Film Review: TRON: Legacy (2010)

Also known as: TR2N, TRON 2.0 (working titles), TRON 2 (informal title)
Release Date: November 30th, 2010 (Tokyo premiere)
Directed by: Joseph Kosinski
Written by: Edward Kitsis, Adam Horowitz, Brian Klugman, Lee Sternthal
Based on: characters by Steven Lisberger, Bonnie MacBird
Music by: Daft Punk
Cast: Jeff Bridges, Garrett Hedlund, Olivia Wilde, Bruce Boxleitner, James Frain, Beau Garrett, Michael Sheen, Daft Punk (cameo), Steven Lisberger (cameo), Cillian Murphy (uncredited)

Walt Disney Pictures, Sean Bailey Productions, John Thomas Special FX, 125 Minutes

Review:

“Life has a way of moving you past wants and hopes.” – Kevin Flynn

It took a really long time for TRON to get a sequel but I was glad that it did, even if this film wasn’t quite what I’d expected.

Compared to the original, this film is incredibly polished. But that’s also due to 28 years of special effects advancement and the use of modern CGI, which didn’t exist in nearly the same way in 1982.

That being said, this is a beautiful and fine looking motion picture. However, despite its enchanting otherworldlyness, it kind of lacks the spirit and magic that was present in the original film. Call me old but I prefer the primitive effects and matte paintings, as well as the simple digital 3D models.

Before ever seeing footage of this film, I had hoped that the filmmakers would maintain the look of the original. I understand why they didn’t, as it might not appeal to a new generation but this film feels like too much of a jump aesthetically.

Now even though the CGI within the computer world looks solid, it was actually done pretty poorly in the real world sequences. Primarily those that featured old actors with their faces de-aged to look like they did almost thirty years earlier.

For the most part, I liked the story in this film. It was a good logical future for where the previous movie ended up. The only thing that I wasn’t crazy about is that the real world stuff in the beginning was too dragged out.

Although, I like that this doesn’t show you the computer world until the protagonist is sucked into it. I wish the original film wouldn’t have shown the computer world almost immediately, as saving the reveal to be the exact moment where the hero arrives, astounded by his surroundings, has a sort of Wizard of Oz colorization effect.

The film is also full of colorful characters and everyone does pretty well with their roles. I especially liked Michael Sheen’s over the top, Bowie-esque performance. But with everyone being really good and having a lot of personality, sadly, Garrett Hedlund’s Sam was pretty dry and boring. I don’t think that’s necessarily Hedlund’s fault, as his character was written as a straightman type, but he was overshadowed by just about everyone else, which doesn’t make for an exciting protagonist.

While TRON: Legacy doesn’t blow my socks off, I did like it enough to hope that the film series would rage on for years. Right now, it looks like that’s not going to happen but as long as Disney owns the brand, it will eventually get a sequel, a remake or a reboot.

I didn’t even mention the score because do I need to? Everyone’s heard it, everyone loves it and you can’t avoid one of Daft Punk’s songs from this movie creeping into every station on Pandora.

Rating: 7.5/10
Pairs well with: it’s predecessor, the original TRON, as well as the animated series, TRON: Uprising.

Film Review: Inception (2010)

Also known as: Oliver’s Arrow (fake working title), El Origen (Spanish title)
Release Date: July 8th, 2010 (London premiere)
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Written by: Christopher Nolan
Music by: Hans Zimmer
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Ken Watanabe, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Tom Berenger, Michael Caine, Pete Postlethwaite, Lukas Haas, Talulah Riley, Dileep Rao

Legendary Pictures, Syncopy, Warner Bros., 148 Minutes

Review:

“What is the most resilient parasite? Bacteria? A virus? An intestinal worm? An idea. Resilient… highly contagious. Once an idea has taken hold of the brain it’s almost impossible to eradicate. An idea that is fully formed – fully understood – that sticks; right in there somewhere.” – Cobb

Like Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar, I guess I’m the only person on Earth that doesn’t like this movie.

I can’t take away from the visuals though. This film is stunning to look at and all the strange physics of the dream world come off almost flawlessly and create a visual smorgasbord of cool shit. And because of that, this film had one of the most amazing trailers for its time.

Frankly, I think a lot of people were so blown away by the trailer and the visuals that they completely dismiss everything else.

Inception is one of those “science-y” word salad movies that no one wants to look uncool by admitting that they have no idea what the fuck any of this is about.

The film relies solely on you buying into Christopher Nolan’s bad science, which is constantly explained with more and more layers dropped on top of it all. I don’t think that Nolan really knows what the hell he was saying. It’s complicated, it’s boring, it’s really fucking lame and it’s only cool for those people that read I Fucking Love Science‘s Facebook feed for the headlines without clicking on the articles. It’s bullshit brain casserole for the normie that yells “Yay, science!” but hasn’t actually picked up and read a book by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, whose books are actually really easy for the layman to digest.

This movie wants so hard to be smart but it’s dumber than my cousin Sam after we found her under a bridge in Ft. Lauderdale following a twenty-six day opium bender.

On the flip side, the acting is top notch. I can’t fault the cast for anything. Well, except for Ellen Page who is dryer than a box of saltine crackers, opened and lost in the Sahara during a drought. However, good acting aside, every character in this movie is flat. Also, it lacks any sort of emotion because of the flatness of these characters and because the audience is hit in the face with “Yay, science!” every 8 seconds that you don’t have time to make a connection with anything.

Plus, this film isn’t as innovative as it thinks it is. It certainly isn’t as clever as it thinks it is, either. I wonder if Nolan stores his farts in jars to enjoy at a later date?

Also, Nolan’s directing is damn good. It’s just his writing that is terrible with this $160 million bullshit bonanza.

Fuck this movie. I hate it. I can’t give it a very low score because of the strong positives. But I can’t sit through this turkey in one sitting. I’ve tried. Watching it again, just to finally review it was like sitting through a four day root canal without drugs.

As for that ending, was DiCaprio dreaming? Who the fuck cares.

Rating: 5/10
Pairs well with: other Nolan films that don’t feature Batman.

Film Review: Dunkirk (2017)

Release Date: July 13th, 2017 (Odeon Leicester Square premiere)
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Written by: Christopher Nolan
Music by: Hans Zimmer
Cast: Fionn Whitehead, Tom Glynn-Carney, Jack Lowden, Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard, James D’Arcy, Barry Keoghan, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy

Syncopy Inc., Warner Bros., 106 Minutes

Review:

“Where’s the bloody air force?” – Irate Soldier

At one point, Christopher Nolan was my favorite modern director. Interstellar left a bad taste in my mouth, Inception was cool but tedious and I’ve always thought that Memento was a bit overrated. However, The Prestige and The Dark Knight Trilogy are some of the best examples of filmmaking in the last decade or so. When it comes to Nolan, I always remember the positives and I will always give his films the opportunity to captivate me.

Dunkirk is not a perfect motion picture, many films rarely are. However, it is solid, strong and a true return to form for the British auteur.

War movies have run their course for me. Many of them are just more of the same. They’ve become incredibly derivative and they all just sort of blur together. That is, until one that is unique or exceptional comes along. I wouldn’t quite label Dunkirk as exceptional but I would say that it is unique.

The film picks up right in the action and never lets up. It is pretty relentless but not so much so that you are forced into a stressful and intense two hour action sequence. There is enough story and character building to make you care about the people in the film, even if you really just get to peek into these men’s lives for a day or so.

The acting is incredible and the cinematography is beautiful and immensely breathtaking. The scenes with the fighter pilots are a real treat and the true highlight of the film. Especially with Tom Hardy just owning every scene he is in, even if he doesn’t have a lot of dialogue throughout most of the movie.

The scenes featuring Cillian Murphy are fabulous. He plays a soldier rescued at sea who is shellshocked by the attacks he’s survived. His character creates some major problems for others in the film but you can’t feel anything but sadness for him, despite the consequences of his actions. Frankly, Murphy proves time and time again that he is one of the best actors of the modern era but I don’t see him in enough films.

James D’Arcy and Kenneth Branagh command the screen when they are present. Branagh always has this sort of effect but it is great seeing D’Arcy really shine and get to sink his teeth into something meaty.

The only real negative about this film is that the multiple characters and their missions are all edited quickly together and the film jumps back and forth between them all. The issue, is that the timelines for each set of characters doesn’t line up. So when the boat scenes cut to the fighter jet scenes, we’re not seeing the same passage of time, yet they are edited together for dramatic effect. Honestly, I would have preferred the film to just sort of happen chronologically, as it would have been easier to follow. I don’t know if this was done to come off as more of an artistic approach or if it was just to make the action sequences flow a bit better but I had to keep reminding myself that certain things were happening from a different point-of-view that I had already seen earlier.

Dunkirk is still pretty incredible and it shows that Nolan has still got it. It also shows that war films don’t have to tread the same path or tell another version of the same story we’ve seen countless times. It’s also nice seeing a major World War II film that has nothing to do with America. Besides, the Dunkirk incident is an incredible story and it deserved to be told on the big screen, which hasn’t been done since the mostly forgotten 1958 film of the same name.

Rating: 7.75/10