Patman

I'm of two minds on this movie. Saw the IMAX 3D version of it. The sound design is impressive and immersive. There is a lot of IMAX-sized footage in the IMAX version of the film (meaning the entire IMAX screen is filled with visual footage periodically, though is there a rhyme or reason for when it happens, I'm not sure yet). But the overall story wasn't all that great.

The script is dialogue-challenged in terms of it being rather dull and uninspired, which resulted in average acting performances from the main cast, though Michael Sheen chews a lot of scenery in his limited screen-time. The plotline is overly complicated without needing it to be, meaning they go down certain paths, but it isn't meaningful or necessary, making its running time about 20 minutes too long for the story being told. The final act seems to go on forever, and my group was confused at the end.

But, even with the uneven pacing problems, the visuals are quite fun to watch, but it can be a little tiring to watch so much dark/white footage in long stretches.

Should you see it in IMAX 3D? Sure, if you can spare the cash outlay and have an IMAX theater nearby. It's worth seeing once on the IMAX screen for the sheer spectacle and scale of the set design and other interesting vehicle designs.

I give it 2.5 stars or a grade of C+. (A for visuals, but the actual story/acting was so-so).

iggystar

Great visuals the light cycle battle was amazing, Garrett actually did a pretty good acting job for him (he had to have gotten lessons), Olivia Wilde's character was endearing, Jeff...he was Jeff, I always love him, Micheal Sheen was over-the-top in a good way, the score didn't hit home with me like the original, but it was still pretty good, the story was OK...my biggest point of contention was CLU, the character was distracting and he left me feeling emotionally detached (leaving it vague so as not to spoil).

Overall, some of my enjoyment was brought over from my complete adoration of the original and Garrett Hedlund looking so fine. I'm thinking C+.

dan30oly

I saw it on a proper 3D IMAX screen last night and absolutely loved it.

It was near perfect.

There were just a few nitpicks I had with it, but really minor.

Supermallet

Just to be anal about it, the footage fills most of the IMAX screen, not the entire screen.

Sessa17

Caught this last night in a packed IMAX 3D film. To call this film "near perfect" and some of the accolades it is getting here is utterly laughable, but I will admit its a pretty fun ride & definitely worth seeing in an IMAX 3D theater.

I never saw the original, so I have no frame of reference towards this film. The dialogue is attrocious and so many things didn't make any sense from simple nonsense as Sam Flynn knowing acrobatic kung-fu to major plotholes that were just silly bordering on idiotic. The lead actor is beyond bad, just brutal acting and I did not enjoy CGI-Jeff Bridges. However, the world of Tron was a fantastic pure film experience, the action (of which I wish there was more of) was worth it and I wish there was more Olivia Wilde as she is beyond stunning and I would have loved to see her character get fleshed out more.

So I think it is off-based to call this film completely boring as one person here did, and a ludicrous stretch to say it is "near perfect" because it is deeply flawed. However, the digitial world of Tron is exciting only amplified by the phenomenal score, so it is worth seeing in 3D and I have to say I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would going in.

Patman

Looked like it filled the entire IMAX screen at my true IMAX theater (not that faux IMAX crap). Perhaps they zoomed it a bit to fill it all.

But here's an article on the topic. I still say it filled the screen on my local IMAX theater.

http://www.slashfilm.com/exclusive-t...max-sequences/

Daytripper

Sure looks great, but man what an awful film. It had some of the worst dialogue I've heard in years. And Micheal Sheen was absolutely terrible.

Supermallet

The article itself shows that the 1.78:1 sequences don't fill a full IMAX screen.

It would be difficult to see the top and bottom of the screen with no image on it if you're not sitting right up front (where you could easily see the bottom of the screen) or the far back (where you can easily see the top of the screen). I watched it from the booth (where I can see the full screen) and can confirm it does not fill the screen. The only way to zoom it in would be to move the bulbs in the projector on their Z-axis, which would push the image off the screen to the sides, so there's no way they did that.

If you sat somewhere in the middle rows of the theater, it would look like the image filled the entire screen, but I promise you it didn't. However, it still looks mighty impressive.

slop101

When I don't care a lick about the story and the characters, what action the movie has, regardless of how cool it looks, becomes meaningless and therefore boring.

For example, I just posted about how I loved the action in the recent A-Team movie, and while I didn't care much for it's story (though still not as meaningless as Tron's), it's characters were endearing enough to make the action engaging.

JumpCutz

Well the person who called it "near perfect" also thought Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen was the best film of 2009.

So consider that.

Sessa17

I normally agree with this and it sums up my feeling on Avatar, although the effects never wowed me in Avatar, the film was just so cold and preachy I literally left the theater to take a phone call. Tron visually worked for me though because it was unlike anything I've seen on film, maybe its just a matter of taste but I thought asthetically combined with the music it was exciting. The world of Tron combined with the 3D on IMAX and the soundtrack were enough for me to at least enjoy that aspect of it and recommend seeing it only for that reason. And I can understand being bored by the film, but I can at least appreciate the technical merit and enjoy that part of the film. A better script or even a halfway decent one I thought could have made the movie special, but unfortunately I would say the film is barely a 2-star film but those 2 stars for me were enjoyable ones.

iggystar

Exactly. I think we're so well beyond being mesmerized by special effects. What Tron did in '82 to spellbind without much of a story just doesn't work today. I see that they tried to improve on the story, but it was still pretty weak.

Patman

I sat in the very back row, which is a little more recessed (more walking aisle room between the back row and the next to back row), When I sit forward in the seat, I had a good view of the entire screen from top to bottom. It looked more like 4:3, not 1.7:1 in AR. If I see it again, I'll see if something was different about the presentation at my IMAX theater.

Supermallet

See if you can talk to the projectionist. I'm willing to bet it's just an optical illusion.

Shannon Nutt

Saw it today in Digital 3D (non-Imax). I thought it was just so-so...I actually enjoyed the non-Grid stuff a lot more than the Grid stuff. I found it far more entertaining than the original though, it just needed some editing (WAY too long for the story being told) and a little bit of tweaking here and there. Still, not that bad of a film.

Jeff Bridges may have the most (unintentionally?) funny line of the year with "You're messing with my Zen thing".

I thought the actor playing the son was just fine in the role, and it was nice to see Bruce B. as well. Olivia Wilde was just okay. The less we say about Michael Sheen, the better...that was TOO far over the top for this film. He looked like he was having fun, but boy, that charcater did not belong in this movie.

Supermallet

That zen line was definitely intentional humor (I hope).

dan30oly

I can't believe that some people just aren't getting this movie.

There's no way it wasn't.

FantasticVSDoom

Yeah, I thoroughly enjoyed it... Visuals + soundtrack and decent enough action kept me entertained. Maybe some people were expecting more maybe not, but I had a good time with it. I loved Olivia Wilde and wish she would keep that hairstyle for a while.

Supermallet

What, exactly, are we missing?

Baron Of Hell

Just seen it. The best thing I can say about it is that it looked good. Pretty much failed on everything else for me. The film could have been cut better. I'm not sure we needed the board of directors seen. The acting was poor but thinking the director was the problem there. The story just wasn't good. Tron's redemption was confusing. I didn't see any reason for him to switch sides nor any build up to it.

I did see the original and thought it was a better movie.

Labor

Saw the movie earlier.

The one thing I can say about the movie that kinda sums it up...you can really tell this was the director's first film.

Even with a script as nonsensical as this, the movie should have been engaging. Huge missed opportunity.

story

At the very least, it establishes Sam as someone who is able to do some pretty spectacular physical endurance stunts which go on to serve him well on The Grid.

Dr. DVD

Saw it on Imax 3D. Not perfect, but really entertaining. I agree with the comment that it was obvious this was a first film for the director, very evident in the acting. Hedlund wasn't horrific, but Olivia Wilde needed some lessons. Loved Bridges, but does he have to use the word "man" in every movie now? Overall, a fun ride, and worlds better than the Star Wars reboot attempts.

Labor

Olivia Wilde was easily my favorite in the movie, and not just due to her look, I loved how upbeat and curious she was. Its a shame it took so long to introduce her into the movie.

If I had to pick one scene that lived up to the films potential, it would be the dogfight. Great action, great use of 3D, great music and thrilling.

Garret Hedlund isn't as bad as people are saying imo. I think he did an acceptable job

Pizza

Movie was depressing. I hated the ending. I dug the first half hour and then started to get more and more bored.