Quite possibly the quintessential 80’s movie, Tron is also a movie that transcends the time period it was made in. Yes, its basic computer graphics combined with old-fashioned animation is way dated, its layered structure was far too complicated for technicolor to handle, and the manner in which computers are explained makes no sense to anyone in today’s computer-controlled world, but you get the feeling that the film makers were really on to something. The basic idea of getting sucked into a computer is still cool (hence the sequel coming out in December), and at least the way the film was attempted is also still cool. Not until Toy Story does Disney attempt something as innovative an achievement, and I feel that if the final product had been better, more movie companies would have followed and the whole use-of-computer-animation-in-movies thing would have caught on sooner. Still, Tron is a decent movie. Its got action, plenty of visuals, an attempt at characters, and is an interesting look at Jeff Bridge’s early career. Also, the movie is fairly short, which helps.
Synopsis: Kevin Flynn is a brilliant computer programmer, working for a large corporation to create video games. Ed Dillinger is Flynn’s coworker, who steals Flynn’s masterpiece and presents the work as his own. Dillinger is promoted and promptly fires Flynn. Years pass, and Flynn, now owner of a video game arcade, spends his time trying to hack into his former company’s files to get proof of Dillinger’s dishonest act. When Dillinger activates a new advanced computer program called the Master Control Program (MCP), Flynn’s attempts to steal evidence are discovered. The MCP reacts by physically pulling Flynn into the computer system in order to compete, and hopefully die in the very same video games that he helped create…
Acting: Bridges (Flynn) is the only widely known actor in the movie, and in the lead role he does well. He is likable but pretty much stays in the same “mode” (excited) the whole movie, even when bad things happen, which makes his persona a little unbelievable. Besides David Warner’s Dillinger character, everyone else in this movie is very dull and forgettable. Yes I know many of them are supposed to be computer programs, but emotionless characters are not all that fun to watch. The problem may be the the dialogue, which is meant to be easy to understand for kids…I think. Bad (13/25)
- Jeff Bridges: Good
- David Warner: Okay
- Bruce Boxleitner: Bad
- Supporting Cast: Bad
Script/Plot: While initially its a little confusing figuring out what is going on, the plot is pretty straight forward so you’ll be able to pick up the story again. What I am calling confusing is the way that this film chooses to portrait how computers work. Its not right at all, almost like one big analogy. Things just randomly appear in the movie with no purpose other than being called something that has to do with computers. But it works for a kids movie I suppose, because eventually you give up trying to make sense of it all and just enjoy it as it is. At least as much of it as you can. Its not all very exciting. After an hour the story seems to peter out and becomes inconsequential. There’s no suspense and drama, leading to a forgettable and super predictable ending. Okay (16/25)
- Dialogue: Okay
- Script: Okay
- Plot: Okay
- Themes/Messages:Good
Direction: The way the film is directed though, is brilliant, even if the script and cast isn’t. Director Steven Lisberger fully embraces 80’s computer technology with some nifty transitions between the real world and the computer world, tastefully subdued computer imagery lurking in the background of the real world shots, and camera motions mimicking video game scrolls. The way the computer graphics are artfully integrated with animation may look cheap to your eyes today, but I bet they would have blown your mind in 1982. Good (23/25)
- Professionalism: Good
- Flow: Great
- Editing: Good
Special Effects: Yes, the colors are dull and much of the scenery and props look really cheap, but you have to give credit where it is due. While primitive, scenes such as the light cycle race and the recognizer crash are artfully done and still fun to watch today. If only they had been more creative and not relied on so much animation for the finale, it may have added some much-needed excitement. The music is perfect for the movie too, it sets the mood without sounding too dated. Good (22/25)
- Special Effects: Great
- Music: Good
- X-Factor: Good
The Verdict: (74/100)= C (Watchable)
- What’s Good: Cool ideas, some memorable action sequences, and that 80’s nostalgic feel.
- What’s Bad: Its dated, drawn out at times, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, and lacks memorable characters and performances.
- Summary: Surprise surprise, a movie about computers lacking that human element.
My previous review: Rated: Rush: Beyond the Lighted Stage (2010)
also check out: Ranked: The Top Ten Most Important Movies of All Time
Remember to become a fan of GSP Movie Reviews on Facebook.