TRON (1982)

[MmzHrrdb]

Had I not known before watching the film (or had I somehow missed the remarkably obvious "hidden Mickey"), I would have never guessed TRON to be a Disney film. It simply has little to nothing in common to anything else Disney has ever made. And I'm not referring to the lack of musical numbers or princesses, but rather the lack of humor, coherent plot, memorable characters, and basically anything resembling entertainment. TRON is a mess. A boring mess. Its cult classic status is a mystery to me.

Normally I'd explain the plot of the film right about now, except I have no idea what the movie was about. Somebody named Flynn gets sucked into a computer game, and has to figure out how to defeat something called Master Control Program. But there are so many points of confusion and tedious chase scenes mish-mashed throughout the film, that the plot gets totally lost at times.

Perhaps I would have a better understanding of the story if the dialogue wasn't so terribly dull. The script is composed of incredibly bland exposition and tedious tech-talk, making it a chore to listen to.

While TRON is only 96 minutes long, it's fairly dull from the very start. There are some slightly intriguing elements early on, but by the time TRON hits the 45 minute mark, it becomes a certified snore-fest. Frankly, I was just about bored to tears.

TRON is often praised for its "incredible" visuals. But they look so horrendous that I can't imagine they are appreciated as anything more than as a lesson in how NOT to create special effects. I understand that this film is over 30 years old, but surely the intense ugliness of this production was evident at the time of its release.

The effects are frightfully messy looking. Once we enter the video-game world, everything from the backgrounds to the (laughably bad) costumes are digitally created. This makes the film appear muddy and shoddy. So muddy, in fact, that I frequently mixed up the identities of certain characters, merely because the special effects caused their faces to be difficult to see clearly.

The acting ranges from bland to campy. Jeff Bridges, Bruce Boxleitner and Cindy Morgan fall into the former category. David Warner falls into the latter.

The score, composed by Wendy Carlos, is delightfully retro, yet simultaneously obnoxious as a result. The electronic elements are amusing, but they become excessive and irritating as the film progresses.

A mess of a film, TRON features disastrously ugly special effects, terrible dialogue, weak acting, and a confusing story that isn't worth trying to follow. On top of that, it's just a big bore, lacking the fun and excitement of the films it's so clearly trying to imitate (namely Star Wars). If you want to see a better video-game oriented Disney film, watch Wreck-It Ralph. If you've already seen Wreck-It Ralph and you want to see if Disney can find success in the same pattern twice, here's your answer: no. Go watch Wreck-It Ralph.

Score: 3/10

[mattorama12]

I'm no huge fan of Tron, but I think I can point out some of its appeal. First off, I think Flynn is a good enough character for this type of movie. He's sarcastic, confident, and just edgy enough. I also think Bridges plays it with the right amount of campiness, though you obviously disagree.

But the main point I'd try to make is that, to understand this film's cult following, you really have to understand when it came out. Up until the mid 90s, computers were for geeks. Regular folk, if they had a computer at all, did little other than word processing. So anything that focused so heavily on computers was, for those who were interested in them, already cool. Tron was really ahead of the curve in that sense.

Second, and this is certainly related to the first point, the idea of a virtual reality world was really fresh at the time. It's been done thousands of times over in so many different ways now that the idea itself is boring. But this was 1982, there really weren't many stories or movies about that idea (I'm sure people can point some out, but they weren't common).

Finally, I think the effects really were cool at the time. I wasn't around when it came out, but older folks I know say that the effects were really outstanding for their time. I can't personally vouch for that, but I can say this. I remember when Independence Day came out. I thought the effects were some of best I'd even seen. It looked so real. When I've watched it in recent years, I'm amazed at how shitty it looks.

Anyway, you'll notice all of my points relate to how it should have been received at the time. I think films should get some points for originality. At the same time, I don't hold Tron out as a classic because, as you've really pointed out, it simply doesn't hold up. I don't want to try to change your mind, but I think you should be able to at least understand why it developed such a cult following.

[ShogunRua]

JLFM hit the nail on the head here. While I can understand why Tron is so popular, ("ooh! It's about arcade games! And it has digitized graphics!" People were more easily amused back in the early 80s) it is indeed an idiotic mess ridden with plot holes and long stretches of boredom, with little happening.

The one point JLFM got wrong is when he referred to "tech-talk". There is actually nothing of the sort in TRON. Instead, any dialogue concerning computers is filled with moronic misunderstanding that I would expect from an uneducated housewife who had never used one in her life, and thought it was borderline alien technology.

Here was my mini-review, by the way;

"A Disney film for kids with cool images for its time, and an awful, mumbo-jumbo plot, complete with a lack of understanding of science or computers. The "programs can think for THEMSELVES" theme will make any genuine scientist or programmer laugh.On the human front, every actor except for Bridges is dreadful, to the point where it's almost self-parody. And finally, its purpose was merely to hype up arcades. Worst of all, it becomes excruciatingly, painfully boring at times.

31/100"

[MmzHrrdb]

I'm no huge fan of Tron, but I think I can point out some of its appeal. First off, I think Flynn is a good enough character for this type of movie. He's sarcastic, confident, and just edgy enough. I also think Bridges plays it with the right amount of campiness, though you obviously disagree.

Well, I did find him to be "sarcastic, confident, and just edgy enough" for his first 5 minutes of screentime. But once he enters the video game, he leaves his personality behind. I just found him to be rather dull. :/

But the main point I'd try to make is that, to understand this film's cult following, you really have to understand when it came out. Up until the mid 90s, computers were for geeks. Regular folk, if they had a computer at all, did little other than word processing. So anything that focused so heavily on computers was, for those who were interested in them, already cool. Tron was really ahead of the curve in that sense.

Second, and this is certainly related to the first point, the idea of a virtual reality world was really fresh at the time. It's been done thousands of times over in so many different ways now that the idea itself is boring. But this was 1982, there really weren't many stories or movies about that idea (I'm sure people can point some out, but they weren't common).

Finally, I think the effects really were cool at the time. I wasn't around when it came out, but older folks I know say that the effects were really outstanding for their time. I can't personally vouch for that, but I can say this. I remember when Independence Day came out. I thought the effects were some of best I'd even seen. It looked so real. When I've watched it in recent years, I'm amazed at how shitty it looks.

Anyway, you'll notice all of my points relate to how it should have been received at the time. I think films should get some points for originality. At the same time, I don't hold Tron out as a classic because, as you've really pointed out, it simply doesn't hold up. I don't want to try to change your mind, but I think you should be able to at least understand why it developed such a cult following.

Okay, that does make some sense. I was more confused, however, about how well it's regarded today, when its many flaws and dated aspects are so obvious. At any rate, the information and discussion you provided is most appreciated.

[MmzHrrdb]

JLFM hit the nail on the head here.

Never in my life did I ever think I would hear you say that.

Here was my mini-review, by the way;

"A Disney film for kids with cool images for its time, and an awful, mumbo-jumbo plot, complete with a lack of understanding of science or computers. The "programs can think for THEMSELVES" theme will make any genuine scientist or programmer laugh.On the human front, every actor except for Bridges is dreadful, to the point where it's almost self-parody. And finally, its purpose was merely to hype up arcades. Worst of all, it becomes excruciatingly, painfully boring at times.

31/100"

Yup, those are more or less my thoughts on the film as well.

[mattorama12]

The one point JLFM got wrong is when he referred to "tech-talk". There is actually nothing of the sort in TRON. Instead, any dialogue concerning computers is filled with moronic misunderstanding that I would expect from an uneducated housewife who had never used one in her life, and thought it was borderline alien technology.

Here was my mini-review, by the way;

"A Disney film for kids with cool images for its time, and an awful, mumbo-jumbo plot, complete with a lack of understanding of science or computers. The "programs can think for THEMSELVES" theme will make any genuine scientist or programmer laugh.On the human front, every actor except for Bridges is dreadful, to the point where it's almost self-parody. And finally, its purpose was merely to hype up arcades. Worst of all, it becomes excruciatingly, painfully boring at times.

31/100"

Don't disagree with really anything you said. But here's a question for you: wouldn't you agree that early adopters actually liked this movie at the time, even though they could see how nonsensical it was? I'm basing this off of the admittedly few people I know who were old enough to be familiar with computers in 1982 and have shared their opinion on this movie with me.

[ShogunRua]

The one point JLFM got wrong is when he referred to "tech-talk". There is actually nothing of the sort in TRON. Instead, any dialogue concerning computers is filled with moronic misunderstanding that I would expect from an uneducated housewife who had never used one in her life, and thought it was borderline alien technology.

Here was my mini-review, by the way;

"A Disney film for kids with cool images for its time, and an awful, mumbo-jumbo plot, complete with a lack of understanding of science or computers. The "programs can think for THEMSELVES" theme will make any genuine scientist or programmer laugh.On the human front, every actor except for Bridges is dreadful, to the point where it's almost self-parody. And finally, its purpose was merely to hype up arcades. Worst of all, it becomes excruciatingly, painfully boring at times.

31/100"

Don't disagree with really anything you said. But here's a question for you: wouldn't you agree that early adopters actually liked this movie at the time, even though they could see how nonsensical it was?

Sure, I can absolutely see why people would like it. But I understand why people like all sorts of crap.

It's rare that a movie or television show's popularity utterly perplexes me.