TRON: Legacy

OPENING: 12/17/2010

STUDIO: Disney

RUN TIME: 127 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
The Game Has Changed

Opening Statement
When Disney’s TRON was released in 1982, it was regarded as a groundbreaking technical achievement. It took film to a new level in terms of computer-generated special effects and remains a much-loved movie despite its obvious dramatic flaws. Arriving a mere 28 years after its predecessor, TRON: Legacy proves disappointingly conventional in comparison.

Facts of the Case
Our story begins a few years after the first film concluded. Computer whiz Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart) is the wealthy CEO of a massive corporation. One day, Kevin mysteriously vanishes, leaving his young son Sam behind. We fast-forward some twenty years or so and discover that Sam (Garrett Hedlund, Four Brothers) is the corporation’s primary shareholder, but he has no interest in the day-to-day operations of the business. In the Flynn family’s absence, the company has taken an unfortunate turn; sacrificing quality for the sake of raking in more cash. The lone voice of reason on the board is Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner, The Babe), Kevin’s old business partner.

One day, Alan discovers a piece of evidence suggesting that Kevin may still be alive. Sam is informed of this and determines to investigate the matter. Upon searching his father’s old arcade palace, Sam accidentally discovers a portal to another world–a digital land where human beings are faithfully recreated as code. It seems that Kevin had been visiting this high-tech dimension on a regular basis during Sam’s childhood. Unfortunately, Kevin became trapped inside this dimension after being betrayed by Clu (also played by Bridges), an advanced program Kevin created in the hopes of making a utopian world within the digital realm. Alas, Clu’s idea of perfection is a hive-minded dictatorship; meaning that the current version of this world is nothing short of a living nightmare.

Once Sam arrives (and is immediately captured by Clu), he must find a way to survive a series of increasingly challenging gladiatorial games, find his father and figure out how to get back home

The Evidence
To be honest, TRON: Legacy didn’t have a whole lot to live up to. Yes, the original TRON was a technical breakthrough, but the storytelling was ordinary and much of the acting was rather stiff. The intriguing, fresh ideas joined forces with a competent story to create a reasonably satisfying experience. Somehow, TRON: Legacy manages to make the same mistakes, offering misguided performances and some remarkably clumsy storytelling. Sure, it looks and sounds great (as the first one did in its day), but it ranks as an inferior experience in the ideas department. The original TRON was a film enamored with the specific rules of its innovative universe, while TRON: Legacy is a film that seems more interested in its superficially flashy production design than in the endless possibilities its world offers.

This is such a frustrating film on a storytelling level; the sort of movie that inspires questions of logic but never seems interested in answering them. For instance: where does the massive audience at the sporting events come from? If they’re programs, why do they need to be entertained? Why do they behave in such a blatantly emotional, human manner at the sporting events? Why is it that certain vehicles can go off the grid and others can’t? How did the equivalent of a big bang instantly create fully-evolved beings? How did these fully-evolved beings become so wise without the benefit of life experience? Why do certain rules of physics apply while others do not in this world? I could go on and on.

”It’s not rocket science; it’s just entertainment,” you may be saying. I realize that. On a certain fundamental technical level, the movie does provide some enjoyment. The visual design is immensely compelling and the film ensures that we always have some measure of eye-candy to behold (even if it uses up its best ideas within the first hour). The action sequences are well-crafted and offer some genuine excitement from time to time (even if the action sequences in the last act can’t hold a candle to those in the first). The energetic music by Daft Punk offers the film an invaluable boost, too (even if parts of it veer a little close to Hans Zimmer’s work on Inception). However, these strengths are indicative of the film’s weaknesses: it feels like all of the creative energy went into the visual effects and sound design.

The screenplay could certainly use a good deal of fine-tuning; burdened as it is with awkward dialogue, forced metaphors and obvious foreshadowing (there’s one moment early in the film which frustratingly spells out the film’s conclusion). None of the actors manage to overcome the weak writing. Garrett Hedlund is a fine actor, but most of his lines are so forced that he never comes across as a terribly compelling hero. Olivia Wilde (House) is never quite convincing as the naïve yet confident action heroine, while Michael Sheen (The Queen) goes bizarrely over-the-top as the proprietor of a digital night club. I don’t know whether Sheen or the director is responsible, but it only serves to generate a sense of bewilderment. Sheen seems to be playing hyperactive cross between Al Pacino’s Scarface and that villainous fox from Pinocchio.

I had high hopes that the presence of Jeff Bridges would ensure at least some high-caliber acting, but even the esteemed Oscar winner falls well short of his usual standard. To be fair, it isn’t really his fault. As Clu, Bridges is forced to deal with the film’s single terrible special effect. The attempts to make Bridges look 30-something are remarkably unpersuasive, as the character looks like he’s been transported from one of Robert Zemeckis’ motion-capture flicks. Bridges’ grizzled voice sounds exceedingly peculiar coming from the smooth-faced Clu’s mouth. One would assume that he would fare better as Kevin Flynn, but the writers assure that this performance doesn’t work. Much of Bridges’ dialogue is portentous sci-fi business, but the writers occasionally throw in PG-rated leftovers from The Big Lebowski. So, after giving some grave speech about the danger Clu poses to humanity, Bridges will utter something like, “Radical, man!” Bridges is generally an effortless actor, but this performance seems forced.

Oh, and what about the title character? As you may recall, Tron was the heroic program created by Alan in the original film (both Alan and Tron were played by Boxleitner). This time, Tron is onscreen for less than five minutes, wears a helmet concealing his face the entire time and has absolutely nothing of interest to do. Seriously? You’re making a movie called TRON: Legacy and Tron himself is nothing but an afterthought? Somebody needs to be slapped.

As is often the case with big-budget flicks these days, TRON: Legacy feels less like a self-contained movie than like the opening chapter of a franchise. Important plot strands are left hanging which will only be resolved if this flick make enough money. The most perplexing instance of this is the first-act introduction of a character played by Cillian Murphy (Sunshine). This character is the son of the villain played by David Warner in the original TRON. Alas, Murphy gets a few insignificant lines and then is never seen again–they’re saving him for future installments, I guess.

Closing Statement
I should conclude by re-asserting that the film isn’t bad–it’s a tolerable way to pass two hours, I guess. However, the disconnect between the potential this material has and what the filmmakers actually deliver is immensely frustrating. TRON deserves a better legacy than this.

The Verdict
5/10

Frost/Nixon

OPENING: 12/05/2008

STUDIO: Universal

TRAILER: Trailer

ACCOMPLICES: Official Site

The Charge
400 million people were waiting for the truth.

Opening Statement
There is a scene in Frost/Nixon that stands out as a memorable moment. It is late at night, and David Frost is sitting alone in his hotel room. The phone rings. Frost answers, and is surprised to hear Richard Nixon’s voice on the other line. Nixon has been drinking, and seems to be in a reflective mood. “We’re both looked down on, you know,” he muses. “No matter how many awards you win, no matter how powerful the office I hold is, we’re always looked down upon and laughed at.” While no such phone call ever actually occurred (there is an unwritten rule that every film about Nixon must take creative liberties), such a statement would have been true at the time. Nixon was probably the most-mocked politician of his day, and Frost was regarded as a buffoon with, “no discernible talent.”

Facts of the Case
The year is 1977, several years after former U.S. President Richard M. Nixon resigned from his most-esteemed office. At least, the office was most-esteemed before Nixon got his hands on it. Corruption had tainted Nixon’s tenure and the public had understandably begun to develop a deep-rooted cynicism that remains in place to this day. However, the bitter public never received any real catharsis when it came to Nixon. “Tricky Dick” was pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford, essentially preventing Nixon from ever being charged for his crimes.

Enter British talk show host, comedian, and casual journalist David Frost. Many had wanted to score a substantial interview with Nixon after his resignation, but Nixon was not particularly interested in being chewed apart. However, he was intrigued by the idea of an interview with Frost. Not only was Frost a lightweight who would probably toss easy questions, he was willing to pay considerably more than any of the news networks were. So, after some brief negotiations, it was agreed that Richard Nixon and David Frost would conduct a series of lengthy interviews over the course of twelve different days. When the interviews were aired, they drew hundreds of millions of viewers and broke records. Ron Howard’s new film recreates the verbal duels that occurred during those interviews, and tells the compelling story of how a lightweight journalist successfully went head-to-head with a disgraced former President.

The Evidence
It’s kind of astonishing to consider such a thing, particularly when one looks at the kind of politicians and journalists we have today. Yes, Nixon was a corrupt man, but doesn’t he look just a bit less awful when contrasted with the likes of Elliot Spitzer, Rod Blagojevich, Mark Foley, and others? From what we see of Frost, he was certainly no Walter Cronkite, but he seems more professional and competent than a large percentage of network news anchors on television today. Ron Howard’s portrait of the battle between David Frost and Richard Nixon has taken on an unexpected nobility and class. In 1977, Frost and Nixon were perhaps perceived as two nobodies fighting to gain an ounce of respect. In 2008, they seem like two rather intelligent men attempting to outfox one another. It’s rather interesting this story is being told now. One might suspect a film like this would attempt to offer parallels to current political situations, but no, not really. Frost/Nixon simply gives modern viewers a chance to witness these events through the lens of today’s culture.

Rather, I should say it gives them an opportunity to witness a fictionalized version of these events. Frost/Nixon is a good film, but it’s not a particularly useful history lesson. Things are made up, sliced up, spliced up, spiced up, tweaked, adjusted, and re-arranged until we have something accurately resembling history without actually portraying it to any degree of genuine accuracy. The film is best used to inspire discussions and motivate thoughts, not to teach children about David Frost and Richard Nixon. Surprisingly, such historical liberties permit the film to reach considerable heights. The aforementioned phone conversation is probably the high point of the film, and many of the most “revealing” moments are typically the ones that didn’t actually happen.

As you might expect, Nixon is the magnetic force that drives the movie. Actor Frank Langella offers a terrific performance, and his Richard Nixon is a great character. However, I would not say Langella makes a great Richard Nixon. We aren’t exactly getting Nixon here, but a Shakespearean alternate version of Nixon. Langella is bold, eloquent, commanding, and intense. When the real Nixon appeared on television, he seemed sweaty, nervous, and uncomfortable. Langella’s Nixon has the swagger and poise of a king. Part of this comes from Langella’s unique natural screen presence. Langella’s Dracula didn’t seem much like Dracula, and his Perry White didn’t seem much like Perry White, but they were great characters nonetheless. The other part of it comes from Howard’s desire to frame Frost/Nixon as a David and Goliath tale. For the majority of the film, Michael Sheen plays Frost as if he were a grinning deer stuck in the headlights, which only amplifies the effect. Again, I sound as if I’m being negative. If I were a historian, all of this would bother me a great deal. As a film critic, I’m just fine with what we get. It isn’t good history, but it’s excellent cinema. Believe me when I tell you that the Frost/Nixon interviews presented here are even more compelling than the interviews that actually exist. As he did in Cinderalla Man and A Beautiful Mind, Howard ignores pure fact in favor of telling a better story.

Richard Nixon has slowly become one of cinema’s great characters. Oh sure, there was once a real Richard Nixon, but the idea of Richard Nixon is so much bigger than the real Richard Nixon. There was a real Richard III, but Richard III wasn’t really Richard III until Shakespeare made him “Richard III.” Have the likes of Robert Altman, Oliver Stone, and Ron Howard given Nixon similar immortality? Every time Nixon appears in a film, he always seems to have more of something… more poise, more intelligence, more tragedy, more desperation. Long gone are the cornball stand-up routine caricatures of the 1970s and ’80s. Nixon’s life played out like great literature, and actors like Philip Baker Hall, Anthony Hopkins, and Frank Langella have molded the man into a figure worthy of the story he lived. I say this because Frost/Nixon feels like last important evolutionary step of Nixon’s cinematic journey. Altman got the ball rolling with the intensely personal Secret Honor, Oliver Stone offered a sprawling biopic that colored outside the lines with Nixon, and now Ron Howard brings closure to the Nixon story with Frost/Nixon. The man has been defined and re-defined by various people, and now a legendary character has emerged. History is written by the winners, and the winners have generously chosen to make Nixon a tragic villain of the grandest sort.

Closing Statement
Frost/Nixon isn’t quite a classic. It’s a bit uneven at times, and Michael Sheen’s Frost isn’t quite the worthy adversary for Frank Langella’s Nixon. My criticism more or less stops there. This is a film that works remarkably well in spite of itself, and is all the more fascinating for it.

The Verdict
8/10