Ready Player One: comienza el juego

Spielberg remains to this day one of the most misunderstood film-makers of his generation. He has been labeled both a peddler of popcorn and a saccharine manipulator (Those who say the latter have clearly forgotten Alex Kitner erupting in a geyser of blood in Jaws, exploding Nazi heads, the horrors of the Holocaust in Schindler and the river of corpses in War of the Worlds).

There are two Spielbergs. There's the man who makes somber, academy award winning dramas (Empire of the Sun, Saving Private Ryan, Munich, War Horse, Lincoln etc). Then's there's the 10 year old playing in the sand box (The Indy films, Hook, Jurassic Park, Tintin etc). What I enjoy most about the 'Berg, is how he can zigzag between disparate genres. But after a stretch of SF films (A.I, Minority Report and War of the Worlds), I was looking forward to a return to the free wheeling fun with Crystal Skull. It turned out to be an uncharacteristic dud that despite the boffo box office, proved to be deeply unpopular with fans of the series.

This made me cautious about Ready Player One. Had Spielberg lost his touch? I was wrong. This may be one of the most visually amazing and effortlessly fun films I've seen in a long time. I have not read Ernest Cline's novel, so fans of the popular novel may have issues, but I rarely read the books before seeing the film.

The cast are great. Tye Sheridan are Olivia Cooke are the standouts. Mark Rylance and Simon Pegg are fun in supporting roles. Alan Silvestri's robust score is one of his most memorable. I miss John Williams, but it's still a great score. Longtime 'Berg collaborator Janusz Kaminski's cinematography is beautiful. And it's the only film where you'll see a DeLorean chasing a T-Rex on the big screen. That image alone is worth the ticket price. He never went away, but it's nice to see him back playing in the sand box.

Ernest Cline's fast-moving novel was a treasure trove for pop-culture junkies, but the endless references work better on the screen.

The year is 2045; the place is Columbus, Ohio. Our hero, Wade Watts, fills in the details while climbing past his grungy homes of his town, "the stacks," where trailer parks are piled on top of each other sky-high. Things are so miserable in Wade's world, everyone escapes to play in an immersive virtual reality game known as the Oasis. Its founder, James Halliday is worshipped like a god until his death some years before. However, before he left the mortal world, the creator left behind a series of games that would reward the winner with the prize of the keys to his virtual kingdom.

The book was a fast paced adventure that took its time to geek out on all of the 80's pop culture references but the film doesn't do that. . Spielberg doesn't have Wade (the titular character) talk audiences through it, and he doesn't spell out the references, he just quickly stamps down the Delorean in the middle of a action sequence and then continues onward. Fans can pause it frame by frame and analyse it thoroughly looking for the flux capacitor on the dashboard, checking the plates, and scanning for extra bonus material. Even to people who've never seen the Back to the Future movies and aren't vibing on the connection, the car doesn't need explaining. It's just a sleek piece of visual energy, one breathless element among dozens of others. That's why the movie works better than the books in terms of visual style and nostalgia.

The thin plot and the not so well done shallow characters make the film to be just a pop culture reference filled visual treat. Several plot holes( If movement is required to move an avatar in the game, how do people play in the Oasis while standing in their living rooms?) and a non-existent character arc makes it a fun, but a tangible watch. They're all already heroes, the big bad is evil from start to finish.

The story's breakneck speed, it's never ending references, make it a fun, exciting watch.

Pretty good movie visually and even though the changes from the book are obvious but they don't spoil it. They are changes that have to be made so it translates well on to screen.

The comedy in the film is charming and not over the top. It fits in well with the film.

The visuals are awesome. There are so many Easter eggs and references from pop culture it's unbelievable that they managed to add so many. It'll take a long time to spot them all.

Overall I'd say this film is definitely worth a watch.

Watched 'Ready Player One' as someone who got a lot of pleasure out of the book and who loves a lot of Steven Spielberg's previous work. Despite it getting a fair share of criticism from fans of the book, that there were also enough good things said about it from critics and that many of my friends said it was worthwhile persuaded me enough to see it.

'Ready Player One' left me with a mixed view (or just slightly above). As a book adaptation 'Ready Player One' is severely wanting, having lost what made the book so special. As a film on its own, which is how it will be judged by me being a much fairer way to judge, 'Ready Player One' is quite decent though with faults. It is nowhere near being one of Spielberg's best, a distinction he has not hit for a while (though for me he has not sold out), at the same time it is not one of his misfires either. To me 'Ready Player One' is a middling effort.

Starting with its good merits, 'Ready Player One' looks incredible. One of those films where one is truly immersed in a world filled with a non-stop sense of wonder. The Oasis depiction is rich in wonder, adventure, vibrancy and imagination, the cool factor is also high. The special effects are pretty spectacular. Alan Silvestri provides the best score in a Spielberg film since 'War Horse' (and one of the best in the past fifteen years or so), providing a lot of energy and thrills.

Nostalgia is rife with inspired cameos of numerous significant cultural characters, like the 'Jurassic Park' dinosaur and the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and even more numerous cultural references, highlights being the 'Back to the Future' Delorean and the Overlook Hotel from 'The Shining'. There is enough wit and intrigue in the writing and the story has many instances where it is fun and laden in thrills, the chase scenes especially. Particularly standing out is the one switching between real world and the Oasis. Spielberg delivers on the spectacle, the world building and the visual style.

Although not complex or subtle, the characters are engaging enough. Olivia Cooke is very appealing and shares charming chemistry with Tye Sheridan. Simon Pegg is great fun, while Ben Mendelssohn has a whale of a time as the villain and Mark Rylance beautifully and terrifically provides the emotion and soul that is not quite there elsewhere.

However, the story does tend to be lacking. There is just too little structurally in a very long, too long even, running time, no matter how many cultural references there are. With trying to take on a lot, character depth and development are sacrificed in favour of spectacle and nostalgia. Luckily those are done well, but one does wish that the characters were more interesting with the lead character in particular not having much growth.

This does affect somewhat Tye Sheridan's performance, shining in the chemistry with Cooke but elsewhere it's somewhat bland and cold. The script does have wit and intrigue but it can also be exposition heavy, and it is here where the writing feels rambling, unnatural and clumsy. There are aspects of Spielberg's directing that comes over well.

Unfortunately, what doesn't is the complete command of the material and giving the film enough soul and emotion (Rylance cannot bring those qualities out all on his own, no matter how well he did them). Some of the messaging is heavy-handed and the finale is far too overly-sentimental and where the sketchiness of the character development and overall depth is most betrayed.

Overall, diverting and entertaining enough but was expecting more. 6/10 Bethany Cox

I've noticed quite a few reviews here from book fans complaining that the movie wasn't true to the novel. As a fan of the book, let me just say that's true but it's fine. The overarching story is the same. The fact of the matter is with a nearly 400 page novel packed full of pop culture references, some things would have to be cut to make it onto the big screen. Partially it's an issue of length. Partially it's just the reality that the planets were never going to fully align to allow use of many of the properties from the novel. Yes, I loved the 2112, WarGames, D&D, Joust, et al references from the novel as much as the next person, but still I felt that Spielberg captured the wonder and fun and the story of the novel accurately, even if he did so using different references. The are actually some things I even think were an improvement from the book, especially the way they re-imagined I-R0k. The bottom line is, if you're a book reader, just take this movie for what it is, an alternate version of the story, written by the same person who wrote the novel.