The Good:
The Bad:
Verdict:
The sequel to Disney's animated classic is a tired attempt at trying to replicate the success, mostly falling flat due to a lack of any real investment into the project.
74 | The first thirty minutes were pretty bad. The goblin had no reason to betray him because as we know he was a Voldemort's prisoner. The bank was already in Voldermort's hand and it was just dumb. But after that, this film quality went skyrocketed. It all began when Harry went to Hogwarts. At first, it sound like a pretty dumb idea but because we know Harry's character and how reckless he was, it was understandable. We called it a desperate move.
Professor McGonagall had her sweet moment when she protected Hogwarts, her home for a very long time. It also made us wonder where are all of these security systems in the previous films when a lot of dangerous people and things came to Hogwarts. It is weird to say this but Hogwarts's school system seems better in the hand of Severus Snape as headmaster. Because we all know how dangerous magic could be and his authoritarian way to teach students until they became mature enough to use their magic power could be a better way.
There were so many moments that made us emotional. It was not had the same level as The Dark Knight but some moments in this film had a similar vibe to The Dark Knight. The similarity is people were fighting to protect the place they love from evil being. In this case, students and teachers from Hogwart fought the Death Eaters. But where were their parents anyways? It seems only Weasley cared about their children.
The main focus of this film was Harry Potter and they did a good job, even though some details made this film seem to have a weak script. Films that contain war as a plot tend to give plot armor to their characters and unfortunately this film did the same. It is Harry Potter's last film they could be all-out killing characters but might be they tried to keep it as a family-friendly film.
The ending did not conclude the whole franchise well enough. The time jump is just an unnecessary thing to do. They could end it with the funeral of Severus Snape and all of the people who die fighting Death Eaters. And it could be combined with the faith of the elder wand. It would be a better thing to do because people who watched this franchise from the start have great memories with Hogwarts and the people in it than with random new family members. To sum it all up, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2 deserved its spot at least in the top 3 of Harry Potter films.
My Instagram: @moviemanner
•••••••••••••••••••••••
Rating: 73.08
Plot
P1: 0.5
P2: 2.0
P3: 2.0
P4: 0.5
Director: David Yates
Favorite Characters
1.8: Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter
1.6: Maggie Smith as Professor Minerva McGonagall
1.5: Alan Rickman as Professor Severus Snape
1.4: Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort
1.3: Matthew Lewis as Neville Longbottom
1.2: Emma Watson as Hermione Granger
Terrible : 0
Bad : 0.6 - 0.5 - 0.4 - 0.2 - 0.1 - 0
Average : 1.3 - 1.2 - 1.1 - 0.9 - 0.8 - 0.7
Good : 1.4 - 1.5 - 1.6 - 1.8 - 1.9 - 2
Great : 2
Unequivocally, unmistakably, undeniably Disney's greatest animated film. A masterpiece, as far as I'm concerned. Long read ahead!
Film and reviews are all about opinions, which is only a positive thing. I, for one, though have yet to find a better animation than this. No doubt I'm probably partly clouded by nostalgia, but even a tonne of years later I still remember how blown away I was when I first watched it. Nothing's changed.
Where to start? I love every single detail about this film, for which there are many. Not only does it improve upon the studio's earlier 1950 production about Robert Louis Stevenson's 1883 novel, but it manages to create an incredibly touching, amusing and rather thrilling story for all. They don't rely on the usual, overdone Disney front and center romance to do it either.
It's a story of a young kid coming-of-age into the world. You really go on a journey with Jim Hawkins, who hadn't had the most happiest childhood. We see him grow into a man across just 95 short minutes. Joseph Gordon-Levitt brings Jim to life superbly, no surprise to see he has done other great things in his career.
Gordon-Levitt isn't the only outstanding performer here, with Brian Murray and Emma Thompson showing their talents in the roles of John Silver and Capt. Amelia. I adore the dynamic between Silver and Hawkins, Murray is truly brilliant. Thompson is great in her role, also.
Even below those aforementioned names, you have memorable characters in Delbert (David Hyde Pierce), B.E.N. (Martin Short) and Mr. Arrow (Roscoe Lee Browne). Morph (Dane Davis) is a cracking little sidekick, too.
Away from the cast, you also have the sensational animation. They mix hand-drawn 2D and computer generated 3D, which comes out exquisitely. Sure some of it hasn't aged impeccably compared to now, but it all to this day still looks utterly stunning. I love the attention to detail.
That's not all. How about that music? I couldn't tell you the amount of times I've listened to that soundtrack down the years, it's so beautifully crafted by James Newton Howard and John Rzeznik; the latter's, as part of the Goo Goo Dolls, "I'm Still Here" fits so, so well.
Can you tell how much fondness I hold for this? It's fantastic! Did Disney mishandle it? Sure. Does it deserves more respect? Definitely. However, I'm kinda glad they just let Ron Clements and John Musker do their thing. Heavy Disney interference could've ruined it. The fact this has zero pointless sequels is marvellous, even if it's for the wrong reasons.
There are minor rumours they plan to live-action this. Normally I'd argue against classics being remade, but I think this 2002 production is in a win-win position in that regard. If it's a big success it'll be good for it, if it's terrible then it'll put more eyes on the original.
It's kinda funny, I don't see myself as a Disney fan and yet my two favourites films (this + 'Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl') are from this studio - and both pirate-y, interestingly. Hmm.
Go watch 'Treasure Planet'!
Let's be real here. This isn't a good film. And it's flawed from the get-go.
The casting. Dreadful. Hanks is a creation from Batman Returns. Priscilla has none of her beauty. And the most fundamentally unforgiveable issue - Elvis doesn't look like Elvis. Who signed off on an actor to carry this film where the eyes nose and mouth are absolutely incorrect?
The editing. Horrendous and overdone. There is barely a moments peace from the onslaught. However, for this catastrophe of cinematography to only cost 85 million USD is a triumph.
The pov aspect. Why in the hell would you base this around the ridiculous story of Colonel Tom Parker only to then leave out half of the facts? And it's not short on time at 2hr 30.
And finally, the pacing. When Elvis is washed up prior to the 68 Comeback special we haven't been fed enough of him at his peak for the rise and fall to make sense. When he passes, the bloatedness isn't shown and then arrives unexplained but for a single line of voice over. Periods that needed to be shown are glossed over and periods of relative unnecessity are dragged out.
But the real crime is the music. I counted 2 uninterrupted performances. The rest were manic collages or mixed in with - wait for it - modern hip hop... What egotistical mind decided that was a good idea...?
I watched. Now I'll hope to forget. And for anyone who wants an actual representation of Elvis from an actor who actually looks like him and tells the actual story, look for the Jonathan Rhys Meyers TV miniseries biopic.
To paraphrase a Bill Burr routine... Elvis was the first to be a major superstar. He made all the mistakes because he had nobody who had led the way.
Why is that not spelled out?
The 'theft' of black music. The 'child' marriage... I get that 2022 eyes see the world differently but a film like this shouldn't pander to the modern trend for rewriting history. It should provide perspective.
If Elvis hadn't grown up surrounded by black culture and organically witnessed that music, he'd be Pat Boone. But he wasn't. He was a true child of the musical influences. If he hadn't had his career, then it might have been another 20 years before black music found white ears... And it wouldn't have been a black artist who brought it. That's the sad truth. There needs to be a conduit and Elvis was that.
To labour this point... Tom Hanks being cast as a gay man afflicted with HIV (Philadelphia) opened the door to films of that nature being mainstream. Nowadays a gay man must be cast in that role. But you don't get to where we are without Tom Hanks being the conduit. That seems to be lost on people these days.
Progress is a series of incremental steps.
And look at the Priscilla marriage. The age of consent and the times and the location were all a world away. Don't be outraged at this, be outraged at Jerry Lee Lewis or Chuck Berry.
How sad the film was so overwhelmed by its desire to create ridiculous camerawork that it failed to deliver any of the impact of the first major superstar.
5/10
They always say “read the book first” but sometimes it is fascinating watching a film version without any knowledge of the text it is based on. Book fans can get quite agitated at seeing their vision or interpretation of the book trampled on in some way but at the same time if the film doesn’t capture the essence of the book in some way, then what’s the point ? Looking at this purely as a film, it is enjoyable to watch, but what is a little disappointing is Luhrmann seems to be trying to recapture much of what made Moulin Rouge so great and repeating himself, sometimes successfully and sometimes less so. The fast paced editing, visual style, music and direction captures the decadence, glamour and excess of Gatsby’s world in much the same way, though equally this heightened anachronistic interpretation of the 1920s will no doubt delight or irritate in much the same way too. Both DiCaprio and Maguire are excellent as Gatsby and Carroway and the strongest moments of the film are their scenes together. Indeed, the exploration of the character of Gatsby himself, his motivations, hopes and backstory and importantly Carroway’s interpretation of him form much of what works well within the film and it was no surprise to learn that these two were cast well before others. Luhrmann evokes a great sense of mystery and intrigue over Gatsby's character initially, gradually revealing elements over the course of the film and DiCaprio's presence and charisma serve the character well. The overarching narration that served Moulin Rouge so well is also present, however here it feels heavy handed and ultimately unnecessary (despite some clever visual trickery with words from the book), with Luhrmann seemingly unwilling to let the audience take their own interpretation of the story from what is presented. Furthermore, whilst Mulligan is fine as the central female character, it is difficult to care about her other than through Gatsby’s motivation and Edgerton’s performance veers towards pantomime on occasion, another stylistic conceit seemingly lifted from Moulin Rouge. These two characters may well serve to underline one of the film’s themes at the end but it makes it very difficult to accept Gatsby’s motivation other than through DiCaprio’s admittedly great performance. A partial return to form then for Luhrmann after Australia, but not wholly successful either.
Denis Villeneuve is the man!
There’s only one word that came into my mind after watching it: finally.
Finally, a blockbuster that isn’t afraid to be primarily driven by drama and tension, and doesn’t undercut its own tone by throwing in a joke every 30 seconds.
Finally, a blockbuster that puts actual effort in its cinematography, and doesn’t have a bland or calculated colour palette.
Finally, a blockbuster with a story that has actual substance and themes, and doesn’t rely on intertextual references or nostalgia to create a fake sheen of depth.
Finally, a blockbuster that doesn’t pander to China by having big, loud and overblown action sequences, but relies on practical and grounded spectacle instead (it has big sand worms, you really don’t need to throw anything at the screen besides that).
Finally, a blockbuster that actually feels big, because it isn’t primarily shot in close ups, or on a sound stage.
And of course: finally, a blockbuster that isn’t a fucking prequel, sequel, or connected to an already established IP somehow.
(Yeah, I know Tenet did those things as well, but I couldn’t get into that because the characters were so flat and uninteresting).
This just checks all the boxes. An engaging story with subtext, very well set up characters, great acting (like James Gunn, Villeneuve's great at accentuating the strengths of limited actors like Dave Bautista and Jason Momoa), spectecular visuals and art design (desaturated but not in an ugly washed out way), pacing (slow but it never drags), directing, one of Hans Zimmer’s best scores: it’s all here.
I only have one real criticism: there’s too much exposition, especially in the first half.
It can occasionally hold your hand by referencing things that have already been established previously, and some scenes of characters explaining stuff to each other could’ve been conveyed more visually.
Other than that, it’s easily one of the best films of the year.
I’ve seen some people critiquing it for being incomplete, which is true, but this isn’t just a set up for a future film.
It feels like a whole meal, there are pay offs in this, and the characters progress (even if, yes, their arcs are still incomplete).
8.5/10
I've quickly become a fan of the burgeoning "True Corporate" genre (as opposed to True Crime). Between this film, Tetris, and Air, I consider the genre three for three this year. I'm sure the films aren't for everyone, but having worked most of my career at the intersection of legal and finance/accounting, I find the stories fascinating. The case of BlackBerry is even more so given that it took place within my lifetime. Being able to map the events in the film against my own recollection of BlackBerry's prevalence definitely adds something. Combine that with solid writing and fantastic performances from both Jay Baruchel and Glenn Howerton and the end result is an easy recommend.
As a tiny little nitpick, I think "save the cat" moment of Mike fixing the buzzing intercom in the opening scene was a bit cliché and ultimately unnecessary. I think the theme/message would have been equally (if not more) effective had he just identified the buzz, given the same commentary about it, maybe even opened it up and tried to fix it, but not actually fixed it. It's just a bit of an eye roll, because I don't buy that thirty seconds and a paper clip is enough to fix much of anything. But I'm not an electrical engineer, so maybe I'm totally off base. In any case, not a big deal, and ultimately the scene works just fine as is, but I would have tweaked it.
Long bloody title, but a great film no doubt.
I had seen 'The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' before but hadn't watched it for years and years, I remembered the vast majority though - it's a memorable film after all. There's a great battle scene in there, some fun characters and strong effects. It's a tad too long, but not by much.
It has a nice charm to it also, as they set up Narnia excellently. The quartet of children are very well cast, all four of them suit their roles to a T. Georgie Henley is sweet as Lucy, while William Moseley and Anna Popplewell fulfil the roles of Peter and Susan comfortably. Edmund, meanwhile, is of course annoying, but Skandar Keynes does a good job portraying him.
Elsewhere, Tilda Swinton and Liam Neeson are terrific casts as the White Witch and Aslan. Both do great, especially Swinton. James McAvoy, Ray Winstone, Michael Madsen and Rupert Everett are smart choices too.
I've, as far as I'm aware, never seen the two sequels so very much look forward to seeing what they have in store for me. They'll do well to match this first film, that's for sure.
Denzel Washington is just killing it as Robert McCall. That man could read the phonebook and still be captivating, but here he's upping the ante with every fight scene. I didn't think it was possible, but the brutality level actually went up a notch, and I was all in for it!
The pacing had its slow moments, sure, but it wasn't a buzzkill for me. It's like savoring a fine wine before you get to the fireworks; you appreciate the explosions even more when they come. Plus, the total running time felt just right, you know? Kept everything on an even keel.
And let's talk about Dakota Fanning! Loved how her role wrapped up in this installment. It felt like the story threads finally wove together into this complete tapestry. Kinda gave me that "Aha! So that's where it was going!" moment, and I live for that in a trilogy.
The cinematography? Spot-on. Very slick shots, it all pulled me deeper into McCall's world. And those fight scenes—they were few, yes, but, come on! It's like watching a dance, if that dance could incapacitate you in five seconds flat.
So, yeah, I had an awesome time with this one. It's like the film grabbed me by the collar and didn't let go until the credits rolled. If this is how they're closing out the trilogy, then bravo! They stuck the landing, 100%
I didn't realize this was a Predator movie the first time I saw the poster and thought this was some random horror movie but the positive buzz certainly didn't pass me by so here we are again. After watching it I'm certainly... shocked?
From the get go this did very little to pull me in, be it the CG animals, one-dimensional plot or the the selfish attitude of our heroine. Now obviously one can argue how much that all matters when the action is good but it didn't really scratch that itch for me either... the Predator fighting with the animals was certainly entertaining but random guys biting the bullet with mostly offcam/unclear CG gore not so much. Would have been nice if they showed some wits when they fought him at the camp but somehow him going invisible is enough reason to lower their weapons and start talking to each other. She saw how the camouflage works multiple times in action already..?!!
What all those scenes, and the movie poster for that matter, certainly established, is that our protagonist has little to worry and that a showdown was coming but I would never have predicted the amounts of bullshit that would contain:
- Somehow becomes a baller and expert in alien technology. Knows when the Predator is coming, takes her magic herbs to immediately lower her blood temperature (but is not shivering and still standing up) and is in the Predators path who obviously doesn't see a standing corpse right in front of it or notices her moving out of the way...
- Never used the gun but knows the right angle to shoot and remove his mask (betting on this being a weakness when this did little to stop it before).
- Gets to conveniently escape for the n-th time and has enough time to finish up some traps (which the Predator even hit on some random tree lol).
- Gets hit to the head twice from the shield that cut through the Predators limbs, spear and even stone but is unscathed.
- Can easily remove a fang attached to it's face to save herself just in time.
- GPS dog that always magically reappears is ready to bring her the tomahawk...
- Manages to sit on top of the Predator and even pull him into the bog with a tiny rope and a much much smaller statue.
- The Predator obviously submerges immediately, but little does it know of her the grand plan to have him placed at that exact LOS of the mask in anticipation that he is gonna fire from his gun (despite not having had his mask for the whole time) while he is already targeted by the laser the entire time... b r a v o. Obviously that one shot was also enough to kill it.
...
Honest to god - how does a movie with such a contrived finale get so much praise, or even leave the script writing phase??
After I thoroughly enjoyed "Bumblebee", "Transformers: Rise of the Beasts" is a small step backwards for me. In its predecessor, I loved the approach of telling a simple coming-of-age story that wasn't about saving the entire world for once. This time around, it's back to the latter, though thankfully sticking more to the tone of "Bumblebee" than the Bayformers films.
Overall, "Rise of the Beasts" is solid throughout, but I wasn't particularly enthralled at any point. The film is once again way too long, and some of the lines are really shallow. The subplot with the human characters starts strong but quickly loses momentum as soon as the Transformers show up. Overall, though, Anthony Ramos is quite effective as the lead.
In general the action is well-staged, if a little generic. The finale certainly packs a punch, but I was already a bit bored at this point. The hunt for a doomsday macguffin is only entertaining for a short period of time. At least the film ends on an interesting note. Should it be a success, I'll be curious to see exactly what the future franchise plans are. Overall, I can recommend the seventh Transformers movie, but you shouldn't go in with too high expectations.
This is definitely classier and more polished than Bayformers, but now this franchise finds itself caught in the same corner as a lot of the Terminator or Men in Black sequels. No longer will these movies appear on anyone’s top 10 worst of the year list, instead they will have been forgotten about by then. It’s very soulless and filled with too much exposition for what is basically just another, generic macguffin hunt. The characters are boring and it doesn’t help that they picked actors that carry little screen presence. The action looks competent albeit very bland, however with that being said: I’ll still take bland over Bay’s pornographic sensibilities anyday. Pick your poison, I suppose. Overall, this is all too calculated and measured for me to get a lot out of it. For example, I really love a lot of the songs they picked, but there’s little to no reason to pick these specific tracks besides being an obvious nostalgia ploy. There’s no vision, and to put it bluntly: the movie feels like something that was conceived and made entirely by AI (just wait for that phrase to become horrendously overused over the next few years). It’s completely indistinguishable from any other big movie like it, I have a hard time telling the difference between this and your average Marvel or DC fare besides the different avatars being used. There’s even an action sequence that doesn’t look too dissimilar from the final battle in Avengers Endgame. These really need an entire creative overhaul, some fresh new talent. Right now this franchise continuously hits a creative dead end with each new installment, and this one’s no different.
4/10
what i find truly beautiful about this movie is the way every single character shares the same exact view of themselves.
all of them believe that they are broken people, and there is no way of fixing themselves, that they are "past redemption"
yet, each and everyone of them expresses it in a different way through their actions and emotions
the protagonist is the most obvious, he feels that he is a monster, he doesn't want to go the hospital because he did all of this on purpose. he doesn't want redemption because he is trying to literally self destruct.
the daughter has no friends, and growing up in a broken family made her think that she is not good enough to even care.
the missionary believes that his stealing and smoking has put him past redemption, so he runs away from home desperately trying to find something that will excuse his actions.
the nurse was labeled as "the black sheep of the family", and eventually accepted this label as a true part of her persona
the mother never recovered from a broken marriage and ended up mistreating her daughter, being ashamed of how she grew up to be.
all this people really are the same, they just chose different way to cope with this ideology.
some chose to eat, some drank, some started looking outward for another person to "save", and so on.
But in end the message is all the same, you shouldn't give up on yourself because you are wrong, you do matter and it's not too late.
yes, you abandoned your child when she was just a child, and yet she still loves you deep down and wants you to be part of her family.
yes you have no friends and your family wasn't the best but that doesn't mean that you will never be worth anything, someone will love you.
yes, you stole and disappointed your father, but stealing a couple grand doesn't matter. Your family cares about you more that they care about a mistake.
I could go on but i think i got the point across. this is just a beautiful beautiful movie, it's really sad and honestly tough to watch at times because it hits hard, but it's definitely an experience that we should all have.
[7.7/10] The original Tron is a film with a generic story, bolstered by a unique premise and impressive imagery. If you strip away the things that made the 1982 film distinct upon its release but dated today -- its “inside a computer” setting and its graphical wizardry -- you’re left with a pretty stale and standard fantasy tale with flat characters.
I was ready to count Tron: Legacy as a success on the same terms. At first blush, the basic plot here is nothing to write home about. Sam Flynn is the seemingly orphaned son of the original protagonist, rife with the usual set of daddy issues, teasing the modern version of ENCOM that’s being run as a mercenary corporation, which old hand Alan Bradley grouses about as a departure from Kevin Flynn’s ideals. The ensuing “find your father” quest and return to “The Grid” feels inevitable and bog standard.
But even if that’s all Tron: Legacy had to offer before diving into its new digital world, it would have been enough, thanks to the exquisite texture of the film. I’ll confess that while I can intellectually appreciate how the graphic of the previous Tron would wow people in 1982, it didn’t do much for me in the modern day, when CGI effects are a dime a dozen and kids who’ve grown up since then have become inured to them.
And yet, that’s what makes Tron: Legacy so impressive. It’s not as though it’s on the cutting edge of visual effects like its predecessor was, nor can it coast on the novelty of leaping inside a computer (something its very existence as a sequel prevents on its own). Despite that, it’s stunning to watch as an aesthetic achievement, taking the look and feel of its 1982 forbear and translating it to the modern age with such creativity and awe.
Let me speak plainly: everything in Tron: Legacy looks and sounds really, really cool. There may be no greater synergy between musician and film than Daft Punk providing the soundtrack for a Tron movie. What’s more, director Joseph Kosinki and his team take the “neon lights on monochrome backgrounds” vibe and take it to the next level.
There’s something unspeakably stylish about the ships and outfits and blacklight aesthetic packed into every frame and design. The good guys and bad guys (and their vehicles and tech) are color-coded for your convenience, but there’s a sleekness and greater scope to everything that makes this feel like an extension and advancement of the original film rather than just a retread.
The same approach works for the other parts of Tron that have become lodged in the popular consciousness since 1982. There is another game of identity disk jai alai, but it’s done up to eleven with ricocheting discus fire and parkour moves that become the default movement throughout the film. There is the inevitable light-cycle race, only this time, the competitors race along multiple levels with multiple players, heightening the complexity and visual panache of the set piece. Even the homage paid to the iconic poster comes at an appropriate time and an appropriate way, sending our hero back from whence he came while evoking his connection to the past.
The one exception is the efforts to de-age Jeff Bridges, which end up falling squarely into the Uncanny Valley. The good news is that in a computerized world, that totally works! Sure, it’s a little awkward in the few scenes where we see young Kevin Flynn in the real world, but for the most part, the ageless version of Bridges is supposed to be CLU, his villainous digital equivalent, to where the aesthetic eeriness not only makes sense since CLU is a virtual copy, but adds something to his menace as the antagonist. It works in the same way much of the film’s visual choices do -- nothing approaching realism, but in a way that doesn’t matter given the setting and the sheer awe the film evokes with its designs.
It doesn’t hurt that Bridges gives a much better performance here than he did in the original picture, which is doubly impressive since he’s acting for two here. His de-aged take on CLU is menacing and smug in the way a being who feels he’s surpassed his creator ought to be. And the real Kevin Flynn, reimagined as a zen-spouting hippie who regrets his actions, both works as an extension of Bridges’s public persona, but adds some philosophical and emotional weight to the film.
Unfortunately, outside of Bridges, characterization is the weakness that Tron: Legacy shares with the film that spawned it. Sadly, Garret Hedlund is a big charisma vacuum at the center of the movie, but it’s hard to know how much of that should be attributed to an unconvincing performance versus the way he’s written as a generic action movie protagonist with daddy issues. He certainly seems more like the rich kid bullying people at his high school than the likable orphan who just wants his dad back, but the script does him no favors.
It’s a pathology that infects the rest of the film, only saved by some performances that elevate the characters beyond the material. Quorra, the secret “ISO” who’s being trained by Kevin Flynn, is the latest in a long line of underwritten female parts, but Oliva Wilde shows some sparks of humanity that make the character more memorable than she ought to be. The evil version of Tron is, much like his predecessor, underbaked by skating by on coolness alone.
The poster child for this “performer over character” is Michael Sheen’s Castor, a wildcard in the battle between CLU’s hegemony and a burgeoning resistance. There’s not much to him on paper, but holy hell is Sheen having an infectious level of fun here, vamping it up the whole time. He’s part David Bowie and part Joel Grey here, holding court with verve and whimsy in a way that makes him instantly stand out.
But despite the thinly-drawn characters and generic “We have to escape to save the world from this oppressive force” plot, there’s some unassuming depth to Tron: Legacy. The film is, at heart, a story of people reckoning with their creator. That’s personified by the three offspring, more or less, of Kevin Flynn.
The first, obviously, is Sam, Kevin’s biological son, whose development has been plainly affected by his father’s absence, and whose arc comes when he self-actualizes and reasserts himself in the real world when he learns that his father didn’t abandon him and, in fact, sacrifices himself to save him. It’s not super compelling, given how flat Sam feels as our protagonist, but it’s enough to pass muster, especially when Bridges is carrying their scenes together.
Sam’s counterpart is CLU, another being created in Kevin’s image, but one who resents the man who made him rather than misses him. CLU takes his “create the perfect system” mission to Asimov-like extremes, eventually turning on Kevin and Tron in the process. But the substance comes in conjunction with the vague notion of Users as gods from the 1982 film, with CLU representing a “God is dead” rejection of that notion and desire to overcome the “cage” he feels he and his kind have been placed in by their creation.
Somewhere in between is Quorra, a member of a new digital species that Kevin didn’t create exactly, but which emerged naturally and spontaneously from the conditions he created, there to revolutionize the world. There’s cosmological significance to all of this, adding an undercurrent of commentary on creation and legacy that adds ballast to the film’s dayglo adventures.
Hell, Tron: Legacy even presages Star Wars: The Last Jedi in its framing of Kevin as something of a chastened Jedi Master here, still capable of great feats but more apt to remove himself from the situation than try to rectify the fascism that’s overtaken the world. He apologizes to the villain and creates the opportunity for his erstwhile students to escape and surpass him in the process, a surprisingly touching moment given the light characterization and clichés that preceded it.
It’s ironic, because much of Tron: Legacy feels indebted to Star Wars from the turret-blasting dogfights, to the duels between glowing weapon-wielding masters, to the omnipresent daddy issues that suffuse everything. It also returns the favor and borrows a great deal from The Matrix, not just in terms of style, but in the sense of a dystopian digital ecosystem replete with oppressive forces and half-magic/half-philosophical counterparts and scenery-chewing wildcards in the mix.
That’s the stunning thing about this film. It synthesizes its various influences, including the original movie, into something that fits a modern approach and advances from where its predecessors left off. There’s still plenty of clichés and empty calorie moments of spectacle, but those moments wow, and Kosinksi adds just enough weight to the proceedings for these events to feel meaningful on their own terms. Late sequels are a tricky business, but with its brilliant texture, tasteful homage, and contemplative take on creation, Tron: Legacy is the upgrade we’ve been waiting for.
The first 90 minutes of this movie are absolutely fantastic. They build up Marla as such a despicable, horrid creature that I was actively begging for the Mafia to get sick revenge on her.
The last 30 minutes are Season 8 Game of Thrones level of terrible and ruin what was about to be one of my favorite movies this year. The steps they want to strain credibility were insane. Firstly her surviving after being drugged and put in the water were questionable. The mafia failing to kill her girlfriend was just...how in the world did they fail killing that girl?
Marla just fell in the water (and I'm not going into the 3 minutes she was able to kick in a glass front window underwater and maintain holding her breath), but she still has her wallet to buy things at the convenience store. She gets to her girlfriend literally just before the place blows up, which she had no control over because she literally waited for a taxi.
They complain that they have nothing left but the diamonds, and but they also apparently have a handy wig, a taser, some morphine knockout drugs to pull off some James Bond type of killing of Peter Dinklage. And then when Dinklage survives, he agrees to be her partner. Look, I get she's smart and was gonna kill it with the mafia. But the shit she did was unforgivable, and it strains my belief that Dinklage wouldn't just go out and torture her the first chance he gets. They did not present him as being a "money first" guy, so him overlooking the mother being thrown IN A PSYCHIATRIC WARD is nuts.
Look, I enjoyed 70% of this movie. It was an excellent horror thriller to that point. I would've loved if this movie went the route of Dinklage and the mob being mostly outsmarted by the crazy, maniacally, absolutely dastardly woman. But that movie NEEDED to end with Dinklage personally killing Marla. No if, ands or buts, anything but that ending ruins the point they spent the rest of the movie going for.
It really hurts me to trash this movie, because Pike was fantastic again in her role as a villain and Dinklage really made me want his character to succeed. But that ending was the worst type of cop out possible.
