The movie topped box office sales in the U.S. the weekend it opened, with US$44 million. It generated mixed reviews. Here’s a review roundup, thanks to WSJ Speakeasy:
* The whole thing is a sea of sensory stimulation, a deadly efficient machine for merchandising toys, video games, theme-park rides and yes, even movie tickets. The film discharges its stylistic debts to its source material with rigid devotion, while offering a few surprises along the way. [Joe Morgenstern, WSJ]
* “The mildly surprising news, then, is that there are aspects of Tron: Legacy that are actually rather cool. Granted, these mostly fall within the realms of architecture, interior design and advanced motor racing techniques, but they are blessed compensations nevertheless. The fact that you get two (or three, depending upon how you count) incarnations of Jeff Bridges isn’t a bad deal either, although it all ends up being a half-hour too much of a just okay thing. Like the original, the follow-up should do decent business, especially in 3D engagements, where the dynamic staging of the action scenes will be be seen to greatest effect, but fall short of the box office Nirvana achieved by top-drawer sci-fi and fantasy films.” [Todd McCarthy, The Hollywood Reporter]
* “The cult of “Tron” is hardly so big that you could accuse “Tron: Legacy” of being a cynical attempt to cash in on a franchise. (More than just a bomb, the first “Tron” was a major embarrassment for Disney; out-of-print DVD copies are now about as hard to hunt down as VHS head cleaners.) That said, the studio has had a long time to ponder its mistake, and “Tron: Legacy” unlike its predecessor, really does make novelty look cool. It’s a sleeker, sharper, far more visually intoxicating machine dream of a movie, with a darkly liquid electronic texture all its own.” [Owen Gleiberman, EW]
* “The whole point of the story and the aesthetics are that they’re meant to convey an immersive experience. We’re supposed to feel just as trapped inside this challenging and dangerous electronic realm as the film’s characters. And at over two hours, we are indeed trapped — there is no justifiable reason for such a lengthy running time, especially given that the original got in, did what it had to do and got out in about an hour and a half. While director Joseph Kosinski’s feature film debut is 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 from Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz.” [Christy Lemire, AP]
