The thing with movies like this is that it lends itself to be reviewed technically. So how do I make it technical, but still funny?
Like this:
 |
| A 19-year old Brad Pitt isn't funny. It's intimidating. |
Yes, that’s Brad Pitt. Yes, that was taken in 2009. And no, Brad Pitt isn’t in this movie. But they did use the same “Fountain of Youth” software they used in Benjamin Button to create this strikingly accurate 19-year Brad Pitt mug to create a more youthful Jeff Bridges. And that settles it: CGI is the new latex. Gone are the days when Eddie Murphy would rule the box office by masking himself with latex and doing accents.
 |
| Gone are the days of Eddie Murphy playing a white man. |
Actors: say goodbye to those long hours on the make-up chair for those scenes where you’re supposed to look decades older or younger. And on that note, CGI artists: say hello to long hours on the editing chair and eyestrain. The make-up artist’s job didn’t really disappear; it just got absorbed by post-production.
 |
| "Shouldn't I be getting a raise?" |
Okay, this review will be split into three parts: the Tron, the IMAX, and the 3D. I told you this would be a bit technical, so it might get boring from this point on.
 |
| Unless you love technicals, like Rasheed Wallace. |
The Tron
Narrative fiction, once put into form, will in the process create as a by-product either 1) a World; or 2) a Universe. A Universe is basically a World, only bigger, and more complex. Let me just give examples instead of explaining.
Lord of the Rings: Universe.
The Matrix: World.
Now before you open your mouth to ask why The Matrix is only a world while Harry Potter is a universe, listen up first.
A World and a Universe are similar in that both are constructions of a narrative as a sort of cage that will define the borders wherein the narrative moves. Of the two, the World is smaller in size, since a Universe may encompass two or more Worlds. However, a World and a Universe are different in that a Universe is more complex, and because of its bigger size, is bound by more rules. This is the reason why Universes are usually created by sagas, because the depth and detail of fiction most of the time requires more than one episode to flesh out.
A World can be described as a reality resembling our own, with only a few minor differences. A Universe, meanwhile, can be described as a reality which may or may not resemble our own, and whose very existence is solidified by the sheer volume of its back stories and side stories.
Tron: Legacy is a tale that is screaming to be told as a Universe, but falls short and instead comes off as a World—a dense world with lots of loose ends and unnecessary connections. Okay, I admit I vaguely remember the first Tron film (except the fact that I watched it on Betamax), so it could actually be a Universe. But until I see that film again, I shall reserve judgment on this Universe-World debate. Or at least if they can decide if Tron: Legacy is a sequel to the eighties flick, a reboot, or a sequel slash reboot.
 |
| "Am I a sequel, a reboot, or a sequel slash reboot?" |
The IMAX
The SM North IMAX screen is definitely smaller than the Mall of Asia IMAX screen. The one in MOA had such a huge screen that it couldn’t fit in your field of vision. You had to look at the screen in sections. But that IMAX screen in SM North should be called IMAX-Mini instead. I was waiting for the screen to swallow me whole. Sadly, it never happened.
This has now made me doubt the quality of those supposed IMAX movies. For those who don’t know, IMAX movies are a totally different format altogether. They are shot with IMAX cameras on IMAX film, which is 70 mm by 48.5 mm, twice the size of the regular 35 mm format. So that means the depth and clarity is twice that of regular film. I distinctly remember seeing an IMAX trailer in MOA for the film The Alps, and being blown away by the size of the picture. I know IMAX cameras are damn heavy, so I doubt that this Tron: Legacy and the upcoming Green Hornet flick were really shot with IMAX cameras. I think they were just blown up to IMAX proportions, which is why the sharper-eyed among you will notice that the picture looks a bit grainy. IMAX is supposed to look like the HD of celluloid.
So, note to self: Only watch IMAX movies that were shot with IMAX cameras and intended for an IMAX release.
The 3D
Maybe it’s just me, but this film did not have the same depth as Avatar, or U2 3D. Yes, this was shot with 3D cameras. But it’s not enough to just shoot with 3D cameras. A good 3D director must know how to maximize depth perception, so that everything, from the framing to camera movements, has to bring out this depth. What moviegoers are actually paying for in a 3D film is the illusion of depth perception.
Again, this has to do with deciding the release. If the studio intends an exclusive 3D release, then the cinematography will have to follow 3D rules, and the final 2D version will just use either the left or the right image. The problem comes when the studio intends for both a 2D and 3D release. The rules of cinematography are slightly different between 2D and 3D, and to choose one would sacrifice the other.
So that’s that. But before I go, I’d like to end on a non-technical note.
Mr. Michael Sheen, this is your worst role. Ever. If you ever do another role like this again, or if they make another Tron movie and cast you again as Zuse, I swear I shall boycott all your films from that day forward.
 |
| And wipe that smirk off your face. |
*some info from IMDb and Wikipedia
pics from Blog it Out B, Where's Rooster, Comtel Inc., DV Sports Blog, SP Times, and Screen Crave
Tron: Legacy. USA. 2010.
Original rating: Three out of ten.
Fountain of Youth software: Plus one point.
Pretty girls who I just found out are named Olivia Wilde and Beau Garrett thanks to Google: Plus half a point each.
Music by Daft Punk: Plus one point.
Michael Sheen’s worst role ever: Minus point two.
Final rating: Five point eight over ten.
