"One person can keep a secret, but two cannot."

Anyone who has read the book and is looking for exactly that will be disappointed. There are many things in the book (essential to me that were lost along the way). However, that's not the reason the movie is bad. Ernest Cline's book is a nostalgic hymn to the 70-80s and the culture and imagination of that time, a time that Steven Spielberg knows very well and that was his particular golden age that allowed him to make a good movie. In which it is very nice to be able to abstract from the book and see this movie as a new story

There are things that were deleted from the script and others that were changed that were done to sweeten the story (some seem like a fatal error to me) that I am not going to tell so as not to upset the book to those who have not read it. nor the movie for those who haven't seen it, but this movie is missing some of the drama of the book and a deeper recreation of the characters and their motivations, and a lot, a lot of context. eighties. Perhaps, and that is just an opinion, I did not like the change in the first test the least because the essence of one of the most important parts of the book is lost.

Still, the movie is a joy and a breath of fresh air amid so much recent mediocrity. Spielberg is Spielberg, and the 80s are his kingdom. Few were able to combine the new with the old like him and bring this story to life.

The cast is up to the task, the director is up to it, the story is up to it, the special effects are incredible, the story is so well told, but... it lacks emotion and sensitivity. It never reaches my heart and that makes me drop a lot of whole numbers. I'm tired of reading that it contains a lot of implicit and hidden references, but it actually lacks more explicit references to the 70s-80s.

What is one of the main flaws of the film?

At no point is love understood by James Donovan Halliday, creator of Oasis (brilliantly played by Mark Rylance) for the 70-80s, and this theme, which is the leitmotif of the book, is inexplicably diluted in the film, much of it. he lost his consciousness. essence and charm. While it is difficult to convey this concept to canvas, it lacks greater depth on the subject that is an integral part of the book (all the characters know the universe of the time in the book almost by heart, and it is something that cannot be seen in the movie and that stands out).

Ready player one has indisputable virtues. Special effects are valued at the service of cinema and not the other way around, a well-defined story with a coherent plot and a well-recreated story best told in true Spielberg style. And by the way (we have to say it clearly and out loud) we have to be grateful that we are finally seeing a villain of the category because lately in the movie they all seem a cliché and a cartoon. Thanks to this nuanced and well thought out villain.

Finally, it must be made clear that although you liked the book, the film is very interesting and distracted and if you watch it you will not waste your money. And watch out, don't get what I'm going to say wrong, but I dare say it's one of the best "commercial" movies Spielberg has made lately.