DOA: Dead or Alive (2006)

Although it was not the first fighting game, Capcom's Street Fighter II revolutionized and redefined the entire genre when it arrived in arcades in 1991. Fighting games were big business for game developers in the years that followed, with imitators and wannabes all gunning for a share of the pie. While the most famous of these is the Mortal Kombat franchise, other games made name for themselves as well. Virtua Fighter and Tekken gained prominence through their then-groundbreaking use of 3D polygonal graphics, while the Dead or Alive franchise gained fans for... well, other reasons.

Since the franchise's debut in 1996, Tecmo's Dead or Alive games have become notable primarily for its extensive use of what's been dubbed "jiggle physics." That is, how much the bosoms of the female characters bounce during gameplay. Yeah. The jiggle physics became so prevalent that Tecmo even created a series of spinoffs titled Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball. This focus on sex appeal would even transition into the eventual live-action film adaptation of the franchise. Yeah, you may not know it if you're an American, but they actually made a Dead or Alive movie. It was only released to 505 theaters here, a full year after it was released in the rest of the world. It had pretty much no promotion, and it didn't even make back half of its budget. And yeah, it totally sucks. It really, really, really sucks.

A group of top fighters from around the world have been assembled at a private island for the prestigious "Dead or Alive" tournament. Among these fighters are skilled assassin and thief Christie Allen (Holly Valance), pro wrestler Tina Armstrong (Jamie Pressly), and ninja princess Kasumi (Devon Aoki). Overseen by the tournament's unscrupulous organizer, Victor Donovan (Eric Roberts), the three women start clawing their way up the tournament's rankings to accomplish their own personal goals. But it soon comes to light that Donovan has concocted a plan to harness the fighting prowess of each contestant for his own nefarious purposes. The fighters will have to unite and stop Donovan from fully orchestrating his evil scheme.

This is the part where I have to confess that I've never once played any of the Dead or Alive video games. I barely even knew they existed; I'd only vaguely heard of the Xtreme Beach Volleyball spinoffs prior to seeing the movie and doing my research for this review. So I can't judge how close the movie sticks to the game. But what I can tell you is that the Dead or Alive movie is one gigantic steaming turd. It's the kind of video game movie that's so bad that I could have sworn Uwe Boll had something to do with it. (So you can imagine my shock when not once did I see his name listed in the credits.) I just... wow.

DOA was directed by acclaimed fight choreographer Corey Yuen. Although he's directed tons of movies over the last three decades, the way he directs DOA makes it look like he was fresh out of film school. Yuen's direction is uninspiring, sub-generic, and just plain boring. There's a lot of stuff going on at all times, but none of it feels like it matters. It fails to capture one's attention to the point that I just couldn't be bothered to care. The fight scenes aren't all that exciting either; they're nothing that hasn't been seen in a hundred other karate movies. The CGI is ugly and unconvincing too, to the point that it looks like the effects had absolutely no budget at all.

However, I should give Yuen credit for trying to keep the movie close to its gaming rules. Disembodied voices boldly announce when knockouts occur, and surveillance footage of the fights feature life bars at the top of the screen. It's silly, goofy, and undeniably corny, but it's still a funny little element that does liven up the movie a little bit. But it still cannot save Yuen's work from being less than adequate.

And then there's the terrible script, credited to J.F. Lawton, Adam Gross, and Seth Gross. Seriously, this screenplay is really, really bad. I'm aware that most '90s fighting games had practically no plot at all beyond "pick a character and kick some ass," but the DOA movie's plot is friggin' preposterous. "The tournament being a cover for a mad scientist who wants to harvest fighting styles in order to create technology that would make its user the greatest fighter alive" is a phrase I never thought I'd ever have to write, ever. And I never would have, had it not been for this movie.

The real problem with the script, though, is that I just plain didn't give a crap about a single one of the characters. They're written so blandly, so one-dimensionally that I can't begin to even pretend I'm interested in anything they do. Maybe one could argue that Lawton and the Grosses were staying close to the source material, since in addition to not much plot, '90s fighting games had characters whose whole character could be summed up in one sentence (if that). It allowed the games to focus on what brought people to the party, specifically the fighting. I've seen and enjoyed some movies that were nothing but action set pieces, but the DOA movie simply doesn't pull it off.

Last but probably least is the cast, who simply aren't all that great. Jamie Pressly is okay and amusing in spots but still kinda bland, while I thought Devon Aoki's acting was a lot better in Sin City. And considering all that was required of her in Sin City was to stand around and look cute, that's saying something. Holly Valance's performance is stiff, while I didn't think Eric Roberts was even bothering to try. I'm convinced that Roberts just took the job because he needed a quick paycheck, but I can't prove that. The only performance in the entire movie that I liked at all was Kevin Nash, who has a small part as Jamie Pressly's character's father. His part isn't much, but he's funny, entertaining, and enjoyable. I wish I could say that about the rest of the cast, but everyone else is just kinda lame.

Upon reflection, I don't think the creative forces behind DOA: Dead or Alive were striving to make a good movie. I think they just wanted to make a movie that would appeal to 13-year-old boys. All there is to the whole thing is scantily-clad women and fight scenes. And there's even a scene where, while one of the male characters fights off a group of mooks, the female characters drop everything to play a round of beach volleyball. It's not only a cute little shoutout to the Xtreme Beach Volleyball games, but it pretty much sums up the entire movie: people fighting, babes in little clothing, and not much else. And really, the movie might have at least been entertaining had it not been so unbearably boring. But for all the fight scenes and for all the pretty ladies in bikinis, I could barely make it through. Thanks for helping propagate the stereotype that video game movies suck, DOA! That was mighty nice of you!

Final Rating: *½

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

In the unbelievably slim case that you haven't noticed, most of the comic books that Hollywood has adapted into movies have been based on the superhero pantheons of DC and Marvel. But movies based on lesser-known comics from independent publishers haven't always been as successful as their DC/Marvel brethren. Dark Horse's Hellboy might have seen success at the box office, but most movies based on independent comics — the ones I've encountered, anyway — haven't done too hot.

Take Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, for example. Based on writer/illustrator Bryan Lee O'Malley's series of graphic novels published by Oni Press between 2004 and 2010, the movie was a box office bomb despite getting rave reviews from critics. Even I had initially dismissed it as "hipster crap" based on the commercials alone. But after being convinced to check it out on HBO by a friend of a friend, I was pleasantly surprised.

Meet Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera), a twenty-something slacker from Toronto who's trying to make it as the bassist for the band "Sex Bob-omb." Although he constantly faces criticism from his friends and bandmates for dating Knives Chau (Ellen Wong), a teenager five years his junior, Scott is happy with her. That is, until he meets the girl of his dreams. And I don't mean that as a euphemism. She's literally appearing in his dreams.

The girl in question is Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), a mysterious young woman who Scott quickly falls for. They end up starting something of a relationship, which is naturally complicated by Scott's seeming inability to dump Knives. But if Scott truly wants to be with Ramona, he must fight and defeat Ramona's seven evil exes, nearly all of whom have superpowers.

Okay, I'll admit it: I completely misjudged Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. I thought it was going to be lame, but it surprised me by being charming and downright funny. Scott Pilgrim is a unique flick; I haven't ever really seen anything like it. There's no real base of comparison that I know of. The movie exists in its own little world, one where it has no real equals. I've seen a lot of weird, wacky, silly movies over the years, but very few are quite like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. The movie's a trip, and it's a hell of a lot of fun.

At the helm is Edgar Wright, the director of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. But this is a much different beast than either of those other movies; it's more effects-driven, with a wackier sense of humor. Because of that, I wasn't quite sure how Scott Pilgrim would turn out under Wright's watch. Turns out the movie was placed in good hands. Wright's direction is fantastic, perfectly pulling us into what feels like a live-action video game. The way he paces the movie and his creative sight gags make the movie feel like a 21st-century version of Airplane! as far as its overall tone goes.

Wright crafts the material in such a way that I found it hard to not find at least something amusing about the movie. The fact that the movie is in no way constricted by a definitive style, choosing to let its imagination run free and wild rather than narrow itself down into something specific or restrictive, lets Wright go absolutely bonkers. There's so much energy, so much over-the-top zaniness that if your comedic sensibilities correspond with the movie's, you'll easily fall in love with it.

The visuals and sight gags are a huge part of Scott Pilgrim‘s silliness, but the script is as well. Written by Wright and Michael Bacall, the screenplay is full of so many great jokes and so much quotable dialogue that if it were any better, I don't believe I could bear it. Some of the humor is so absolutely random that there's no way it won't catch you off-guard. I mean, there's one short scene that parodies TV sitcoms, with a laugh track and the Seinfeld theme song added for effect. Why? Beats me. It doesn't make a single bit of sense at all. It's just there to be funny, but there's nothing wrong with that. And really, you can describe the whole movie like that. Not much of it makes sense, but it doesn't have to because it gets by with just being funny.

And this brings us to our cast, who are all big factors in making Scott Pilgrim work. Let's start with the actor in the title role, Michael Cera. Cera has pretty much made a career out of playing the same character over and over. Go watch Juno, Superbad, and Year One, and you'll see what I mean. That's actually one of the reasons I was hesitant to watch this movie to begin with, because I was absolutely sick to death of seeing Cera play awkward, dorky yet quick-witted twenty-somethings. I wanted to just avoid any movie he was in at all costs. But the guy's damn good at playing that part, so kudos to him for finding something that works and sticking with it. Of all the times he's played that type of character, though, the role of Scott Pilgrim gives him the chance to do his best at it. Cera gives Scott charm, making him enjoyable and fun.

But honestly, Cera is outshined by the rest of the cast. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays Ramona with a sarcastic cynicism that provides a fun counterbalance to Cera, while Ellen Wong's bubbly, energetic performance is a real treat. Jason Schwartzman, Brandon Routh, and Chris Evans are great as members of "the League of Evil Exes," but the entire movie is pretty much stolen by Kieran Culkin. Culkin grabs the movie and runs away with it, making every single second he appears in the movie all the better through his absolutely hilarious performance.

If there are any negatives to Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, it's that it seems to be aware that it's too cool for school. But by the time this becomes apparent, the movie's almost over so it ends up not being that big a deal. The honest truth is that it's a fun movie that never once stops being amusing. You'll find yourself chuckling at even the corniest jokes and enjoying the interactions the characters have with one another. I wish I had seen it during its theatrical run, because it probably would have completely blown my mind. If you haven't seen it yet, please check it out. It's totally worth your time.

Final Rating: ****

Ed Wood (1994)

Those bizarre people who consider themselves fans of bad movies have in recent years latched onto filmmakers like Uwe Boll and Tommy Wiseau. Though their respective outputs are pretty awful, you can at least enjoy them because of how amusingly laughable their faults are. But neither Boll or Wiseau can compare to Edward D. Wood, Jr. Often labeled the worst filmmaker ever, Wood made some of the most famous bad B-movies of all time. But despite how awful his movies are, Wood's passion and overall love of making movies make his flicks all the more charming. His movies have earned him a ton of fans among lovers of movies that are so bad, they're good.

Among those fans is Tim Burton, a filmmaker whose movies are actually good. So enamored with Wood's work was Burton that in 1994, he developed a movie about Wood's struggles to create his most famous movies. The movie — appropriately titled Ed Wood — recouped less than half of its budget upon its release, but it is a wonderful tribute to the creator of some of the most beloved bad movies of all time.

Meet Ed Wood (Johnny Depp), a wannabe filmmaker desperate to make his big break in Hollywood. After hearing that a movie studio intends to make a movie about Christine Jorgensen's successful sex change operation, Wood convinces the producer to hire him as the movie's writer and director by revealing that he himself is a transvestite. But due to legal complications, the movie is forced to become a fictionalized exploitation movie titled I Changed My Sex. With Wood in charge, however, the movie ends up becoming Glen or Glenda, a movie about a transvestite struggling with their identity. But Glen or Glenda is a critical and commercial failure, and is so comically inept that a few Hollywood bigwigs Wood wanted to impress with it initially believed he was pulling some kind of elaborate practical joke.

Wood remains undeterred, however. He meets and subsequently befriends legendary horror star Bela Lugosi (Martin Landau), who is now nothing more than a washed-up morphine addict. With Bela and his own band of friends and hangers-on along for the ride, Wood moves onward to his next project, Bride of the Monster. The production is a chaotic one, with financial troubles, investors forcing unwanted casting changes upon Wood, and a climax where Bela is forced to pretend to wrestle a stolen mechanical octopus that has no engine. Wood's flustered girlfriend Dolores (Sarah Jessica Parker) even dumps Ed during the wrap party in front of all his friends. Bride of the Monster ends up being another bomb for Wood, but his next movie is the one that will make him a superstar. That movie in question: the notorious Plan 9 from Outer Space.

As a self-professed fan of "so bad, they're good" movies, I'm actually a little disappointed with myself. The truth is I've never actually seen any of Ed Wood's movies. Not a single one. Mystery Science Theater 3000 even lampooned two of his directorial efforts, and I have yet to watch those episodes. And MST3K is my favorite TV show, too! But my failure to actually see any of his movies doesn't stop me from enjoying Ed Wood. It's exactly what you'd expect from a Tim Burton movie; it's kooky yet dramatic, full of fascinating characters and fun to watch from start to finish. And I absolutely loved every second of it.

I really couldn't imagine anyone else at the helm of this little adventure, because Burton handles it perfectly. He is obviously a student of the game, because the movie looks and feels exactly like those cheesy B-movies from the '50s. It's a lot more slick because of the bigger budget (and because Burton is actually talented), but the movie's fearless leader has effortlessly built an homage to not only Ed Wood himself, but the schlock he created.

He shows just as much passion in making Ed Wood as Wood is described as having had during the production of his movies. The intimate black-and-white cinematography and Howard Shore's score really help to set the proper tone, and Burton's ability to make us fall in love with the characters and pull us into the movie's world make the movie all the more fun to watch.

I also really enjoyed the script, penned by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski. Sure, they had to fictionalize a few things for the sake of drama, but they still tell a captivating story. Even if the movie had been about a fake director and not Ed Wood, Alexander and Karaszewski have built a tale of ambition trying to conquer ineptitude. They don't really seem to decide whether Wood is a deluded joke, a swindler with no other talents, or a folk hero, but they make him a fascinating person in any event.

But the best part of the entire movie is its cast. Everyone in the movie is absolutely perfect. But let's start with the leading man, Johnny Depp. Say what you will about the real Ed Wood, but Depp's portrayal of him is stellar. He plays Wood as a fast-talking huckster with more ambition than ability, and you simply cannot take your eyes off him.

Among the supporting cast, there are likable, entertaining performances from Bill Murray, Jeffrey Jones, and pro wrestler George "The Animal" Steele. I also thought Patricia Arquette was sweet and charming, and though I've never been a fan of hers, I also thought Sarah Jessica Parker played her part quite well.

But the real star of the show is Martin Landau as Bela Lugosi. Landau absolutely steals the show, playing Bela with an unflinching sense of sadness and self-loathing. His portrayal of Bela is deeply haunted by his dwindling fame, drowning in drug addiction and desperate to reclaim some semblance of his glory days. His performance is so amazing, so undeniably gripping, that it feels like someone let all of the air out of the movie's balloon once the movie reaches the point where Bela passes away. Landau's performance is perhaps his most acclaimed work, having earned him an Oscar, a Golden Globe, a SAG Award, and a ton of critics' group awards upon Ed Wood's release. That acclaim is 100% justified, because it's a performance for the ages.

While film critic Michael Medved might have deemed him "the worst director of all time" in 1980, I'm going to say Ed Wood couldn't have been all bad. I mean, he did give the world some of the film industry's most beloved cult classics, and it also led us to the biopic that shares his name. While I feel guilty I haven't seen any of the real Wood's movies, the movie about his life is a fantastic flick that I cannot recommend enough. It's a fun movie, with amazing performances from its cast (especially Landau's) and a nonstop energy that makes it engrossing from start to finish. It's a movie that people like me — those who love bad yet fun B-movies — should definitely sit down to watch. And this reminds me, I really should go check out Plan 9 from Outer Space. What's been keeping me for so long?

Final Rating: ****½

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2010)

I often wonder why I continue to willingly suffer through bad movies and movies I know I'm not going to like. Many times it's pure masochism. Watching a terrible movie for the sake of having watched a terrible movie is nothing new for me. But other times, it's a case of pure morbid curiosity. I just have to know what the big deal with the movie is.

Such is the case with the Twilight franchise. I know that the Twilight movies are solely for tween girls and that I'll probably hate them as soon as the opening credits begin. But I'm compelled to watch them because I want to try and comprehend why the target audience loves these movies so much. And since I've already seen and reviewed both the first and second Twilight movies, I might as well aim for the third one. So join me as I try to figure out what The Twilight Saga: Eclipse is all about.

Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) is faced with a conundrum. Her vampire boyfriend, Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), has asked for her hand in marriage, a proposal that means she will have to be turned into a vampire should she accept. This doesn't sit well with Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner), the hunky werewolf who hopes to woo Bella away from Edward. His insistence that he's the right guy for Bella puts the two male points of this love triangle at odds, especially when Bella realizes that she may be developing feelings for Jacob too.

But romance will be the least of their worries. A vampire named Victoria (Bryce Dallas Howard), angry that her mate was killed by Edward and his family in the first movie, is hungry for revenge. To get it, she has created an army of powerful newborn vampires she plans to send after Bella and the Cullens. As the ever-growing vampire army raises hell in Seattle and begins moving closer to the town of Forks, the Cullens and Jacob's werewolf pack must put aside their long-standing animosity to protect Bella.

I've said in my reviews of both of the prior movies that I did not get the appeal of the Twilight franchise. And now, having sat through three of these damnable films, I still don't get it. What is there to like about this crap? Is it wish fulfillment? Do the devoted "Twihards" imagine themselves as the franchise's vapid heroine, being fought over by two exotic men? Are tweens so starved for entertainment that they're willing to accept and enjoy movies like these?

Eclipse shows a little promise, though, because it was directed by David Slade. I was actually a little excited to hear he'd directed the movie, as he'd previously helmed Hard Candy and 30 Days of Night, two flicks that I immensely enjoyed. And considering how well 30 Days of Night turned out, I entered Eclipse convinced that he knew how to make a vampire movie that didn't suck. However, the vampires of the Twilight universe are the polar opposites of those from 30 Days of Night. Comparing the Cullens to the 30 Days of Night vampires is like comparing the weakest kittens to the most vicious, blood-hungry beasts in the jungle. But Slade still manages to do as good a job as he can.

Slade's direction is not as flashy as what Chris Weitz tried with New Moon, nor is it as lifelessly gloomy as Catherine Hardwicke's work on the first movie. He makes the movie his own, however. And like Weitz's direction on New Moon, Slade's direction is way better than the material deserves. He benefits from some really good camerawork courtesy of cinematographer Javier Agirresarobe, and he keeps the movie's pace moving fluidly. Even when some of the secondary characters start having flashbacks about how their supernatural abilities came to be, Slade doesn't let that stop the flow of the movie. A lesser director would have let these flashbacks take the viewer right out of the movie, but Slade makes them feel like a natural part of the movie.

Unfortunately, Slade is still up against the flaws that have plagued the Twilight movies since the first movie's release. The first I'll mention is the screenplay, once again written by Melissa Rosenberg. While the story is a bit more solid, it suffers from some of the most pseudo-pretentious dialogue I've heard in a while. Rosenberg is trying so hard to make the movie sound deep, but the banality of it makes it painful to listen to. Seriously, do tween girls really buy into this? I honestly dreaded hearing every word, every syllable that the actors had to say. Part of that is the lame acting, sure, but Rosenberg's writing is just garbage.

And once again, the cast doesn't do much to rise above the material. While Ashley Greene and Billy Burke contribute likable, engaging performances, the rest of the cast fails to make a substantially positive impression. Robert Pattinson once again shows improvement in his role, but I really got the impression that he'd rather be playing any character other than Edward Cullen. I can tell that he's at least trying harder this time around, but it feels like he's just getting tired of the Twilight saga.

I can say the same for Kristen Stewart, who continues to be the worst actor in the Twilight movies. Like Pattinson, she does show some improvement. But she's still pretty bad, mostly due to her complete lack of charisma. There are some moments in the movie where it seems like she might break through and actually turn her performance into something good, but the disappointing moments far outweigh the good ones.

I will confess, though, that I did like Taylor Lautner. Nobody can accuse him of being the best actor in the world, but as far as Eclipse goes, I can't say that he's bad. Lautner is definitely trying his hardest, bringing a level of earnestness to the character that actually made his performance more impressive than I anticipated it being. One could make the argument that Lautner only stands out due to how middling the other actors in the movie are, but I still thought his contribution to the movie was a respectable one.

To Eclipse's credit, it's a substantially better movie than either Twilight or New Moon. It's still not that great, but it's a marked improvement over the first two entries in the franchise. Even at its absolute worst, it's still watchable, I guess. I mean, I didn't hate it as much as I did the first two movies, so it has that going for it. And with the first Breaking Dawn movie being released today and the second being released next year, does that mean we're almost done with all the Twilight frenzy? Because it's wearing me out, man.

Final Rating: **½

Tron: Legacy (2010)

Though it's now widely hailed for its groundbreaking special effects, Tron wasn't met with that same warmth when it was released in the summer of 1982. It barely broke even at the box office, the critical reaction was mixed at best, and it wasn't nominated for any Oscars because its use of CGI was viewed as "cheating." But time has been kind to Tron, though. While I will concede that the effects look incredibly dated now (since you could only do so much with computer effects in 1982), the movie is still a fun, ambitious piece of cinema that holds up in spite of how far technology has come over the years.

And because of that, Tron has spent the last three decades building status as a cult classic. It's spawned comic books, novels, the occasional video game, and was even part of an attraction at Disneyland until 1995. But it never had a cinematic follow-up until last winter. You'd think that with how much more prevalent remakes have become over the last decade or so, Walt Disney Pictures would have just "re-imagined" Tron for modern audiences. But nope, they gave it a full-fledged sequel titled Tron: Legacy. So just how did the sequel twenty-eight years in the making turn out?

It's been over twenty years since Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), the brilliant software engineer and CEO of ENCOM International, disappeared without a trace. In his absence, his son Sam (Garrett Hedlund) has inherited his father's fortune and become ENCOM's controlling shareholder. Sam prefers to stay out of the business aspect of ENCOM, though, choosing to let the company's board of directors run things instead.

Sam spends his time partaking in daredevil activities and playing pranks on ENCOM's executives, but none of it has managed fill the hole that his father left. His unwavering hope that he would one day see Kevin again finally pays off when Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner), an ENCOM executive and close friend of Kevin, tells Sam that he received a page from the long-abandoned Flynn's Arcade.

The arcade's phone number has been disconnected for years, so the curious Sam just has to investigate. His search leads him to a room full of computers hidden in the arcade's basement, where Sam accidentally triggers a device that teleports him to "The Grid," an advanced version of the digital world that Kevin himself had visited in the first movie.

Sam is taken prisoner upon his arrival and forced into gladiatorial combat. One of his opponents, however, sees Sam bleeding and realizes he's human, refusing to fight any further. He takes Sam to Clu (Bridges in a dual role), the Grid's dictatorial ruler. Sam is forced into another battle, this time against Clu, but is quickly rescued by Quorra (Olivia Wilde), a program that's been assisting his father for years. Quorra reunites a bewildered Sam with Kevin, who has been living a reclusive life in the wilderness just beyond the Grid's central hub.

Kevin reveals that he had been living in the Grid the whole time he was missing. He'd built the Grid from the ground up, having created Clu to assist him. But a fierce disagreement over a race of programs that had spontaneously appeared and evolved within the Grid led to Clu turning on Kevin and seizing control of the Grid. Clu became more megalomaniacal with time, desiring to acquire Kevin's "identity disc" — his master key to the Grid — so that he might escape into our world and amass more power. Fearing that Clu could actually succeed, Kevin chose to stay hidden and not return.

But Clu's power within the Grid has grown. Each passing moment makes it harder for Kevin and Quorra to avoid detection. Their only hope is to escape through an exit portal that has been dormant for years. But to do so, the Flynns and Quorra must fight their way through nearly all of Clu's army and try to survive.

The original Tron was the result of imagination triumphing over technological limitations. And in the nearly thirty years it took to make Tron: Legacy, filmmaking has evolved past those limitations. It puts Tron: Legacy in a position where it has nothing to overcome. Thanks to the advances made in not only filmmaking but technology in general, Tron: Legacy can't be even half as innovative as its predecessor. And without that, the movie doesn't feel like it lived up to its full potential. It's a visual dynamo, no doubt about it, but it came across as more style than substance.

Joseph Kosinski makes his feature-length directorial debut here, and I actually thought he did a pretty good job. His work is actually rather solid. I'm sure that working on a movie that's so heavy on effects is no easy task, especially when it's your first movie. But Kosinski does as good a job as he's able to. He definitely knows what he's doing, his slick visuals never ceasing to dazzle. He makes the movie fully engaging with fun action sequences and captivating character moments. There might not be a lot of ground for Tron: Legacy to break, but Kosinski makes sure it's still worth watching.

The effects are also spectacularly done. Even something as minor as the de-aging process that made Kurt Russell look like a younger version of himself is superb. But the entirety of the world inside the Grid is itself a sight to behold. It might be considered blasphemy by some for me to say this, but it kinda makes me wish that someone would follow in the footsteps of the original Star Trek's "remastered" episodes and redo the original Tron's special effects to look like Tron: Legacy's.

Those awesome effects are bolstered, though, by the awesome music by Daft Punk. I'm not normally into techno or electronica, but Daft Punk's music is quite possibly the best part of the entire movie. It suits the Tron world properly, really enhancing the movie by perfectly capturing the tone and mood of each scene. If I were a DJ, I'd totally add some of the Tron: Legacy score to my repertoire. It's exciting, with an epic feel that puts the whole production on another level.

And while we're here, I might as well talk about the movie's 3D presentation to boot. If you'll recall my Saw 3D review, I noted that it's a bit difficult to review a 3D movie after its home video release because the 2D version is the only one that's widely available. I don't have a 3DTV, so I can't say how Tron: Legacy's 3D Blu-ray release looks. I can, however, say that theatrical release's 3D effects were fantastic. I've noted in past reviews that I prefer the gimmicky "throw stuff at the screen" 3D over the Avatar-style atmospheric 3D, but this particular movie makes me want to rethink that. The movie is actually in 2D until Sam arrives in the Grid, similar to how The Wizard of Oz is in black-and-white until Dorothy realizes she's not in Kansas anymore. But when it does become 3D, it's subtle yet still immersive. It makes the Grid feel like a broad, glowing frontier, another world full of adventure waiting to be had. Most movies just use 3D to jack up the ticket prices and don't do anything with it, but Tron: Legacy actually benefited from its 3D.

Continuing onward, I thought the script by Adam Horowitz and Eddy Kitsis was okay, but nothing special. Don't get me wrong, it's serviceable. But the problem is that while the Tron concept — one of an alternate, wholly digital world — was a fresh concept in 1982, other movies have done it better since then. It wouldn't have been so bad had Tron: Legacy brought something new to the idea. The plot isn't really anything that hasn't been seen before.

But I'll have to give credit where it's due, too. Horowitz and Kitsis's script is still engaging enough that you can actually end up becoming engrossed in the story. The characters are all well-written, and the parts where the movie slows down (so it can hammer home plot developments) never drag. For all that "we've seen this concept before" stuff I said earlier, Horowitz and Kitsis have still written a damn fine screenplay.

It's a script that's made better by the fabulous group of actors who've been assembled. In the lead role is Garrett Hedlund, whose performance suits the character perfectly. Hedlund effortlessly portrays Sam as a jaded, aimless young man who even in adulthood struggles with the emotional scars left by his father's absence. He makes his character's evolution into a strong, responsible young man ready to face a new future believable.

I also really liked Olivia Wilde. She plays her part with a doe-eyed wonder, as if she views everything around her with a childlike fascination and wonder. Wilde is very charming, very likable, and a lot of fun. Michael Sheen — who plays the proprietor of a popular bar on the Grid — is a lot of fun too, his hammy, over-the-top performance adding plenty of amusement to the movie. His flamboyance is really entertaining, and he practically steals each scene he's in.

But the best performance comes from Jeff Bridges. Though to be fair, I guess I should say "performances" since he's playing two separate characters. As Kevin Flynn, Bridges feels like he's channeling the spirit of his role from The Big Lebowski. It's a performance that's very much in the same vein as "The Dude," one that's very laid back and cool no matter what's happening around him. Bridges's take on Clu is the exact opposite of that, as he plays Clu as much more forceful, arrogant, and aggressive. Bridges makes Clu a great villain, and his work makes the movie that much better. But then I can't say I'm all that surprised. Bridges is an awesome actor, and he can make any movie better just by walking onto the set.

So just what did I think of Tron: Legacy? I dug it. It's a fun flick that's totally worth the two hours I invested in it. The movie's not a perfect one, and it doesn't have the same "ahead of its time" charm that the original Tron had. But it's totally worth a watch. It has awesome special effects and great acting, plus I'm all for movies that hearken back to the '80s. So me and Tron: Legacy are totally cool. The movie gets three and a half stars from yours truly, and I'll definitely recommend it. And I still want one of those light cycles. Who do I have to kill to get one?

Final Rating: ***½