Re: Ready Player One reviews
Posted: Thu May 17, 2018 1:49 pm
I wouldn't say I have a wildly higher opinion of this film than BJ or Precious Doll, but I have to emphatically disagree on one point: I think it is hugely enhanced by its being directed by Spielberg and not one of the many directors who've headed up the Marvel/DC films of the past decade. On the level of kinetic and graphic energy, this is by far the most fun "summer movie" I've seen in a long time. The visuals are deeply detailed and perfectly framed, and the pacing is for most of the way exceptional. After the dreariness of the BFG, I'm pleased to see Spielberg still has it in him to make something old school like; I'd say it's his most purely entertaining work since...what?...Minority Report?
But there's always been a contradiction in Spielberg's career, one that the younger among you haven't had to confront as directly as those of us who've followed his career from the start (and absorbing the early critical skepticism): he may be one of the most prodigiously talented directors to emerge in the past half-century, but the shallowness of his understanding of human nature has always limited him to rather impersonal genres -- largely, fantasy and history. Even his most acclaimed "adult" works -- Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, maybe Lincoln -- have been triumphs on the epic scale but something less when dealing in human emotions (the most criticized elements of Schindler and Ryan were the reaches for emotion in the closing reels). As for his fantasy efforts, even the greatest among them -- E.T. above all -- while they engage narratively on a deep visceral level, they also offer a nagging sense that the story being told is fairly routine kids' stuff, and that it's only the director's extraordinary cinematic gifts that are managing to camouflage the shortfall. (And when the films don't work -- like Hook or The BFG -- the failure is glaring.)
Which is to note that, at a certain point in Ready Player One, even while I was immensely enjoying the visual imagination on display, and was caught up in the narrative momentum, I was reminded that this was a fairly formulaic structure -- that the hero would of course eventually capture all three keys, that he'd beat the villains (though they'd of course appear at regular intervals to represent temporary obstacles), and that he'd capture the heart of the pretty girl in a way that a pre-adolescent might imagine: with a pure, sex-not-involved eternal love. It actually struck me that, in a way, it's appropriate the film is centered on video games, because what Spielberg and Lucas created in the 70s -- what they soon led the entirety of Hollywood into making industry standard -- was pretty much the equivalence of movies to video games: impersonal, game-like stories where winning is everything and the pretty girl is the door prize. So, even while I was relishing Spielberg's display of talent here (the film has way more energy than your average septuagenarian could muster), this reminder of his long-time limitations, and what it's done to movies over my lifetime, got in the way of purer pleasure.
Two small things: the visual effects are, to me, as good as I've seen outside of Blade Runner in this decade. And Mark Rylance, with as little as he had to do, brought the most human touch to the film -- his general befuddlement caught the essence of the reluctant genius in very small strokes.
But there's always been a contradiction in Spielberg's career, one that the younger among you haven't had to confront as directly as those of us who've followed his career from the start (and absorbing the early critical skepticism): he may be one of the most prodigiously talented directors to emerge in the past half-century, but the shallowness of his understanding of human nature has always limited him to rather impersonal genres -- largely, fantasy and history. Even his most acclaimed "adult" works -- Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, maybe Lincoln -- have been triumphs on the epic scale but something less when dealing in human emotions (the most criticized elements of Schindler and Ryan were the reaches for emotion in the closing reels). As for his fantasy efforts, even the greatest among them -- E.T. above all -- while they engage narratively on a deep visceral level, they also offer a nagging sense that the story being told is fairly routine kids' stuff, and that it's only the director's extraordinary cinematic gifts that are managing to camouflage the shortfall. (And when the films don't work -- like Hook or The BFG -- the failure is glaring.)
Which is to note that, at a certain point in Ready Player One, even while I was immensely enjoying the visual imagination on display, and was caught up in the narrative momentum, I was reminded that this was a fairly formulaic structure -- that the hero would of course eventually capture all three keys, that he'd beat the villains (though they'd of course appear at regular intervals to represent temporary obstacles), and that he'd capture the heart of the pretty girl in a way that a pre-adolescent might imagine: with a pure, sex-not-involved eternal love. It actually struck me that, in a way, it's appropriate the film is centered on video games, because what Spielberg and Lucas created in the 70s -- what they soon led the entirety of Hollywood into making industry standard -- was pretty much the equivalence of movies to video games: impersonal, game-like stories where winning is everything and the pretty girl is the door prize. So, even while I was relishing Spielberg's display of talent here (the film has way more energy than your average septuagenarian could muster), this reminder of his long-time limitations, and what it's done to movies over my lifetime, got in the way of purer pleasure.
Two small things: the visual effects are, to me, as good as I've seen outside of Blade Runner in this decade. And Mark Rylance, with as little as he had to do, brought the most human touch to the film -- his general befuddlement caught the essence of the reluctant genius in very small strokes.