Matrixston Wow! Such a good movie.

ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

miker4469 I first saw this movie when I was twelve years old. I just recently saw it again and fell in love all over again. The special effects were state of the art back in the 80s. Still holds up in my opinion.

tmpsvita An extremely ambitious film, too much for the time, there was the willingness to do something really new, but without the proper tools to do it willingness isn't helpful. Too bad because the ideas are there, there is a huge amount of ideas many are interesting and original, some even brilliant, while some could avoid because unnecessary, confusing or senseless but the main problem is that most of it is badly developed, so much to be, especially at the beginning, almost incomprehensible, especially for a spectator who has not lived in that historical period and therefore already understands with difficulty the type of computer science, now archaic, of the 80s, and so he will finds it really difficult to identify with it. All this because of an immature and superficial script with various holes, in which the feelings and emotions are missing and that is lost in the great quantity of present ideas and ends up being too confusing and flat as original and at times interesting it may be; not to mention the bad dialogues and really forgettable interpretations, in some points almost terrible, even that of Jeff Bridges. The film also suffers from a very strong aging too palpable that makes really difficult, at the beginning, the vision of the film itself, because of really bad special effects even for the time (five years before it was released "Star Wars" and the same year "Blade Runner"!), which you get used to only after the first half hour. The same applies to the unconvincing direction, especially in the staging, in the sets and costumes where it does the worst of itself, even there the ideas are not enough if they are misdirected. Fortunately, after a while, you begin to appreciate the trashy aftertaste that spreads with great force throughout the duration, so that you get to appreciate it. This also allows you to better immerse yourself in the extremely special atmosphere of the film so that in the end it can also involve, a bit 'for the plot and a bit' for the unintentional comedy of many scenes that in any case provide a bit 'of genuine entertainment. In short, a failed project but that manages in many places to entertain despite the many problems, which however have not prevented it to become, over the years, a small cult of science fiction with a large and strong fanbase and on this I can not say, so much of a hat. In any case I think it is a film that strongly needed a sequel / reboot that could exploit the great potential that went here wasted, so the following of 2010 (which by the way I saw a lot before this thinking it was stand alone ) I found it rather discreet.

Scott LeBrun "TRON" may not exactly be a truly great film, but it is interesting, and incredibly stimulating on a visual level. It's also obviously historically important as one of the earliest films to take advantage of computers in creating amazing, digitally designed environments. It really does take you into a different world of sorts. But it's fortunately also not an empty experience, as it does make one think about the nature of artificial intelligence, and even touches upon philosophical / religious themes as well.Jeff Bridges stars as Kevin Flynn, a former program designer for a leading software corporation whose ideas for games were stolen by the devious Ed Dillinger (David Warner). Flynn now spends part of his time trying to hack into the Encom system to find the proof that Dillinger screwed him over. Assisted by his friends Lora (Cindy Morgan) and Alan (Bruce Boxleitner), he infiltrates the big company building, and ends up beamed inside the system by the omnipotent Master Control Program. Here he must participate in "games" and evade deadly tanks and persistent "Recognizers".The innovation in this project, scripted and directed by Steven Lisberger, is impressive. The ideas in this narrative are still relevant 34 years later, and the animation is still quite effective. More tech savvy viewers may maintain that the film does show its age, but all this viewer can say is that he enjoyed the ride on which he was taken. After a while, the wonder of the images does start to fade a bit, but at least "TRON" has the charisma of Bridges, and the abilities of his supporting cast (also including Barnard Hughes ("The Lost Boys") and Dan Shor ("Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure")) to fall back on. Fine electronic music by Wendy Carlos and two songs by rock band Journey also help to make this enjoyable.Followed decades later by a sequel.Seven out of 10.

Mellow Online1 I don't like Tron. There I said it. People regard this film as a cult classic but personally I don't see why.For anyone that is unaware, Tron is a film released in 1982. It's about a video game creator's idea being stolen by a big company head. He goes in to get proof that the idea was his, only for a machine to get him sucked into the game he created. He needs to work with programs that he created in order to get out as well as fight against viruses inside the game in order to get out. The plot was probably one of the best things about the film. It was quite a unique idea at the time and was interesting to see this new sort of plot being taken on.The main thing that's praised about Tron is its visuals and I'll come to agree. The movie's effects were really impressive for the time and even live up today.The one thing I noticed about the reviews of Tron was that they only seemed to talk about how good the visuals were and didn't talk about anything else. I find Tron stupid. Some questions are left unanswered and it also has a few confusing and unnecessary parts. I will go onto list them here. At the start of the movie a scientist says "his whole life he's worked on a machine" and that machine's purpose is to make objects disappear and then they reappear a few seconds later. I don't know about you but I think that's his life wasted. I can't think in one way how that sort of machine could be useful. The guy who created the game is introduced in an arcade playing a video game which he for some reason sweats from, I don't know one person who sweats from playing a video game. It might have also just been an excuse for that actor to take their top off to reveal his pecks for no reason and yes that actually happens. There is a scene when he's about to have a fight to the death with a program. I'm not sure about you but if I was going into a fight to the death and I was just a video game creator, I would be terrified, but this programmer isn't as he goes into the fight to the death grinning like an idiot. There's a huge dramatic moment where one of the programs dies and despite this program appearing in about 2/3s of the film, the other characters don't seem to care. I'm actually going to type the dialogue that is delivered after he dies."Where is he?" "He died" "*gasp* alright* I'm not joking, that is actually what is said. There's another part where one of the programs is tired from lying down. I'm not joking about that either. He literally lies down, gets up and is gasping for breath.I fail to see how other reviews of this movie haven't considered that this movie is so bad that it's good. That's how I see it. Yes the plot is creative and the visuals are cool and still hold up today but everything else falls flat. The characters aren't given anything to be called characters, the acting given off feels like the actors were held at gunpoint to perform, there are scenes that don't go anywhere, and most of all it suffers from bad writing.