Reviews

They didn't get why the original worked and just used the name to tack onto a bad movie.

In the original, Kevin Flynn both created the main videos games and is clearly an expert at them as we see in his arcade. Once inside the computer, he excels at the Light Cycles game which makes sense as it's less physically demanding and probably uses the same skills he had from outside the game. But that's the only game he really plays. Flynn plays one Jai alai like game where he barely survives and is playing against a very unfit unskilled opponent. He never plays the disc based games that require tons of physical skill. Only Tron does that who was arguably programmed for it.

In the Legacy, Sam Flynn shows no real experience with video games but once inside he is suddenly master of the most physically demanding and skill requiring games there are.

The whole scene with Zeus was clearly inspired by the Merovingian from the Matrix but this scene completely doesn't work. Instead of an eccentric character we get just silly overacting and that is ultimately not interesting in any way. The Merovingian at least had somethings of value. Zeus had nothing.

During the movie Kevin Flynn, the father, has several very hippy / new age sounding lines. As far as could tell those were put in because they reflect Jeff Bridges' look. They don't fit the character of Kevin Flynn at all though. He was a computer hacker, not a hippy.

Compare the lightcycle battle in the original to the one in the sequel. If you can divorce yourself from the effects it should be very clear there is lots of tension and a strong feeling of speed in the original. The editing is tight. The speed is hyper. Then watch the lightcycle battle in the sequel. It's boring by comparison. No tension, no sense of speed. That doesn't even take into account that one of the things that made the original interesting is the 90 degree turns, something that can happen in a computer but not in the real world. That's the whole point of Tron, that inside the computer things are different. The rules of the outside world do not apply.

This same editing style is brought to the lightplane battle at the end which looks more like a sky ballet than a battle in cyberspace. They way the lightplanes fly they might has well been real world biplanes. It's slow and boring instead of tense and exciting. Such a huge opportunity was missed here to do something as creative as the original was with lightcycles.

There's also continuity issues with the original. You don't escape the computer world by standing in a beam of light and holding the disc above your head. That's how you communicate with your user. Did no one bring this up during production? Was the entire staff asleep or just not paying attention?

The sequel benefits from the advances in computer graphics but sadly it was all wasted. The style and designs in the original were far more interesting than the styles in the sequel. Of course that's subjective so let's try something a little less subjective. In the original everything in the computer is different from the outside world. In the sequel there's a nearly real world looking nightclub. In the sequel we have living rooms full of real world stuff. Real world looking food on a real world looking table with real world looking utensils. All of these distract from what made Tron special. Sure you can come up with various reasons why those things might exist inside the computer. That's not the point. The point is, the whole premise is about how inside the computer is DIFFERENT. Everything that makes it more like the real world makes it less interesting.

The sad part of it is Tron was a great premise and with the power of today's computer graphics in the hand of an inspired team could have been one of the most amazing movies experiences since the Matrix. Instead it's a pretty tame forgettable movie which has not only failed to live up to the original but spoiled the franchise forever.

Here's hoping someone, someday will come out with a cyberspace movie that really lives up to the potential of the topic.

What I liked. Seeing Bhutan. It's very beautiful, at least through the lens of the cinematographer for this movie.

What I didn't like is the "message". It seems there's supposed to be some lesson. Lessons like "Why do we need elections? All they cause is arguing and hate. We should just go back to having a King and forgetting about who makes the rules and what those rules are as we'd all be happier"

This only works if everyone is the same culture, same religion, same values. So apparently viewers buying into this message have something in common with white supremacists who push for such a situation where they push out diversity and inclusiveness because if you're a homogeneous monoculture/religion/race then, in general, everyone gets along.

As an example, homosexuality was illegal in Bhutan until 2021 (this movie is supposed to be taking place in 2006). So yea, if you wanted someone to represent LGBT rights but followed the message of this movie you'd never get them.

I don't consider myself either right or left but my gut says the people who love this movie are on the left and yet the message is about as far to the right as is possible. Just do whatever makes everyone happy! Yea, except that only works if everyone has the same things that make them happy and that only happens in monocultures.

I watched the entire original series twice. I thought this was an amazing version of the story. Maybe some details are different but for me, all the beats are there. Every actor was perfectly cast. Aang was great! Just enough of a kid. Perfect disarming smile. Sokka was a perfect as a movie version of Sokka. Not as silly as the cartoon but perfect for a live version. Katara was perfect. Prince Zuko was perfect. Uncle Iroh was perfect. Fire Lord Ozai was perfect. They did a great job with Bumi.

There was enough goofballness but not too much because it wouldn't have worked outside a cartoon. For me, in total, it surpassed the original! Watching the original it was clearly targeted at children. This one managed to be updated at least a little for a slight older audience.

The effects were pretty great too. I was worried in the first episode where they show the end of the Airbenders since it was hard to follow the moves but it picked up and was looking great by the end. They did an amazing job showing Earbending and Waterbending and all the creative ways to attack. I'm super looking forward to season 2.

I certainly would have loved it if they'd made it longer. More June for example since she was like on the screen for 2 minutes total or so it felt with no explanation of her talents. But, given they apparently had to squeeze it into 8 episodes for some reason I think they did an amazing job.

This is just a mediocre movie and I don't know where all the hype comes from except maybe fanboys. Go in with low expectations because if you go in expecting a 8.1 (the current IMDB rating) you're going to be sorely disappointed.

It's more serious that most monster movies, maybe that's where people think it's good, because really, how many "serious" monster movies are there. But, ... it's a relatively typically highly overacted Japanese effects movie. Ridiculous dialog and melodrama-a-plenty. If you like K-Dramas or J-Dramas and you know how soapy they are then take some scenes from those and add Godzilla and you'll know what to expect.

It's also poorly edited, at least the end, as there's a long cut to alternate scenes right at the climax, robbing the climax of any impact.

The good: Godzilla is scary. He's not the protector of earth like some Godzilla movies. He's just a ridiculously overpowered monster and the humans have to try to deal with him.

Seeing Tokyo re-created in the 1940s was cool... Though not as good as the real deal from old 1940s/1950s movies.

Other good things, the songs from the original old movies, especially the "we can do it!" song. No idea what it's called but it's the song they always play when the humans start to put their ultimate plan in action in nearly every Godzilla movie.

I'm not against a serious monster movie, if it's good. But if we're ranking Godzilla movies, the last USA one, "Godzilla vs Kong", while it was a ridiculous and stupid movie, it was at least super fun.

To be honest, and I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I actually enjoyed Shin-Godzilla more than this one. It's not as nearly as serious, but the creative ways they tried to take down Godzilla were far more fun than the ones here. Japan loved Shin-Godzilla but almost no one outside Japan loved it.

Note: I speak Japanese so I don't know how much that influences how it felt to me. I'm sure it might feel different if I didn't understand the Japanese and only went by the subtitles.

I didn't even make it through the first episode before I turned it off. There were lots of things like this but the part where I gave up was when the main detective goes to visit some old robot that's in some giant factory like room and he's supposedly been there for 8 years. In what world is a robot, accuses of the first murder of a human, pinned to a place that large for 8 years .. and on top of that, still on? I'll tell you what world, no world. It's pure nonsense designed to have a cool visual but make zero sense. No one would keep a facility that large to have a robot pinned to a wall. At most they'd pull his head off or remove his computer, put it in some shelf/locker, and go back to using this clearly multi-million dollar facility.

There was tons of nonsense like this and I could tell it was only going to get worse so I left.

I can handle silliness. I'm enjoying "Reborn as a Vending Machine, I Now Wander the Dungeon" which is ridiculous but is at least creative in how it approaches such a silly premise where as Pluto is the opposite. I doesn't buy into its own premise. It just farts "art" on the screen.

I watch pretty much any old movie with a rating of 7+ that I find. I might not like all of them but I usually see why others would like them. Two examples, unrelated to this one. I watch "Camille" (1936) and "Remember the Night" (1940). I personally wouldn't recommend either of them but I did get why others liked them.

Why others like this movie though I have no clue.

Absolutely nothing of interest happens for the first 50 minutes of movie.

At 50 minutes we get our first conflict. It's resolved by the last 10 but the entire thing is fairly boring and the resolution is out of the blue.

There's a tiny conflict after that and it's resolved very randomly. The End.

None of the characters in the movie are interesting. Even the main character is almost nothing.

Seriously, I found nothing interesting in this movie. I don't know what others found 7.5 worthy.

The other 1 star reviews sum it up nicely. The writing is atrocious. No explanations, no character motivation, no one to care about. The main characters grew up in this house but act surprised to find a basement? So they did or did not grow up here? Some rando reads opens a sealed book and then skips directly to the page to read aloud some incantation to unleash some demon? Why? No reasons given. The writers just wanted to demons to appear and couldn't be bothered with why anyone would open such a book, let alone read it. They could have made Eric super interested in witchcraft but also a non-believer, that would at least have given him a reason. Not that we'd care about him. For that matter, who are we supposed to care about in this movie.

I'm a fan of Evil Dead 2 (1987) and Army of Darkness (1992) . Evil Dead 2 is campy horror. Army of Darkness is comedy horror. Evil Dead (1981), which I saw last, I'm actually not a fan of. It's almost exactly the same story as Evil Dead 2 but just mean, zero laughs.

In any case, this movie has none of the camp and fun of the later 2 movies and it has far worse writing than the first.

Expectations high because of high reviews and oscar nominations. Expectations not met because the movie is boring. It's pretty. Several pretty shots of countryside seem out of place. Maybe the director was trying to show the contrast of how beautiful places can be and how horrible war is but it just came across as indulgent filler. I never cared about any of the characters. The where one of Paul's friends dies after the war is over is just stupid and didn't buy it. No one would risk their lives that way.

I've seen a few reviews that said the movie painted the French in a bad light. I didn't agree. Of course the French were going to have harsh demands. They're the victims.

In any case, a big disappointment. Nothing from this movie will last in my memory. The war scenes are beautiful and full of modern effects but they're somehow empty at the same time. It makes me appreciate how much craft there is to being a good director. Just putting people, explosions, guns, and death on the screen isn't enough. You actually have to tell a story by character dialog, actions, cuts, angles, etc. A good movie, Saving Private Ryan say, gets this right. The opening battle there is way more intense, way more involving, than this one, even though at a technical level seems on the same level.

I didn't get the appeal of this movie. I'd mostly call it a slice of life and not a particularly interesting one. To a westerner, it's certainly interesting to see a Japanese family from 1960 and to a modern person it's interesting to hear about divorce leading to zero contact if you don't get custody (note: that's was still common up to 2022 in Japan, not sure it was uncommon in other parts of the world in 1960 though)

In any case. A big family, Mom, Dad, 4 daughters, 1 daughter in law, 1 grandson, 1 son, and 1 from a previous marriage, all go through different issues. One is super independent and never had a relationship but finally falls for someone. Another has to choose between 2 suiters. One is struggling with a ramen shop. Another is out of a job, not sure what to do and hoping the family will help.

The ending and what each of them do is not really resolved ... the end

There's no words of wisdom, no real messages except maybe life is messy and people do the best they can.

So, I didn't hate it and as someone that speaks Japanese and lived in Japan for 15 years I found parts of it interesting but overall I didn't get why it's rated 7.6. It seemed kind of forgettable.

If you want old Japanese movies that will stay with you see Ikiru, Woman in the Dunes, Tokyo Story. That last one, Tokyo Story, is similar to this one, just a family. But, at least the message will never leave you unlike here where there is no message.

Roger Ebert gave this movie 4/4 but I'm going to quote from his review.

"emotionally distant"

"aggressive in its cool detachment"

"because Kubrick has directed Ryan O'Neal in the title role as if he were a still life"

"ultimately inconsequential story"

"there is no there there"

"forcing our detachment"

I'd argue all that adds up top "this film sucks but I'm going to declare it genius because because Kubrick is an artiste!".

Some people see piss in a bottle and think "that's piss in a bottle". Others see it and then try to deconstruct it into an epic commentary on society. I've pissed in a bottle before but I didn't declare it art.

About the only positive part of the film were some amazing long shots but a 5 minute slideshow would have been far more interesting than this.

I saw this when it opened and thought it was fine then but the people I was with hated it and said Elizabeth Berkley can't act. I didn't see any problem with her acting. I chalked it up to their having watched too much "Saved by the Bell" and then not being able to separate Elizabeth Berkley's character in that show from her character in this show. Me, I'd never once watched "Saved by the Bell" so I just saw Elizabeth Berkley as Nomi Malone and she did fine.

For some reason I recently (2023) decide to watch it again. As far as I can tell there's nothing wrong with this movie. It's interesting all the way through. It's got fun and interesting characters. "Mama" is hilarious. And of course all the other characters are great. All the behind the scenes of the show is super interesting as is Nomi's ascent and education.

It's also pretty unique. What other movie covers a topless revue in Vegas in such a gritty way?

If you go in looking for bad movie maybe you'll find it. If you go in looking for a good movie, you might find that too. I did. Unless you're just not into sex, nudity, and bunch of "bad people" characters. If those things upset you then yea, this movie is not for you. It's not a bad movie though.

This is probably one of the top movies where I violently disagree with consensus and am miffed that no one else seems to see my point.

The basic idea for the movie is great. Push yourself to the limit, don't let anyone else tell you you can't achieve something. Great!

Unfortunately the setting is the Space Program for a mission to Saturn. In the real world, the real space program is already like gattaca. You will be tested in 1000s of ways and if you fail the tests you will not be selected to be on a multi-billion dollar space mission. If you have bad sight, bad hearing, bad heart, bad sense of balance, bad lung capacity, etc...etc...etc... you don't get to be on the mission. A large portion of those tests are a proxy for your genes. See all the tests in The Right Stuff for reference if you can't find actual references.

I 100% get that someone labelled with a weak heart might outperform everyone who's tests say they have a normal heart, but, when you're selecting a few people to be on a rare and expensive space mission none of that matters. They're still going to do the tests and in every possible way, try to pick people the least likely to have a medical issue on the mission. Is it possible they'll pick someone who ends up having a heart attack anyway? Sure, but they're still going to try to raise the odds of success but choosing people who's every measurement says they're more likely to make it through.

It's similar to a bank looking at your history and deciding if you're a good risk for a loan. Let's say you're 20 and ask for a $500k loan. Most banks will say no because you're judged to be too high a risk, even if you might personally be more responsible and more likely to pay back the loan than anyone else on the planet. There is no way to for them to tell that you are the exception. Instead they look at your age and decide, "nope, 20yr olds are to risky for a $500k loan"

The Space Program is going to be even more selective for their multi-billion dollar space mission. If they'd have chosen a different setting for the movie the story could have been great. Try harder than anyone else. Believe in yourself. Instead, because of the context, the main character is being pretty selfish trying to sneak into a such a rare, risky, and expensive project and effectively putting the mission and everyone else's lives at risk.

Maybe this is one of those things where if you're intimately familiar with Marvel comics then you don't need the movie to explain anything. Me, I'm not so

Why would monster hunters need to fight in a hunt to the death with each other? If you're trying to save the world from monsters then having more monster hunters is better so having a fight to the death would work against your stated goals.

Why would monster hunters even want to kill each other for the "bloodstone". They were already successful without it. It's never explained why they'd be willing to kill fellow hunters to get their hands on it.

What did the daughter do/not do? They vaguely suggest she didn't train, but of course she has no trouble fighting the other hunters.

Why is the daughter so nonchalant about killing whoever gets in her way. Without more background she's basically a psychopath.

How did Jack get invited to the hunt? He's supposedly the most successful hunter. How did the others not already know him and how did he get invited to this hunt? Someone had to vouch for him or he had to be impersonating someone.

Let me first say, I enjoyed the movie overall. I'm glad I watched it. And, I would recommend to friends with caveats.

Still, when it was over I tried to analyze why it felts far less than its current 7.6 IMDB rating.

I think the reason is it doesn't really know what it wants to say. Right off the bat Mr. Grant basically straight up kills Mr. Baker (Michael J. Fox) in cold blood. (happens in first few mins so not a spoiler IMO)

Mr. Grant is riding a bike by Mr. Baker's parked car. Mr. Baker opens his car door. Mr. Grant crashes into the door. Mr. Baker jumps out, apologizes, helps Mr. Grant up.

Then, in the middle of an important deal, his phone and Mr. Grant's bike get run over by a truck. A scene that make zero sense. There's no way a truck would not have seen the bike nor is there any way the truck wouldn't have stopped if it had run over the bike.

Mr. Baker clearly had something important to deal with. Maybe his wife was pregnant. Maybe he was in the middle of a deal that would let him buy his father's needed surgery. We don't know. All we know is Mr. Baker is distressed that he needed to be in contact with people and his phone was destroyed at the worst possible moment.

Mr. Baker wishes the accident hadn't happened. Mr. Grant resets time back 2-3 minutes knowing what will happen. Mr. Baker is then hit and killed by the truck that ran over the bike the first time. This makes even less sense than running over the bike. You could maybe assume the bike, being on the ground, would be hard for the truck driver to see but you can't possibly believe the truck driver wouldn't see someone standing in the street. It was a small 2 lane road, that just started from a T intersection. It was not some 55mph highway.

Further, in general, the trope is that people wish for something greedy and the wish backfires but Mr. Baker has not wished for anything greedy. He's just wished for the accident to not have happened. That's good for both Mr. Grant who'd get his bike back and for Mr. Baker who's phone wouldn't be crushed.

And that sets the tone for the movie. Mr Grant has been a dick to everyone he's ever granted a wish to. Not just a dick, he's been malevolent with Mr. Baker. Why he doesn't do the same to Quincy we're basically supposed to chalk up to Quincy asking for answers, not for money or sex. But Mr. Baker didn't ask for money or sex.

Then, whole dream girl story just didn't really work.

That said, the various other events were interesting.

I wouldn't have watched this if it weren't for the 8.1 rating but after watching it I'd give it a 5 at best.

Seeing Monte Carlo in the 40s was interesting. Seeing a kind of interesting if ridiculous dance sequence was okay. But....

The dance is supposed to be live yet the dance we are shown is only possible via film post production like having the main character appear and disappear, having shoes magically put themselves on in an instant. Having the main character dance with her reflection. Etc. Sure those are neat, but they break the story since the ballet we are supposed to be watching is being put on live in a theater.

One top of that the 3 main characters, Julian, Boris, Victoria, all over act.

Julian and Victoria never one show even a tiny bit of chemistry nor attraction to each other but then we're suddenly told they're head of heels in love with each other. Completely out of the blue.

And, finally the ending comes out of nowhere and makes no sense. Whether it was on purpose, accident, or the spirit of the shoes, no path is satisfying. It just ends for no good reason.

If you want to see a good Mamoru Hosoda movie see. "The Girl Who Leapt Through Time", "Wolf Children", or "Summer Wars". This one, "Belle", is kind of crap. It's like it's written by a 13yr old. The "problems" if you could call it that, of teens being too shy, are overblown in the extreme. I know Japanese dramas and anime is full of this stuff and I lived 15yrs in Japan, but this is just too much.

Other issues: The VR world really doesn't have much of a point. The idea that some rando could become internationally famous isn't some future thing. It already exists today with Youtube, Instagram, TikTok.

Belle falls for The Dragon for no reason whatsoever. Compare to say, Tombo, from Kiki's Delivery Service. It's subtle but we know why Tombo is interested in Kiki and his interest seems genuine. Belle's interest in The Dragon just appears. It's just taken for granted. We're given zero reason to believe it.

The animation itself is just ok. There's plenty of anime movies with better animation and more impressive scenes. In fact Mamoru's own "Summer Wars" looks better than this on almost every level.