Hello everyone,
Before we start I have something I really need to say…..um…….
It’s not you……it’s me.
Anyway, after last month’s midnight premiere of Harry Potter I thought it would be months before I decided to brave the fatigue of 3 AM to see another midnight premiere. Alas, that all changed last week when I got invited to see Tron: Legacy at the Capitol Theatre. It was a sequel to the intriguingly impressive 1982 Tron, and it was in 3D.
Now I hadn’t seen anything in 3D yet. I avoided Avatar simply because I didn’t want to waste twelve more dollars on Dances With Blue-Cat People and I haven’t been interested in seeing any of the other films that have come out in 3D. Also, I didn’t want to waste money on a lie.
It’s not 3D. Yes, children, I hate to ruin Christmas for you like mom and dad did when you were eight, but all of the films advertised off as “3D” are not Three Dimensional. I know I just brought you all down, so here’s something to cheer you up.
For the men: boobs
For the women: a sexy guy in a hot dog costume
3D is real life. If you’re standing directly in front of me, I can reach around your back and tap you on the opposing shoulder. This is because the world exists in length, width, and the third and probably most important dimension, depth. 3D films only give off the illusion of depth. Look at your computer screen. Now look at your dog(or the floor), now your leg, now the room you’re in, and now, the finale, look back at this review. Congratulations, you have just experienced 3D!
…..
…..
If films were actually done in 3D, I would be able to walk up to the movie screen and tap one of the characters in the film on the opposing shoulder. Next time you go to a 3D film, take your glasses off for a minute. I’ll bet you my life savings that the 2D screen hasn’t morphed into real life. Now put the glasses back on and try and tap Johnny Knoxville on the opposing shoulder. Does your hand go behind him? I have a feeling the answer is no.
“But review guy,” you say to your computer screen “It makes me feels like I’m really there.” Maybe, but you don’t need 3D glasses to elicit that feeling. You see, all of you have something called an imagination, which I believe you are supposed to use when watching works of art.
Right, now that I’ve bittered-up the holiday season for everyone, let’s move on to the actual film.
Tron: Legacy was a bold move for Disney. The original Tron was, for the most part, a flop. It did relatively well, but was shat on by critics and the public alike when it came out in ‘82. Over the years, a plethora of SF fans and gamers have developed a cult following of the film, heightening its value just enough to coax a sequel out of Hollywood
Hype that is, for the most part, overblown.
Legacy has a good, grounded story that could have made for a great film. Kevin Flynn(Jeff Bridges) has disappeared, leaving his son Sam (Garrett Hedlund) distraught and depressed. When Flynn’s longtime friend Alan Bradley(Bruce Boxleitner) receives a mysterious page from Flynn’s abandoned office phone, he sends Sam to investigate. Sam accidently gets sucked into the digital world, where he is captured by Flynn’s digital-world alter-ego Clu. Sam then goes through a flurry of gladiator-like games, including a light cycle battle against Clu himself, before being rescued from certain death by a mysterious woman named Quorra(Olivia Wilde), who takes him to be reunited with his father. At this point, the plot goes on autopilot and becomes the stereotypical action-adventure film, ending in a climatic battle of good and evil that evil could have easily won if it had any sense.
Oh yeah, there’s also some sub-plot about people called ISOs and how they’re going to change all of humanity, though it’s never explained why or how and proved to be small beans in terms of plot contribution.
The rest of the film, save for the production design which I’ll get to in a moment, falls flat on its face from beginning to end. The script evoked feelings of murderous rage, from the melodramatic, stereotypical action film lines, to the bastardization of Jeff Bridge
As we all know, no bad script can be complete without bad acting. Garret Hedlund’s Sam Flynn made Hayden Christenson’s Anakin Skywalker look good, which is quite a stunning achievement. Jeff Bridges Flynn has apparently found his zen, which makes him moderately interesting to watch at times. In addition, Bridges also plays Clu, complete with CGI to make him look thirty again. The CGI human features were pretty solid, though creepy at times. Olivia Wilde turns in a pair of beautiful eyes and a nice body but absolutely nothing else. The only decent acting to appear was by the very talented Michael Sheen, who plays the smiley gangster Zuse. Sheen’s brief, over-the-top shenanigans were a firework in a field of sparklers, and a thankful relief from the rest of the cast.
Legacy falls into the category of a “saved by a thread” kind of film, and it’s saving grace is the production design. The digital world that was crafted for the film in ’82 was more than good, and the sequel only builds on it. The original world was carved in grids and sharp edges, like circuitry. The newer, more modern, digital world comes in all shapes and sizes. Landscapes, vehicles, and the general environment are three times as flexible, and the color and tint of the art design is a treat for the senses.
And that seems to be the goal nowadays, doesn't it? Treating the senses?
People are impressed with sub-par entertainment these days, and it bothers me. We have modern appliances and modern technology because someone, somewhere, at some point in time, put in the long hours and the energy to make them. We have memorable paintings, plays, and books that artists sometimes starved themselves to create. None of these people took shortcuts.
I miss the days before computer-generated images became the norm; when special effects were the obstacle rather than the feature; back when a plot problem had to be solved using intelligence and intuition rather than a computer.
It’s not real---a CGI image I mean. You can detail it until your blue in the face, but you can never fool the human eye, and you will especially never fool the trained human eye. It knows when something is real, and when something is not. There’s a reason why films from the twenties, thirties, forties, and fifties continue to fascinate modern audiences. They had spectacle to them. They used huge sets, thousands of bodies, models, extensive costumes(the guy who played the original Godzilla could only stay in the suit for 30 seconds before passing out). Hard, grueling work was put into every minute of every hour to make the final product shine in theatres. Part of the awe of those films is seeing what the minds, hands, and bodies of filmmakers could do when exerted, and the results were extraordinary.
Actors and directors had to fiddle with malfunctioning set pieces(Jaws was a bitch to make) and costume pieces. Make-up had to be used to alter features---you get the point, all right?
What I want to know is: when did “easy” start to mean “better”? When did doing things the hard way become not only outdated, but wrong? I may be overreacting to this; the answer may in fact be “money.” It more than likely is. When money is involved, the meaning of words and actions seem to magically change. Nevertheless, how does having a sizable amount of amazing special effects magically increase a films worth? Why is art that makes you feel good and comfortable worth more in general than art that depresses you?
That’s what I think social networking and information sharing has done: it’s devalued our humanity. Our thoughts and feelings go on to Facebook and are forgotten about. Why? You are human beings. Your depression has value, your pain has value, your suffering has value---as much value as happiness, comfort, satisfaction, etc. The negative feelings need to be welcomed and embraced as much as the positive ones; and not just when and where you’d like them to, but everywhere in everything.
The friend that I went and saw Tron: Legacy with was a little kid when the first Tron came out. It’s one of his favorite movies of all time. He’s been waiting 28 years for Hollywood
Yet this seems to be the standard nowadays, at least with movie and television franchises. They know that millions of fans will come out and pay for their film, so they don’t bother to make it be any better than it needs to be. Tron: Legacy falls into the same category as Avatar, Star Trek, The Last Airbender, the first six Harry Potter films, and the Star Wars prequel trilogy as films that could have been milestones had the people making them actually cared.
I guess I’m demanding too much. It was too much to ask for Lost to have more depth than a tabloid magazine, for Star Trek to be more than a generic film that anyone could have pulled out of their ass in twenty minutes, for Tron: Legacy to be more than expected. After all, people want to get what they want, and the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of---
You know what; nevermind. As I said earlier:
it’s not you, it’s me.
Now go put on your franchise character T-shirt. It makes you look more like a geek.
Ciao.
No comments:
Post a Comment