Good Spielbergian fun, even if slightly unremarkable

Rating: 7/10 (6 April 2018)

As with many, Spielberg is one of my idols in filmmaking. I defend him against many of his detractors as he has consistently made some of the great "popcorn munchers" and some wonderful historical dramas that have truly stood the test of time. That being said, it has been a while since I loved a Spielberg film (his double whammy of Catch Me if You Can and Minority Report in 2002 being his most recent greats). His films since then have been relegated to "good" or simply "passable". Even films like Lincoln haven't really stayed with me as much as Spielberg's earlier works. Sadly, Reader Player One has fallen into that category. That's not to say it's a bad film. In fact, I enjoyed it quite a bit. However, it's a flawed film in which many of its elements could've been drastically improved upon.
As someone who read the source material, the many changes to the book didn't bother me too much. The novel did give me mixed feelings overall anyway. On one hand, the child in me enjoyed reading references to pop culture that I love. On the other, it suffers from an overabundance of "nostalgia porn". Those who enjoyed the novel might be disappointed that so much has been changed. Those who didn't might enjoy the film more. For me, I did appreciate the changes as it made it more exciting for someone who has already read the book.
The biggest problem with the film are the characters. None of them are bad but they don't stick with you at all. All the actors do good enough jobs, but we never really feel their plight enough because they're very poorly developed. Without spoiling anything, there's a moment in which the protagonist Wade suffers a terrible loss. Yet, we don't feel anything because we don't care about him enough. The characters are mainly a catalyst to get to the next exciting set piece. Since we don't care about them though, it makes the action less exciting. Halliday is the most interesting character, but Mark Rylance is underused. His relationship with Morrow (Simon Pegg) is one of the most compelling but we don't see enough of it to get invested. The movie suffers from an insane amount of exposition in the first half an hour. Whilst it is nice knowing how the Oasis works, this time could've been better spent developing the characters, especially Wade. On a side note, Simon Pegg also suffers from the same syndrome that Benedict Cumberbatch suffered in Doctor Strange, that of "Iknowyourebritishsojustbebritishdonttrytobeamerican" syndrome.
However, the film is an absolute visual treat. I would've liked to have seen the Oasis have a seedier side more akin to Spielberg's A.I but the world does look amazing. All the set pieces are well crafted, with one standing out as Spielberg's finest since Minority Report. Despite my issues with the characters, after the exposition heavy first act, the pace for the film really picks up and its 2hour20 minute runtime speeds by in a flash. Despite my issues with the pop culture heavy centre of the novel, I did enjoy seeing many of the references to past pop culture icons, especially how they were used in the final battle. And even the typical, Spielbergian schmaltzy ending did tug at my heartstrings, delivering a positive message for this technology-based generation.
And finally, a question for Spielberg? Spielberg, or at least his films. He delivered both the highest grossing film and film franchise of that decade in the form of E.T and Indiana Jones. Yet, Spielberg was already a well-established director before this. Is the need to adapt something so based around 80s pop culture a way of Spielberg attempting to revisit and capture what made his previous films so adored by millions? Is this Spielberg's attempt to become relevant again? I am unsure, but it seems as if he is returning to his roots as a "popcorn" director rather than the historical, "Oscar baity" filmmaker that he has become recently.