Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Apr 17, 2018
Entertaining film - but the book was better
I loved the book.
When that phrase is uttered, it doesn't necessarily mean that the film has a strike going against it. For every film that "the book was better" (MISS PEREGRINE and THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN, for instance), I can also point to films where they "did justice to the book" (like THE MARTIAN and the recent version of IT).
So...it was with some trepidation - and some excitement - that I checked into the virtual world of the Oasis and caught READY PLAYER ONE. Most of my excitement was because I was going see this Steven Spielberg opus on the big screen in 70mm. I was ready for an immersive, stunningly visual film experience.
And...I wasn't disappointed.
Set in a not-too-distant-future, dystopian world (is there any other?), READY PLAYER ONE is part WILLIE WONKA and part THE MATRIX. A brilliant game designer has died and has littered his virtual world - a world where most of the people on planet Earth go to escape the poverty and depravity of the "real world" - with clues and an "Easter Egg" (literally). The first one to find the hidden Easter Egg gains ownership of the Oasis. 5 years later, no one has found anything and it has turned into a battle between the evil Corporate conglomerate IOI that wants to commercialize the Oasis and the "gunters" (Grail hunters) that want to keep the Oasis "pure".
So, into this world, Spielberg brings us - and succeeds for the most part. The most stunning part of this film - and the reason I wanted to see this on the big screen and in 70mm - is that 80% of it takes place in the Oasis, the virtual reality world. The scenery, imagery and detail of this world are a marvel to behold. Since it is a virtual world, you can throw away the laws of physics - and that is a fun aspect of things (especially when you forget that your are in a virtual, and not a real, world).
The real fun of this story (both in the book and in the movie) is that most of the Oasis is filled with homages to 1980's Pop Culture (with some 60's, 70's and 90's thrown in), so you are treated to many fun "cameo" images on the screen (like the DeLorean from BACK TO THE FUTURE) - even if they are in the background. I won't give much away, but in one scene I spotted the "open the pod bay doors, HAL" pod from 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY, just hanging out in the background without anyone referring to it. If you are any kind of pop culture "nerd" you will be in hog heaven with this aspect of the movie.
And that's a good thing because we spend, as I said, 80% of our time in this film in this virtual world - and it is well worth the trip. The other 20% is spent in the "real world" and the visuals, the imagery and, sadly, the characters are just not as exciting or interesting.
Take, for example, our 5 heroes - the "High Five" gunters. In the Oasis, their avatars are interesting to look at and to spend time with. Outside of the Oasis, the 5 actors who inhabit these characters are - to be honest - somewhat boring and lacking in screen presence and charisma.
I blame most of the lack of charisma on Spielberg, who - obviously - spent most of his attention (rightfully so) on the special effects and creating the world of the Oasis. He left the actors to "do their thing" and these 5 kids (or maybe I should say "young adults") just don't have the chops to pull it off. Someone who does - Ben Mendehlson as the Corporation's head and the main villain of this piece - eats scenery like it is snack chips. The only thing he didn't do in this film is twirl his mustache and tie the female lead to the train tracks. Add to that performance the usually obnoxious TJ Miller, as the main henchman who is up to his usual, obnoxious self here. I could have used a lot less of both of these characters.
What I could have used a lot more of is the brilliant Mark Rylance - superbly underplaying his role as the game's chief designer, who pops up in virtual flashbacks and commands the screen whenever he is on. His partner is played by the usually reliable Simon Pegg, who was "fine", but - if I'm being honest - I think is miscast in this film.
Is it a good film? I'd have to say yes - I enjoyed myself very much - and you will too. I did, though, walk out thinking about what a missed opportunity it was. The film could have been better.
The book, certainly, was better.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
When that phrase is uttered, it doesn't necessarily mean that the film has a strike going against it. For every film that "the book was better" (MISS PEREGRINE and THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN, for instance), I can also point to films where they "did justice to the book" (like THE MARTIAN and the recent version of IT).
So...it was with some trepidation - and some excitement - that I checked into the virtual world of the Oasis and caught READY PLAYER ONE. Most of my excitement was because I was going see this Steven Spielberg opus on the big screen in 70mm. I was ready for an immersive, stunningly visual film experience.
And...I wasn't disappointed.
Set in a not-too-distant-future, dystopian world (is there any other?), READY PLAYER ONE is part WILLIE WONKA and part THE MATRIX. A brilliant game designer has died and has littered his virtual world - a world where most of the people on planet Earth go to escape the poverty and depravity of the "real world" - with clues and an "Easter Egg" (literally). The first one to find the hidden Easter Egg gains ownership of the Oasis. 5 years later, no one has found anything and it has turned into a battle between the evil Corporate conglomerate IOI that wants to commercialize the Oasis and the "gunters" (Grail hunters) that want to keep the Oasis "pure".
So, into this world, Spielberg brings us - and succeeds for the most part. The most stunning part of this film - and the reason I wanted to see this on the big screen and in 70mm - is that 80% of it takes place in the Oasis, the virtual reality world. The scenery, imagery and detail of this world are a marvel to behold. Since it is a virtual world, you can throw away the laws of physics - and that is a fun aspect of things (especially when you forget that your are in a virtual, and not a real, world).
The real fun of this story (both in the book and in the movie) is that most of the Oasis is filled with homages to 1980's Pop Culture (with some 60's, 70's and 90's thrown in), so you are treated to many fun "cameo" images on the screen (like the DeLorean from BACK TO THE FUTURE) - even if they are in the background. I won't give much away, but in one scene I spotted the "open the pod bay doors, HAL" pod from 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY, just hanging out in the background without anyone referring to it. If you are any kind of pop culture "nerd" you will be in hog heaven with this aspect of the movie.
And that's a good thing because we spend, as I said, 80% of our time in this film in this virtual world - and it is well worth the trip. The other 20% is spent in the "real world" and the visuals, the imagery and, sadly, the characters are just not as exciting or interesting.
Take, for example, our 5 heroes - the "High Five" gunters. In the Oasis, their avatars are interesting to look at and to spend time with. Outside of the Oasis, the 5 actors who inhabit these characters are - to be honest - somewhat boring and lacking in screen presence and charisma.
I blame most of the lack of charisma on Spielberg, who - obviously - spent most of his attention (rightfully so) on the special effects and creating the world of the Oasis. He left the actors to "do their thing" and these 5 kids (or maybe I should say "young adults") just don't have the chops to pull it off. Someone who does - Ben Mendehlson as the Corporation's head and the main villain of this piece - eats scenery like it is snack chips. The only thing he didn't do in this film is twirl his mustache and tie the female lead to the train tracks. Add to that performance the usually obnoxious TJ Miller, as the main henchman who is up to his usual, obnoxious self here. I could have used a lot less of both of these characters.
What I could have used a lot more of is the brilliant Mark Rylance - superbly underplaying his role as the game's chief designer, who pops up in virtual flashbacks and commands the screen whenever he is on. His partner is played by the usually reliable Simon Pegg, who was "fine", but - if I'm being honest - I think is miscast in this film.
Is it a good film? I'd have to say yes - I enjoyed myself very much - and you will too. I did, though, walk out thinking about what a missed opportunity it was. The film could have been better.
The book, certainly, was better.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019 (Updated Jun 18, 2019)
Steven Spielberg's (Mostly) Triumphant Return to Sci-Fi
If we’re being honest here, writer to reader, I never got around to reading Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One novel despite the fact that it’s sitting on a bookshelf less than ten feet from me as I type this. It turned out not to matter that much since Steven Spielberg took liberties with the source material. In the film, a virtual video game reality known as the OASIS is where everyone spends their time in the year 2045. Our main character Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan) lives in, “The Stacks,” which is basically just a bunch of mobile homes stacked on top of each other. The coin collected in the OASIS as well as purchases within the game have evolved into an individual's life savings in the real world. Everyone wants to escape their crappy life and the OASIS is now all that matters.
James Halliday (Mark Rylance), creator of the OASIS, dies suddenly but he leaves behind a treasure hunt for three keys hidden within the depths of the OASIS with the main prize being an Easter egg that would allow the winner to have complete control over the entirety of the OASIS. Wade (as his avatar Parzival) intends to win Halliday’s challenge to get out of The Stacks and adopts the title of Gunter (egg hunter) along with his friends Aech (Lena Waithe), Art3mis (Olivia Cooke), and brothers Daito (Win Morisaki) and Sho (Philip Zhao) who become known together as the, “HIgh Five,” but a video game conglomerate known as Innovative Online Industries or IOI spends all of their time and money attempting to find the secrets Halliday has hidden. IOI consists of an army known as the Sixers, which are players who owe large debts to the OASIS. CEO of IOI Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn) intends to take the free-to-use OASIS and transform it into a monetized monopoly.
The storyline of Spielberg’s Ready Player One reminds me of the 19th episode of season two of Regular Show entitled, “High Score.” In that episode, Mordecai and Rigby attempt to beat the world record on a video game with record holder Garrett Bobby Ferguson (GBF or Giant Bearded Face). Ready Player One kind of expands on that concept and throws in a ton of nostalgic movie references while being set in the future. The weird thing is that those recycled moments that call back to the movies of yesteryear are the highlights of Ready Player One while the rest of the film suffers from Spielberg’s usual shortcomings.
I haven’t enjoyed a Steven Spielberg film since 2011’s The Adventures of Tintin. That combined with the trailer coming off as less than impressive and poster art from the marketing campaign (the main poster illustrated by Drew Struzan is amazing) that seemed to rely on generic face swapping via Photoshop on well-known movie posters had me really underwhelmed for the film overall. The film itself also suffers from corny dialogue, tender and romantic moments feeling force fed and overwhelming, and head-scratching sequences that leave you wondering why they needed to be included in the first place (the whole dance club/second challenge scene, for starters).
However, what the science fiction adventure gets right is the reason why you go to the movies. Spielberg along with cinematographer and frequent collaborator Janusz Kaminski know how to smoothly and effectively capture dynamic shots with a camera. When we first see Wade in The Stacks, he slides down a series of ropes and poles passing by and through various homes and junkyard cars that no longer run all while showcasing how plugged into a false reality civilization has become. The first race sequence of the film is also extraordinary with its fast pace and hectic action that is fairly easy to digest due to the sleek camera work. There’s a fairly lengthy segment devoted to a beloved horror film that is legitimately fantastic since it is not only a throwback to that original film, but it’s also injected with new thrilling terrors that you won’t see coming. Most battle sequences in the film with large ensembles are impressive for all of the obvious reasons; solid special effects, mass number of characters on the screen, a delicious dose of destruction, and most of all a countless series of references to movies, video games, and cartoons that you probably love. Witnessing what characters will pop up, when, and how they’ll be utilized is half of what makes Ready Player One so fun; it’s like a big budget version of South Park’s Imaginationland.
You either love or hate what Steven Spielberg has accomplished as a filmmaker, but it’s difficult not to admit that Ready Player One is a hell of a lot of fun even if you have some issues with the film. Spielberg has this cliche quality to him that is completely overbearing at times and he isn’t able to escape that aspect of his filmmaking with Ready Player One, but there’s enough of an entertaining and nostalgic value combined with not knowing who’s going to pop up next and some incredible cinematography highlighted by fluid yet flashy special effects resulting in a film that will be exciting and fun for anyone who was ever or still is a rabid gamer or movie lover. Spielberg has crafted a surefire crowd-pleaser that is basically a two and a half hour sentimental plunge directly into your childhood.
James Halliday (Mark Rylance), creator of the OASIS, dies suddenly but he leaves behind a treasure hunt for three keys hidden within the depths of the OASIS with the main prize being an Easter egg that would allow the winner to have complete control over the entirety of the OASIS. Wade (as his avatar Parzival) intends to win Halliday’s challenge to get out of The Stacks and adopts the title of Gunter (egg hunter) along with his friends Aech (Lena Waithe), Art3mis (Olivia Cooke), and brothers Daito (Win Morisaki) and Sho (Philip Zhao) who become known together as the, “HIgh Five,” but a video game conglomerate known as Innovative Online Industries or IOI spends all of their time and money attempting to find the secrets Halliday has hidden. IOI consists of an army known as the Sixers, which are players who owe large debts to the OASIS. CEO of IOI Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn) intends to take the free-to-use OASIS and transform it into a monetized monopoly.
The storyline of Spielberg’s Ready Player One reminds me of the 19th episode of season two of Regular Show entitled, “High Score.” In that episode, Mordecai and Rigby attempt to beat the world record on a video game with record holder Garrett Bobby Ferguson (GBF or Giant Bearded Face). Ready Player One kind of expands on that concept and throws in a ton of nostalgic movie references while being set in the future. The weird thing is that those recycled moments that call back to the movies of yesteryear are the highlights of Ready Player One while the rest of the film suffers from Spielberg’s usual shortcomings.
I haven’t enjoyed a Steven Spielberg film since 2011’s The Adventures of Tintin. That combined with the trailer coming off as less than impressive and poster art from the marketing campaign (the main poster illustrated by Drew Struzan is amazing) that seemed to rely on generic face swapping via Photoshop on well-known movie posters had me really underwhelmed for the film overall. The film itself also suffers from corny dialogue, tender and romantic moments feeling force fed and overwhelming, and head-scratching sequences that leave you wondering why they needed to be included in the first place (the whole dance club/second challenge scene, for starters).
However, what the science fiction adventure gets right is the reason why you go to the movies. Spielberg along with cinematographer and frequent collaborator Janusz Kaminski know how to smoothly and effectively capture dynamic shots with a camera. When we first see Wade in The Stacks, he slides down a series of ropes and poles passing by and through various homes and junkyard cars that no longer run all while showcasing how plugged into a false reality civilization has become. The first race sequence of the film is also extraordinary with its fast pace and hectic action that is fairly easy to digest due to the sleek camera work. There’s a fairly lengthy segment devoted to a beloved horror film that is legitimately fantastic since it is not only a throwback to that original film, but it’s also injected with new thrilling terrors that you won’t see coming. Most battle sequences in the film with large ensembles are impressive for all of the obvious reasons; solid special effects, mass number of characters on the screen, a delicious dose of destruction, and most of all a countless series of references to movies, video games, and cartoons that you probably love. Witnessing what characters will pop up, when, and how they’ll be utilized is half of what makes Ready Player One so fun; it’s like a big budget version of South Park’s Imaginationland.
You either love or hate what Steven Spielberg has accomplished as a filmmaker, but it’s difficult not to admit that Ready Player One is a hell of a lot of fun even if you have some issues with the film. Spielberg has this cliche quality to him that is completely overbearing at times and he isn’t able to escape that aspect of his filmmaking with Ready Player One, but there’s enough of an entertaining and nostalgic value combined with not knowing who’s going to pop up next and some incredible cinematography highlighted by fluid yet flashy special effects resulting in a film that will be exciting and fun for anyone who was ever or still is a rabid gamer or movie lover. Spielberg has crafted a surefire crowd-pleaser that is basically a two and a half hour sentimental plunge directly into your childhood.
FearlessLover (27 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 31, 2017
Stunning cinea
It' s 1940, 400,000 allied troops are cornered and cut off on the beaches of Dunkirk; with the enemy closing in, and no cover or defence, they await annihilation or a miracle. We experience the moment as the characters do, without unnecessary exposition or dialogue! This proves quite the departure for Nolan; there is a lot here that owes more to silent cinema than anything else, but his images often say all that needs to be said.
An opening frame invites us to join a group of soldiers. Next, the loudest onslaught of gunfire kicks the film into another gear. We are given as much pause for thought as the soldiers we follow. We run with Tommy, played here by a Fionn Whitehead, and like him, we are aware of comrades falling dead next to us, but it is all panic and no time; we will lament their loss later. Set to the ticking of a watch, we feel Tommy's heart pounding with ours, and we know the tone for this audacious movie has been set.
We see the event from different perspectives and from within different time frames. Right now, not many directors can build momentum like Nolan. The jumping to and from different characters' point of view, the corkscrewing impression of the editing, events echoed and mirrored by Hans Zimmer's Shepherd's Tones and persistent, all enveloping score, acting at times more like sound design than music; it all results in a constant rise in tension, to the point of almost being exhaustive.
This said, the editing also serves another purpose. The "Miracle of Dunkirk" is a grand story, with every soldier, every pilot, and every civilian having their own point of view. Nolan wants us to build up an overall picture of the event purely through subjective experience, so of course we spend a tiring week with the terrified boys. Of course we spend a desperate day with a fisherman as he and his familial crew sail their way into action. Lastly, given the fuel constraints of the RAF, whose decisions had to be immediate and impulsive, always a choice between defending the beach or getting home, why would we spend any more that an edge-of-your-seat, quickly-cut hour in the cockpit of a Spitfire, as they do their duty and enter into dogfights to keep the German aircraft at bay? Each timeline is contracted or dilated to give everybody equal measure and importance, whilst staying true to and very much in their situation. Yes, this means we're kept on our toes; we have moments of confusion as timelines cross over and we see the same thing happening from another point of view, but as we head into the finale, as well as the aforementioned tension and release (which is just exciting cinema), we also get to see how, despite very different perspectives, everyone was working together, and how sacrifice and struggle for duty were par for the course for all involved, whether other people knew it or not. It is important that we the audience recognise this bigger picture, and as everything clicks together in an emotive final convergence of efforts, we not only see the justification for the techniques adopted, but struggle to imagine the story told another way. That is, at least, without going down a standard route, with objective storytelling employed.
A proper review not being complete without comment on the elephant in the room, it must be said that Harry Styles does not stand out like the proverbial sore thumb at all. Frankly, he carries his scenes with aplomb, and surely, following the Heath Ledger lesson, and now this, it is time we learned that, maybe, Christopher Nolan just knows what he's doing better that we do? As to the other big names, there are moments from that remain with me so long after having seen it: Kenneth Brannagh and Mark Rylance can say so much with so little, their faces and gestures doing the heavy lifting to deliver a lot of the human emotion, and it would appear Tom Hardy has Oscar-worthy eyes! You need see nothing more through the course of his drama to have a complete sense of the type of man his Farrier is. We talk about great acting and achieving realism through imagination, but with the knowledge that Nolan actually took everyone to Dunkirk, sank real ships, sailed real ships, flew real Spitfires overhead, employed real explosions on the beach, and even rejected green screen and CGI in favour of cardboard cut-outs, it seems imagination wasn't too necessary for these already consummate actors.
Nolan's principle fan base will be well prepared for what they get; but with his insistence on holding back from the audience any perspective not afforded his characters, ala 'Memento', some knowledge of the "Miracle Of Dunkirk" might put the more casual viewer in better stead. Regardless of which camp you fall into, or indeed of whether or not the movie does it for you, certain things are for sure: With no melodrama or cheese, and no superfluous fluff or emotional subterfuge, 'Dunkirk' is a purely experiential movie, a technical marvel of a war film unlike any other I can name. It also stands as a beacon in Nolan's career, characterised by his desire to cultivate an audience willing to keep up with him. And perhaps most importantly, this is a key moment in world history that is often overlooked; a disaster averted which, had it not been, would have seen the history books written very differently. That this event has been marshalled by a confident and sincere director, who has surely by now cemented his name alongside those of his own heroes, is reason enough to see 'Dunkirk'.
An opening frame invites us to join a group of soldiers. Next, the loudest onslaught of gunfire kicks the film into another gear. We are given as much pause for thought as the soldiers we follow. We run with Tommy, played here by a Fionn Whitehead, and like him, we are aware of comrades falling dead next to us, but it is all panic and no time; we will lament their loss later. Set to the ticking of a watch, we feel Tommy's heart pounding with ours, and we know the tone for this audacious movie has been set.
We see the event from different perspectives and from within different time frames. Right now, not many directors can build momentum like Nolan. The jumping to and from different characters' point of view, the corkscrewing impression of the editing, events echoed and mirrored by Hans Zimmer's Shepherd's Tones and persistent, all enveloping score, acting at times more like sound design than music; it all results in a constant rise in tension, to the point of almost being exhaustive.
This said, the editing also serves another purpose. The "Miracle of Dunkirk" is a grand story, with every soldier, every pilot, and every civilian having their own point of view. Nolan wants us to build up an overall picture of the event purely through subjective experience, so of course we spend a tiring week with the terrified boys. Of course we spend a desperate day with a fisherman as he and his familial crew sail their way into action. Lastly, given the fuel constraints of the RAF, whose decisions had to be immediate and impulsive, always a choice between defending the beach or getting home, why would we spend any more that an edge-of-your-seat, quickly-cut hour in the cockpit of a Spitfire, as they do their duty and enter into dogfights to keep the German aircraft at bay? Each timeline is contracted or dilated to give everybody equal measure and importance, whilst staying true to and very much in their situation. Yes, this means we're kept on our toes; we have moments of confusion as timelines cross over and we see the same thing happening from another point of view, but as we head into the finale, as well as the aforementioned tension and release (which is just exciting cinema), we also get to see how, despite very different perspectives, everyone was working together, and how sacrifice and struggle for duty were par for the course for all involved, whether other people knew it or not. It is important that we the audience recognise this bigger picture, and as everything clicks together in an emotive final convergence of efforts, we not only see the justification for the techniques adopted, but struggle to imagine the story told another way. That is, at least, without going down a standard route, with objective storytelling employed.
A proper review not being complete without comment on the elephant in the room, it must be said that Harry Styles does not stand out like the proverbial sore thumb at all. Frankly, he carries his scenes with aplomb, and surely, following the Heath Ledger lesson, and now this, it is time we learned that, maybe, Christopher Nolan just knows what he's doing better that we do? As to the other big names, there are moments from that remain with me so long after having seen it: Kenneth Brannagh and Mark Rylance can say so much with so little, their faces and gestures doing the heavy lifting to deliver a lot of the human emotion, and it would appear Tom Hardy has Oscar-worthy eyes! You need see nothing more through the course of his drama to have a complete sense of the type of man his Farrier is. We talk about great acting and achieving realism through imagination, but with the knowledge that Nolan actually took everyone to Dunkirk, sank real ships, sailed real ships, flew real Spitfires overhead, employed real explosions on the beach, and even rejected green screen and CGI in favour of cardboard cut-outs, it seems imagination wasn't too necessary for these already consummate actors.
Nolan's principle fan base will be well prepared for what they get; but with his insistence on holding back from the audience any perspective not afforded his characters, ala 'Memento', some knowledge of the "Miracle Of Dunkirk" might put the more casual viewer in better stead. Regardless of which camp you fall into, or indeed of whether or not the movie does it for you, certain things are for sure: With no melodrama or cheese, and no superfluous fluff or emotional subterfuge, 'Dunkirk' is a purely experiential movie, a technical marvel of a war film unlike any other I can name. It also stands as a beacon in Nolan's career, characterised by his desire to cultivate an audience willing to keep up with him. And perhaps most importantly, this is a key moment in world history that is often overlooked; a disaster averted which, had it not been, would have seen the history books written very differently. That this event has been marshalled by a confident and sincere director, who has surely by now cemented his name alongside those of his own heroes, is reason enough to see 'Dunkirk'.