On 9 July way back in 1982, Tron was released to the world. It is overall a fun film that has aged reasonably well.
It’s interesting to look at reviews of the time. I’ve read all I can find.
Let’s start with everyone’s favorite useless reviewer duo, Siskel & Ebert! Both men gave the film four out of four stars. And that’s fine! I like Tron and it certainly works well on its own terms. But both of these men were known for complaining about poor character development and bad plots. Tron is the kind of film they should have hated. Why didn’t they?
Before I answer the question, let’s look at the less laudatory reviews. Variety didn’t like the film but they praised its technical elements. And Janet Maslin in The New York Times complained a lot about the film but also said, “Anyone not discouraged by these drawbacks will find Tron a wonder to behold.”
I think you can see the pattern. Film reviewers of this period did not want to be left out when it came to special effects. The less craven of the group held on to their dated cinematic demands. The more craven were Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel.
None of these people would lift a finger to gush about one good aspect of an otherwise unprofessional low-budget film. But Disney made this film! It had a $17 million budget! If you write about film for a living but don’t really like film, then you have to take seriously a film such as Tron!
If I could change one thing about the modern filmmaking industry, it would be to get rid of film “critics.” But you can do this yourself! There is not one of them that is any better than you. Janet Maslin has a degree in math and started as a rock music critic. Gene Siskel has a philosophy degree and worked as a general reporter. Ebert got his degree in journalism but, as most know, he did focus on film criticism early on. But all this provided him was a patina of film erudition to go with his typically bad takes.
Tron is not such a great film that you should find a copy and watch it now. But if you want to, it is available on Disney+ and there is a great print on Archive. But what you should most definitely do this instant is to ignore film critics.
Tron poster from Wikipedia under Fair Use.
When I wrote about “Contagion” I looked at Ebert’s review, and it said that everything worked except the Jude Law subplot — that it didn’t seem believable.
Well, here’s what that subplot was!
Law plays a guy with a big online following who makes videos claiming that “they” — the government, Big Pharma — don’t want you to know about the secret cure HE’S discovered for the killer virus. And the videos become hugely widespread, and make Law an ever bigger star.
THAT’S the part Rog didn’t buy! It’s the most creepily accurate prediction in the movie! (It’s a great film because of its kindness and compassion, not its foresight… but wow, was THAT prediction on the nose.)
Now, late in his life, I started to like Ebert’s writing a lot more. And he certainly faced a horrible disease better than I could. So I don’t mean to bag on the guy as a human person, not at all.
He wasn’t as bad as many. He was no Owen Gleiberman. I just found my mother’s copy of Halliwell’s Film Guide. I really like him and his rating system. Basically, every film gets zero stars, which he refers to as “routine.” He tries to judge films on their own terms and in their own time. Of course, he was British and they are always better than we Yanks!
British critics better than Yanks… Price in “Theater of Blood” would disagree with you…
Those were theater critics! But right after posting this, I looked up what Halliwell said about Ishtar. And even he couldn’t stop himself (In a capsule review) from mentioning the budget of the film. I find he’s better discussing old films. And like Ebert, he occasionally has interesting insights.