Movie critic Roger Ebert has completed his review of Tron Legacy. He says the 3D action sequences are great, but you might want to bring a phone or beer bottle label along to amuse you during the plot bits…
The first few paragraphs of Ebert’s Tron Legacy review handle the deep, philosophical issues like “How does a 20-year-old get inside” a computer, before he praises the film’s use of 3D in its fantastic action sequences. It also turns out Ebert is the world’s least likely Daft Punk fan, as he complements the soundtrack’s “urgent electronic force”.
But he finishes the review on a downer, claiming the plot is “a catastrophe” and Tron Legacy is therefore unlikely to have staying power at the box office. It’s your typical modern Hollywood blockbuster. [Ebert @ Sun Times]
Colin Capurso
Friday, December 17, 2010 at 7:14 AMHollywood blockbuster’s are awesome, i should like this movie!
JNYBLK
Friday, December 17, 2010 at 9:38 AMSeriously what movie did Roger Ebert watch.
The story line was very good they reference parts from the original.
With regards to the 3D scenes, What 3D scenes. I saw the movie in 3D at IMAX and apart from the intro there was no 3D. I would of loved to of seen the bike scene in 3D.
Ward Paterson
Friday, December 17, 2010 at 9:57 AMEdbert was obviously on his phone during the action scenes..
The guy is an utter FAIL
Steve
Friday, December 17, 2010 at 7:34 PMIf you bother reading or knowing anything about Ebert, you’d know he’s notoriously prickly. He went on huge rant against fellow critics (eg Ben Lyons) who he felt were disrespectful to filmmakers by bringing phones into movies. I don’t think he’s even ever walked out on a movie (unlike colleague Gene Siskel). Ebert is the most professional critic around.
But of course, calling a spade a spade automatically makes him an uppity elitist right? Saying a movie with a shit plot, has a shit plot means he’s being honest. And if you bothered reading the review, he does list redeeming qualities in the soundtrack, special effects and concept of the film. No-one expected Tron 2 to have a great story, we went in for 90 minutes of cool effects so I don’t see why people are vilifying Ebert.
Karlo Kempis
Friday, December 17, 2010 at 10:59 AMHere we go again, yet another “professional reviewer” throwing in his 2 cents worth.
Will these people never understand that you can’t walk into an action movie and expect a plotline like “The English Patient” or the freaking “Notebook”.
Tron is an sci-fi action adventure. In a way it’s meant to take fans of the old Tron movie and make them feel 9 years old again. When I was a kid watching the original I thought it was utterly amazing – watching a movie made on a computer about a world in a computer. Now with it’s updated CGI, spot-on styling, slick architecture, massive soundtrack (Daft Punk?! Genius)… Tron legacy took me back to my childhood.
It’s getting near predictable how reviewers these days score films. 1 star for big hollywood blockbusters. 5 stars for little known swedish arthouse.
Don’t get me wrong, I love a solid plot-line as much as the next guy… but who really cares when I’m in the middle of an EXPLOSION!!!
Go see Tron. It’s awesome.
Waldo
Friday, December 17, 2010 at 3:36 PMRaiders of the Lost Ark, The Matrix, Die Hard, Aliens, The Bourne Ultimatum, The Dark Knight, Gladiator, Blade Runner, strange that all these action movies managed to incorporate plot and character development. A movie should not get away with being garbage just because it isn’t a drama or a documentary.
Chico
Friday, December 17, 2010 at 8:35 PMLets not forget that Ebert is also a guy thay video games are lost on. You can’t expect too much from him, or for him too understand how the plot works. Its one guy who is completely outside the culture whom he is criticizing. Go see it and decide for yourself.
Steve
Friday, December 17, 2010 at 7:29 PMIf you’d bothered reading any of Ebert’s reviews, you’d know he both loves and champions many unlikely films that most dismiss as fluff. He gave great reviews to the first Transformers, Fast and the Furious 3 etc on the basis they were just plain entertainment, and often to the consternation of his colleagues. He’s even notoriously critical of the film criticism institution and how they hold films like Citizen Kane with an untouchable reverance.
The difference between fun action and garbage is what separates Episode I from Indiana Jones. Tron Legacy had a rubbishy plot, I’m pretty sure everyone expected that. But then again, he did praise the score, the visuals, and the concept. What more do you expect?
Steve
Friday, December 17, 2010 at 8:02 PMEdit: Oh God, I just noticed how he used “The Notebook”‘s plot as a positive. Pretty sure Nicholas Sparks has never written a turd worthy of mention.
Chico
Saturday, December 18, 2010 at 2:48 PMEbert fanboy much? I understand he has his place in film history, but he is just one guy who seems to not have a clue about gaming culture. Read his thought on games as art for example. Like I said, go see the movie for yourself and who cares what Ebert says.
By the way, he seems to think there is no plot but some how he still gives it 3/4 stars. Honestly, no soundtrack or special effects should give a film that high a score if there is no plot.
Steve
Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 9:38 PMWhat does this review have to do with gaming at all? This is a review about Tron Legacy. He found it had an awful plot (that much is undeniable) but he gave it 3/4 stars for entertainment value alone which is fair. You know what else has a weak plot? Pretty much every other blockbuster in history. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, the original Tron, Avatar etc. These were movies carried on their special effects, scores and action set-pieces, not their derivative stories.
And the point about gaming. Ebert does not discount gaming, he merely believes it’s not matured yet to be considered a legitimate art-form. He’s still part of an old guard of flim critics who still wouldn’t know how to play a game if you threw a 10 button controller at him. It wasn’t a part of his generation. Your comment earlier holds no water because he’s not a game critic, it’s not part of his life. Why SHOULD he be ‘in touch.’
I followed that closely and found it particularly hilarious how nerds were so pissed off at him. Who cares? Do you really need to seek the approval of Roger Ebert to validate your hobby? I play games myself and I don’t care if he doesn’t think they’re art. And besides a very small minority (Bioware’s, some of Blizzard’s, Bioshock etc), games are still the equivalent of 80s action movies. Sure there are a few classics that put stock in good writing, but the overwhelming majority are still basics FPSes. Black Ops is one of the most successful games ever and it’s essentially Rambo.
I don’t believe games should be considered art yet because they’re still going through their cheesy action meathead phase.