Sign up to add this to your collection
|
Sign up to add this to your favorites
|
|
68%
Overall Rating
|
|
Ranked #524
...out of 20,736 movies
|
Sign up to check in!
|
Sam Flynn, the tech-savvy and daring son of Kevin Flynn, investigates his father's disappearance and is pulled into The Grid. With the help of a mysterious program named Quorra, Sam quests to stop evil dictator Clu from crossing into the real world.
--TMDb
|
|
The question is -- Why did Disney need to make a sequel to "Tron"? The first film was a disappointment at the box office and most people you talk to thought it was terrible. I kept hearing all these rumblings about this huge fan base but I never personally encountered any of them. I didn't dislike the original "Tron". I found it very entertaining and it was definitely groundbreaking when it was released. Watching it now is somewhat laughable because of how far we have come with special effects; but, putting its release date into context, it was still impressive. But the question still remains -- Why did Disney need to make a sequel? Money: plain and simple. And the film will probably not disappointment in that arena. Money will happen to "Tron". Lots and lots of it.
Describing the plot to this film is pointless. It makes no sense. And I am sure there are some "Tron"-heads out there who would disagree and give me this long summation about the plot. They are grasping at straws. All you need to know is that Sam (Garrett Hedlund) is the son of Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) from the first film. He gets sucked into the same techno-world that his father did and has to try and fight to escape. We get this whole backstory involving Clu (Jeff Bridges) and Tron (Bruce Boxleitner) and how one turned against the other and there was all this genocide and something about Michael Sheen doing his best David Bowie impression. We also get the always dull and charmless Olivia Wilde looking like she came from a Robert Palmer video. But the plot is nonsensical and nowhere to be found. If you go for the effects, you might not be disappointed.
And the effects are pretty spectacular. "Tron" has come a long way. While still paying homage to the original, this one takes on all sorts of new tricks and treats. The cycles look better. The feel of the world looks better. The most disappointing effect was the attempt at making Jeff Bridges look younger as Clu. They took old images from the original film and made a digitized Bridges. It doesn't really work. The best sequence in the entire film comes during a visit to a club where Michael Sheen gets his rock on. The end of the film is also pretty impressive and highly entertaining though, once they leave the world, it goes out with a whimper and a sunset.
And let's talk about that sunset. It provides some of the most cringe-worthy dialog in a film that has several bits of cringe-worthy dialog. It reminded me of the whole sand analogy from "Star Wars Episode II". Imagine how good this film could have been if it had been penned by...Peter Morgan? Steven Zaillian? Hell, Chris Rock. Disney really needs to pay close attention to whom it hires to pen its films. Jeff Bridges gets the best material with which to work and, of course, he does a fine job with it. Bridges is the highlight in this film with Michael Sheen as a close second just for how ridiculously over-the-top his performance is. Garrett Hedlund doesn't bring much to the table and, as I said before, Olivia Wilde is useless outside of "House". But it was nice to see Bruce Boxleitner doing some acting again; for Bruce too I'm sure.
So "Tron: Legacy" was a bit of a disappointment. It was entertaining and I recommend seeing it strictly for the visuals, but it definitely isn't going to create a franchise and I don't see it making much money outside of its second week in release. It will run out of steam quickly. 6.5/10.
|
|
#1:
steveoutr
- added December 21, 2010 at 12:28pm
i thought the movie was pretty good, plot could of
been better yes but it was decent enough. 7.5/10
|
|
Rate Movie? 
