TRON: Legacy Review

So, thanks to my good friend Leigh B, I saw TRON: Legacy at the Navy Peir IMAX last night.

After the pretty awful reviews that had been heaping up, mixed with a few by people who desperately wanted it to be good, I was not hopeful. I expected a stultifying, inert film, with amazing visuals.

Y'know, pretty much the original all over again.

I guess maybe my expectations had been lowered enough that I really didn't find the film as offensive as some people. That said, it is not a great film, and certainly not memorable. It happens, you soak in the visuals, and leave. That's it, nothing more.

I felt the plot was pretty clear, and there's no urgency in getting through it. Plenty of time to figure out what's going on. (Maybe too much - stay tuned for spoilers.) I wasn't confused, but I can't say it was gripping. There's been a lot of talk of the material in this film only there to set up more movies, but I didn't find it that obvious or annoying, no moreso than any number of other franchise pictures. I also didn't find it intriguing enough to really care what they were trying to set up.

What is somewhat annoying is the absolute adherence to the story structure set up in the first film. Flynn, Jr, gets thrown onto the grid, immediately placed in the games. We have a disk game, corresponding exactly to the ring game in the first film. Then, in both films, Sam and Kevin gain some knowledge about the world they're in. From there, both films go to the light cycle sequences.

1982

2010

The light cycles in both films are the best sequences. It's kind of annoying that they occur in the first act, and both movies kinda run out of steam after that. I will say that TRON: Legacy maintains forward momentum a bit better than the original.

Here's another thing that started to bug me. In TRON, the games were linked to actual video game play. There was even a cut that took us from Kevin Flynn playing "Space Paranoids," to the game actually happening within the computer world. The inference was that the games were played for the entertainment of the unseen users. That's a huge, somewhat creepy, element that could be exploited, and feed all sorts of actions by the programs, but it's gone. TRON: Legacy shows a vast arena of programs watching.

There's a lot of re-positioning of the way the computer world works. TRON gave us programs that had specific functions, RAM was an actuarial program, and would spout financial advice. TRON was a security program, and thus he was a warrior. They also, implicitly, looked exactly like the users that programmed them, so Bruce Boxleitner played both TRON and his programmer, Alan Bradley. This was logical, and set ground rules that could be exploited. You felt for these mild-mannered programs that were being forced to play the video games.

TRON: Legacy gives us games that feel like high-stakes sports. Sam Flynn meets an array of programs that all look very extreme, the idea of a close connection between a user and his program is gone. The design has overrun it. Maybe that's a reflection of the changes in computer culture, maybe it was intended. Certainly, I've seen lots of people who use the concept of an computer avatar to create something very extreme, very different from their true selves. However, even if it was intentional, it forsakes something that felt immediate and personal in the first film.

The acting is actually pretty good. There's been a lot of blasting of Garrett Hedlund, but I didn't feel like he dropped the ball too badly. He's a ingenue hero, it's not a flashy role. It's about plot mechanics and being stalwart. I mean, did anybody think Orlando Bloom was amazing in Pirates of the Caribbean? Anybody? I'd dare to say that Hedlund is a more compelling screen presence than Bloom, honestly.

The real find in the cast, however, is Olivia Wilde. Her QUORRA has more life on screen than any other character. Whereas everyone else seems kind of constrained in some way, Wilde is brimming with excitement and emotion. She's fun, and you want to see more of the character. She also comes off as a warrior without overdoing the "bad ass," far too often that overwhelms any other character trait. QUORRA comes off as a child, endlessly fascinated by the users she's interacting with. Yes, yes...Easy on the eyes, too.

With that, we do come to Jeff Bridges.

I'm a huge fan, and Bridges doesn't slack off. He's doing that Jeff Bridges, "I'm not acting, acting," that he's a master of. The guy just seems comfortable no matter where you place him. He seems connected to the film, and committed to the performance. He's doing his job.

He's also playing two roles, Kevin Flynn, the user, and creator of this environment (which doesn't ENTIRELY make sense, because it was there before he entered the world in 1982...oh, well.), as well as CLU, the program Flynn created to help manage the grid, and villain of the piece.

Bridges does create two distinct personas. Flynn does hang on Bridges "The Dude" reputation, but CLU is a nice dark spin on that. It's as I sit here now that I realize that they did seem like two different entities. Kudos to Bridges in really pulling that off.

However, no kudos to the FX team that created the "young Flynn" CGI mask that CLU and, well, the younger version of Flynn "wear" in the movie. It's a poster child for the uncanny valley. The mouth doesn't work right at all, and it never really looks like CLU is speaking. I worked with it, but, as Leigh said last night, if Avatar can make the Na'vi seem real and do such exquisite facial capture work, why couldn't Disney?

A few words on the 3-D element.

The 3-D revolution has really been underway for about a year now. In that time I can only think of two movies that really and truly used the technology in any sort of exciting or integral way. That would be Avatar, which used 3-D to create amazing depth and a real sense of immersion in the world of Pandora. The other would be Night and Day, the animated short that ran before Toy Story 3. That one is far more difficult to explain, and is flat-out the most clever use of 3-D I've ever seen. It's still amusing and enjoyable in 2-D, but my jaw was on the floor when I saw it in the theater, in full 3-D.

TRON: Legacy is definitely aiming for the former. Nothing gets poked in your face, or anything. That said, it really didn't work, or matter. I would advise anyone to just go ahead and see a 2-D screening. It's cheaper, anyway.

Although, it might be the IMAX. IMAX 3-D has never worked as well for me as 3-D in a regular digital theater. I saw Avatar in regular Digital 3-D, and was blown away, then saw it again at IMAX, and grew annoyed. Every move of my head would muddle the image, and the glasses would catch glare off the screen. Neither of these problems has ever occurred with a regular digital 3-D screening, but happen every single time I see IMAX 3-D. Perhaps it has to do with re-using the glasses. IMAX has done a great job with convincing people it's the best movie experience, ever, but I personally can't agree.

There's also weird choices in TRON: Legacy of when to switch back and forth from full IMAX frame to widescreen. The long, rather dull conversation between Sam and Kevin on the solar sailor gets full IMAX, but the climactic fight is regular widescreen? Huh?

Some of you out there might be asking at this point, "what about TRON?" I mean, TRON is a character, and it would seem odd to have a movie with TRON in the title, not featuring that character. Well, in order to get into that, I'll have to go into spoiler territory. So, the basic non-spoiler wrap-up is this; I can't say TRON: Legacy is a great, or even really good film, but it's not a total disaster. If you want to see it, and haven't (box office seems to indicate you have), it's worth it. It's not going to stick with you, or make you feel like a new franchise has risen, one you can't wait to see the next installment of, but it's diverting enough for two hours.

***SPOILERS AHEAD***

 Go back if you don't want to know.

Ok, so RINZLER is TRON. Fine, but it's also really, really predictable. I pegged it (Leigh will back me up) right from the moment Kevin Flynn tells his story about TRON. That's fine, the elements are there so that you don't feel like the reveal is a cheat, but here's what is a cheat.

Rinzler

When RINZLER switches back to TRON, and we hear the line from the first film, "I fight for the users." It should be emotional, it ought to mean something. It doesn't, at all, because we don't see TRON, we just see this blank, black helmet, and hear a disembodied voice. It's the moment when we should see him rip off the helmet, and reveal the "young Bruce Boxleitner" CGI mask. Doesn't happen. If they were trying to cut the budget, it's the absolute wrong moment to get cheap. 

It's a key emotional moment in the movie, a re-connection with an old friend for both Kevin Flynn and the audience, and it's played by a literal cypher. A blank slate. It could, literally, be anyone! How are we supposed to care about that?

It's the one moment in the movie that really made me mad. It's just...nothing. Saying a name doesn't mean anything in a visual medium, especially when your movie is designed to be a massive visual experience. I won't even get into the fact that this movie tells us basically nothing about TRON, other than a couple of brief mentions, so if you haven't seen the previous film, you're just not going to get it.

Horrendously bad storytelling. Just awful. I can give the film a pass on quite a bit, but this is just offensively poor thinking on a story level. It's something that professional filmmakers should be able to avoid. Take that as you will.

The Legacy of TRON

There's a lot of film critics that I read, some because I almost always disagree with them, some because I just find their writing fantastic, and some because I find their taste and viewpoints to be extremely similar to mine. Of the latter, Drew McWeeny at hitfix.com is the one I read most often. I think, as a screenwriter, he understands the language of film, and the needs of storytelling, in a very immediate way.

With that said, this is really depressing. It's not going to stop me from seeing TRON: Legacy, but my expectations are well tempered.

One of the things that I like about that review is that he spends time talking about the original film. There are a lot of movies out there who's reputation needs to be tempered against the nostalgia the fanbase has for the film. There may be no film that exemplifies this more than the original TRON.

TRON is a visual marvel, and I definitely still enjoy it on that level. It's gorgeous in it's design and execution, and the primitive CGI effects are perfect for the circa-1982 computer world that's being explored. To this day, I can put that DVD on, and just wallow in a fully realized, totally alien environment.

Now, outside of that, TRON is a pretty crappy movie. It's inert in pretty much every sense, with a couple of fairly well executed setpieces. It's also a horrendous example of effects work, and marketing, driving a story.

Classic example; why the shot of the net bugs when they look over the side of the solar sailer? It's about 30 seconds of footage, if that, and the dialogue indicates the bugs are some sort of threat. However, what the bugs actually do is...nothing. They pop up, skitter around, and disappear from the film. Of course, they DO pop up again in the absolutely classic video game. It's like somebody said, "hey we have this animation of these bug things, can we stick that in there? I know it makes not really one iota of sense, but can we?"

I also see why the video game people would absolutely latch onto it, because, outside of the two action beats that do work in the film, which would be the ring game and the lightcycles, there's really nothing to use as a threat. Well, there are the recognizers, which are another lovely bit of design, and they do make the game. I always seem to forget the tank level.

I always wonder when somebody tells me they "love" TRON, if they are really mixing up the memories of the game with the movie. As a kid, the game was astonishing, and the movie bored the crap out of me. I was eleven, and the film didn't even really get me as an environment, a place where I'd want to have other adventures, above and beyond the movie. That was a feeling I got from a lot of really great films, obvious ones like Star Wars, or the Indiana Jones series, but also really crappy, ass end films like Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared-Syn.

Yeah, I said it. Anytime I hear somebody complaining about the "crappy" new 3-D, I just sorta drop, "Metalstorm." I played a lot, imagining running from Night Court's "Bull." (picture on your right) Outside of, occasionally, thinking my bike was a lightcycle, I can't remember ever "playing" TRON, except the game.

Now, as an adult, I can see so much opportunity and depth in the world that director and screenwriter Steve Lisberger whipped up. Especially now with the internet being such a force in the world. The concept the TRON team came up with is so much vaster than their execution of it, and, being based on real-world tech, the concept can be used in so many interesting ways. It's a concept that, right off the bat, suggests so many way to really be ABOUT something, rather than just a empty popcorn movie experience.

Not to say that TRON doesn't hit on a few things that live up to the concept. The Master Control Program (MCP - on your left) is a fascinating creation. It's a program, just like every other entity we meet inside the computer world. The unspoken rule is that these programs look exactly like the user (i.e. us) who programmed them. CLU looks like Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), TRON looks like Alan Bradley(Bruce Boxleitner), SARK looks like Ed Dillinger (David Warner). Yet, the MCP, which was programmed by Dillinger, looks nothing like his user. He's evolved and taken on the tasks of other programs, and "physically" changed within the computer world. Not only that, but the MCP has, apparently, become sentient. We see a scene where the MCP speaks to Dillinger in the latter's real-world office, and the program is threatening, and ordering around, his creator. It's a, frankly, terrifying concept that could add a lot to the movie, but it just sails past, a wasted opportunity.

You could kinda say that about the whole film.

Which is why I had high hopes for this sequel, TRON: Legacy. It's truly a situation where it wouldn't take much for the continuation to outdo the original. Plus, with almost thirty years of computer evolution, and knowledge of the ever-increasing role of computers in our lives, it seems almost elementary to come up with an exciting, innovative plot line.

So, again, Drew's negative review is a disappointment, even if he does give the new film props in the exact same areas where the original shined. I guess in some ways, that may make it a perfect sequel. Harry Knowles, over at Ain't It Cool News has chimed in with his own opinion. (Looks like the site is imploding right now, so I can't provide a link, mea culpa.) Of course, Harry is absolutely notorious for allowing nostalgia and excitement to overwhelm rational thought. When he gets this wrapped up in something, I know his opinion can't be trusted.

At least he kept away from the sexual metaphors, this time.

So, yeah, I'll be seeing TRON: Legacy as soon as I possibly can, without a doubt. Biggest screen in the theater with the most bells and whistles I can find, too. IF I'm set for a mainly visual experience, I'm going to ride that in the best way possible. It's definitely something I want to form my own opinion on. However, I trust Mister McWeeny enough to be on guard about my expectations.

From Now Until New Years

I read a couple of really, really positive reviews of the Coen Brothers version of True Grit today. I'm extremely excited about this film, and the reviews, one by hitfix.com's Drew McWeeney, whom I respect a lot, are only whetting my desire to see this film. Looks like Harry Knowles, over at aintitcool.com, just got his usual, hyperbolic take up, as well.

Frankly, everything that's been released about this film is exciting to me. The trailers have been spectacular, that poster you see to the left is pitch-perfect, and the way the official website, I linked to above, is set up is super-cool.

It also helps that I've become a bit of a rabid Jeff Bridges fan. I love, love, love actors, like him, that can make it all seem so easy. Bridges never seems like he's trying, he just IS. Frankly, that's the ultimate state that an actor should aim for. Being, not doing, as the old book said.

I was watching some bonus material on an old Tom Baker/Fourth Doctor era adventure, Genesis of the Daleks, the other night. A comment was made about Baker, and how he seemed to fully inhabit the role because he "didn't care." The actor repeatedly made sure to insist that was a compliment, just so we're all clear.

It is a compliment, and one I understand. Tom Baker just WAS The Doctor, he didn't fret or worry about it, he took on the role, and went from there. I think you could say the same thing about Bridges. There's a lack of vanity and ego in his performances, a brilliance that comes without apparent effort. He just is.

He's certainly a better actor than John Wayne. I'm sorry if that bothers people, but I feel that's just a given. Now, Wayne was certainly far more of a film ICON, yes, I mean that in all caps, and personality, one I absolutely respect and honor, but his Rooster Cogburn isn't even what I would call close to his best performance. That's Ethan Edwards in The Searchers, by the way, and the True Grit Oscar was, a recognition for many years of performances, which I think everyone knew. Cogburn is almost a parody of the John Wayne character, frankly.

If you want my take, they should've waited until The Shootist in 1976, or just given it to him in 1956 for The Searchers, because Edwards was a really amazing creation. Just brilliant work. That, however, is just my opinion.

This is all just background for my feverish anticipation of Christmas weekend, when I'll finally get to see what the Coen's have cooked up from Charles Portis' novel.

It got me looking ahead to what's coming in the next month. So, here's the other films that are enticing to me between now and New Years.


127 Hours

Perhaps too intense to bear? I've been very much enjoying James Franco's recent work, and you cannot overstate the amazing nature of this story. I'm a little freaked by the whole idea, but it sure sounds compelling.

Currently In Limited Release







The Kings Speech

Yeah, it seems a little tony and high-brow, but the cast is great, and the trailer was pretty damn fun to watch. I highly doubt Colin Firth will be taking an Oscar home, but it is possible.

Currently In Limited Release

 





The Tourist

Johnny Depp, Plus Angelina Jolie and the trailer made me laugh out loud. Looks fairly lightweight, but, y'know, there's no harm in being fun. Paul Bettany being involved is extra points, too.

Opens Friday, December 10th






The Fighter

Christian Bale and Mark Walberg in the true story of half-brothers Mickey Ward and Dickie Eklund, and Ward's attempt to snare a Light Welterweight Boxing title. Bale is reportedly amazing, again.

Limited Release Friday, December 10th







Tron Legacy

Yep, the original is pretty damn awful, if visually unique and interesting. The story is awful. Nothing happens for vast swaths of the running time, and things happen just to display a bit of stone-age CGI. (Net bugs, anyone?) Honestly, this sequel can only be better, and director Joseph Kosinski has already displayed a better sense of story than the original film's Steven Lisberger. The 3-D thing is overdone, but I also get a real sense that this is the kind of film, yes, like Avatar, that can really pull off some compelling tricks with it.

Plus, there's Jeff Bridges, again.

Opens Friday December, 17th

It actually a slim list, I'm surprised to see. I expected far more big, Oscar-bait films to be in the offing.