Grow up...

Rating: 5/10 (27 December 2014)

To the reviewers who gave this less than 3 - shame on you. Also in my opinion anybody who gave it more than 7 has no business writing reviews or voting on films.
Now for my reasons and logic.
I fully understand how conceited and arrogant the above paragraph sounds - and it is. However the beginning of the movie (let's say the first 30 minutes) was by no means bad and the last hour or so was ridiculous and illogical. Giving a movie with surprisingly good teen actors and a few solid sections of film anything less than 3 is atrocious, you should be ashamed of yourself and anybody willing to ignore the atrocious plot holes and illogical sequences of the film and giving the film above a 7 is equally atrocious.
I understand why you do this, you're angry that other people don't agree with your opinion of the film, so your exaggerated scores are your way of getting some sort of twisted revenge (while I admit that some people would genuinely give this film a ten or a one, your opinion is bad, it really is).
This is a ridiculous comment that I'm making but it is a necessary one. You people ruin the point of IMDb and other sites like it. Don't vote with your emotions, that's not the point of a review, you are supposed to be reviewing these movies to the best of your ability in an unbiased manner. An eye for an eye mentality never works, even if your reasoning is that 'well that person gave it an unjustly low score so I'm going to give it a ridiculously high score' than you're as bad as that other person, who was more than likely simply responding to somebody else with the same mentality as yourself.
Now for my reasoning as to why anything less than a 3 or more than a 7 is way of mark.
The good aspects.
Interesting concept - albeit used before.
Interesting opening sequence that created a particular atmosphere of suspense.
Unusually good teen actors - the majority were anyhow.
Interesting visuals and designs.
Interesting social commentary - perhaps not intended - about safety verse freedom, about the good of the many verse the good of the view, about cultural conditioning verse unbiased reasoning.
The bad aspects.
Plot holes - e.g. Why did that particular part of the griever serve as a key. They were machines that were entirely mechanical, they would have had many parts of their body of similar appearance. How did the 'creators' know the Gladers would be able to kill these seemingly unstoppable robots and than have the insight to know that this particular part was a key after dissection - it wasn't a dissection in anyway shape of form to begin with.
They could have built a ladder with the abundance of trees and nailed them to the wall of something of this nature.
The importance of sector 7 was never mentioned, the 7 displayed on the part of the machine they took was thought to indicate where the griever had come from, so what if it had come from sector 6? Was there another exit or did all grievers originate from sector 7?
What if they hadn't discovered the order that the maze changed in and how would they know it would be important, if they didn't all ready know that? How did they decide what was the beginning of the sequence? Did something particular happen when the maze reset to the beginning of the sequence? Perhaps it was something to do with the beginning of the sequence being assumed to be Sunday? How would they know that anyway.
Why did the grievers come out after they found the entrance? What if they didn't know the sequence that the maze reset itself in? They would have not survived much longer if they didn't escape so they would have been dead without that information.
I'll leave it at that for now, perhaps I missed some important key information that explained these issues.
How did Calley make it to the control room.
Now for non plot hole problems.
Why the girl? Why not another male?
Why didn't the dudes in the helicopter come to the middle of the maze, I realize they were in on it but that's a dead giveaway that they aren't what they seem to be. If our hero is as smart and as curious as we are supposed to believe than that is inconsistent writing.
Stupid character motivations and inconsistencies in the story. Aka Calley. The rest besides Chuck weren't that bad.
Why send Thomas in if he works for you?
If they are special why does it matter about them personally, study those kids and find an antidote, obvious scientists believe there is something of a mystical nature special about these subjects, it's called genetics.
There are more but I think that's enough to get my point across.