User Reviews (1,737)

Add a Review

  • 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.
  • I honestly didn't think that Spielberg had another crowd-pleasing actioner left in him. For the last decade or so his focus has been on more realistic period dramas and character pieces. His attempts at grand action spectacle (the underrated Tintin aside) were underwhelming. But who knew he had this left in him?

    This film is an absolute blast. It seamlessly combines reality and animation into one big, exciting adventure. I'm still not completely sure how it pulled it off. I was absolutely amazed at how seamlessly the film merged animation with reality (I'd say only perhaps 1/3 of the film takes place in the "real" world) and gave the obviously digital environments emotional and kinetic weight. That's a very hard balance to pull off and this movie doesn't even raise a sweat. In fact, some of the best scenes revolve around the absurd mix of online and real existence. Pretty much every scene in Sorrento's soulless corporate HQ is a riot because of the seriousness with which they take their involvement in this silly online world, made even more ridiculous by the motions they all make in their VR suits as they react to unseen perils like well-dressed mimes.

    I have no doubt that this film will receive a lot of flak for its reliance on pop culture artifacts. And there's some truth to the criticism. The best scene in the movie is when one of the characters waits in an almost meditative trance during the fight scene until he cries out "form of a gundam" in Japanese and awesomeness ensues. Would this scene work as well if it hadn't been a recognizable brand? No question it wouldn't. And that goes for an infinite array of references, from the Iron Giant to the Delorean to an absolutely perfect Overlook Hotel to Chucky ("Oh God, it's f*%@ing Chucky" has got to be the second greatest line in the movie).

    But to say that this is nothing but leaching off others' success is unfair. The references are there for a reason. This is a Geek movie, and for geeks this sort of referencing is how they approach the universe. It'd seem odd if there were no open pop culture references in a free-for-all online world. More to the point, the film has a lot to say about online culture and the isolating effect it has on people. The film isn't all pretty colors and film references, it deals with issues like how real the connections we form online actually are, the ever-decreasing distance between fantasy and reality, the importance of community involvement, and all sorts of identity issues that arise when we can hide behind avatars. Not that I'd call the film overly deep or anything, but it's certainly more than just a collection of pop culture references thrown together with minimal plot.

    The characters are all good fun. Parzival and his mate Aech are just like a lot of friends I know online, although Parzival's shallowness gives him a good obstacle to overcome. Art3mis is a bit more driven and has goals that take her further than just being the best at a video game. Parzival has a major cyber-crush on her, which is something of a problem. Daito and Shoto are somewhat more distant online rivals. All of them have great moments, but most come after their true selves get revealed around 2/3 of the way through the film. Some of them are very surprising (don't look at the cast list) and they are all funny together. Krennic's director Sorrento is a great villain. He's so full of himself and contemptuous that his appearance in-game as a muscular brute in a business suit dealing with mystical things he cares nothing about is a blast. And when he's cornered he can be hilariously practical. His online minion i-R0k is also priceless, the sort of super badass dude living in his mom's basement that you can only find in video games. Mark Rylance steals every scene he's in as the vaguely Wozniakian creator of the game. He's a rather sad figure, one who could never handle reality with such aplomb as he does the world he designed. I was surprsed to see Simon Pegg as his co-founder, a somewhat wasted role but nicel different from his more usual fare.

    And I really really didn't think Spielberg could pull this off. It's hard to write a love letter to your favorite films when you're the creator rather than consumer. I'd have been more comfortable with some younger director who grew up on these films. I mean, his works aside I can't recall Spielberg ever displaying much interest in video games or Japanese pop culture (post-Kurosawa at least). Yet this film depends on its immense love of such elements. Perhaps a lot of it comes from the screenplay by the novel's author and Kal Penn, two people eminently qualified to pull this off. But it could never have succeeded without the passion of the maestro himself, and succeed it does. I went in with low expectations and had an absolute blast. But more importantly: I understood that reference.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • I personally did not read the book prior to watching this movie. I did not go into the theater with preconceived ideas or expectations. With that being said, I was not disappointed at all. Most of the negative reviews this movie is getting is from raging nerds who say it's not as good as the book (are they ever)?) This is a great and entertaining movie, I absolutely recommend ignoring the raging nerds and go watch it.
  • 'Ready Player One (2018)' should have been called 'The Pop-Culture Movie', since it is so chock-full of blatant references and call-backs to media, from the eighties and nineties in particular. It seems as though this over-reliance on pre-existing material, along with its recognition and nostalgic value, is the driving force behind most of the narrative, being that the flick itself doesn't capture the spirit of the films it intends to ape, and so often calls out by name to cringe-worthy results, but instead shoves in reference after soulless reference in a vapid attempt to prey on its audience's ability to recognise things they've seen before. This 'nostalgia vampirism' is meant to evoke memories of better films and have those emotions transposed onto this one, though it only succeeds in the former and reminds you how much you'd rather watch any of those than this. It's evocative of the larger issues that plague the flick, those being that it doesn't have any real stakes or ability to engage on its own and also treats its audience as rather dumb and forces expository dialogue down their throats at every opportunity. The on-the-nose exposition was honesty some of the most intense and grating I'd experienced in some time. The feature did have some nice visual effects and I cared about the digital 'avatars' as much as any of their real-world counter-parts, though only to a certain degree, but so much was happening that it was hard to register at times due to the odd colour palette and heavily contrasting character designs. It didn't have a cohesive aesthetic, to say the least. It did have a good score by Alan Silvestri and some of its allegorical undertones certainly ring true. I honestly wasn't entertained, though, despite all the visual splendour and things that should appeal directly to me, and that really tells you all you need to know. For all the throw-away movie references, where was the fun of 'Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981)'? Where was the wonder of 'E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)', the suspense of 'Jaws (1975)' or the excitement of 'Jurassic Park (1993)'? In other words, where was Spielberg? 4/10
  • I went to see this movie with my boyfriend. I had read the book and he hadn't.

    Let me start with saying to all those people who say that people who've read the books are whining that my boyfriend didn't like the movie whatsoever. Yes there are a couple of cool scenes. Yes there are some funny jokes. Yes the CGI looks amazing.

    But oh my lord what happened?

    What happened to all the smart dialogue and puzzle solving? What happened to the cool and funny references? And oh my god what happened to the plot?

    I'm aware that it can be difficult to transfer a book to a movie but come on. Nothing besides the characters names were similar to the book. The plot is very Hollywood and stiff.

    It's nothing you haven't seen before. Hollywood unfortunately got the best of this one.
  • This film actually explored the new frontier of the most popular media's unified world.

    Spielberg is truly revolutionary in terms of innovation of story telling. He unified the cartoon, online game, attraction of amusement park and live action film into this cutting edge feature film.

    The story is simple enough that When the creator of a virtual reality world called the OASIS dies, he releases a video in which he challenges all OASIS users to find his Easter Egg, which will give the finder his fortune.

    Avatars are unique and everyone can be idealised even though you are not confident of your looks. I was impressed with Spielberg's homage to the true Japanese international star Toshiro Mifune.

    Although Daito is played by the ordinary TV talent Win Morisaki who belongs to the notorious talent agency Stardust Promotion Group, the avatar and its name Toshiro are something made me quite familiar with. Only the post WW 2 era could make Mifune such a decent personality.

    If these real characters of avatars are more ordinary, it is more appreciated and close to the real world's audiences.

    In this film, we can almost see all major genres and entertainment devices. Such as Godzilla, King Kong, The Shining, Gundom, Robocop and Alien etc. I know there are only US-Japan characters in this film due to its main targeted film market is US-Japan. As Hegel said, this is a synthesis of cinematic story telling. Steven Spielberg was and still is the most advanced and authoritative film director.

    I cannot imagine Taiwanese governmental and political creation of Ang Lee stuff is something worth than Spielberg's true Hollywood values. Japanese audiences don't even recognise who Ang Lee is even after Taiwanese government and Chinese Nationalist Party helped to purchase the awards from the world. He cannot do any Hollywood blockbuster and its basic quality without Hollywood crew and casts. He should make films under pure local Taiwanese film conditions with pure local crew and casts. That appears his true quality. And Lee did not even improve or solve any serious industrial issues for local film workers.

    Anyway we don't enjoy any Ang Lee stuff no matter it is Made in Taiwan or Made in USA until today however Spielberg is our legend. We love his films! Arrogant Ang Lee brother have actual racial bias against Japanese people.

    Japanese people love Spielberg's films as true Hollywood films! However Japanese still don't enjoy any Ang Lee stuff as something worth to see.

    We actually see this film as cutting edge film work at present.
  • I wanted to give this movie 4.5 stars but sadly that isn't possible so I am rounding down.

    When I first heard news of the synopsis of the movie being leaked and that it was vastly different from the book I hoped they fixed some of the issues the book had. Because even though the book is fun, for it being a book focused on people that actually lived through the 80's it lacks serious depth. I graces the hard issues but never really tackles them (what does being alive mean? Online vs Offline live? What is romance?).

    Going into this movie I had hoped they would touch on some of these issues but right from the start things go wrong. It is easy to harp on this movie for not following the book, but at best 2% of the book can be found in this movie. Wades origin story is off. All the challenges have been altered. All he hard hitting moments of sacrifice and taking risks removed. What you are left with is a watered down "spectacle movie" that doesn't make much sense.

    Aside from that most of the actual 80's references have been cut. Instead we get pop-culture references (Halo, Gears of War, Track mania, Golden EYE). I can sort of understand why, because they wanted to make it PG13 and the PG13 wouldn't get text based games and 80's references, but it takes away from the entire identity of the book.

    The acting is alright although I can't help but feel they completely wasted Simon Pegg's talent. It actually took me a while to even notice he is in the movie all together. All he is is a bland English voice over. A real shame as he normally adds a lot of character to his characters.

    Visually the movie is fine. The world outside the Oasis mostly follows the books. The world inside the Oasis is crisp and well rendered. Animations are fluid and facial animations are spot on. This is one of those movies where the 3D is completely tagged on and didn't add anything to the experience however.

    Overall I can't praise this movie. It's few clever changes are not enough to save it from mediocrity and the few nostalgia moments will hardly excite the real "nerd". Had they follow the book this movie would have been, like the book, a solid 7/10. As it is now I can't give it above a 4.5/10 in good conscience.
  • I think Spielberg's lost his way recently. This move is absolutely empty without the pop culture references it reaps upon, without an ounce of subtlety no less (If I want to watch The Shining, I'll watch The Shining. If Spielberg really wanted a highlights reel of The Shining pasted onto his movie, he should be learning to have some restraint). Hollow story, no characters, no emotion, terrible CGI that is reminiscent of current pre-rendered cutscenes (which is pretty accurate but extremely lazy. It would've been nice to see some effort and creativity), hazy and exhausting action sequences, and a hackneyed message about being a gamer and how electronics are bad and should be used in moderation. It's basically a spiritual successor to The Emoji Movie.
  • 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.
  • xx-4351430 March 2018
    Do you like the 80's? Do you like video games? Do you like being pandered to until you want to vomit? Well this would be the movie for you. This movie is less of a movie and more of review of all pop culture of the last three decades. One of the most blaring issues is the onslaught of huge plot holes that are never addressed to any extent. For example, despite the fact that this virtual environment has people playing from all over the world, it just so happens that all prominent characters are located in the same area. It also just so happens that, despite the characters not knowing the other players past their online avatars, immediately recognize each other in the real world. Trust me when I say there are much larger more absurd examples but they contain spoilers so I will refrain from mentioning them. Speaking of characters, the development of each one is a two dimensional paper cutout that does not go beyond "The protagonist is good", "The bad man is bad", and "The girl is a girl". There is no example of any earnest emotion a character displays or lasting impact that a character must persevere through, even when life altering events occur. This movie focuses more on throwing as many pop culture references on screen as it can than it does on presenting the plot effectively or developing any of its characters. I am disappoint.
  • tru122127 May 2018
    Best movie I've seen in a couple years!, If you are nostalgic like me this is the movie for you!!!!
  • Watched this yesterday and I find myself confused at the end, the story is about some people fighting to save the virtual world, but the message of the story is about how the virtual world makes you miss the real world.

    I find it hard to agree to the whole storyline, such a made up situation, not really invested with the backstory of oasis at all and yet we were force to follow along.

    The guy situation with his aunt and boyfriend is weird, no resolution from there too. It's a bad movie to watch because you don't find the story match the message it tried to leave behind.
  • Of all the Spielberg films of recent years - and possibly with the exception of "The BFG" - this was the film whose trailer disconcerted me the most. It really looked dire: CGI over heart; gimmicks over substance. I was right about 'The BFG", one of my least favourite Spielberg flicks. I was definitely wrong about "Ready Player One": it's a blast.

    The film is fun in continually throwing surprises at you, including those actors not included in the trailer and only on small print on the poster. So I won't spoil that here for you (you can of course look them up on imdb if you want to: but I suggest you try to see this one 'cold').

    It's 2044, and the majority of the population have taken the next logical step of video gaming and virtual reality and retreated into their own headsets, living out their lives primarily as avatars within the fanciful landscapes of "The Oasis". You can "be" anyone and (subject to gaining the necessary credits) "do" anything there.

    The Oasis was the brainchild of a (Steve Wozniak-like) genius called James Halliday (played in enormous style by "Actor R") and supported by his (Steve Jobs-like) business partner Ogden Morrow ("Actor P"). The two had a big falling out leaving Halliday in total control of the Oasis. But he died, and his dying "game" was to devise a devious competition that left a trail of three virtual keys in the Oasis leading to an 'easter egg': which if found would provide the finder with total ownership of the Oasis and the trillions of dollars that it is worth.

    But the game is not only played by amateur "gunters" (egg-hunters) like our hero Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan, "X-Men: Apocalypse") and his in-Oasis flirting partner Samantha (Olivia Cooke, "Me and Earl and the Dying Girl"); there are big corporate game-hunters involved like IoI (that's eye-oh-eye, not one-oh-one as I assumed from the trailer) who fill warehouses with combinations of nerd-consultants and professional game players to try to find the keys before anyone else. Which hardly seems fair does it? Ruthless boss Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn, "Rogue One") and his tough-as-nails hench-woman F'Nale Zandor (Hannah John-Kamen, "Tomb Raider") really couldn't give a toss!

    What follows is two-hours of high-octane game-play and eye-popping 3D (it is good in 3D by the way) that melds a baseline of "Avatar" with soup├žons of "Tron", "Minority Report" and Dan Brown novels. But its a blend that works.

    I was afraid as I said that CGI would squash flat any hope of character development and story, and - yes - to be sure this is 'suppressed' a bit. You never get to really know many of the 'pack' members to any great level other than Wade and Samantha. And exactly what drives the corporate protagonists, other than "corporate greed", is not particularly clear. What gives the film heart though are the performances of "Actor P" and (particularly) "Actor R", who again steals every scene he is in. For their limited screen time together, the pair bounce off each other in a delightful way.

    I have to make a confession at this point that I spent the whole film thinking "Miles Teller is way too old for the part of Wade"! Tye Sheridan (who I think *does* bear a likeness!) is actually much more age appropriate, and is fine in the role. But the star performance for me, out of the youngsters at least, was Oldham's-own Olivia Cooke, who has a genuinely magnetic screen presence. She is most definitely a name to watch for the future.

    Almost unrecognizable in the role is the woman of the hour Letitia Wright ("Black Panther", "Thor: Ragnarok") as Wade's inventor friend Reb.

    The story, although simple and quite one-dimensional, in the main intrigues: there is nothing like a Mario-style chase for keys to entertain when it is done well (I am so old and crusty that in my day it was "Manic Miner" on a ZX-Spectrum!).

    And there's not just one "Easter Egg" in this film: the film is rammed to the rafters with throwbacks to classic pop-culture icons of past decades, and particularly the 80's.... the film could have been subtitled "I Heart 80's". Some of these are subliminal (Mayor Goldie Wilson anyone?), and others are more prominent but very clever: "The Zemekis cube" and "The Holy Hand Grenade" being prime examples. This is a film that deserves buying on Blu-ray and then slo-mo-ing through! The nostalgia extends to the music by Alan Silvestri, with occasional motifs from his most famous soundtrack!

    For me though, the highspot of the film though is a journey into a recreation of a classic '80's film which - while a scary sequence, earning for sure its 12A UK rating - is done with verve and chutzpah.

    Although a little overlong (2 hours 20 mins) and getting rather over-blown and LOTR-esque in the finale, the ending is very satisfying - roll on Tuesdays and Thursdays!

    Spielberg's recent films have been largely solid and well-constructed watches ("The Post" and "Bridge of Spies" for example) but they have been more niche than mainstream box office draws. I firmly predict that "Ready Player One" will change that: here Spielberg has a sure-fire hit on his hands and word of mouth (rather than the ho-hum trailer) should assure that.

    (For the graphical review, please visit bob-the-movie-man.com or One Mann's Movies on Facebook. Thanks).
  • If you are just looking for a fun movie with expertly directed action sequences, wow moments, and beautiful effects, this is the movie for you. If you are the type of person who cannot help but analyze every movie you see, Ready Player One will cause you some problems.

    Spielberg is a master of wow moments. He knows how to capture characters in moments of awe, and he knows how to make the audiences respond with dropped jaws and bewildered expressions. That's why the guy is one of the most financially successful filmmakers of all time. Watching this particular film of his makes it easy to see, even if you weren't already aware of his reputation, that Spielberg works the camera like few others can.

    That said, this movie is not perfect.

    The premise, at least on its surface, seems wonderful. A teenage boy (Tye Sheridan), named Wade Watts (because it sounds like a superhero's alter ego) in the near future plays an ultra-version of a virtual reality game to escape his grim real-world existence. Everyone in his world does. And we can see why. The VR world (The Oasis) is awesome.

    Wade spends his time obsessing over a contest in The Oasis left behind by its now deceased creator. The winner of the contest claims a kajillion dollars (or something like that) and control over The Oasis. With a prize like that, Wade is obviously not the only person trying to win.

    So, one day he meets a girl who uses the player name Art3mis (a charming Olivia Cooke) and joins her group. Together they try to win the contest before the evil company does and puts ads in The Oasis (which doesn't seem that bad). Then blah, blah, blah. You can imagine how this all turns out. If not, great, you'll be surprised.

    This all seems fine and fun until you dissect the movie even a little bit. The message the movie sends is that this is all about friendship, which is total BS. Friendship is important, sure, but in this world, there is more at stake. Wade and much of the country live in terrible poverty, and a couple mega-businesses control the state of everything. It's a miserable reality with problems that we see today, except amplified by 100.

    It's irresponsible and insulting that the movie pretends that this future world will be okay as long as The Oasis doesn't have ads. People still live in poverty. The world is still in shambles.

    What I'm saying is, the movie has a problem with stakes. The stakes of this future world are enormous and dire, but the movie chooses to ignore them. That doesn't sit right with me.

    One other issue, and this one is minor, is that this movie seems like it's made for kids, but it makes a bunch of 80s nostalgia references. Does that make sense? I don't think today's 14-year-olds care about Duran-Duran.

    Even looking past the social blinders this movie chooses to wear and the confusing nostalgia choices, the third act drags horribly. I spaced out for a good ten minutes and didn't miss a thing.

    In spite of all that, this movie has moments of ecstasy. If you are going to see, and I'm not sure if you should, see it in a theater. If you can avoid analyzing the movie and simply enjoy it from a pure entertainment standpoint, you may love it.
  • If you haven't read the book, then this will be a nice fun film to watch with retro references, adventure, and a look at a world where everyone lives on VR.

    If you have read the book then prepare to be left bemused, gutted, devastated and downright disappointed at what a mess that Spielberg has made from an amazing geek fest book into a mundane movie for the masses.

    This movie could have been an absolute cult classic of a dystopian future with some amazing insights as to what a future society of Virtual Reality users would look like. But this movie has not only decided to skim over the details of the technology and how far integrated it is in every day life, not only forget building the characters story line and gradually introducing them, but instead has taken the basic story line, along with the characters and then a few key points, throw them in the air and where ever they land write a completely different story in between and Hollywood the hell out of it with absolutely no loyalty to the book. I can not even begin to list how much is missing that would make this film make more sense.

    In fact this movie should NOT even have the honour of the title Ready Player One, instead it should be called GAME OVER, it is an insult to the book in every way possible.

    If you are thinking of watching this movie and not read the book, then do as it is probably not a bad film but make sure you read the book after the movie and not before. If you have already read the book, and loved the book then I would not recommend going to see this as it will just infuriate and give you high blood pressure. Instead wait for the dvd so you can rant, shout and tut loudly at the screen without disturbing others.

    Sorry to repeat myself but this film is not "Based on the book" instead it is "Very Vaguely Inspired by the book"
  • SuperBrown29 March 2018
    This is up there with Crystal Skull and Lost World as one of Spielberg's biggest turds. So so bad. For starters this is nothing like the book. The book is all about the details and this adaptation totally misses those. The dialogue was by the numbers. Lots of exposition and at times flat out cheesy. Lots of tell, very little show. Little to no character development. Wade has zero arc in the movie. He's just kind of there. Nothing made me really care for him. I found myself bored many times and the only times I laughed where when I couldn't believe how comically bad this was. Massive disappointment.
  • Its hard for me to believe all of the one and two star reviews for this film on here from people who are obsessed with the book. In fact, I even heard similar comments from people in the theater after the movie ended. One girl was actually complaining that she disliked it for the same reason she can't watch Game of Thrones, because it's not faithful to the source material.

    Well I'm sorry that your trip out of your parent's basement wasn't as satisfying as you hoped, but for the rest of us who haven't read the book and are not obsessive video game or pop culture fans it was a great movie. There's enough references for everyone to enjoy the story, but not enough to confuse the majority of the audience.

    The visual effects are stunning and while the story may be wrapped up a little too neatly, its still a stunning tour de force from the best director in the business.

    This was a great film with an excellent warning about the overuse video games and virtual reality. Definitely one to see and if you want more, than go read the book.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I know. Every movie does not tell the full story of a book. But when I watched the trailers, I already saw that the movie was far, faaaaar away from the book. Now I watched the movie and my worst fears became reality.

    What is left over from the book: The title Names of the characters (except for Shoto) That it is about an Easter egg hunt in the OASIS. More or less the concept of the OASIS. The colors of the keys and gates incl. the points you get for the gates. That Aech is driving a truck. Wade has his rig (but not the one from the movie) in a scrapyard truck. IOI is evil. Everyone else is good.

    What was left out: About everything what you liked from the book, like Wargames, Dungeons and Dragons, Rush, Joust, in fact every arcade game, Pac Man, ...

    What is different from the book: Everything!

    This movie is created for an audience younger than 20 years, who has no idea about the 80s or would understand any references from that time. To be clear, the whole OASIS is not only 80s, but the Easter egg hunt is. Also the deaths that happen in the book were removed to have the young audience not to be confronted with the harsh methods from IOI.

    All characters are and behave totally differently. Aech is in the book a badass who knows his stuff, not that whiney character in the movie. Wade is a kid who has no money, IRL and in the OASIS, so no DeLorean from the start. He starts the hunt with a level 1 sword, shield and leather body armor. Art3mis is a chubby girl (would have been great to see that in the movie). So why is Spielberg putting his money on a skinny girl? Great move to give the one chance away to put some self-esteem in non-perfect people. I-R0k is a stupid looser in the book, not that super strong headhunter. Really? IOI employees applaud when Wade opens the final gate?!

    The 80s references used in the movie have nothing in common with the ones from the book. But not always the obvious 80s references are the best ones, there are many hidden treasures in the book. Mr. Spielberg, learn something from Marvel, they used "Lake Shore Drive" in the soundtrack... think about it. A great movie might have really started an 80s nostalgia boost. But you killed it.

    What was stolen from other movies: The OASIS simulation inside the OASIS simulation, from Inception. The place around the castle with the lava and high voltage bursts, from Star Wars III. Rig suits, strongly inspired by Tron Legacy. I-R0k made like a very cheap Boba-Fett-headhunter-copy, again Star Wars. Iron Giant raising the thumb while melting in the lava, from Terminator II - Judgement day (when was that? right 1991).

    In conclusion: Mr. Spielberg, you are old enough, you have enough money. Please retire. You lost it long ago. Maybe you can write a children's book, and watch it getting ripped to pieces by some amateur director, who makes a movie from your book.

    For the viewers: If you loved the book. Stay far away from that movie. Never ever watch it. You will only scream in frustration, like I did. If you have not read the book and you have 2.5 hrs and the money to spare, you can watch it. Maybe you will enjoy it. But as many others wrote, it is a straight forward plot, cheesy scenes, mediocre story, lame jokes.

    I don't know how they kept Ernest Cline quiet. It must have either involved a lot of money or threatening him to sue. How else would you silently watch how your hard work gets so destroyed.
  • Super boring and predictable, the movie is parasitizing on gamers nostalgia and that's it.
  • lynseydavis29 March 2018
    Why make a movie based on a book, and change literally every aspect of the book?? I know movies aren't going to be exactly like the books, but this is ridiculous.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I just had my intelligence insulted for a blistering 2 hours and 20 minutes. I don't know who this movie is for, but it's not for fans of the book. It's a beautiful movie that ruins itself with horrible pacing and non-existent character development.

    My favorite part is at the end when they casually collapse the world economy two times a week because Spielberg's kids need a life lesson on putting their cell phones down.
  • Remember Mortal Kombat, Battletoads, Overwatch, Gundam, FireFly, TMNT, Night rider, Back to The Future, King Kong, Iron Giant, Mecha Godzilla, Atari, Nintendo, Goons, ET, Shining, Batman, Halo, Gears of War, Monty Python, Michael Jackson, Street Fighter, Vikings, Liches, Lara Croft, Golden Eye, Aliens, Madballs, Child's Play, Etch A Sketch, View-Master, Beastmaster, Space Invaders, Ping Pong, A-team, Batman 60's, Ryu, Monster trucks, Marvel comics, Goro, Harley Quinn, Akira, Saturday Night Fever, Say Anything, Hello Kitty, Star Trek, Star Wars, Freddy Krueger, Duke Nukem, Terminator, Final Fantasy, Robocop, Battle Star Galactica, Rubic's cube, Hal 9000, Card collecting games and Star Craft?

    WE SURE DO. Well watch us to list everything over 2 hours. You'll love it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The book is better. It always will be. I think everyone knows that you cannot take a 15 hour book and condense it to a 130 minute movie without losing a lot of what made it special.

    Firstly there is no after-credit scene. So dont bother waiting.

    The opening title was just white text on a black screen, which is rather disapointing given the clever 'maze' logo all the marketing had.

    The film gets rid of the gates, most of the real world stuff, all the school stuff, and all character development. Our heroes just have all the weapons, cars, robots that they had to earn in the book. Even before finding the first key. Wade already owns the Delorian and Aech just happens to have Iron Giant in his garage.

    They make a number of dramatic changes to the main plot, some for visual storytelling (such as adding a car chase) and others to expand the role other characters worth in the plot, such as Art3mis going to IOI instead of Parzival.

    My main issue was the lack of character arcs. They all strated off strong, and ended the exact same way. The heart of the book was how this normal person rose from being one of us, to the savior of the universe. The film is missing that. Wade no-longer talks to the sweet old lady at the bottom of the stacks. He no-longer fixes people's old oasis machines, instead he steals there gloves? Those real world connections are lost and he just seems like a rich spoilt kid from the start. His reasons for not joining IOI are never explained. We as audinence members have no idea why he would not have taken the money. But on that, IOI are also made out to be idiots. They dont solve any puzzles or collect any of the keys. In the book they were far more competent.

    Then there is the whole rebellion side story which was not in book, hardly touched upon, was not explained, had unexplained henchmen, and ended abruptly. But the sheer fact that they had an army to fall back on in the real world weakened our connection to them for us as an audience. They were no longer the small guy going after the big corporation, now they were a small army going after what seemed to be just one man (Nolan) who was afraid of guns, and a mercenary woman who was beaten up by an eleven year old kid. The bad guys became a joke. Not to mention so stupid in that they keep there passwords written down for the world to see.

    The film captures the adventure and spectacle of the book thats for sure, but is missing its heart. And they shoehorned several side characters (Rick) into the movie which really could have been left out and there screen time devoted to more puzzle solving or building the relationship.

    They could have left i-Rok, Daito and Shoto out the story and it would not have changed anything. In fact, giving Nolan all of i-R0ks jobs would have helped his character.

    There is almost zero world building for the real world. They show pizza delivery drones that can fly around the city and place bombs on buildings, but somehow are unable to follow a giant delivery truck featuring the worlds most wanted down the road. Ignoring speed cameras and satellite tracking as well. Again, another example of incompetency the villains demonstrate.

    Perhaps I love the book so much, that its hard for me to separate the source material for this movie adaptation. But the book was not just about 80s nostalgia, it was about growth of characters as they went on this adventure together. It was about making sacrifices when needed and learning to work as a team to open the last gate. None of which was required for this movie.

    I also want to mention the lack of nostalgia music. The trailers had some great songs, with Pure imagination being outstanding. None of them however are played in the movie. With the exception of jump at the start, that felt out of place as it was too fast paced for someone just walking.

    Still watch it in the cinema as its an experience you have to see. But read the book, or listen to the great Will Wheaton audiobook as well, as its a very different story with more depth and love than the film portrays.

    I rate it 6.5 out of 10.
An error has occured. Please try again.