He's anxious in the real world. In the Oasis, he's his real self.

To clarify (I think) the bad guy stopping in the end, once he saw Wade holding the Egg, that meant that ownership of the Oasis was now officially Wade's, and neither the bad guy nor his company had any chance to lay claim to take it anymore, so in that moment, he recognized and accepted that he'd simply failed and would and could never win in this quest, so he just gave up and stopped; there was nothing more to gain and his conflict wasn't personal, just business, so he made the executive decision to simply stop (and was also just generally a boasting coward who couldn't go through with the gritty "by hand" stuff anyway). The two never met like that in the book, but I think that's what the scene is supposed to show.

I can admit two things. One: There are gaps in the screenwriting that may be in the book and there may be things the movie did better than the book but it falls short in those ways. Two, I felt very discouraged by your take not because I think you're wrong but because I have a personal attachment to this movie. I think I give a lot of those aspects that fall short in the movie a pass because of Halliday's character. I resonated so strongly when I first saw this with his outlook, his motivations, and especially with the ending scene when he imparts a bit of himself to Parzival in their discussion. Halliday's character hit me somewhere deep down in my core belief system about how I feel so at odds with the world that it truly makes me cry every time I watch it. When he says "Thank you for playing my game." That line says more to me than anything else in this entire story. So yea, for personal reasons I let a lot of other Hollywood bullocks slide because like you said I have never seen a character like him before. I think the difference is that I understood his character on a personal level that allowed me to compartmentalize everything else that I mostly agree with you on at a technical and scriptwriting level.

I feel that the switch in Wade’s character from being the timid person to being the stronger tough guy is the same as anyone on the internet. He was always the strong and confident guy when he was in the game. That was, as he said to Sorrento. “my world.” So out in the real world he was kind of awkward and timid which we only saw a few times. And the one time we saw him as a bold person as himself was when they were technically still in the game but wearing a skin of himself.

15:00: Well, everyone hates the corporate hunters to begin with, so he doesn't have to be "smart enough" to avoid it. And he's a different person entirely in Oasis.

Great review of the movie, Beca! You know why you had such a problem with this movie, it's because it wasn't even close to the book. The technical elements of the movie are excellent but story was lost. I can't even call it a cliffs notes on the book. If you want to treat yourself to a great story listen to the audio book. Will Wheaton (yes, Wesley Crusher) does an incredible reading. So enjoyable. I've watch a few reviews now and I love what you do. Consider me a new subscriber.

I know I'm late, but i just discovered you earlier today, so... I agree with everything you said, it actually surprised and annoyed me when I watched it because I couldn't believe Spielberg would allow those cringy, weird bad acting scenes, but, it was fun from a pop culture fan service perspective. All that being said, if you ever have the chance, i hope you read/listen to the book, it's much darker and so much better in every way

To answer your question about The Shining sequences: Spielberg actually used a combination of unused footage he got from the Kubrick family (Kubrick was a friend of Spielberg, and I'll give you a little bit of trivia on that shortly), and also used CG to recreate the Overlook interiors, as well as live action elements shot just for the film (including the Twins). The footage of the woman in the bath is lifted from the original film, but was altered to have the tub's edge raised up to cover the bare breasts of the actress from the original sequence (for the reverse shot where you see her from behind as she approaches Aech, that is a body double). The visual effects team were able to mimic the film grain for The Shining to make the CG footage match the original film's footage. Now, onto that trivia segment I mentioned: Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg were both friends for years up until Kubrick's passing in 1999 (in fact, AI: Artificial Intelligence, a film Spielberg went on to direct, was a project Kubrick brought to Spielberg with the intention of both working on). They first met when Spielberg was visiting a studio that he had planned on using the soundstages for filming Raiders of the Lost Ark. One of the soundstages was where Kubrick was filming The Shining, and Spielberg first met Kubrick on the set for the Colorado Room (the room where Jack Torrance is seen writing throughout the film). When the High Five enter the challenge, the room they end up in is the Colorado Room, it serving as a personal Easter Egg for Spielberg. Also, you're view about the film isn't actually uncommon. A lot of the fans of the book felt the same way. The book has a lot more in there, also the film his heavily modified to fit the screen (the book took place over the course of almost a year's worth of time, but they compressed it drastically for the film in order to meet the two-hour runtime).

I didn't take it as Sorrento having a change of heart at the end, so much as realizing that he had already lost and anything else he could do would be futile. Having read the book and seen the movie, I think Spielberg's team did a great job at condensing, distilling and tweaking the story. For instance it's Wade who ends up in custody in the book, and his escape is a lot more convoluted, and (imo) less satisfying that the movie version. I feel Spielberg does what Spielberg does: Tell a compelling, engaging story with exceptional skill in all departments - from editing to casting, to soundtrack. I wasn't looking for a life-altering tale (especially after having read the book). I was just looking for an entertaining few hours. And I think, for me, it delivered on those criteria. Thanks for watching. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it more, but I understand your reasons.

as someone who did like the movie, showed it to friends etc, almost everything you mentioned was a failng of the movie to explain or just rushed through so they can fit more pop culture references. i can admit. let me address a few. the shift from brave to shy and awkward was aside from a few times where he let the persona drop and let his real world self slip through a bit, he was confident in the game but not the real world. why he didn't shoot him in the end. he could have but it would not necessarily have done anything. they would have searched and searched till they found his next of kin or his will and the inheritor would then control the oasis not him. meanwhile he would have been seen in broaad daylight by hundreds shooting an innocent kid. this way there is still a decent chance they are unable to pin the explosion on him and he walks away with maybe a few minor charges for brandishing the gun. he didn;t realize they recorded the conversation and as such had decent evidence

Santa says Ho Ho Ho.

I've always believed Halliday did the same thing Kayaba Akihiko did in SAO and did a high powered brain scan and uploaded himself

Love you!!!! Keep going!!!

I personally enjoyed the movie a lot when it first came out, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't understand why many were disappointed with it.

You should totally watch free Guy !!!!!

Don't look for me to watch any more of your reviews. You! The Queen of Overthinking!

I really don’t understand why the villain in this movie uses Superman’s skin as his own game character

Have you made any movies because you have a lot of opinions😂 lets see if you could do better.

New sub

You’re underrated

Love the honesty!

I agree with your final monolog about the movie. It sacrificed character development for nostalgia and pop culture pops. If you'd like to check out a much better movie about technology, and you haven't seen it, I'd love to see a reaction to Ex Machina. It asks a lot of questions about engineering ethics, and the acting is a master-class in drama.

I haven't read the book so I can't speak to that... but I think that one of the big things they did in this movie was try to replicate the nerd culture one-up-man-ship that existed before the Information Age (and before nerd culture became pop culture). It was something special to show that you had access to information that others did not, and were intelligent enough to remember all of these little known factoids. Kind of the same way you knew all of your friends phone numbers... we don't have to do that now that everyone has smartphones in our pockets. It was a constant challenge to know more than your peers and show that off. As you might imagine... a LOT of BS was made up and this is how some of the big rumors got started. Someone wanted to impress people and voila... fake news before fake news was a thing. I think that if grew up with internet access that this might be hard to imagine, or at the very least weird to see on screen this way. I agree that all of the cultural references sort of take center stage and the story is a little bit juvenile and really isn't the main focus of the movie. More like a vehicle to get you from one Easter egg to another.

Terrible review