|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Mar 30, 2018 3:03:36 GMT
Unfortunately, I most likely won’t be seeing this until Saturday. So what did everybody else think about it?
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Mar 30, 2018 9:31:42 GMT
I had a lot of doubts prior to seeing this despite Spielberg being my absolute favorite filmmaker but I have to say that I shouldn't have doubted him (although I didn't really doubt that he'd do a good job - I was just wondering whether the material was worth it). It's a terrific piece of pure cinematic entertainment in which the references never take the attention away from the story and simply serve as a great element of the wonderfully vivid world that we see on the screen. I love it when sci-fi cinema gives us an opportunity to dive into somewhere we've never been before, to experience a world of its own, and I think this film does that extremely well. And I'm not only talking about the OASIS, I also mean the real world of the future that the movie imagines. It's a new great cinematic place and I couldn't get enough of it.
The film, as many have mentioned, is pure fun - it's highly energetic, visually astounding and full of imagination when it comes to the filmmaking. The story is nothing that new but that old-school quality it has is actually really appealing. And the main thing that makes the movie click is not the 80-s references, but the 80-s soulful vibe that it has - the big Amblin heart that is beating under its surface. As high-tech and futuristic as the movie is, it is genuinely warm and soulful in that way that made all those great adventure movies so special. It is because of its heart that I enjoyed the characters so much and thought they were a great bunch. It is because of its heart that the narrative, despite some imperfections, really pulled me in. It also helps that it's got fantastic visual imagination, astonishing sound design and production design that glues you to the screen. The cast is awesome as well. The movie may not be something that is hard-hitting or super deep, but it's just everything popcorn entertainment should be.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Mar 30, 2018 14:47:11 GMT
There are maybe a handful of directors that could make this story work, and Spielberg happens to be one of them. His skill at being able to block action and orient the camera to ensure the audience knows where they are spatially is unparalleled and helps make scenes like the race and the climactic fight sequence work really well. Spielberg also does a good job developing the setting of both the real world and the Oasis. In a time where VRChat is a thing, income inequality is only getting worse with time, and geek culture is increasingly becoming the norm, this film's dystopian future feels incredibly real. And I greatly appreciated how the film serves as a warning against excessive escapism in an honest manner. With someone like Spielberg who has been arguably the biggest force in pop culture for the past 45 years, you get someone who truly knows, relates to, and cares about the audience for this kind of film. In between all of the great set pieces and the fanboys vs. evil corporation plot, the greater themes and emotional core of the film lies in the story of an awkward dork who has never emotionally or socially developed beyond that lonely 8-year-old with tons of film and music posters on his wall playing every Atari 2600 game he could get his hands on. These scenes featuring Mark Rylance, whose James Halliday is essentially what would happen if Garth from Wayne's World became a Steve Jobs-level tech god, are easily the best in the film. The film awards your pop culture know-how and connections to these iconic franchises but in doing so it also warns you not to neglect the real world connections you could be making by taking a step away from the screen, whether it's a theater, a television, a computer, or a phone. There are some clunky exposition dumps (I actually think the film could have worked without the early voiceover narration but I can see why it could be necessary for the most casual of audiences) and some lines are so loaded with references that they could elicit a groan. Part of that is down to the nature of the subject matter - it'd be hard to make an authentic film centered around pop culture fanboys without those things, but it's more than understandable that it won't work for some. Also, that Shining sequence was absolutely spectacular.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 15:19:29 GMT
I enjoyed the hell out of it. Although it's interesting because I went with two friends. The one on my left loved it for being entertaining and having a ton of references he enjoyed, while the one on my right hated it for those reasons. The latter would facepalm and shake his head every ten minutes. I do have some issues with the script, like the narration and some exposition, plus some cheesy lines like "Reality is...real!" My favorite performers had to be Cooke and Waithe. Can't wait to see more from them in the future. Otherwise, I think it's a great adventure flick.
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Mar 30, 2018 18:41:21 GMT
I thought it dragged horribly. Really liked the opening act-ish, but I thought it was far too long with what they were working with, and couldn't believe it was based on a novel! Ultimately as enjoyable as it was at its best I thought it was a toothless, muddled mess in a way nothing he's done since probably Hook has been, and was so painfully vanilla I had a hard time believing it was really made by the man himself, and not some pretender.
It's characters are all the worst kind of cutouts, the attempts to straddle the line between both sides of the argument after the scene where they go to the club feels less 50/50 and more just skirting over the surface without ever getting to the heart of either. It was just bad. If you don't find any enjoyment in the plethora of pop culture references it bombards you with I don't know what else there is to get out of it. I would imagine that a Making Of doc would be far more interesting than the film itself, because that seems to be the place where the only real creativity of the production was.
For me that's two truly woeful blockbusters in a row for him now. Maybe he needs to stick to dramas from here on out. I think back 5 years to when Scorsese at 71 turned back the clock and wowed everyone with the on screen energy of a much younger man. Spielberg at 71 seems like he's trying to do a similar thing here, but it feels infinitely less successful to me. It's like a cross between Tron and Wreck-It-Ralph without the innovation of one, or the heart of the other. Add in all kinds of other things that feel like touchstones to varying degrees from the throwback qualities of Stranger Things or the real/unreal slant of the Tron movies, The Matrix, etc. and it just feels like there's nothing new or interesting here at all.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 31, 2018 2:20:03 GMT
Yeah, I loved it. The narration was clunky as all hell and I think a huge part of it could've been excised (i.e. Wade explaining his backstory and living in the Stacks, etc.), but the performances are uniformly terrific, the visuals are stunning, and most importantly of all, it was positively bursting with that old-school Spielbergian wonder that has been sorely lacking in modern cinema.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Mar 31, 2018 2:37:17 GMT
It was great.
The cultural references never felt forced, and they served the plot-well. The scavenger hunt plot in particular reminded me a lot of The Goonies, which I dug, and the film really gave me a sense of fun and whimsy, something that seems to be sorely lacking in a lot of modern films. Not to mention the soundtrack was great. Plus aside from some small slow scenes, for a 2 and a half hour film, it went by relatively fast. Also maybe the characters weren't the greatest, but I liked most of them. Rylance in particular was quite hilarious. The Berg is still the best.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Mar 31, 2018 18:35:55 GMT
< *She* stole the show.
Not convinced I loved it (and I still think The BFG was a stronger return to whimsical form), but I had such a huge smile plastered on my face. Classic Amblin charm with a refreshing, and pointed (but not hypocritical) modern perspective on overwhelming sensory and nostalgic escapism overload. And some of Bergy’s best visual spectacle ever. Something about seeing him in motion-capture brings out a new second life in him, where you can tell he’s having the time of his life staging his action in ways he couldn’t in live action. “Pure fun” is exactly what this is.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Apr 1, 2018 0:35:46 GMT
I thought it was okay generally, better than average for the kind of movie it was. The narrative worked and the action was a little better and more inventive than what you usually get in blockbusters these days. The girl and Ben Mendelsohn as the villain were the standouts of the cast. It was a bit overkill on the pop culture references, but occasionally they would work really well, namely in The Shining sequence where knowing what happened next is what made it suspenseful.
As another poster said, it's hard to believe it was a novel. The novel is probably terrible, this felt like a purely visual, not particularly literary story.
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Apr 1, 2018 8:27:27 GMT
I thought it was okay generally, better than average for the kind of movie it was. The narrative worked and the action was a little better and more inventive than what you usually get in blockbusters these days. The girl and Ben Mendelsohn as the villain were the standouts of the cast. It was a bit overkill on the pop culture references, but occasionally they would work really well, namely in The Shining sequence where knowing what happened next is what made it suspenseful. As another poster said, it's hard to believe it was a novel. The novel is probably terrible, this felt like a purely visual, not particularly literary story.It's funny you say that because from reviews I've read and hearsay from others who have read the novel, they say it's better than the film by quite a large margin and fans of the book won't really enjoy the film. Then again, I feel like there will always be those who say the novel is better than the film for just about anything. So maybe it's worth checking out - I'm not sure. I'm pretty bad at catching up on books. Anyway, I agree with you and ibbi about the film. I will agree with the positives people mention here in that it is "pure fun" and real good popcorn entertainment, but it was only about as entertaining as any MCU film (save the small handful of great ones they have in their catalog). Bland and predictable plot, paper-thin and soulless characters, & really lacking a heart (save a subtly powerful final scene with Simon Pegg which came way out of left field in terms of getting emotion out of me but reminds me why I love him as an actor) which is so weird to say about the one director I criticize for being too sentimental. I think this is a movie that many will cream over for a couple years, obsessing over the crazy amount of details, Easter eggs, and references loaded within the film, but kind of hope the steam wears off and people kind of see that Spielberg, while still an effective technical filmmaker, has kind of lost the charm he once had behind the camera. Would have loved to see what Edgar Wright could have done with this material. Kind of didn't help that the script was already super-bloated and had far too much exposition (plus the character issues mentioned above), but in the right hands of a strong visual storyteller like Wright (or, you know, '70s Spielberg), I think it could have been a hell of a lot of fun. Oh, but I will say, that big The Shining reference scene was probably the best thing Spielberg's done since the long-take chase sequence in Tintin. If the whole film was like that, I think it could have been fantastic.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Apr 1, 2018 16:24:02 GMT
I thought it was okay generally, better than average for the kind of movie it was. The narrative worked and the action was a little better and more inventive than what you usually get in blockbusters these days. The girl and Ben Mendelsohn as the villain were the standouts of the cast. It was a bit overkill on the pop culture references, but occasionally they would work really well, namely in The Shining sequence where knowing what happened next is what made it suspenseful. As another poster said, it's hard to believe it was a novel. The novel is probably terrible, this felt like a purely visual, not particularly literary story.It's funny you say that because from reviews I've read and hearsay from others who have read the novel, they say it's better than the film by quite a large margin and fans of the book won't really enjoy the film. Then again, I feel like there will always be those who say the novel is better than the film for just about anything. So maybe it's worth checking out - I'm not sure. I'm pretty bad at catching up on books. Anyway, I agree with you and ibbi about the film. I will agree with the positives people mention here in that it is "pure fun" and real good popcorn entertainment, but it was only about as entertaining as any MCU film (save the small handful of great ones they have in their catalog). Bland and predictable plot, paper-thin and soulless characters, & really lacking a heart (save a subtly powerful final scene with Simon Pegg which came way out of left field in terms of getting emotion out of me but reminds me why I love him as an actor) which is so weird to say about the one director I criticize for being too sentimental. I think this is a movie that many will cream over for a couple years, obsessing over the crazy amount of details, Easter eggs, and references loaded within the film, but kind of hope the steam wears off and people kind of see that Spielberg, while still an effective technical filmmaker, has kind of lost the charm he once had behind the camera. Would have loved to see what Edgar Wright could have done with this material. Kind of didn't help that the script was already super-bloated and had far too much exposition (plus the character issues mentioned above), but in the right hands of a strong visual storyteller like Wright (or, you know, '70s Spielberg), I think it could have been a hell of a lot of fun. Oh, but I will say, that big The Shining reference scene was probably the best thing Spielberg's done since the long-take chase sequence in Tintin. If the whole film was like that, I think it could have been fantastic. Well it is entirely possible that the novel is just really different than the movie and that it didn't follow it that closely. So maybe I was a bit presumptuous.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Apr 1, 2018 17:07:33 GMT
I thought it was okay generally, better than average for the kind of movie it was. The narrative worked and the action was a little better and more inventive than what you usually get in blockbusters these days. The girl and Ben Mendelsohn as the villain were the standouts of the cast. It was a bit overkill on the pop culture references, but occasionally they would work really well, namely in The Shining sequence where knowing what happened next is what made it suspenseful. As another poster said, it's hard to believe it was a novel. The novel is probably terrible, this felt like a purely visual, not particularly literary story.It's funny you say that because from reviews I've read and hearsay from others who have read the novel, they say it's better than the film by quite a large margin and fans of the book won't really enjoy the film. Then again, I feel like there will always be those who say the novel is better than the film for just about anything. So maybe it's worth checking out - I'm not sure. I'm pretty bad at catching up on books. I've generally heard the opposite with people saying the movie is better for having changed major aspects of the book. I've yet to read it. though, and honestly probably won't, it's one thing to see a bunch a pop-culture characters in the background and another to have to read them listed off one-by-one. Plus, the book seems pretty divisive.
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Apr 1, 2018 19:14:33 GMT
It's funny you say that because from reviews I've read and hearsay from others who have read the novel, they say it's better than the film by quite a large margin and fans of the book won't really enjoy the film. Then again, I feel like there will always be those who say the novel is better than the film for just about anything. So maybe it's worth checking out - I'm not sure. I'm pretty bad at catching up on books. I've generally heard the opposite with people saying the movie is better for having changed major aspects of the book. I've yet to read it. though, and honestly probably won't, it's one thing to see a bunch a pop-culture characters in the background and another to have to read them listed off one-by-one. Plus, the book seems pretty divisive. I can certainly agree there. I mean, if I ever get around to the book, it'll be far down the road. I'm a super geek so it might be fun just to see another geek geek out for 200+ pages (or however long it is), but I think it's clear that the author - judging from interviews and his previous filmography - that he cares more about the pop culture than the actual writing, so you might not be far off. Also I was judging from user reviews rather than actual critic reviews, so maybe that's where the crossed wires come into play.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Apr 1, 2018 20:05:34 GMT
I thought it was okay generally, better than average for the kind of movie it was. The narrative worked and the action was a little better and more inventive than what you usually get in blockbusters these days. The girl and Ben Mendelsohn as the villain were the standouts of the cast. It was a bit overkill on the pop culture references, but occasionally they would work really well, namely in The Shining sequence where knowing what happened next is what made it suspenseful. As another poster said, it's hard to believe it was a novel. The novel is probably terrible, this felt like a purely visual, not particularly literary story.It's funny you say that because from reviews I've read and hearsay from others who have read the novel, they say it's better than the film by quite a large margin and fans of the book won't really enjoy the film. Then again, I feel like there will always be those who say the novel is better than the film for just about anything. So maybe it's worth checking out - I'm not sure. I'm pretty bad at catching up on books. I read the book, but they’re different entities altogether. It’s a JP situation where they took the core essentials they needed for the story, and then chucked the rest out the window to rewrite it (I assume most of it was what copyrights they couldn’t secure). The Oasis has planets made entirely for online schools (and to travel off world costs quite a bit of money), there’s specific worlds where PVP combat is forbidden, i-R0k only shows up once (essentially making his expanded role a brand new character), and a lot of other content that either would have bogged the movie down with exposition, or been completely unadaptable. On the whole, I think what worked about the book translated very well, and what was cut out or altered (*MANY* grating pop culture references and name-drops that didn’t even add to the story, and Wade is so irritating in the book) made it all the better.
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Apr 1, 2018 20:12:01 GMT
It's funny you say that because from reviews I've read and hearsay from others who have read the novel, they say it's better than the film by quite a large margin and fans of the book won't really enjoy the film. Then again, I feel like there will always be those who say the novel is better than the film for just about anything. So maybe it's worth checking out - I'm not sure. I'm pretty bad at catching up on books. I read the book, but they’re different entities altogether. It’s a JP situation where they took the core essentials they needed for the story, and then chucked the rest out the window to rewrite it (I assume most of it was what copyrights they couldn’t secure). The Oasis has planets made entirely for online schools (and to travel off world costs quite a bit of money), there’s specific worlds where PVP combat is forbidden, i-R0k only shows up once (essentially making his expanded role a brand new character), and a lot of other content that either would have bogged the movie down with exposition, or been completely unadaptable. On the whole, I think what worked about the book translated very well, and what was cut out or altered (*MANY* grating pop culture references and name-drops that didn’t even add to the story, and Wade is so irritating in the book) made it all the better. From what I've seen of the author, I'm not surprised the main protagonist was probably super irritating as I think the author himself kind of is in real life. Seems like a super-geek fantasy, which could be a lot of fun (as a self-professed geek I thought it would be), but there's a point where story needs to take forefront to the cool world you're building and I'm sure the novel offers even less than the film in that department.
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Apr 1, 2018 22:07:07 GMT
The trailer didn't look very promising, but I've heard good word of mouth. Seeing it with my dad tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Apr 1, 2018 23:30:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Apr 2, 2018 18:35:41 GMT
I loved it. The most fun Spielberg film in years.
Ready Player One > The Post
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Apr 3, 2018 3:07:20 GMT
I really dug it but my dad loathed it. The right amount of heart, cheese and laughs. I loved the energy, references, effects, world building and characters — especially Art3mis who is one of my favorite characters of the last few years. It was a tad overlong but didn’t drag too much, and I’m not sure what could be cut. Over all it was super enjoyable and I can’t get over the whole second key segment. Dayum.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Apr 4, 2018 17:04:35 GMT
someone paypalled me to see it so i'm hype to either hate it or defend it as being not that bad to my friends that all hate it, will post the review here satday regardless
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Apr 4, 2018 18:37:14 GMT
I liked it, but at the same time agree with a lot of the complaints in this thread. It's definitely at least 15 minutes too long, and as it goes along I was just thinking how stupid the whole thing was... but eh, it was entertaining. The Shining sequence was definitely amazing (better than the Kubrick movie tbh) and I loved the race for the first key as well. Ending was a little underwhelming though... I thought the Oasis would be destroyed... instead of closed down 2 days a week, lol . Olivia Cooke and Ben Mendelsohn were great, Tye Sheridan was kind of lame, and Mark Rylance was interesting but kind of miscast. He just reminded me of Walken in Click every time he showed up with that wig on.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Apr 4, 2018 23:36:06 GMT
Ending was a little underwhelming though... I thought the Oasis would be destroyed... instead of closed down 2 days a week, lol . Another shortcoming lifted directly from the book, and it’s as pointless here as it was there. It feels more like a sequel tease than anything to serve the story (and I was proven right, since Cline intends on writing one).
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Apr 4, 2018 23:46:54 GMT
Ending was a little underwhelming though... I thought the Oasis would be destroyed... instead of closed down 2 days a week, lol . Another shortcoming lifted directly from the book, and it’s as pointless here as it was there. It feels more like a sequel tease than anything to serve the story (and I was proven right, since Cline intends on writing one). In a way, it kind of undermined the point of the entire movie. Like wtf.
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Apr 5, 2018 21:14:32 GMT
Steven Spielberg is back. With a nostalgic overdose that covers pretty much everything pop culture has to offer. Especially a movie geek has his blast with it. From famous video games to classic movies, primarily from the 80s, the film is a 2,5 hour long Easter egg. I am not the biggest fan of animation/real life hybrids, especially not if it has a video game look but here it worked, mostly thanks to the many references. Especially the "Shining" scene was an absolute classic. I really got many shivers down my spine. A great homage from Spielberg to his late friend Stanley Kubrick. The actors were wisely chosen. Tye Sheridan was perfectly cast. He really embodied the nerd character. Olivia Cooke was also wonderful. Her shyness was extremely cute and likable. I think this was the final breakthrough for her for an interesting career. Ben Mendelsohn was all right but he can do better. He was sometimes a bit bit stereotype. A performance that positively surprised me was by Mark Rylance. Of course a fantastic actor, but the role seemed pretty mediocre but it was a great character in the end. He gave a fantastic and touching performance, despite his hair cut. Simon Pegg was also fine. The soundtrack was excellent. I missed John Wiliams but Alan Silvestri's score was also okay but had potential for improvement. A great cyber adventure with many great action scenes and choreography. 9/10
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Apr 6, 2018 4:48:37 GMT
It's good tbh. Full of flaws but visually it's a knockout.
|
|