TRON (1982)

The idea of a hacker transported into a computer having to destroy an evil program was brilliant. But something was missing in "TRON". A more developed story, substantial dialogs and, yes, a director capable to do his job in a better way than Steven Lisberger, master and commander of this sadly overrated movie. How in the world Disney green lighted such a good project in the hands of an amateur?

I'm dazzled with the positive reviews of the many viewers of this wrecked project quoting that this was an underrated film when the time of its release. Sorry, that's not just the case. The story wasn't that appealing as "Matrix" was. The real life sequences were far more interesting than the whole visual effects side, that got overlong, boring, and nowadays dated. I was trying not to sleep in many parts of that long race between the characters (something like a car chase scene but instead of cars running chips and programs chasing each other). Jeff Bridges holds this movie very well and David Warner plays the usual villain as he almost always does. But, if you want to see these two actors in a good movie go rent "The Big Lebowski" (in which Bridges star) or "Time After Time" (an awesome sci-fi movie starring Warner as villain).

I only watched this movie because: 1) In 2005, The Strokes (one of my favorite rock bands) made a video clip for the song 12:51 in which "TRON" was used as reference to the whole thing. Very Interesting by the way. And 2) I heard that "TRON Legacy" is going to be released this year so I thought "Let's see what this movie has of interesting". And the result came to nowhere. And I'm glad that Supertramp, another of my favorite groups, wasn't available to contribute to songs in this wreck. The music in the movie, by the way, is so strangely executed.

The dated visual effects has some charming things that remind us of the 1980's with a twinkle in the eyes. After all who doesn't love the movies of that decade? I loved the visual concept of the movie along with the brilliant and themed costume designs (Oscar nominated). But its slowed rhythm story and its lack of expectation, lack of a better climax just ruined the movie for me. I hope that "TRON Legacy" became a better project. At least, I know it's going to be because Lisberger is not directing the movie, but his hands are in the screenplay again so let's hope he makes something good this time. 2/10

Fmovies: More than just reminiscent of Lang's Metropolis, Tron is a beautiful, well made exercise from a main stream producer (Disney) which reminds us of the time before Jurassic Park and Episode One where creative skill was left to human perception rather than a computer's digitally correct ideal. Owing more to the human colourists than the now outdated computer effects, this film is evidence - similar in a way to Kubric's pre-Moon landing, pre-CGI 2001 - to the creative and more sensory-pleasing abilities of the human artist over soul-less programmers, from a time before when a box would 'parse' it all for you. It's difficult to express how high-powered computers fail to create an image that is satisfactory to the human eye; there is always something that rings false about it. Tron was created in a period of wire diagrams being the best you could coax from a computer; anything else was added by human hand. A film that makes you nostalgic for the time when Disney made films that were accessible for all, almost Bakshi-like in its disregard for the mainstream. There is struggle against adversity; there is an oppressive, evil regime; there are two heroes who survive despite all odds; and there is love conquering all (a token woman is included as love interest. Ironically like the IT industry). The naive use of technical jargon merely adds to the "computer program" style setting and this film is ideally suited for today's retro-chic society. As a Disney film this is aimed predominantly at children, so if you fail to understand the plot then I would recommend sticking to the Lion King or some other pabulum. This is a great film - watch it.

In 1982, the concept of artificial intelligence was advanced enough that a gamer could easily defeat a computer opponent if he memorised the sequence of moves that the AI followed. A computer capable of handing the intense mathematical calculations CGI entailed often took up an entire room. Video games were strictly two-dimensional, and often consisted of video displays that a legally blind man could make out the individual pixels in. Yet they were considerably more fun than most of the annoyances we have to bear with today. The reason for this is as simple as it is obvious. In 1982, programmers realized that graphics are not what make a game fun because graphics could not be made as "real" as they are now.

Tron fell flat at the box office because the concepts it dealt with were not in the public consciousness. Home computers from many manufacturers were duelling for market share, and the idea that the market could one day all be controlled by one monolithic corporation was far from anyone's mind. This little fact is what keeps Tron relevant nearly twenty-five years later. However, as the information age grew into focus, the number of films that openly steal from Tron are numerous. They try to capture the same level of excitement and intrigue, but they fall down because of an inability to make the audience care about the characters.

Tron begins with simple interactions between the world of the programs and the world of the humans, some of which are programmers, or users as they are called here. The sequence in which one user, Flynn, is sucked into the world of the programs, well, let's just say that the Wachowski brothers obviously watched it very carefully before they penned the screenplay for The Matrix. Only in this case, it is done with much more credibility and impact.

Many have talked about the curse that plagues film adaptations of video games. Tron was the first of many films to have a video game adapted from it, the reasons for which should be clear when one watches the game sequences. During the middle act of the film, Flynn is made to compete in a couple of video games, the first of which, while quite clearly based upon Pong, was adapted more or less element-for-element into a crude tennis game. The latter is more notorious, however. The concept of bicycles that create walls behind them as they move, into which one tries to run an opponent, is one of the simple concepts that kept old 4-bit video game machines like the Atari 2600 profitable for so long.

It has been said that it is difficult to understand what is going on, which is hogwash. Once you learn some of the basics of computing, or rather the concepts that Microsoft would like to keep hidden from the user such as input-output addresses and the like, and learn to pay attention to dialogue, it is incredibly easy to follow this story. It is, in fact, one of the best renderings of computer concepts on the big screen to date, which is a sad indictment upon Hollywood when you consider how far technology in both areas has come since 1982.

I gave Tron a ten out of ten. It entertained me immeasurably when I was a child growing up on the cusp of VHS technology. As an adult who is having endless fun with the recordable DVD technology, it entertains me even more. Few things grow more relevant with time, in both happy and sad ways, but Tron is amongst them. If every science-fiction film in which computers and artificial intelligence figured heavily were up to this standard, film critics would have a lot less to do.

TRON fmovies. For the average viewer, 'Tron' is a puzzling film. The language is loaded with jargon, the world experienced by Clu and Tron (inside the computer) appears strange, forbidding and two-dimensional. It is a world that seems to work though, but how does the human Clu instantly know how to adjust to its peculiarities?

Viewers have come to expect that techno-babble jargon in SciFi flicks is completely meaningless. That isn't entirely the case for 'Tron', much of it is firmly based in computing. Even more importantly, this strange world Clu and Tron inhabit is equally firmly based on the way computer operating systems work, and that is the reason why Clu (in real live a computer hacker) knows how to handle it.

Using this world as the basis for a movie was pretty audacious, especially in 1982. Thankfully, the writers did not compromise on their idea, and consequently the film not only worked but it stood the test of time.

'Tron' works, because computers work.

TRON is a landmark film. Wonderfully visionary, a monumental technical achievement. It made possible so many later films which we came to know and love. There, now that we've got that out of the way can we point out that TRON is not a good movie? It has plenty of technological wizardry but the film is sorely lacking in entertainment. The story is weak, doing very little to grab the viewer. It doesn't matter how much of a visual spectacle your film is if the story doesn't engage. Director Steven Lisberger seems to have lost sight of that. Give Lisberger and his crew credit for pulling off something which in 1982 seemed truly impossible. But the innovative technology is all this film has going for it.

TRON takes place largely inside a computer. Have you ever wondered what goes on inside your computer? Apparently Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner are in there tossing Frisbees around. Now that just sounds silly. But that's OK, silly can at times be entertaining. This is not one of those times. Entertainment here is in desperately short supply. Bridges gives the film a little juice, providing some humor and creating a character you care about at least a little bit. Boxleitner on the other hand is a dud, a total wet blanket with all the personality of a doorknob. And that's a problem since Boxleitner plays Tron himself. Or is it Tron itself? Because you see these characters are playing computer programs. Well, except for Bridges, he's a person but he's in the computer anyway. Yeah, it's all very weird. Could have been wonderfully weird but it isn't. The story just kind of sits there, it's never developed properly. There's the requisite villain and the requisite girl but really it's just a big light show. For 1982 a very impressive light show but still just a light show nonetheless. It takes more than a light show to make a film. You need to actually have something happen. In this film there's not nearly enough going on to hold the viewer's interest. The dazzling (for their time) visuals only take you so far. In its time TRON was something special. But time has been unkind. What was revolutionary in 1982 is mundane today. And the film doesn't have a story to fall back on. We see it with so many big-budget visual extravaganza films today. It doesn't matter how good your film looks if the story stinks. Story is always the most important thing. And the story lets TRON down. Bravo for the vision. Bravo for having the technological know-how to bring the vision to the screen. TRON was a wonderful technological achievement. But there are other films you can say that about which were also wonderful entertainment. Here TRON falls well short.

When this came out, about 25 years ago, the special-effects were eye-popping. I was stunned and saw this twice at the theater, something I rarely did. Nowadays, it looks primitive. It's like when video games first came out, compared to what they are now.

However, a few years ago when the DVD came out with the widescreen and 5.1surround sound, it made it somewhat-respectable again in parts and made it still fun to watch.

The story was never that great. There was too much technical talk and the characters were the kind you really couldn't get involved over.

It's nothing super, but if you've never seen it, I still recommend it. I don't recall any other movie quite like it.