Sunday, January 30, 2011

True Grit (2010)

In American history, the “wild west” era, characterized by gunfights, duels, train robberies and general lawlessness lasted only about twenty years. Twenty years in a nearly 340 year history of America, why is it that we devote so much thought and glamor to the wild west? Why has American cinema from the very beginning produced so many Westerns for our consumption. The truth of the matter is, the wild west was incredibly interesting and undeniably exciting. For twenty years starting a short time after the Civil War, there was little to no law in the West. Honor and bravery only got you so far until some black hat picked you off from atop a hill as you walked into town. There was little that was fair back then. You survived either by being fast and aware, or by sidling up with someone who was. It is in this era that Clint Portis wrote the book “True Grit.” In 1969 it was adapted into a movie starring John Wayne. At the time Wayne said it would be his last movie. He won an Academy Award for, many people believe, his lifetime of unawarded work, instead of his work specifically for “True Grit.” I have not seen that movie. This is a not a review for that movie. This is a review for the relatively new Coen Brother's film based not off of Wayne's “Grit” but directly back to the Portis original source.

The story starts out with our heroine, Mattie Ross (Hattie Steinfeld). She's a determined young lady whose father has recently been murdered. She knows who killed her father, heck the sheriff knows who killed her father: Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). However, there's nobody that will go running after Chaney into Indian territory. Mattie goes looking to hire a marshal to find Chaney and bring him back to hang. She finds a sour, drunk, and trigger happy marshal by the name of Reuben “Rooster” Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) who has only one working eye. She's been told he has true grit, so she hires him. Along for the ride is LaBoeuf (pronounced la beef, played by Matt Damon), a cocky and overly loquacious Texas Ranger who often gets under Cogburn's skin. Mattie proves her own determination and grit throughout the journey even though Cogburn is slow to realize it.

Whenever you shoot a Western you're guaranteed at least a few breathtaking landscapes to work with. “True Grit” does not disappoint in this regard. This movie really is beautiful. The score seems to use only one tune throughout. However, this works incredibly well for the movie, and apart from noticing the same tune here and there, it really does not detract from the movie at all.

The trio finally catch up with Chaney, when Mattie, while filling a water pail, accidentally sneaks up on Chaney. She shoots him, but doesn't kill him and he takes her with her to his gang led by another wanted man, Lucky Ned Pepper (Barry Pepper). Cogburn and LaBoeuf split up with LaBoeuf going after Tom and Mattie and Cogburn going after Ned and his gang. I won't give away anymore of the movie. You really should go see it. This is what movies are supposed to be, this movie would have been great 10, 20, or 50 years ago. This movie is an instant classic.
 
There are some people who say that the Academy were too soon in giving Jeff Bridges an Oscar last year for “Crazy Heart.” While I don't think he should get the Oscar this year, I will most certainly not wonder why if he does. This movie is well acted throughout, and there is not a lacking in the entire cast. I was incredibly impressed by the 14 year old newcommer Hattie Steinfeld. She held her own amongst two academy award winners in Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon. There are many times in which she steals the entire movie. I hope this isn't the last we see of Steinfeld.

I haven't seen the original movie all the way through. I'm not entirely sure it matters if I have or not. I plan to. All I know is that this movie is incredibly well made. It is pure story telling through and through. 

10/10

Saturday, January 29, 2011

127 Hours (2010)


Allow me to begin this review with some of the best advice I can give you: do NOT go rock-climbing and/or mountaineering without telling anyone. That is a BAD idea. Aron Ralston did that nearly 8 years ago, and you all know what happened to him. If you don't, and you're still considering going out to those canyons alone and without telling anyone, do yourself a favor, watch “127 Hours.” Directed by “Slumdog Millionaire”s Danny Boyle and based on Ralston's memoirs, “127 Hours” chronicles the hours leading up to the incident as well as the aftermath and subsequent rescue.

We meet Aron (James Franco) early in the morning as he gets ready to go out for a day of biking, rock climbing and mountaineering. We see him doing everything he should do for a day of strenuous activity out in the sun: packing food and lots of fluids. The one thing that he seemingly can't get his hands on is his pocket knife, something that will obviously prove to be very unfortunate. On his trip he met two young women (Kate Mara and Amber Tamblyn) who were also hiking through Blue John Canyon. He guides them to an underground pool where they spend a good part of the day just hanging out and having fun. It's clear from the beginning that Aron loves adventure, and it would appear from the reactions and attitudes of the two women he befriends, that love of adventure is contagious.
 
After he bids his friends adieu, Aron goes off by himself to continue on his hike. It is here where, while  trying to jump down 20 feet to the canyon floor, Aron dislodges an 800 pound chock stone and falls. The stone also falls and pins Aron's right arm against the side of the canyon at the wrist. At first, Aron tries to pull his arm out, then he tries to move the stone. Obviously none of these work. After a couple days of waiting for rescue, he runs out of water and we see him slowly deteriorate into hallucinations. The hallucinations include a darkly humorous talk-show type interchange between Aron and himself. He knows his mistake was not only putting too much pressure on that chock stone but more importantly not telling anybody where he was going.

The amputation scene is graphic and pretty intense. I would be remiss not to mention the various reports of people fainting and throwing up during screenings of this movie. It was NOT that bad. The editing made it so that you will squirm and jump at the most painful moments. I actually thought that was a brilliant movie. Boyle was able to reflect pain not only through the visuals which audiences have become desensitized to, but through sound. It's a very creative move, that works quite well

Before the amputation Aron begins to hallucinate seeing his entire family. Aplogizing to him he sees a young child that he's never seen before. He realizes that it's his unborn son. This more than anything else gives him the will to cut off his arm with a dull blade. Once detached from the canyon, Aron makes his way out. After meandering through the rest of the canyons he happens upon a Dutch family. The mother and son run ahead and direct the rescue party to where Aron was. The music by Boyle buddy A.R Rahmann is used to great effect at the most emotional of scenes and, I'm not gonna lie the rescue scene brought a tear or two due mostly to the score.

James Franco most certainly carries this movie. Of course, it's just him for the majority of it, and it's definitely a tribute to Franco and Boyle that this movie doesn't fail just on that account. The story is most certainly of the cautionary variety. The little I've read of “Between a Rock and a Hard Place,” Ralston's memoirs, it's clear that Ralston had a history of rash and dangerous decisions. I wouldn't go so far as to say he deserved what happened to him, nobody deserves to have an 800 pound boulder fuse  their arm to a canyon, but it was the epitome of stupid to go out alone without telling anyone where he was. That being said, Aron Ralston never gave up. His will to live and survive was incredible. I hope I have a fraction of his bravery and determination. This story shows that when someone finds something to live for, they will do ANYTHING to survive.

This is a very good movie. It's not for everyone; many will find it boring and slow. Give it a chance and see it for yourself.

7.5/10

Friday, January 28, 2011

The King's Speech (2010)


In a little over a week, the current British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II will have reigned over the United Kingdom for 59 years. For many of us, she's the only British monarch we've ever known. Within the next decade or two we will most likely see a new king take the British throne. In Tom Hooper's critically acclaimed, “The King's Speech,” we take a look at the struggles of Elizabeth's father, King George VI. Born Albert Frederick Arthur George, “Bertie,” as he was called by his wife and those closest to him, had a very severe stuttering problem. In an age of radio, and at a time when his country was about to be thrust into another world conflict, this speech impediment posed a rather large problem for a man who was never meant to be king.

Being born the second son of King George V(Michael Gambon), Albert was never meant to be king. His older brother Edward (Guy Pearce), was a much better speaker. However, less than a year after his father's death, King Edward abdicated the throne to marry the American Wallis Simpson, thus making Albert, King George VI. It didn't seem as though Albert's speech impediment was a national secret. As a royal prince, he had had to make public appearances and speeches, and the movie shows one or two of them. They are painful to watch and listen to. Speech impediments are often some of the most pitiable ailments to me. 

 The story of course focuses on the relationship between Albert(Colin Firth) and Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue(Geoffrey Rush).  Grudgingly brought to Logue's office by his wife, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (Helena Bonham Carter), Albert does not believe that Logue holds any real answers. After listening to a recording of himself reciting Hamlet while listening to loud music, he realizes that perhaps Logue's methods can indeed help. Logue decidedly treats Albert just like any other person, even going so far as to calling him by his nickname. As it often happens, Albert's speech impediment while curable also has a psychological foundation which needs to be dealt with. While trying to get at those deeper issues, Lionel comes up with some humorous and apparently effective techniques with which to combat the stuttering. One interesting method concerns the use of many different expletives as a way to focus the speaker. The many uses of the f-word although in a therapeutic context, is the only thing that led to the 'R' rating.

The movie follows Logue's work with Albert up to and through the coronation, and the climax comes when Albert is required to give a radio message to his subjects concerning England's entrance into the second World War. One of the most fascinating features of British government, the King holds no real power and and yet serves as the one uniting figure for the entire kingdom. To have that kind of pressure  while on the brink of war with Germany, there's no question that the speech is very important.

All of his life, Albert lived in the shadow of his older brother. It was not only the speech impediment that got in the way of finding his voice. A king needs to be able to rouse his people to action. History tells us that of course Albert found his voice, and indeed he roused his people to action. England faced nearly daily bombings from Germany during WWII, and their survival and general morale remained intact due, I'm sure in no small way by the leadership of King George VI.

It's true that I'm a sucker for the British monarchy. Recently a string of incredibly well made films about female British monarchs have come out in “Elizabeth”(1998), “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”(2007), “The Young Victoria”(2009), and “The Queen”(2006). All of those movies were excellent in my opinion. This movie both extends this tradition and serves as a uniquely excellent addition to it.

It's actually kind of difficult to write a review about a movie like this without reverting too much to the actual history behind it. The fact is, I'm sure the real story behind this movie is just as impelling as the movie itself.

I think it's very safe to say that this movie is quite possibly the best of 2010. The acting is superb, the story is excellent. There is not much wrong with this movie other than the fact that many will probably find it boring. “The King's Speech,” is about the power of words and of finding ones voice. Colin Firth should win an Oscar for his performance, and the movie should win an Oscar for Best picture. I will be very disappointed if either of them fail to do so. 

10/10

Thursday, January 27, 2011

An Education (2009)




Why do we go to school? Is it to learn everything we can? Is it so that we can be a more effective member of society? Is it so that we can simply have a better life for ourself? This question and others are asked and answered in Lone Sherfig's “An Education.” Based on Lynn Barber's memoir's “An Education” follows Jenny (Carey Mulligan), a teenage girl in her last year before college who wants to know what it's all about. When she doesn't get any real answers from her teachers, she seeks it outside of school in the form of David (Peter Sarsgaard), a thirty something charmer.

Jenny is a very smart young girl in 1960s London. One of her biggest dreams is to visit Paris, maybe even live there for a while. She loves art, good music and “being cool” as most young people do. Jenny is on track to be accepted to Oxford, which would very much please her parents, especially her father(Alfred Molina). Then comes David, a mysterious man that innocuously enough offers to give, not Jenny, a ride home, but because it's raining he offers her a ride for her cello. This is the first we see of how very calculated and self aware David is. He knows exactly what he's doing.

Jenny thinks she knows what she's doing, and maybe she does. When David lies to her parents so that she can hang out with him and his friends over night, she goes along with it. She's knows it's wrong, but, afterall they're only going to see a violin performance. She desperately wants to act and indeed be older than she is. This is very dangers for a girl who believes herself to be much more experienced in life than she is. David IS older than she is, and he offers Jenny exactly that experience that she so naively wishes for. However, that experience soon becomes more than she's comfortable with. She's soon left to deal with the consequences of her decisions.
 
It's called “An Education,” it would seem, for two reasons. One, because Jenny quickly learns many lessons about what it's like to be an adult, and having to face real adult situations and make adult decisions. Society tries to guard the young against having to deal with that for a reason. Two, because the movie looks at the reasons why girls were educated in the 1960's. From the very beginning of the movie, Jenny's father pushes her to stay on top of her studies so that she can go to Oxford. He's the stereotypical stickler of a father. That is, until David proposes to Jenny. With the prospect of having found a future husband, according to her father, there really is no reason to have to go to Oxford anymore. If I wasn't sure that stuff like this actually happened (happens), I'd laugh it off as a ridiculous joke. Long story short, stay in school boys and girls.

This movie is very well acted. Carey Mulligan was nominated for an Academy Award for her portrayal of Jenny and I most certainly believed she earned it. However, like Jenny, I was at first taken in and rather mesmerized by this movie.  Looking at it again, I see that it takes an overly simplistic look at the whole situation. In the movie, Jenny asks her teachers why her and her classmates are in school, why are they learning. It's a fair question. Why should they care about their learning if they are never told why they should? In the movie, the answer comes down on two sides, it's either to find a suitable mate, or to allow yourself to live without a mate. This might be an oversimplification, but I feel it's a failing of the movie, as is the quick tacked on happy ending.

The movie is very good despite its shortcomings. It was nominated for an Oscar for Best Picture when they opened up the field to 10 pictures, and I agree with its inclusion. It's not a perfect movie, but it definitely starts the conversation. 

7.5/10

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Up in the Air (2009)

Some people say that home is where the heart it, others say it's where you hang your hat, others where you lay your head. For small children, home, is in the arms of a parent For adolescents, it's where they go when they have to stop having fun. For college students, home is a concept that is in constant fluctuation. Home is where one belongs, wherever that is.  For Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), the main character in Jason Reitman's “Up in the Air,” home is almost exclusively 39,000 feet above the ground. That is where he feels he belongs. That's where he feels at home.

Ryan is incredibly comfortable in his life. That says a lot as he works for a company that travels across the country firing people for other companies. He literally makes a living on taking people's livings away from them. He is asked more than once how he lives with himself. I think a lot of it is due to the fact that he never really has much time to think about it, he's always moving, always going to the next place, the next airport, the next downsizing company. That is, until two different women come into his life. One comes out of his life in the air, and one threatens to destroy it. Enter Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga) and Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick). Alex is the perfect match for Ryan. One scene shows them both emptying their various frequent flyer cards and valued membership cards and compare them. They're both impressed with each other and this leads itself into the bedroom. They both make it clear that they're not looking for anything serious, like the food and drinks on a plane these rendevous are meant to be single serving, no commitment.

Natalie seeks to destroy Ryan's lifestyle. Not directly. Natalie is a recent graduate who enters the company
with new ideas. She wants to make the whole job termination experience virtual. Instead of sending agents around the world, the company would be centered in one building and have their agents fire people over computers. This would ground Ryan indefinitely. So, the boss (Jason Bateman) decides to send Natalie with Ryan to learn the ins and outs of firing people. Ryan does not respect Natalie, of course, because Natalie has never technically fired anybody. She doesn't know what it's like to effectively ruin someones life. She simply is seeking to make the process even that much more impersonal.

Ryan brings Alex to his sister's wedding where he is more a regular guest than a brother of the bride. We see him here beginning to fall for Alex and we also see him slowly begin to realize that home is where you find the people you love. The problem is, he doesn't really have anybody like that, maybe Alex can be that for him. She can't. Once he realizes that, he quickly understands that a life lived with no home, is not really a life, it's the postponement of life. He begins to live.  We see transformation in Natalie as well. Throughout the movie she is trying to prove to everybody and herself that she can change the way things are done for the better. What she doesn't understand and what she eventually realizes is that firing people is hard. It might make it easier for the people doing the firing if it's done over webcam, but there is a lot of pain and anguish that goes into losing a job. Once she realizes that that's what she's making a living in, she quickly exits. She was not quite comfortable with who she was yet, and if you're not comfortable with who you are, it becomes increasingly difficult to tell someone else that they are no longer needed.

There is a LOT going on in “Up in the Air.” A lot can be said, a lot can be written. I began writing about this movie about a year ago, and it was difficult then, just as difficult now. I still do NOT have a good grasp on this movie. All I am sure of is that was very good. The acting was superb, the writing was excellent it was just an all around great movie. I feel as though this movie needs to not be summarized or quickly analyzed, it needs to be discussed, and often and for a while. I don't think I'll ever be satisfied with anything I write for this movie so I'm giving you what I got. “Up in the Air”- Good movie.


8/10

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Rabbit Hole (2010)

There are so many horrible things that cause pain for a human being. Many of them are physical, many of them are emotional. One event that always transcends those types of pain: the death of a young child. Becoming parents is in many ways creating a legacy. Having a child means being able to pass on wisdom and values. Nobody can know the effects of having that legacy tragically cut short, unless they experience it.  In John Cameron Mitchell's “Rabbit Hole” we see a fraction of those effects. Based on David Lindsay-Albaire play, “Rabbit Hole” takes an insider's look at the destructive effects of losing a young child.

The story is simple. Married couple Becca and Howie (Nichole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart) have recently lost their young son to a tragic car accident. Their dog ran out into the street and their son ran out after him and was struck by a car driven by a teenager. The teenager wasn't drunk or speeding. It was simply one of those things that you can't always guard against unless you leash both dog and child. Nobody is really to blame, although, there is a lot of blaming. Each parent blames themselves. Becca admits that she should have locked the gate on the dog cage, Howie knows that it was actually him who left the gate unlocked, and if they hadn't gotten the dog he loves, then nothing of this would have happened, etc. Isn't it funny as human beings, when a tragedy occurs, we always have to find somebody to blame, even if it has to be ourselves? We search for some kind of force, somebody or something that caused it; who can right the wrong. What happens when there is nobody to blame?

Becca and Howie try and cope with their grief in different and opposing ways. Becca, who stays at home most of the day sees her son everywhere, in the fingerprints on the door jamb, in the clothes still left in the drawer, or the dog that her son loved and eventually led him to his death. Howie, who leaves the house for work, cherishes these things that remind him of his son. He loves his dog, he loves seeing the remnants of his son, he finds comfort in them. There is no right or wrong here, there is only difference and unfortunately so. Where can you go to be understood, if you can't understand your husband or your wife?

They try to go to group therapy. Becca doesn't come back after the first meeting. Howie continues to go, but soon realizes he best finds comfort and relief in a relaxing toke and new conversation. Becca finds comfort and relief by befriending the teenager whose mere act of driving down a street, killed her son. Again, it wasn't his fault, she knows that. He apologizes, we know he's very sorry. He, even tries to blame himself like they did. She finds comfort in the connection she made at the moment another was lost. There's no right or wrong here.  Becca's mother (Diane Wiest) also lost a son, albeit at 30 years of age and by less innocent means, and wants to empathize, to show Becca that she knows what she's going through. Becca resents that. There is no right or wrong, there is no similarity. How do you continue living when you reach a seemingly unresolvable tragedy? Becca and Howie try living one day and see how it goes from there.
 
The acting drives the story. Kidman and Eckhart perform brilliantly. There is such range required in a movie like this. Alternating quiet subtlety and explosive clarity; whispering and yelling, sorrow and joy. Wiest brings a scarred wisdom that is required as a look at how loss can really hurt a person not only physically but emotionally. Even Miles Teller, the unfortunate teenage driver of the car that killed the son, gives exactly the performance required for this movie. “Rabbit Hole” is a powerful movie that doesn't give any answers as to how to deal with the death of a child, because honestly, there really aren't any answers like that. Each instance is vastly different. A child is so incredibly personal to a parent that to lose one is to lose a part of oneself, and nobody can really understand exactly how that feels. Only those who experience that loss can come close, but no one can ever truly know.

8/10

Monday, January 24, 2011

Jordan Award Nominations



Best Picture: 

The Social Network
True Grit
The King's Speech
Winter's Bone
Inception
The Fighter
Black Swan
127 Hours
Shutter Island
The Town

Best Director:

Joel and Ethan Coen - True Grit
Christopher Nolan - Inception
Danny Boyle - 127 Hours
Darren Aronofsky - Black Swan
Tom Hooper- The King's Speech

Best Actor:

Ryan Gosling- Blue Valentine
Collin Firth- The King's Speech
James Franco- 127 Hours
Jeff Bridges- True Grit
Jesse Eisenberg- The Social Network

Best Actress:

Natalie Portman- Black Swan
Jennifer Lawrence- Winter's Bone
Noomi Rapace- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Michelle Williams- Blue Valentine
Hailee Steinfeld- True Grit

Supporting Actor:

Matt Damon- True Grit
Geoffrey Rush- The King's Speech
Andrew Garfield- The Social Network
Michael Douglas- Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
John Hawkes- Winter's Bone

Supporting Actress:

Rooney Mara- The Social Network
Dale Dickey- Winter's Bone
Helena Bonham Carter- The King's Speech
Rebecca Hall- The Town
Marian Cotillard- Inception


Best Ensemble Cast:

Inception
True Grit
Winter's Bone
The King's Speech
The Town

Best Animated Picture:

Toy Story 3
Megamind
How to Train Your Dragon
Tangled
Despicable Me


Best Original Screenplay:

Black Swan- Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz, John J McLaughlin
Inception- Christopher Nolan
The King's Speech- David Seidler
The Fighter- Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson, Keith Dorrington
Blue Valentine- Derek Cianfrance, Joey Curtis, Cami Delavigne


Best Adapted Screenplay:

True Grit- Joel Coen and Ethan Coen
The Social Network- Aaron Sorkin
127 Hours- Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy
Winter's Bone- Anne Rosellini, Debra Granik
Shutter Island- Laeta Kalogidis

Best Original Score-

Tron: Legacy- Daft Punk
The Social Network- Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross
True Grit- Carter Burwell
The King's Speech- Alexandre Desplat
Inception- Hans Zimmer


Best Costume Design:

Alice in Wonderland
The King's Speech
Black Swan
True Grit
The Tempest

Best Visual Effects:

Inception
Alice in Wonderland
Tron: Legacy
Clash of the Titans
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Best Makeup:

Alice in Wonderland
Jonah Hex
Black Swan

Awards with single nominee/winner to be announced with the rest:
Best Male Breakthrough Performance
Best Female Breakthrough Performance

Tron: Legacy (2010)

28 years went by from the first Tron and this sequel. At the time, the original Tron changed the way technology and computers were used in movies. Tron did things with computers that nobody had done before in cinema; it was a game changer. A movie like Tron had to be made, it had to move the industry along, like Star Wars did, and Avatar. That was 28 years ago. What do we do with a new Tron today? Is there really a technological achievement that hasn't been made that can be made? Tron: Legacy doesn't change the game. I don't think it seeks to either. I don't know why Disney thought they needed a sequel and why so late to make one, but I'm glad they did.

Tron: Legacy is a more fuller embodiment of what I believe Tron was trying to be. With computers and technology these days, I feel that it had to be much easier to create the environment needed for the story. The story, though, is what's lacking. We meet the protagonist, Sam Flynn (Garret Hedlund), son of computer and game whiz Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges). Papa Flynn has been missing for a long time, and Sam has dealt with it the best he can. This includes trying his best to sabotage his father's (now his) company. You see, the Flynn's company, ENCOM, has been taken over by very greedy individuals who seek to sell the same software with a different name for more money. Sam doesn't like this. Why he doesn't vote it down and actually take control of his company, I'm not sure. Regardless, Sam reverts to corporate espionage against his own corporation.  Once he's told by a family friend that Papa Flynn supposedly paged him from the shut-down Flynn Arcade, we never again hear about the shady dealings at ENCOM.

Sam is curious and decides to go check out the Arcade himself. He finds the secret entrance to his father's secret office/laboratory, and like anyone else would do, he starts punching buttons and turning stuff on, including a laser-like device that dissolves Sam's physical body and transports it into the digital world known as the Grid. I think the director knew that the Grid was far more interesting and epic than the real world is and he wanted to get there as soon as he could. Confused, Sam wanders around until he is snatched up by the Digital Gestapo and forced to compete in the digital gladiator games. Except, unlike his competitors who, when defeated simply fall apart in pixel cubes, Sam bleeds when he's hurt. Other than showing the crowd and the leaders that Sam is in fact not a program but a user (human) we never come back to whether or not it's real blood or just zero's and one's made to look like blood.

Users aren't welcome in the Grid, so Sam is brought before the leader who at first appears to be his father Kevin. It looks exactly like him, but it isn't. This is a bad guy. They send him back into the arena and after some impressive light cycle action he escapes with the help of another program, the enigmatic  Quorra (Olivia Wilde). Quorra brings Sam to the outskirts of the Grid and Sam is reunited with his father. From there you learn more about the Grid and the people/programs within (the leader who looked like Papa Flynn? His name is CLU and Flynn created him to help him build the Grid, but that didn't work out too well for Flynn.) Eventually it becomes a race to get out of the Grid for Sam, Kevin, and Quorra. I won't ruin the movie for you, but I'll just say it's very interesting and elicits some good questions about what computer programs are and what humans are in relation to those programs.

I see no lack in the acting in this movie. I was very pleased with most everyone involved. Michael Sheen plays a bizarre program of whose purpose I'm not entirely sure. No, there's no problem with the acting (Jeff Bridges, with the help of computers and technology effectively plays three characters, young Kevin, old Keven and CLU). There's also no problem with the soundtrack, it was fantastic and well suited to the movie. The visuals were impressive, if a bit dark and dreary. I saw it in 3-D and I've always thought when 3-D is done right you don't lose brightness, you gain clarity, and in this case it was true.

No, the problem was with the storyline. Maybe it's just me, but it felt very hasty, especially considering it took 28 years to finally make it. I saw a HUGE missed opportunity when the story did not stick with the use of freeware and online peer to peer communities to share software. That is relevant to today, so why do we not see the same connection between the Grid and the real world as we did in the original Tron? I felt as though the story could have been a lot better, though much like the original Tron, Tron: Legacy seemed more focus on the spectacle and not on the substance. All in all it was an entertaining and engrossing movie. More visually pleasing than the original. It would have been excellent had the script been more relevant and given the actors more to work with.


6/10