Film Review: Ready Player One

"This Isn't Just A Game. I'm Talking About Actual Life And Death Stuff..."

With The Post earlier this year garnering a wide flurry of Oscar nominations and a critical consensus which boarded on the side of rousing positivity, a return to form for director Steven Spielberg after the yawn-inducing mediocrity of The BFG was welcomed with open arms, and with only three months since its' release here in the UK, Spielberg returns once again to the movie-fold with Ready Player One, a cinematic adaptation of Ernest Cline's 2011 science fiction adventure novel of the same name. Projected in 3D for its' preview screening release, Spielberg's latest primarily focuses on Tye Sheridan's (X-Men: Apocalypse) Wade Watts, a slum-stricken teen who uses the environment of the OASIS, a virtual reality gaming platform created by Mark Rylance's (Dunkirk) recently deceased James Halliday, to both escape his daily slumber and more importantly, to join many others in the hunt for three "Easter Eggs" left within the game by Halliday before his death which give the finder both riches beyond belief and the key to control of the entire OASIS itself. With pop culture references galore and an upbeat, heroic sensibility, Spielberg's latest undeniably should work in the hands of a filmmaker renowned for popcorn delights, but with a brain scorching over-reliance on digital effects and a screenplay both absent of emotion and effective engagement, Ready Player One doesn't work as a whole and is merely saved by individual elements which make it passable rather than thoroughly entertaining. 

With an obvious social commentary regarding the nature and impact of modern technology, Spielberg's movie mixes the subversive ideas within Cronenberg's Existenz and Videodrome with a obvious love for the science fiction genre in its' eye-watering levels of on-screen references, levels which makes The Cabin in the Woods look like a passing fling with its' respective horror genre, but too a staggering amount which by the half-way point does become overly tacky and cheap. With an entire segment dedicated to Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, the set-piece is a real bottle spinner in regards to how one might respond, with my own personal obsession with Kubrick's masterpiece resulting in a subverted distaste to seeing our on-screen heroes quickly pop through the Overlook Hotel, music cues and all, and instead making me think how I would rather be watching The Shining instead. With Ready Player One a movie which Spielberg himself has coined as the most difficult movie he's worked on since Saving Private Ryan due to the staggering levels of visual effects, the CGI battle scenes really aren't worth the time, particularly in a final act which boarders on George Lucas style dullness and a complete lack of character engagement when at least eighty percent of the film is spent inside the OASIS itself with digitally designed "avatars". With Ben Mendelsohn once again resigned to Rogue One style typecasting as the film's one-note central antagonist and a ear-scraping level of exposition heavy dialogue, Ready Player One certainly has more negative aspects than positive, and for a director who time and time again has proven that giant gargantuan science fiction spectacle is part and parcel of his day job, Spielberg's latest annoyingly doesn't hit the heavy heights we are all very much used to.

Overall Score: 4/10

Film Review: The Post

"What Are You Going To Do, Mrs Graham...?"

Working on its' production during the latter stages of finalising the upcoming science fiction spectacle Ready Player One, Steven Spielberg's first of two movies arriving within the space of just four months, The Post, arrives suspiciously close to the one year anniversary of a certain American President's inauguration, and in a time when media scrutiny, both on paper and in the online stratosphere, is rife more than ever, Spielberg's latest is a topical drama which not only manages to balance a hefty load of important and ever-present societal issues, but a film which captures quite brilliantly a moment in media history which ultimately turned the table for press freedom and solidify the right to question and challenge the decisions of our leaders and representatives to rule. Focusing on the high profile leak of the Pentagon Papers, classified documents detailing America's involvement during the much maligned Vietnam War, The Post follows on the one hand, a Spotlight-esque narrative which features Tom Hanks' Ben Bradlee as he battles to locate the sacred papers and subsequently publish amidst legal scrutiny and fears of incarceration, but more importantly, Meryl Streep's portrayal of Katherine Graham, the owner of The Washington Post who attempts to balance the arrival of the scandalous papers with the survival of her family business after she is made heiress due to the death of her late husband. 

With the two leads on top dramatic form, Hank's confident, swaggering, editor in chief with a crystal clear view regarding the purpose of the press is brilliantly contrasted by the performance of Streep's Graham, with her managing to convey the radical development of a figure who begins unsure and insecure in a world primarily ruled by men to a fist-pumping advocate for female empowerment. With the narrative funneling through conversations which tackle conflicted interests between the press and those that are meant to being held to account, the righteousness of war and the decision between what is right and what is easy, Spielberg's latest is undeniably audience pleasing, with even a handful of cheese-twisted dramatic turns somewhat passable, but within all the flashiness and swirly whirly camera angles which convey a heavier sense of cinematic wantness than Tom McCarthy's Spotlight ever did, The Post works best when the gripping search for the truth is front and centre of the story, and with the holy trilogy of Streep, Hanks and Spielberg, The Post is the slice of entertaining period drama you expected, just with added excellence. 

Overall Score: 8/10

Film Review: The BFG

"Never Go To The Window, Never Look Behind The Curtain..."

Who doesn't love Roald Dahl? Not only have countless cinematic works been based upon his literary catalogue over the course of over half a century, but his presence is still continuing to this very day, with Hollywood understanding that re-imaginings and reboots of his works on the big screen will always guarantee to bring in the masses, whilst hardcore Bond fans will know his influence on the script for You Only Live Twice, the first Bond film in which we see the ominous presence of Donald Pleasence's Blofeld and his evil looking Persian cat. Anyhow, this time around it's The BFG which gets the reboot treatment, directed this time by Steven Spielberg and continuing the successful collaboration of Bridge of Spies by placing Oscar winner Mark Rylance in the lead role. Whilst the CGI and design of Rylance's titular BFG is a fantastic achievement in itself, the film as a whole is one that is surprisingly mediocre, one in which suffers from a wide range of pacing issues, a yawn-inducing first half and a lacklustre plot thread based around the intent of our beloved heroine, Sophie. 

Although Spielberg is a director whom I appreciate highly, The BFG is a surprisingly empty and rather shallow fantasy, one that focuses entirely on the structure and creation of Rylance's BFG and seemingly forgets to include any real sense of direction whatsoever. Beginning with a first act in which we are taken to Giant Country, the film descends into a rather slow slew of tedious pacing issues, in which the introduction of Rylance's character is overshadowed by such and subsequently becomes something you quickly get bored with. After a good drawn out 90 minutes, the film does improve when we are taken into the halls of Buckingham Palace, a final act which seemingly woke up the entirety of the audience in my particular screening, with the laughs and quickfire jokes swiftly erasing the pain of the film so far before it. With Spielberg at the reigns and Rylance in command of his beloved character, The BFG should have been something spectacular. Instead, Spielberg's latest is surprisingly mediocre, a word rarely associated with talent of such a kind. 

Overall Score: 5/10

Film Review: Bridge of Spies

"We Have To Have The Conversations Our Governments Cant..."

Much like Disney, Marvel, and Bond, the singular word that is "Spielberg" automatically creates a blinding vortex of cinematic vigor and eager anticipation, a feat of which is arguably expected more so than any other directorial name that has come and gone in the past thirty years or so in the eyes (or ears) of the widespread general public. Of course such a household name such as Steven Spielberg has been helped in part to the simply spellbinding back catalogue that Steven Spielberg has created over the course of more than forty years, of which includes my personal favourites Minority Report, Saving Private Ryan, and the first three Indian Jones movies among many many others that have gone on to win both critical and financial acclaim as well as a rafter of awards including the odd Oscar or two. With Bridge of Spies, Spielberg's latest offering only continues his remarkable career, combining the reliable acting efforts of Tom Hanks, the writing credits of the Coen Brothers, and a Thomas Newman score, creating a classy, entertaining, and pleasingly intelligent Cold War thriller.

Bridge of Spies focuses on the true story of American lawyer James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks) and his attempt to successfully negotiate the exchange of the captive Soviet Union spy, Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance) for Francis Gary Powers (Austin Stowell), an American pilot who was shot down and captured by the Russians during the height of the Cold War in 1957. What makes Bridge of Spies rather splendid is due to a wide range of different factors. One of the most important within the film was how, much like many Cold War era flicks including Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Dr. Strangelove, Bridge of Spies manages to effectively handle the strange sense of paranoia and impending doom present in such an ambiguous era where nuclear disaster was a realistic and dangerous threat to both the Soviet Union and the US. Although not being directly part of the main plot threads, the possibility of nuclear war is rife throughout Bridge of Spies and is particularly startling during a scene in which we witness a young classroom watch help guides regarding what to do if a nuclear strike ever occurs on US soil, a frightening experience if ever there was one.

Yes, the Coen Brothers led script is aptly superb, and Janusz Kaminski's chilly cinematography adheres to the notion of the rather ironically named "Cold War", but the true winners here are no doubt the leading actors with Tom Hanks continuing on with his fine acting form present in Captain Phillips, whilst esteemed stage actor Mark Ryland as the Soviet spy, Rudolf Abel. also stands out with his suave, silent and sophisticated portrayal of the convicted felon, unsure of his future in either the confines of the US or his freedom in the homeland of Soviet Russia, being a integral part to the films' effectiveness. Although a shade too long in places, and ending on a sense of sentimentality that Spielberg is wholly renowned for, Bridge of Spies will no doubt be a huge part of next years' Oscar ceremonials as classy Spielberg war flicks tend to be the best kind of Oscar bait, but unlike some supposed Oscar tipped films that are set to come out in the upcoming months or so, Bridge of Spies is one film where it does deserve the credit it hopefully will get in the near future or so and fits snugly into the ever-growing list of films directed by one Comrade Spielberg. 

Overall Score: 8/10 

Triple Whammy - Jurassic World - Does it have enough teeth?

Dan - In terms of childhood memories, particularly those of a cinematic pedigree, the Jurassic Park series was one that I never wholly took to and thus never really had a set place in my heart like other childhood films such as Back to the Future, Star Wars and even Lord of the Rings, a trilogy of movies that did, and still does, have a secure place in my love of cinema. Sure, I recall watching Jurassic Park and even remember watching Jurassic Park III in the cinema as a child, but the sheer wow factor of the "dinosaur dystopia" in which Spielberg and co. had created never really excited me in ways that other films did. I recently watched the trilogy once again after years of them being in the category of just "seen it", in order to discover whether my childhood had in fact been a complete disgrace, yet my feelings still remain the same. From a a much more mature and critical standpoint also, it was clear to see that the first Jurassic Park was clearly the best out of the trilogy, with it to this day still having moments of pure excitement and tension, but it then all being spoilt by its' predecessors The Lost World and Jurassic Park III which were, let's just say, nowhere near as good. So now, 22 years after the original movie, we have Jurassic World starring Chris Pratt (Guardians of the Galaxy), Bryce Dallas Howard (Spider-Man 3), Vincent D'Onofrio (Daredevil) whilst being directed and partly written by Colin Trevorrow of Safety Not Guaranteed fame. Before entering my local multiplex, I was cautious of Jurassic World maybe carrying on the torch of another mediocre dinosaur film but as soon as the credits rolled it was clear to see this was definitely not the case. In fact, its' almost as good as the original. Almost.

When scientists at the world famous Jurassic World theme park, located on the Isla Nublar, disobey rules clearly laid out in the first three Jurassic Park films such as DON'T MESS WITH DINO DNA, their new creation, the aptly named Indominus Rex, decides to go AWOL, leading to mass panic and mass murder on the island, forcing park manager Claire (Dallas Howard) and trainer Owen (Pratt) into finding a solution to prevent the death of not only themselves, but the 20,000 tourists stuck on the island with them. Seems like a pretty straightforward Jurassic Park style plot doesn't it? And it most definitely is, but one of the things that I loved about Jurassic World was that it didn't stop long enough for you to really care about the weakness of its' plot with it constantly ramming up the dinosaur action up to eleven, leaving you continuously with a sense of breathlessness and feelings I probably should have felt when I watched the first film as a child. Not only does the tension hit home due to the surprising amount of bloodshed and death on-screen throughout, but also due to the expertly crafted dinosaurs that we are faced with. Each and every scene in which a dinosaur appeared was genuinely jaw-dropping and deserves a round of applause for the amount of precise detail that those tasked with the creation of such have adhered to. Top marks.

Of course, the film does have weaknesses, and weaknesses that have been current in the franchise from the start such as having quite a few incidental characters whom are used simply as cannon fodder for death-by-dinosaur on screen, and having an annoying tendency for making human beings seem actually quite stupid in the line of fire, but these weaknesses are glossed over by the sheer spectacle that is presented, with likable leading characters in the form of Pratt and Howard also doing well in solidifying Jurassic World as one of the forerunners in the 2015 blockbuster race. In a nutshell then? Miles better than the two previous Jurassic Park entries but maybe just below the original in terms of quality, Jurassic World is a bigger, bolder and cooler entry into an inevitably ever-growing canon of movies. Jurassic World, you have my endorsement. 

Dan's Score - 8/10

Josh - When I first watched the trailer for Jurassic world I was psyched. I had a lot of hopes for this film. Little did I know that what I was watching was the bloody highlights of the film!  Which did partially spoil the film. Yes this is done so often nowadays and I will always rant about it.

Yes being a Jurassic park film you can immediately tell the plot of the film, dinosaurs get loose, people get eaten, as the cast try to escape the island. That's just what the films are about fair enough it's good, however when it gets to the point you can tell who is going to get eaten  and by what it just loses all of the thrill and almost horror side which made the previous films all so enjoyable.

You would think after all the deaths and accidents from the previous films they would make more safety precautions to deal with the protection of guests. nearly all the way through the film I was face palming, if there was a desk I would be slamming my face into it I mean the stupidity of  characters its like they don't realise that the dinosaurs eat people! Yes I can see them lowering the intelligence of the human characters in an attempt to make the "indominus rex" and the Raptors seem smarter but not like this! Also they know clearly state that the "indominus rex" can see thermal heat yet they still try hiding 2 inches away from it *face palm*. Also, little side note, Bryce Dallas Howard's character, Beth somehow manages to cross all terrain from muddy grasslands to concrete while running faster then a T-Rex in high heels now I don't wear high heels (in public) but I'm quite sure this is actually impossible. There are a lot more weird plot holes but I weld be here all day to mention them all. Honestly I feel the whole kids characters to be slow and pointless and an attempt to copy the kids from the first movie. Also the character development was relatively poor to non-existent I mean the Nick Robinsons charter Zach's whole thing with him staring at all the girls at the park was ridiculously boring and brought no plot development and if anything made him seem creepy. And the whole their parents getting divorced was already used in Jurassic park 3. It all just seems recycled. I will give it props to relating to the first movie at some parts to the film with the kids finding the old Jurassic park banner and driving the old Jeeps.

Though I do agree with Dan in that the first was by far the best out of the previous trilogy, however I would disagree with him in that Jurassic world is on par with the first. If anything I would say that Jurassic world has made Jurassic park look even better and they should have created more suspense in being hunted or made it seem more like a thriller.

So far I have been biting chunks out of this film, but I did enjoy it aside from all the plot holes and annoying characters it was good to watch. As mentioned by Dan when the dinosaurs were on the screen it was amazing to watch. The detail and action scenes were superb and thrilling to watch with impressive use of the surrounds such as the use of the holograms in stalling the Raptor. The magnitude of the dinosaurs are impressive and that's exactly what I came to see, so much so I would actually like to watch it in 3D.
Josh's Score - 6/10

Pete - Josh and Dan both bring very valid points to the table. I myself sit on the fence. As I was raised on these movies, they have a special place in my heart. They are so fondly remembered that I can't help but watch them whenever they're on. So perhaps my view of the latest is one of a spoilt critic with an expectation of greatness. Jurassic World lacked. It lacked the tension and the heart pumping excitement that made the classics, classic but it had throwbacks to the past that gave the sense of nostalgia. Yet here I am, with my ass on a white picket fence.

It lacked the tension for many reasons. The build was not long enough and the pay-off was a generic, predictable mess and happened instantaneously. It feels that the movie is a children's one with an attempt to keep their minds focused on one thing for more than a few seconds without them pulling out their Iphones and playing Candy Crush. The need for the instant gratification ruins exactly what Jurassic Park is known for. Sure, the originals were PG but at the time, they were legitimate, scary thrillers. Now we have a 12A which sparks no fear or excitement. In many years time, I will show my kid(s) all of these movies and I could almost guarantee that the 4th will fade into their memory without a second glance. The only scene to really make me recoil was the abuse the kid's guide got from a multitude of dinosaurs which was actually overzealous. Although the CGI was on point I would enjoy seeing more practical effects throughout.

Josh rightly pointed out the issue with the plot holes and this is really significant. Things are happening everywhere, but we never really finish anything up. No one talks about the women murdered by the Mosasaurus or the fucking owner of the park! The group that try to weaponise the creatures are whisked in and the need to classify information from the owner just confuses the plot even more. By claiming they have to use other creatures DNA to breed the dinosaurs, why is it that the hybrid has Raptor DNA? and why do I need to know about the childrens parents getting a divorce, how does that change anything and why is this child so fucking annoying? Among a host of continuity errors, I find myself mad that this happens so much and it was let out of the gate. Its either that the cut way to much, or more likely, they never finished. With production being back and forth for years, many ideas have floated about and some genius had the idea to smash them all into one and hope it did something. The general production suffers, not only the visuals but also the script and the music. With a script written by a child and music probably crafted prior to the film, nothing fits. Its all disjointed and doesn't flow or create something magical and special.

I may be attacking this like a rabid dog but the reality is, this is a movie that has been created for the commercial reasons. They may claim its for the fans with a short appearance of the T-Rex but rather than targeting the original audience, you bombard them with more product placement than the Super Bowl ad break and pander to the child market so you can squeeze more money from the merchandise. Its feels cheap. As if they no longer value the franchise and want to abuse it like its into some sick dino BDSM. 

There were parts I'm okay with. It was a blast from the past. It was something that I was raised on and even though it has Chris Pratt in it, the rest is just a bit meh. Its one of those films that don't stick. It lost its edge and for the love of god, stop using child actors whose character and acting suck. I feel too generous awarding it a 7 so I feel that a 6 is far more appropriate. Bring on the Lego game!
Pete's Score - 6/10

Overall - 6.66/10