Slashdot Log In
Review: Tomb Raider
from the lara-craft-rides-the-big-screen dept.
The cultural context surrounding Tomb Raider is significant, apart from the quality of the movie. Videogames passed films in revenue last year for the first time, and have become one of the world's most significant and ascendant cultural forces, especially in the U.S. and parts of Europe. Hollywood is scrambling to catch up.
It was so predictable that Tomb Raider would get trashed by most critics, as it has, that the producers didn't even have the guts to screen this movie for critics in advance. That was a mistake. They have nothing to apologize for. Tomb Raider is great, silly fun. Despite all the media yowling about violence in the movie, there really isn't much. There's hardly a drop of blood in the movie, and the shooting and kicking are cartoonish, not explicit.
Tomb Raider is by no means the best, most challenging or most creative video game, but it is one of the world's most popular ones: Lara Croft is gaming's first billion-dollar babe and one of its first superheroes. The movie comes closer to the experience of playing the game than watching a film. That's both the best and worst thing about it. Gamers may find it lush, familiar, original and fun. Non-gamers may see it as stupid and improbable.
West takes little time for character development, plunging right into a narrative involving the now-familiar archaeologist/scholar as adventurer. (Why are all of these archaeologists so rich in movies? And so brave?) Maybe there's no other way to explain how they can afford to cavort around the world, digging up musty tombs and crypts seeking keys to the universe.
Lara Croft, who works as a photojournalist to fund some of her adventures, is a Tomb Raider, of course. She lives in a huge English mansion stuffed with geek toys and gadgets (her resident hired-hand geek -- played by Noah Taylor -- builds killer robots to hunt her down and test her combat skills, which are finely honed. He could live in the mansion, of course, but prefers sleeping in a battered trailer parked outside.) In this Indiana Jonesish story, an evil gaggle of mostly white men (a stand-in for the usual NSA villains and cigarette-smoking men), called the Illuminati, meet in Venice and seek the ancient talisman called the Triangle of Light. They've hired bad guy Iain Glen (Manfred Powell) to get it. Lara, still mourning her lost and presumed dead father (Jon Voight), receives Dad's instructions from beyond the grave to stop the Illuminati at all costs, since the Triangle -- effective once every 5,000 years when the planets are in "alignment" -- gives its possessor God-like power. Although nobody even bothers to explain what the Illuminati expect to do with such divine capabilities, we take it on faith they they're not up to Godish standards.
The movie reflects the cavernous, open style of the game. And Jolie has a blast playing the competent, sneering, indestructible Croft. She plays the role for just what it is -- a campy romp into a new kind of cultural form, where heroines bungee-jump in slinky silk pj's. I think she's good here, even if the movie could certainly have been smarter, more coherent, a bit more attentive to details like plot. Jolie wears a perpetual Indie-like smirk, fears absolutely nothing, and shoots faster than any of the zillions of menacing things that suddenly pop up at her.
West et. al. didn't make this movie on the cheap. Tomb Raider spares no expense on special effects or locations, rocketing around the world as Craft and Powell slug it out. As in the game, despite her access to some stunningly sophisticated firepower, Croft prefers the 9mm pistols strapped prominently to her hips, wielding them against robots, commandos, even supernatural creatures of yore. Only in the movie, she never runs out of ammo. There is, in fact, no foe that can't be brought down by enough smoking 9 mm shells. It's interesting how supposedly hi-tech movies like this one and The Matrix are wedded to the contemporary equivalent of the six-gun.
This is what makes Tomb Raider a faithful evocation of a videogame rather than a conventional movie. It's exactly what many gamers will like about it, and many non-gamers won't.
Personally, I'll take a minority view on "Tomb Raider". It's fun and moves like a rocket from the opening shot. The overall effect is visually striking, sometimes even gorgeous, and while the movie lacks even a momentary sense of menace, so does the game that inspired it. Both are about movement, confidence and reflex.
Let's not get carried away. This movie won't show up on anybody's Top Ten list, but I'd recommend seeing it.
Addendum: Jon Likes It. CmdrTaco Hates it SO MUCH. CmdrTaco speaking now, I just couldn't resist abusing my ability to append a paragraph or 2 to this review to tell everyone how horrible Tomb Raider was. For however long this movie was (it felt like 6 hours) I just wanted everyone to die so I could leave. The acting was flatter then flat, but I have a hard time blaming any actor required to say dialog so moronic that any high school kid could have written something that sounded more real. I'll give Angelina Jolie credit for doing a reasonable british accent, but lets be honest, she was hired because she's a flavor of the month. WHich makes it even more sad that the real point of this movie (Lara's T&A) is padded. And padded so much that when packed into her traditionally tight t-shirt, she looks so much like a toy that I just wanted to scream. There is really no love interest in this story (one is hinted at, but its stupid) so there's only one even remotely sexy scene. It fails to do anything.
The action scenes are poorly edited and largely poorly conceived. It's as if the director said "I really enjoyed The Matrix and Crouching Tiger. Let's see how badly I can recreate those classic scenes for my movies". See, the cast of The Matrix trained forever to do just a few simple shots. And the cast of Crouching Tiger had actual skill to begin with. So when the horrible bungee scene comes together, shots are so quick and so poorly assembled that not only is it difficult to figure out what the hell is going on, but it looks exactly like what it is: A cheap knock off.
Ok, so they didn't have punchy dialog. And so the action scenes were derivative and poorly assembled. The effects are good, right? Oh don't I wish. A few effects are passable, but for the most part, I felt like the effects were of the same caliber that one might see on a syndicated cable sci fi show. Obviously computer animated effects are everywhere. The dramatic finale occurs on a set that looks like it was stolen from The Dark Crystal, but with a lame looking CGI bubble in the middle.
The plot? Well the illuminati are involved (of course) but we don't really see any of them. But don't worry, they don't make sense. All that we know is that the dude responsible for finding the triangle of zinthar (oh wait! thats South Park. Oh wait! you should watch that instead) is a jerk. Well they're going to rescue those triangles because they have power or something. Good thing Lara's got notes coming from her dead old man, and she is such a genius that she just knows how all the traps work in the tombs. But thats her job. She is a Tomb Raider. Apparently this is a title that goes on Business Cards. Cast members refer to her as The Tomb Raider. It falls so flat it makes me want to scream. Anyway, Lara uses her psychic powers to figure out all the traps and secrets, and then she shoots the hell out of zillions of bad guys (be they human, robot, or stone monster) and escapes with only a few scratches. Which are magically healed by the countless friends that her father (who apparently was more influential then the whole rest of the illuminati having left behind clues, ghosts, and friends to help his beloved daughter on her quest. Never mind that some of them were born after his death. He's a magic man).
So, in summary. This movie was absolute crap. Avoid it like the plague. Every nickel you give to this movie is a nickel more that they can use to justify another moronic brainless badly scripted badly acted shoddily assembled knockoff crapfest. Or worse, a Sequel. Run in terror. Please.
i figured out katz (Score:5)
Anyone else notice this line in pretty much all Katz reviews, positive or negative? I think he feels comfort in knowing that his tastes are different from the 'masses'. Actually, I think he reads real reviews of movies before going to see it to determine the general media appeal of the movie, then decides he will do the opposite of them, whether that is to like or hate it. I can't figure out if that is his plot, or if he tries to guess what the Slashdot readers thought and appeal to them. I figure that can't be it because every review (and does anyone ever actually comtemplate how low a person's career has sunk when they are writing Sunday morning movie reviews for _SLASHDOT_???) gets knocked on by practically everyone here. I have not seen the movie, but this review hardly made me want to. Its target demographic is much younger and much more male than myself. It also seems that some weeks, "mindless fun" as Katz so eloquently puts it is just fine (this week), but not other weeks (Mummy Returns). Anyway, do NOT see this film please, Taco's review seemed honest and funny enough. If he doesn't like it, NOONE will. (except katz apparently)
Re:Taco, butt out (Score:4)
Oh, and chill out dude
Re:Silly me (Score:3)
Stop picking on poor Angelina's chest (Score:5)
In any case, I agree with Taco. The movie was a great big bag of ass. It wass ass-tastic. Ass-alicious. It was composed almost entirely out of ass. One could say, even, that it was RIFE with ass.
And not the good kind, either.
CmdrCrack's comments.... (Score:4)
Re:British Accent (Score:5)
They can't even pull off regional accents from their own country - yours is going to be a total loss, I'm afraid...
At least Chris Barrie was in it! (Score:5)
I have played all 3 Tomb Raider games, and I can say Katz is correct. This is a rehash of the game. I felt myself looking for a controller to move Angela Jolie around... (Now thats not a bad idea...) If you have not played the games, then this movie will stink. In fact it DID stink, but I enjoyed it because I have played the games. I would reccomend you check it out on video, not the theater.
In summary, there is no plot. There is lots of action (with no consequence) there is expensive computer animation that, unfortunatly LOOKS like computer animation. There are more rounds fired in this movie than in all the Robocop and Rambo movies combined - yet no human ever seems to get hit...
Jolies accentuated padding is actually obvious, as is the patch that covers her "billy bob" tattoo. This movie is all about T&A and action. And that is it.
I would say that the only thing I liked about was Chris Barrie. Its good to see him get more exposure as an actor.
The whole irony to this is that the first Tomb Raider Game, actually had a plot, and a purpose. Even the violence inherient in the game made sense. This movie made no sense.
Ebert liked it (Score:3)
Tom Braider? (Score:3)
Mr. Cranky says... (Score:3)
(Don't call me a karma whore; i'm already at 50)
--
British Accent (Score:5)
Actually I'd give her credit for doing a reasonable charicature of a British accent. As usual the British character in a Hollywood movie has developed that British accent which doesn't exist in Britain.
The problem is that Britain has many quite different accents. They can can change dramatically within 20 miles (my native Warwickshire has no accent even remotely like that of Birmingham, a mere 20 miles away). Time and time again Hollywood ends up with a slightly upper class accent that is far too neutral. If it can't be placed it doesn't exist. When you go to see films like this in Britain it is quite easy to hear the giggling in the cinema - and no they aren't giggling at any jokes.
Hollywood has a long tradition of frankly appalling British accents, from Dick Van Dyke in "Mary Poppins" through Keanu Reeves in "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (quite possibly the worst example in living memory) to modern example like this and Renée Zellweger in "Bridget Jones' Diary". They are dramatically over the top, competely unplaceable or just plain laughable (back to Mr Reeves again there!).
I'm sorry, but people from the US have an idea of what the British accent is. Unfortunatley that accent is usually quite far off the mark. It is very rare indeed that an actor from the US pulls it off - and IMHO this is another case of just not managing it.
Dude, you guys make me feel so sad. (Score:3)
I look at TR as a fantasy. It was basically based on a fantasy type video game, yes? So the bad guys are bad, because they're bad; it's a tautology. Why are the bad guys in any fantasy novel bad. Usually, the same reason. They're just evil/non-human/whatever.
Frankly, I was totally vibed to see a movie where they the didn't try to sell me totally unbelievable action as if it were somehow real. Contrast with:
Mission Impossible--Jumped off exploding helicopter to moving train and didn't get killed by the explosion?
Matrix--That dead guy came back to life just in time to save their butts. Give a break. Not to mention the "I love you" resuscitation.
Armageddon--They jump a trench with that crawler AND survive a massive meteor shower. And those are just two of the stupid plot points I remember.
If you didn't like the love interest, contrast with any movie where the characters don't even like each other and get together in the end. Or where they spend two movie-hours in relationship angst (where we see no real love developing) and get together at the end anyway. Her father was the love interest, and that was developed throughout the movie.
And speaking of angst, frankly I was grateful to enjoy an action movie, where I didn't have to feel tense the whole time. This totally in contrast to movies like Armageddon. How liberating to have a movie be FUN!
TR fits in the same class as movie based on comic books. The Shadow, The Phantom, The X-men (which had too many characters so that no one was developed adequately; see, you never win).
AND SINCE I HAVE THE FLOOR, I think I'll end with an angry remark: I don't think I'll ever submit anything to SlashDot. It was totally out of line to stomp on his review by adding a second review on the tail just because you have the power.
How does that
Scotland - the Horror!! (Score:3)
After 3 days, I got on a train to Greece, never to return.
The badness was overhyped (Score:3)
That being said... Tomb Raider was not a bad film. This movie isn't a _great_ film, but it doesn't set itself out to be one to begin with. Unlike pieces of crap like Pearl Harbor or Gladiator, the film isn't a summer blockbuster trying to mask itself as a epic. The people behind the Tomb Raider movie understood that people are going to see the film for an hour and a half of entertainment, and I think they actually deliver.
Roger Ebert describes movies like this as "Popcorn movies." The original Mummy was a popcorn movie. The Mummy Returns (not The Mummy's Return) was a movie that tried to be epic, only insulting the audience's intelligence.
The special effects in Tomb Raider were done well, with little exception. The living statues seemed quite realistic at times, especially the last one. The robot as the film opened was done rather well, except when they switched from the CGI to a real prop. The only complaint I have is the knife at the end. Oh yes, the ending...
The ending was rather weak. If you show an underground cavern with technology the world has never seen, you expect to see it explicitely blow up at the end while the hero or heroine rush out at the last second. I didn't feel Lara was in danger at any point during the ending. Then again, I don't really remember feeling Lara was in danger at any point in the movie.
I would recommend the film to people looking to see a summer blockbuster. At my college, we have already ordered a copy of the to be shown through the film committee, for a movie on the Quad when school gets back in session.
Which review to comment on.... (Score:3)
I saw Tomb Raider last night and enjoyed it. Not only did *I* enjoy it, but my wife, my 18-yr-old son, our two friends (in their 30s) and their three sons (12 down to 5). Nope.. it wasn't Dr. Zhivago but it was fun. Even watching Lara's boobs sway when she ran was fun.
Katz was right on with this movie... it's meant as fun and not great cinema. Taco needs to learn to keep his finger off that button.
gun stuff (Score:4)
http://www.heckler-koch.de/html/english/civil/0
(exposed URL, cut&paste to see the gun)
Lara does run out of ammo at least once when it's inconvenient, and does reload frequently. I can't believe I'm defending the realism of a videogame-turned-movie, but it's honestly not as bad as the old western "sixty-six shooters" or the never needs recahrging energy packs of most sf blaster/laser weapons.
speaking on behalf of the Illuminati.... (Score:5)
Intersesting perspective... (Score:3)
I'll give Angelina Jolie credit for doing a reasonable british accent, but lets be honest, she was hired because she's a flavor of the month. WHich makes it even more sad that the real point of this movie (Lara's T&A) is padded. And padded so much that when packed into her traditionally tight t-shirt, she looks so much like a toy that I just wanted to scream.
Well, I mean, come on! Do you really expect that Hollywood could fine someone who could
1) Fit Laura Croft's body
2) Know how to operate a 9mm gun
3) Act
...and on top of it all, have a good British accent?
I think you have a better chance of finding a movie company that is in favor of DeCSS.
As long as I've given up moderation in this story- (Score:4)
It's only that kind of poor, misguided soul who could nitpick a movie or book whose sole goal is to be enjoyable, mindless pulp fiction. You don't have to be mindless to enjoy it--you just have to want to let your frontal lobes relax after a hard bout of life, and let the more base parts enjoy a little tit, ass, action, fantasy, etc. And that's the kind of movie this was meant to be. It never tried to be more, so slamming it for being what it was intended to be is just bullshit.
After all, as someone who's seen it, I can say that it was far more entertaining than a movie like *The Phantom Menace*, which not only was a bad movie and bad science fiction, it tried to be a "film" and failed miserably. The only people who weren't disappointed in Episode I were hardcore SW and SF fans and very young children who couldn't comprehend the movie's failings and liked the shiny things and the stupid sidekick. Conversely, the only people who *are* disappointed in *Tomb Raider* are the pretentious geeks who wanted it to be serious SF or more geek-nitpicker friendly, and the critics who want all movies to be "films" with some sort of artistic, dramaturgical, or serious comedic, value, instead of accepting the truism that sometimes an entertaining movie can just be an entertaining mopvie without having to have some other value. The critics who realize that sometimes it's OK to let our higher reasoning parts take a rest and just let our visceral instincts have some mindless fun--like Roger Ebert--acknowledge that this is a good three-star action/adventure. It isn't a *Raiders of the Lost Ark*, but it does deliver the action and adventure it promises. And just because you *can* load an action/adventure movie with more meaningful themes, to make it into an Indiana Jones type film, doesn't mean you have to or even should.
If you want action and adventure and entertainment you don't have to and shouldn't analyze, then this is your summer action flick. I'f you're a nitpicking dork who can't just relax for a couple hours and enjoy it, then don't bother going. But the suggestion that all entertainment has to have some filmic or literary meaning is just plain misguided. Sometimes we want art and meaning, and sometimes we want to watch shit blow up and watch calves flex and tits strain. Criticizing *Tomb Raider* for not having a less stretchy plot and more filmic meaning is like criticizing *Holly Fucks Beavertown* or most Jackie Chan movies (though a few rhave deeper value) for the same reason.
I don't want Hollywood to *only* make mindless titty-filled action flicks. But I also wouldn't want them to *only* make meaningful films. It's like comparing RPGs that take some knowledge and thought to FPS that take mostly brute reflex and quick motor skills but only rudimentary strategic skills. Again, sometimes you want to think, and sometimes you want to see stuff explode.
WRONG: Have you ever heard of RP? (Score:4)
It is the "proper" pronounciation tought in public school to children. Until the late 80's the BBC would not let anyone on their news broadcasts who could not speak in this way. It is also called "BBC English".
I am not trying to defend American actors who butcher British accents, I am simply saying that there is a very prominent accent in Britain which has no direct regional analogue. I find it hard to believe that someone in Britain has not heard of RP, even if he or she hasn't gone to a public school. Look it up sometime, the teaching of RP has a very interesting history.
Silly me (Score:4)
Thank god there's no violence! (Score:5)
Thak god for this. I think it's really important that movies show a lot of shooting, kicking, and general mayhem, but emphasize that there's no consequences to this.
It really pisses me off, the way Hollywood usually spends so much time emphasizing the shattered lives, broken bodies, and lost dreams that accompany real lethal violence. I'm glad this movie has chosen to take a stand, and make the point that you can shoot people without any blood, much less diminishing the world.
Games I do *not* want to see made into movies (Score:5)
Minesweeper : the movie
Solitaire part III.
Snake (featuring a giant anaconda attempting not to bite its tail)
Hunt the wumpus. This would be the worst game film ever made. You'd never even see the wumpus, just empty caves and a wumpus hunter.
True-Re:British Accent (Score:3)
I was in Wales once with a bunch of students from all over the UK, and even those from middle and southern England had several different accents. There was one guy fom northern England who I couldn't understand half the time.
Scotland is also the same way, with a variety of accents. Edinburgh and Glasgow are only about an hour apart by train, but have completely different accents.
Re:great, another stupid movie review (Score:3)
2 weeks ago (after one of Katz's poorer reviews) I wrote a comment to counter what Katz was going to say. He surprised me by stating basically what I wrote in his review. I guess it only applies to CmdrTaco's review since I agree with Katz. Note, I wrote the following without seeing the movie. Please substitute Katz with CmdrTaco wherever applicable...
I thought I could outguess Katz, but he surprised me. CmdrTaco fell for it, however so the following applies to him.
Don't forget to s/Katz/CmdrTaco/g; and I should have realized that there would be Matrix references in the review. I've yet to see an action movie review onboy how they managed to work... (Score:3)
It was like watching a Star Wars movie and hearing Yoda say, "Luke! You'll have to learn the ways of the force before THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK!"
Or Darth Vader announcing, "Luke...there will be no RETURN OF THE JEDI!"
It was quite silly.
Re:Here is my review. (Score:3)
Then how could it be bad? (Score:3)
Were you expecting another Doctor Zhivago or Lawrence of Arabia? I just wish that they had chosen an actress that didn't need padding! Then it would have been a perfect movie to watch with the sound muted.
SMB (Score:4)
Noooooo.... (Score:3)
For a little information behind the gun: The gun is a deravitive of the H&K Mark 23 [remtek.com], the gun of the US Special Operations. The MK23, while cool is really expensive so H&K decided to make a series of guns built on similar principles, but cheapher hence the USP series [remtek.com]. The USP series has 3 normal guns, a 9mm, a .40, and a .45, 3 compact guns also 9/.40/.45 and 2 special guns the tactical and the match. The USP tactical is a .45 designed to look and feel like the MK23 and is a little more accurate than the normal USPs as well as having a threaded barrel for a silencer. The USP Match is a .45 pistol that is designed for enhanced accuracy. It's quite a bit larger and heavier than the normal USP .45 (about a half pound more), but for that you get an increase in accuracy.
I don't know why they chose the USP Match guns for her in the movie, they are designed for target shooting not for running around, the MK23 is more suited to that. I guess they just thought they looked cool. That, and they also have a bit better recoil suppression than the rest of the series (though they all have good RS).
angelina jolie (Score:5)
i was angry:1 with:2 my:4 friend - i told:3 4 wrath:5, 4 5 did end.