|
|
 |
|
|
Alynda Wheat, People: MODERATE (cg) "...so dazzled by its neon visuals and so reliant on fans' love of the '82 cult original, it forgets to tell a satisfying story." (Read the full review...) 152 words, 12/09/10 Mary Pols, Time: FAIR "...not good, but it is amiable." (Read the full review...) 864 words, 12/16/10 Christy Lemire, Associated Press: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "...thrilling and cool-looking for about the first half... its races, games and visuals eventually grow repetitive, which only draws attention to how flimsy and preposterous the script is..." (Read the full review...) 786 words, 12/16/10 Thelma Adams, Us Weekly: MODERATE (cg) "...so busy it may make viewers feel queasy, as if they've entered a video game without the controls." (Read the full review...) 63 words, 12/16/10 Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly: VERY GOOD (cg) "...unlike its predecessor, really does make novelty look cool. It's a sleeker, sharper, far more visually intoxicating machine dream of a movie..." (Read the full review...) 895 words, 12/17/10 Peter Travers, Rolling Stone: VERY GOOD (cg) "The special effects are award-caliber... a recipe for adventure that should delight gamers. Non-techies are on their own." (Read the full review...) 106 words, 12/10/10 Claudia Puig, USA Today: MODERATE (cg) "Like its predecessor, which was celebrated for its pioneering computer graphics, this new 'TRON' is glossy. But its story is impenetrable, often nonsensical." (Read the full review...) 560 words, 12/17/10 Roger Ebert, RogerEbert.com: VERY GOOD (cg) "...true to the first film: It can't be understood, but looks great.... too one-dimensional for an audience much beyond immediate responders." (Read the full review...) 1,089 words, 12/16/10 James Berardinelli, Reel Views: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "The narrative may be stronger than that of the 1982 production but, except for a few half-hearted allusions to 'Frankenstein,' there's not much interesting going on here." (Read the full review...) 1,082 words, 12/14/10
Manohla Dargis, New York Times: WEAK "Twice as much Jeff Bridges does not necessarily mean twice as much entertainment -- bummer." (Read the full review...) 1,014 words, 12/17/10 Joe Neumaier, New York Daily News: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "The only way to see 'Tron: Legacy' is in IMAX 3-D, so the full visual freakiness can engulf you and be appreciated the way you used to light up at the thought of a laser show set to 'Dark Side of the Moon.' " (Read the full review...) 481 words, 12/17/10 Betsy Sharkey, Los Angeles Times: FAIR "...not nearly enough new life.... tripping (and I don't mean in a substance-enhancing way) more than you'd wish)." (Read the full review...) 952 words, 12/17/10 Kyle Smith, New York Post: VERY GOOD (cg) "...an eyeball party.... For all of its buggy storytelling, it plugs into your cerebral cortex and makes it sizzle." (Read the full review...) 638 words, 12/17/10 Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune: MODERATE (cg) "...a sullen affair... I found myself wishing I could switch over to different, peppier 1982-derived artifact, something on the order of Atari Pole Position." (Read the full review...) 494 words, 12/17/10 Rafer Guzman, New York Newsday: MODERATE (cg) "...long on visuals and short on story, making for a nifty-looking bore." (Read the full review...) 293 words, 12/17/10 David Edelstein, New York Magazine: WEAK "With a million times more computing power at its disposal than its 1982 predecessor, 'Tron: Legacy' still looks like Disco Night at the jai alai fronton." (Read the full review...) 110 words, 12/13/10 Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: VERY GOOD (cg) "...true to the first film: It can't be understood, but looks great.... too one-dimensional for an audience much beyond immediate responders." (Read the full review...) 1,089 words, 12/16/10 J. Hoberman, Village Voice/LA Weekly: GOOD (NOT GREAT) "When not delighting the eye it baffles the brain with mumbo-jumbo... Turn off your mind, relax, and float downstream." (Read the full review...) 706 words, 12/15/10 Peter Howell, Toronto Star: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "...an 'almost' movie.... modestly expands the original story and reunites two key cast members (Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner)..." (Read the full review...) 897 words, 12/17/10 Liam Lacey, Toronto Globe & Mail: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "...follows what did and didn't work the first time - another weak story with sub-B-movie dialogue, partly compensated for by intensely conceived geometric design and special effects." (Read the full review...) 674 words, 12/17/10 Radheyan Simonpillai, Toronto Now: WEAK (cg) "...a great-looking dud." (Read the full review...) 146 words, 12/16/10
Michael O'Sullivan, Washington Post: MODERATE (cg) "...a loud, long and less than wholly satisfying sequel.... Sonically, visually and conceptually, it's a richly imagined world.... gamers would fall in love..." (Read the full review...) 792 words, 12/17/10 Carrie Rickey, Philadelphia Inquirer: MODERATE (cg) "...a two-hour light show with a lot of flash, a little style, and not one byte of narrative originality." (Read the full review...) 502 words, 12/17/10 Amy Biancolli, Houston Chronicle/San Francisco Chronicle: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "The effects are absolutely spectacular, but they blow the goofy-cheesy quotient straight through the roof." (Read the full review...) 560 words, 12/17/10 Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "...a gorgeous sequel... But like 'Avatar,' a film too in love with its own good looks. And like the original 'TRON,' the sequel's a bit of a slog, a generally humorless quest..." (Read the full review...) 577 words, 12/17/10 Colin Covert, Minneapolis Star-Tribune: POOR (cg) "...a hodgepodge of ideas lifted from science-fiction classics, fast-paced action tedium and flimsy connective tissue. It's bloatware." (Read the full review...) 470 words, 12/17/10 Bill Goodykoontz, Arizona Republic: MODERATE (cg) "...if you're going to see a movie that admittedly features lots of digital bells and whistles as its major draw, shouldn't you still be able to tell what's going on?" (Read the full review...) 601 words, 12/17/10 Tom Maurstad, Dallas Morning News: MODERATE (cg) "...sinks under the weight of its own mystical mumbo-jumbo and pseudoscience gobbledygook." (Read the full review...) 660 words, 12/17/10 Wesley Morris, Boston Globe: MODERATE (cg) "...says nothing yet weighs a ton... lacks that conversation moment where you stop worrying and fall under a spell. In director Joseph Kosinski, the movie has a mechanic when it needs a magician." (Read the full review...) 918 words, 12/17/10 Clint O'Connor, Cleveland Plain-Dealer: EXCELLENT (cg) "...an entertaining jaunt into a digital dimension.... This 'Tron' is what the original would have looked like with more money and better software." (Read the full review...) 409 words, 12/17/10 Tom Keogh, Seattle Times: WEAK (cg) "...exhausting... a lot like being trapped in a room while someone plays a video game you barely understand." (Read the full review...) 550 words, 12/17/10 Shawn Levy, Portland Oregonian: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "The original 'Tron' gave you a childlike sense of wonder about the future; this one gives you an adolescent sense of the present. One guess which heartens more." (Read the full review...) 354 words, 12/17/10 Joe Williams, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "...looks cool (as in cold), but it's about as much fun as being a barrel in a game of Donkey Kong." (Read the full review...) 418 words, 12/17/10 Steve Persall, St. Petersburg Times: GOOD (cg) "There's enough eye candy in this movie to put cybernerds into diabetic shock." (Read the full review...) 510 words, 12/18/10 Tom Long, Detroit News: MODERATE (cg) "Lots of sizzle, not much soul, and very little sense... It's all big, it's all cyber-flashy, and it's all obvious..." (Read the full review...) 539 words, 12/17/10 Rene Rodriguez, Miami Herald: MODERATE (cg) "...makes the same mistake the original did: All the best stuff comes in the first act. The rest of the movie is as exciting as an overnight round of computer coding." (Read the full review...) 569 words, 12/17/10
J. Hoberman, Village Voice/LA Weekly: GOOD (NOT GREAT) "When not delighting the eye it baffles the brain with mumbo-jumbo... Turn off your mind, relax, and float downstream." (Read the full review...) 706 words, 12/15/10 Katey Rich, Cinema Blend: MODERATE (cg) "The visual effects are the main draw... what's missing is the spark of imagination... just dazzling enough to shock an audience into submission for two hours." (Read the full review...) 1,145 words, 12/08/10 Peter Keough, Boston Phoenix: MODERATE (cg) "...doesn't have much life of its own.... If nothing else, the new film is a product of marketing genius." (Read the full review...) 594 words, 12/16/10 Scott Tobias, AV Club: WEAK (cg) "...it isn't merely silly; it's as dry and talky as a PBS panel show.... pretends to greatness in ways that snuff out any flickers of joy." (Read the full review...) 388 words, 12/16/10 Nick Schager, Slant: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "...aesthetically striking, taking the basic design templates of Steven Lisberger's cult classic and retrofitting them with such inventive pixilated verve that, at least for a time, nagging storytelling shortcomings are ignorable." (Read the full review...) 885 words, 12/08/10 Radheyan Simonpillai, Toronto Now: WEAK (cg) "...a great-looking dud." (Read the full review...) 146 words, 12/16/10 Curt Holman, Atlanta Creative Loafing: WEAK (cg) "Can someone reboot the reboot?" (Read the full review...) 833 words, 12/17/10 MaryAnn Johanson, Flick Filosopher: POOR (cg) "...totally superfluous and eminently forgettable... computerized babes in spandex who undress Our Hero whether he likes it or not?" (Read the full review...) 726 words, 12/15/10
Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal: POOR "It's dispiriting to see how little attention the filmmakers have paid to the dramatic -- read human -- possibilities of the original, or how much they've been overwhelmed by technology's demands." (Read the full review...) 706 words, 12/17/10 Manohla Dargis, New York Times: WEAK "Twice as much Jeff Bridges does not necessarily mean twice as much entertainment -- bummer." (Read the full review...) 1,014 words, 12/17/10 Betsy Sharkey, Los Angeles Times: FAIR "...not nearly enough new life.... tripping (and I don't mean in a substance-enhancing way) more than you'd wish)." (Read the full review...) 952 words, 12/17/10 Dana Stevens, Slate: POOR "...the kind of sensory-onslaught blockbuster that tends to put me to sleep..." (Read the full review...) 642 words, 12/16/10 Andrew O'Hehir, Salon: POOR "...a leaden, inflated super-spectacle... recycled, bloated, fish-belly emptiness..." (Read the full review...) 1,148 words, 12/15/10
Peter Debruge, Daily Variety: MODERATE "...a flashy, fetishistic showcase of what bikes and bodysuits might look like in a future designed by renegade Apple employees.... the underlying concept feels as far-fetched as ever." (Read the full review...) 1,097 words, 12/03/10 Todd McCarthy, Hollywood Reporter: GOOD (NOT GREAT) "...looks sharp in 3D and runs circles around its progenitor in effects and story, which isn't saying a whole lot.... the latter half bogs down in a redundancy of stand-offs and multiple endings." (Read the full review...) 1,135 words, 12/03/10 Betsy Sharkey, Los Angeles Times: FAIR "...not nearly enough new life.... tripping (and I don't mean in a substance-enhancing way) more than you'd wish)." (Read the full review...) 952 words, 12/17/10 Emanuel Levy, Cinema 24/7: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "...the potential fun to be had is hampered by a pedestrian, heavily Freudian father-son story, which would like to pass itself as an epic adventure in every sense of the term." (Read the full review...) 854 words, 12/07/10 Manohla Dargis, New York Times: WEAK "Twice as much Jeff Bridges does not necessarily mean twice as much entertainment -- bummer." (Read the full review...) 1,014 words, 12/17/10 Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal: POOR "It's dispiriting to see how little attention the filmmakers have paid to the dramatic -- read human -- possibilities of the original, or how much they've been overwhelmed by technology's demands." (Read the full review...) 706 words, 12/17/10
Thank you for following MovieReviewIntelligence.com |
Opening Soon (Early Figures)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
