I got to watch this movie this morning when they played it on Showtime- I hadn't seen in in something 15 years or so. Interestingly, it wasrated "G" - I would have given it a PG because, real or not, people didexpire at times.

With personal computers just entering peoples homes when this movie wasreleased, the only people that had any real access to computersprogrammers and data entry operators that used computers in their everyday life. The fact that this film didn't make the big dollars at thebox office doesn't mean it wasn't a good concept, it just meant thatpeople who didn't understand this new technological onslaught weren'tabout to shell out their hard earned money to see it.

Yes, it certainly looks dated, but everything looks that way from thepoint of view of 20 odd years into the future but some of the tech wetake for granted today was there - for example, Dillinger's touchscreen desk shows some forward thinking in an age of chunky pushbuttons and knobs.

Throughout the film, there seems to be a hidden message about thedanger of allowing one all encompassing power to take control ofsmaller and weaker ones - an unintentional allusion to the dangers of aone world government perhaps. Was the MCP really the USA or USSR indisguise? Acting performances were generally good. David Warner playedthe sinister bad guy to great effect as he always has. Even at such ayoung(ish) age, he had a threatening aura about him. Bruce Boxleitnerseemed to be a bit wasted considering his was the title role. His "realworld" role was damaged by the ridiculous eye wear he had stuck to hishead (I couldn't stop looking at the nerdy glasses he wore) and JeffBridges played the part of Jeff Bridges perfectly (I am sure that oneday he'll play someone else).

I see the movie is to be remade in 2010. I would hope that it isfaithful to the spirit of this original version and that they don't goCGI mad on it. With the way computers are networked and "Big Brother"can see everything now days, a fun family film might not be on thecards there.

More than just reminiscent of Lang's Metropolis, Tron is a beautiful,well made exercise from a main stream producer (Disney) which remindsus of the time before Jurassic Park and Episode One where creativeskill was left to human perception rather than a computer's digitallycorrect ideal. Owing more to the human colourists than the now outdatedcomputer effects, this film is evidence - similar in a way to Kubric'spre-Moon landing, pre-CGI 2001 - to the creative and moresensory-pleasing abilities of the human artist over soul-lessprogrammers, from a time before when a box would 'parse' it all foryou. It's difficult to express how high-powered computers fail tocreate an image that is satisfactory to the human eye; there is alwayssomething that rings false about it. Tron was created in a period ofwire diagrams being the best you could coax from a computer; anythingelse was added by human hand. A film that makes you nostalgic for thetime when Disney made films that were accessible for all, almostBakshi-like in its disregard for the mainstream. There is struggleagainst adversity; there is an oppressive, evil regime; there are twoheroes who survive despite all odds; and there is love conquering all(a token woman is included as love interest. Ironically like the ITindustry). The naive use of technical jargon merely adds to the"computer program" style setting and this film is ideally suited fortoday's retro-chic society. As a Disney film this is aimedpredominantly at children, so if you fail to understand the plot then Iwould recommend sticking to the Lion King or some other pabulum. Thisis a great film - watch it.

... Which, by the way, I do not fully understand why it was used...

No TRON, no Matrix... It's that simple.!!! Whether or not you are a fanof either move (and I am not a fan of The Matrix), there is no denyingthat both films used the technology available to them to really bringsomething special to the big screen.

Tron's storyline need not have been complex, need not have been aboutfollowing white rabbits and other nonsense, it was about a computer,modelled on every classic James Bond villain, who loves to toy with hisvictim usually to their ultimate downfall, and a human who, as fatedecrees, has the knowledge and skills to defeat this menace.

No blood, no guts, no guns... just beautifully crafted sequences thatplease they eye of the jaded computer geek who had seen everything ontheir Spectrum or C64.

Films nowadays are not this wonderful, do not induce such wonderment inthe young...

It is such a shame no lessons have been learnt!

Tron was made in 1981-1982, at the time when home computing was in it'sinfancy. The greatest home computers at the time were Commodore 64,Atari XL series and Apple 2 computers, all which were quite expensive.Computers were the new uncharted land, and there Tron established it'srealm of fantasy.

Tron is sci-fi only superficially. It's roots are deep in the fantasy,translated into a modern-day high-tech world. The creators knew theyweren't doing an essay on how computers worked. In today'scomputer-savvy world the story might appear as anthropomorphic naivety,but the pseudo-realistic hacker movies of the '80s (and the '90s) havefared much worse.

Computer time was very expensive in the early '80s, and the softwarewasn't too advanced. The brilliant idea was to use the CGI to depictthe immaterial world inside the computer, instead of trying to mimicthe real world, which really wasn't feasible until some 10 years later.At the completion of the film, the technology used for Tron was cuttingedge, and the CGI was the best seen so far. Today, the graphics areoutdated, but in their role, depicting the world inside a computer,they are perfectly sufficient.

I believe Tron is not for everyone's liking, but as a modern agefantasy, it's a great movie.

I recently rewatched TRON with my 7 year old son as a prelude toviewing TRON-Legacy; so here's my review.

I first saw Tron in the cinema in 1982/83ish. I was dazzled by it;simple, immersive, visually stunning. Very enjoyable - an image ofanother reality which was credible and new. There is a large element ofdark/light dualism which generates and maintains interest and inertiafrom within the story. The "look" of the film sustains this interest.Obviously technically highly advanced - far ahead of any other kind ofcinema experience. This was an iconic film of its time that everycinema goer had to take in. Back then I would have graded it 10. As afilm in my 9 - 10 band it sits proudly in my DVD collection.

Over the years I have felt that time was not been kind to this film; bytodays standards it looks "80's" - in ways it's too simple and fortodays energy packed kids - too slow moving. For one thing, we don'thave Video Arcades like Flynns anymore, we have Ninetendo DS and Wii inour homes, so this element is well out of its time. Nevertheless, TRONstill looks great - dark, inviting, intriguing, its wonderfullystylised "look" still grabbed the attention of my 7 year old! He likedthe battle scenes and the general feel - the Goodies Vs Badies aspectof the piece; the malevolent computer and its servants Vs good guystrying to save the day Tron & Flynn - A Hit!

My 9 grade is a joint effort with my son - who is becoming a bit of amovie buff! (I thought 8, but I was overruled!)

TRON is a film which should be seen. It was a landmark film in thehistory of cinema for a variety of technical and thematic firsts.

Watch this film. It is dated by todays standards - but still worth aviewing.

Now go and read my review of TRON-Legacy.

End of line.

TRON made me believe in how ambitious anyone working in animation andvisual effects, like those working on TRON in 1982, could ever try tobe. It's a film with such an incredibly loaded palette of sights andcolors and shapes and contours and technological things that pop up,one might be distracted just about long enough to forget that the storyat the center and the characters aren't very memorable. Which maybe isjust as well - the director Steven Lisberger and his co-writer leave itall to what can be seen, as 'show, don't tell' becomes the mantra indelving into the simulated world of TRON. It's a computer game, thebiggest and most elaborate one, and it's really great for twoaudiences: kids who love simple adventure/drama put to the smashinggraphics, or those looking for the next 2001. Better yet, put it on adouble bill with Wachowskis' Speed Racer and see if you come out on theother side unscathed.

Then again, Lisberger isn't entirely reliant on the trippy-goes-techmind-set. He also has Jeff Bridges as the lead, at ease a charismaticand too-smart-for-his-britches gamer who's a whiz at it but wants tohack back into the system to get the evidence that he really createdthe games that a business hack (David Warner) is claiming credit for.Just as he gets close enough to the source, he's "copied" and "pasted"(to use today's computer lingo) into the actual computer simulationthat he created to 'play the game' against MCP- the Master ControlProgram- who runs like HAL squared, completely indomitable (seeminglyanyway) and the puppet master to villain Warner.

So yeah, a lot of this sounds like ripped off of cheesy 50s sci-fimagazines. Which, in small doses, is part of the fun. None of this isvery brainy, despite what the filmmakers might want you to believe orthat it has any kind of 'statement' to make about the horrors ordangers of technology. It doesn't pretend to be anything else that itisn't, which is why it (mostly) succeeds. While it doesn't cross thatsame barrier it's CGI descendant Toy Story or other Pixar movies did-it doesn't have the solid story worked out or with enough humans tocare about- it holds up fantastically well some 25+ years later. It'salso probably best to seek it out at a revival screening or midnightshowing somewhere, as it's also a must for a big-screen viewing; youget lost in this world, so much so you'll just stare at it, bewildered,maybe too much so. It's its own... world, for a little while.

TRON is an EXTREMELY under-appreciated masterpiece. The Academyactually denied the makers of this film a highly deserved visualeffects nod because, to their way of thinking, using computer-generatedimagery was "cheating". CHEATING! That's like saying the invention ofthe wheel was cheating. The moral here is, try not to be TOO brilliantor ahead-of-your-time, because you will probably be misunderstood anddisrespected by self-righteous idiots. Without TRON, there would mostdefinitely be no Matrix. In fact, it seems like a lot of the cyberpunk,William Gibson-style "reality-within-the-mainframe" existentialism thatpermeates the fiction of our digital age can be traced back, to someextent, to the technological advent of TRON. RESPECT!!! -H