from the New York Daily News, gave it a 60 score. She said: “Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials does pretty well. It finishes respectably on a scale between “Hunger Games: Catching Fire” (fizzle) and “The Empire Strikes Back” (aces!).”
Tom Russo at the Boston Globe, gave it a 50 score, saying: “The movie may feel tonally consistent with the first, but it’s also overlong and thoroughly routine.”
Kyle Smith from the New York Post, gave it a 50 score. He said: “In Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials, selfish oldsters scheme to rob young people of their vital essence, sacrificing them in the process. It’s basically “Social Security: The Movie.”
Michael O’Sullivan from the Washington Post, gave it a 50 grade. He said: “It’s not a bad movie. It’s like several pretty good ones.”
Michael Phillips from the Chicago Tribune, gave it a 50 score, saying: “Though Ball’s workmanlike handling of the second in the trilogy, “The Scorch Trials,” proves mainly that he can keep a franchise from running completely off the rails when the tracks have been laid perilously near a swamp of “dys-lit” cliches.”