| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| benj clews |
Posted - 12/05/2010 : 22:09:06
So... I went into this with high hopes as the thrill ride Christmas movie, especially so given it's in 3D and we got handed expensive glasses we couldn't keep and apparently the cinema needed a special 4 camera set up to show it. Heck, it's even got Jeff Bridges in it and he doesn't just appear in any old crap. For another, they waited over 25 years to make the sequel- this was no hastily rushed out follow-up.
It's just such a shame that what I sat through was such a snooze-fest. It started well enough, featuring a 1980s Jeff Bridges (sadly they appear to have gone for the 'uncanny valley' full CGI head approach rather than X-Men 3's highly impressive de-ageing effect 'Lolita') filling in what happened in and following the original Tron (since the main target audience of this film probably weren't even born for another 10 years after it came out). Curiously enough, title sequence aside (featuring an inspired re-imaginig of the Disney castle Tron-stylee), the film wasn't even 3D until about 20 minutes in. Once we actually got into the digital world, the 3D finally kicked in, but, for me atleast, it barely registered as 3D. In places, I actually had to remove the glasses to look for the double image to check it was actually meant to be 3D.
Thankfully, things picked up a little when the games start, most notably the revamped light cycles, but then it's on to talking and meditating which seemed to go on forever. Throughout all this, the eerily plastic young Jeff Bridges gets far too much screen time and close-ups for such a not-quite-there effect. Feeling drowsy by this point, I'm not sure if I dreamt it, but I could swear Tony Blair/ Michael Sheen popped up in a bizarre and somewhat camp manner.
10 minutes on and we're now 2/3rds of the way through and you'd be expecting to be knee deep in the beginning of the big showdown. Instead we're sat on the world's slowest skytrain yakking and meditating again. Luckily, a (sort of) reprise of the lightcycles wakes me up again just enough to make it through the inevitable but remarkably non-tense showdown between good and evil and then end credits.
Underwhelmed was not the word. I don't know what is to be honest. I have to admit I wasn't crazy about the first one but I remember it as being nowhere near as ponderous and slowgoing as this. I truly cannot imagine the kids sitting through this one- it's just too long and chatty, and all set against a grim, grey-skyed backdrop with a scattering of action set pieces featuring almost nothing but CGI (I accept this is pretty unavoidable for a Tron movie however).
On the plus side, Jeff Bridges (the real one, not the 1980s mullett-haired, weirdly moving mouthed (possible stroke victim) one) plays his part as the wise old father well enough and Olivia Wilde rocks as a tight leather clad kick-ass freedom fighter type. Other than this though, this is a tough one to recommend- you can't even write it off as a movie to see for the spectacle alone because the 3D is so subtle.
Maybe just one for the die-hard Tron fans :( |
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Airbolt |
Posted - 12/23/2011 : 13:46:59
No comparison with the original. Somehow it manages to throw CG at the screen without an emotiional connection. The visuals are at the same time stunning and Blah.
The main problems were pacing and casting....and a plot that wavered all over the place...and the plastic videogame Jeff Bridges!
Pacing was slow. I checked my DVD to see if it was on slow motion. The air went out of the Balloon on several occasions including the trip to the portal as mentioned.
The casting of the hero was all off. You need to sympathise with him and the actor is unsympathetic. Lousy casting. The only highlight was the ultracamp Michael Sheen playing a certain singer with thespian proclivities.
A wasted opportunity. Incidentally what was the explanation for the girl appearing in the real world? She has no physical body! |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 06/28/2011 : 15:10:16
This film is so bad that I used it as a ruse when arriving back with a tricky choice from the video shop. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 12/29/2010 : 20:12:43
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
The son is supposed to be six 21 years ago (presumably he does not exist in the original film?), but he looks about nine and I find that kind of thing highly irritating (especially as it is a simple part that a six-year-old actor could certainly play).
I've just been to the I.M.D.B. and it lists him as seven. However, the film is quite specific that that was in 1989 and that he is now 27, so that makes no sense unless between the release date and the anniversary of his father's disappearance he is supposed to be having a birthday. I know it's a small thing but why don't they just have these things add up?! (It's a Wonderful Life always springs to mind in this regard.) Far worse is that the actor will be fourteen in a few weeks. Fourteen! I don't believe they filmed his scenes seven years ago...
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 12/29/2010 : 20:03:45
TRON: Legacy
I've just seen it and feel the same already as I do about Avatar now: it was enjoyable but what was really that good about it? (In contrast, I was buzzing after seeing the latter.)
The son is supposed to be six 21 years ago (presumably he does not exist in the original film?), but he looks about nine and I find that kind of thing highly irritating (especially as it is a simple part that a six-year-old actor could certainly play).
At the beginning, there is a message saying it is not all in 3D. We already had glasses and used the Orange Wednesdays two-for-one deal, but if two people had to pay the full cost it would be �23 (in provincial Shrewsbury, not London!) for the privilege of a partly 3D film. It tells you to put your glasses on immediately, but for me that would make the picture dark for no reason so I didn't. Frankly, I could have watched the entire film without them, and in fact I only put them on occasionally. The doubled image rarely looks much different to the streams of light flowing behind things, and the rest of the scenes are so dark that it is hard to see much detail with shades on; so ironically I generally found the image sharper without the glasses.
Benj is so right about Bridges's C.G.I. mouth -- it really lets it down. I didn't mind it for Clu or whatever he is called, but they should have done some extra work for the scenes with the younger Flynn Sr. or just shown him less.
It's stupid having cycle mean two completely different things in the Grid. It wasn't confusing, but just really annoying every time either was mentioned.
The story before entering the Grid is tedious and builds no sympathy at all for the characters.
On the upside, the light cycles and other vehicles are nice.
Despite a lot more points of criticism than praise, the bulk of it was still very watchable, so it's a 3/5.
|
| benj clews |
Posted - 12/23/2010 : 15:35:51
Sorry to disappoint you Randall. Still, I've been seeing some saying it's the film of the year (the defacto thing to say as the year comes to a close it seems) and similar such high praise so you might yet have a radically different opinion.
I'd be interested to hear what anyone else here thinks. I'm still a little startled I found this to be quite such a clunker and I do wonder if perhaps I'm missing something (I'm proud to say Mark Kermode at least was of a similar opinion to me however). |
| randall |
Posted - 12/09/2010 : 22:14:27
I was saddened to read this, especially since I believe it a fair, even representative opinion -- you're a frickin fanboy, ferchrissake! With very few exceptions [SAW], you and I are sympatico.
I'm one of the few who loved TRON way back when. Of course it's nothing but a period piece today, but to squander this opportunity is almost criminal. I'll obviously reserve my final judgment, but I still think I'll wait for the DVD. [Saving me US$20 or so.]
P.S. The coolest thing about the original, to me, wasn't the lightcycles or any of the neon bullshit. It was the virtual keyboard on David Warner's desk -- and now it's actually on our iPad! |
|
|
