It wasn't until last decade I watched this film. But it was very good and it was by Disney. Some good actors (including David Warner and Jeff Bridges) and a believable virtual world. In fact, I like this a lot better than 1999's The Matrix. If you haven't seen it, and want a family-friendly cyberpunk film, give this a go. It's not as violent as The Matrix and it's also not as disturbing. Just a game world with lots of flashy lights and the first use of computer animation, way before there was Shrek and Toy Story. Now that I think about it, I like this the most of all those CGI-animated films. So what are you waiting for?

An extremely ambitious film, too much for the time, there was the willingness to do something really new, but without the proper tools to do it willingness isn't helpful. Too bad because the ideas are there, there is a huge amount of ideas many are interesting and original, some even brilliant, while some could avoid because unnecessary, confusing or senseless but the main problem is that most of it is badly developed, so much to be, especially at the beginning, almost incomprehensible, especially for a spectator who has not lived in that historical period and therefore already understands with difficulty the type of computer science, now archaic, of the 80s, and so he will finds it really difficult to identify with it. All this because of an immature and superficial script with various holes, in which the feelings and emotions are missing and that is lost in the great quantity of present ideas and ends up being too confusing and flat as original and at times interesting it may be; not to mention the bad dialogues and really forgettable interpretations, in some points almost terrible, even that of Jeff Bridges. The film also suffers from a very strong aging too palpable that makes really difficult, at the beginning, the vision of the film itself, because of really bad special effects even for the time (five years before it was released "Star Wars" and the same year "Blade Runner"!), which you get used to only after the first half hour. The same applies to the unconvincing direction, especially in the staging, in the sets and costumes where it does the worst of itself, even there the ideas are not enough if they are misdirected. Fortunately, after a while, you begin to appreciate the trashy aftertaste that spreads with great force throughout the duration, so that you get to appreciate it. This also allows you to better immerse yourself in the extremely special atmosphere of the film so that in the end it can also involve, a bit 'for the plot and a bit' for the unintentional comedy of many scenes that in any case provide a bit 'of genuine entertainment. In short, a failed project but that manages in many places to entertain despite the many problems, which however have not prevented it to become, over the years, a small cult of science fiction with a large and strong fanbase and on this I can not say, so much of a hat. In any case I think it is a film that strongly needed a sequel / reboot that could exploit the great potential that went here wasted, so the following of 2010 (which by the way I saw a lot before this thinking it was stand alone ) I found it rather discreet.

Tron is a 1982 Science Fiction film directed by Steven Lisberger and stars Jeff Bridges, David Warner, and Bruce Boxleitner. It was distributed by Disney and I consider it my favorite film of all time.Tron follows the story of a "young, bright" game programmer and arcade owner Kevin Flynn (Bridges), whose job is taken away by another employee of ENCOM, Dillinger (Warner). Wanting to find evidence of taking Flynn's credit and selling games under his name. With the help of Alan (Boxleitner) and Lora, he goes into the world of Tron, "where energy lives and breathes". The characters in Tron are a little shallow, especially the titular character. Flynn and Dillinger, along with his digital counterpart, Sark, pretty much steal their scenes. Flynn himself was somewhat a Jesus figure on the grid who was really an everyday guy which is kinda neat to think about. Sark himself gives off a menacing presence in his scenes, though with a little bit of humor attached.I love this movie. The reason it is my favorite is due to the huge impact it had on my life ever since i've first heard about it. It has quite the reputation in visual effects being the first ever movie to include extensive use of CGI in 1982 (20 minutes worth). The distinct style of the world Tron presents bear a huge impact on cyberpunk culture and it's early representation on computers as a positive impact.Tron includes themes of Religion and Technology. One of the main points of the movie as mentioned before is that Flynn is Jesus on the grid and Tron represents a "David the Warrior" type figure. Tron envisioned technology better than most movies of the past using computer-literate terms to describe the world and what characters do, though to a degree. Tron didn't do well during its time and became a cult classic over the years. There is and are people who can appreciate the film the most for nostalgia and visuals with a pretty big impact. This is one of those films that people say "isn't for everyone". Overall, I give Tron a

Tron looks beautiful with its special effects and Cyberpunk elements but fails miserably with its dildo story and boring ass pacing. I was shocked that my consciousness was intact throughout. Well that is pretty much it. Five lines huh? Okay. Well I guess I could recommend this turd to those...... Oh look at that. 5 lines. Bye.