Yes, I know... the first two movies weren't exactly masterpieces... they were poorly received by the critics and they didn't satisfy the hardcore fans of the franchise, although they were reasonable box office hits.
I think that was mainly due to the total failure of THE FIRST ONE, the one which have been hyped the most and indeed the worst of the two.
"Lara Croft: Tomb Raider" had a really weak screenplay. The characterization of the main protagonist was totally crap, the story was quite good but it was developed in a wrong way (the artifact wasn't interesting at all... and the logical connection between the events wasn't always clear).
Even if I think acting was good (Angelina Jolie, Daniel Craig, Chris Barrie, Noah Taylor, John Voight and Iain Glen... all great performances...) and so was the directing (the camera work on the sets emphasized A LOT the amazing locations in which the movie was shot), the lack of a good story and the wrong characterization of Lara Croft (who seemed to be a robot without emotions and incapable of any kind of mercy) doomed the movie to flop.
"The Cradle of Life", instead, was a quite good adventure film in my opinion. It was entertaining and spectacular, even if it had a couple of awful scenes (some were definitely TOO unbelievable).
But now the point is: this year the theaters will see the come-back of "Indiana Jones" and the return of "The Mummy" franchise. I'm sure those movies will have GREAT success, no doubts about it. "National Treasure 2" also was a box office hit, meaning the action/adventure films are still alive and appealing to the audience.
Well, what if after "Indy IV" Paramount decided to produce a third sequel to the "Tomb Raider" saga? Would you give it a chance?
I personally think the franchise has A LOT of unexpressed potential, and I would REALLY like to see a well-made "Tomb Raider 3" (obviously with Angelina Jolie, Chris Barrie and Noah Taylor still on board ).
I just want to see a good Lara Croft movie, which would mean dumping Angelina Jolie (woefully bad actress, terrible choice for the role) and hiring a competent writer and director. I love the games, but the movies were just awful messes.
And to think this is from Mr. Girl Power himself...
I cry foul on this one. No targeted sniping on this forum (especially when I'm tossing soft balls) for the next couple of months. You are either in or out.
. . .and as for the Jolie issue -- I'm willing to take that issue on directly. I'll bore everyone to tears of course . . . .
I just want to see a good Lara Croft movie, which would mean dumping Angelina Jolie (woefully bad actress, terrible choice for the role) and hiring a competent writer and director. I love the games, but the movies were just awful messes.
Agreed. Let's wait 5-10 years and reboot the franchise.
Quote:
I hate Tomb Raider because its so blaitenly a rip off of Indiana Jones. So I hope they toss that series.
And that's exactly the reason I'd like to see another one done right. Indiana Jones is a blatant ripoff of those old-time adventure serials and movies. So with your logic, you should hate him and the movies he's been in.
Indiana Jones is a blatant ripoff of those old-time adventure serials and movies.
Its not a rip-off, its a homage paying tribute to those serials. Its done with modern effects and film techniques, has MORE than enough great ideas and unique iconic moments of its own to not be a rip-off, while maintaining the spirit of those serials.
Tomb Raider is just Indiana Jones with a super-rich, sexy female in the lead.
As much as I love Indiana Jones, I'd hardly called Tomb Raider a "rip-off." It's just as much an homage to Indy as Indy is an homage to the adventure serials of yesteryears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarn07
Agreed. Let's wait 5-10 years and reboot the franchise.
That's a good idea. I always thought the perfect Lara Croft would have been Elizabeth Hurley. She's stunningly-sexy but can play the tough chick nicely, plus she has a real accent. Though I figured the producers would consider her "too old" to play the character, even though I think she's a far better choice than Angelina, who can't hold a candle to Elizabeth when it comes to sexiness.
As much as I love Indiana Jones, I'd hardly called Tomb Raider a "rip-off." It's just as much an homage to Indy as Indy is an homage to the adventure serials of yesteryears.
It doesn't have half as many unique features as Indiana Jones though, that separates it from the original.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael24
I always thought the perfect Lara Croft would have been Elizabeth Hurley. She's stunningly-sexy but can play the tough chick nicely, plus she has a real accent.
I dunno.....she doesn't look like she'd have that balance of being the rich, posh upper class billionaire and tough chick who can brawl as well as the rest of 'em.
It doesn't have half as many unique features as Indiana Jones though, that separates it from the original.
Well, when it comes to these kind of adventure films, the Indy movies obviously set the bar pretty high. Little can be done to surpass them, but at the same time, that doesn't mean that something in the same kind of spirit can't still be just plain enjoyable, even if they aren't as "unique" as the Indy films.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oki9Sedo
I dunno.....she doesn't look like she'd have that balance of being the rich, posh upper class billionaire and tough chick who can brawl as well as the rest of 'em.
I think she could have easily pulled it off. I think she's got a better combination of upper-class billionaire and tough chick than Angelina Jolie has.
I cry foul on this one. No targeted sniping on this forum (especially when I'm tossing soft balls) for the next couple of months. You are either in or out.
. . .and as for the Jolie issue -- I'm willing to take that issue on directly. I'll bore everyone to tears of course . . . .
But sniping is the only reason I'm here.
I'm not saying that she can't act. I'm just saying that her rep as more than a boy toy is shaky. And your rep as the advocate for better female characters in film also seems to be in peril...
I'm not saying that she can't act. I'm just saying that her rep as more than a boy toy is shaky. And your rep as the advocate for better female characters in film also seems to be in peril...
You've got a point about Jolie's rep. For every Mighty Heart, she's done a Sky Craptain (or two).
Jolie is still young. I would argue that her defining role going forward is Mr. & Mrs. Smith -- because, buying into that film's premise, she is the modern women. Totally tough and together. Jolie pulled off her Mrs. Smith character in a way that other (read "other" as "too old" for Hollywood) tough-enough leading ladies could not (Nicole Kidman, Michelle Pfeiffer, Paltrow, Berry, etc.). Even other younger leads with talent (Swank & Witherspoon) could not have pulled off that film with the requisite level of wit and verve.
I think she'll do great things in the next 5-10 years if she keeps acting. But again, she's got to start passing on every Alexander and other garbage role that comes around (I have to see Beowulf). I think she has one more Tomb Raider in her.
That's a good idea. I always thought the perfect Lara Croft would have been Elizabeth Hurley. She's stunningly-sexy but can play the tough chick nicely, plus she has a real accent. Though I figured the producers would consider her "too old" to play the character, even though I think she's a far better choice than Angelina, who can't hold a candle to Elizabeth when it comes to sexiness.
In my opinion Angelina Jolie was a GREAT choice to portray Lara!! However I totally agree with you when you say Liz Hurley is MUCH MORE attractive than her (at least this is my opinion ).
Having said that, I think Elizabeth could have been really good as Lara Croft, but there's a "but" also... first of all, she is becoming too old to be credible in the part, as you've already written. In second place, I personally can't see her without her wonderful long hair. Lara Croft has always had a "mohican style" ponytail (sorry if the correct word isn't "ponytail"... I don't know the exact term), a kind of haircut I don't think could look good on Elizabeth's face, while donates A LOT to Jolie's image. Angelina looked very good with that hairstyle, so her character gained in charisma.
I hope the sense of this post is clear, it was a mess writing it, I didn't know the words to use etc...
In any case... I don't see "Tomb Raider" as a "blatant rip-off" at all. It's something different. Talking about the movies specifically, they had a great potential that simply wasn't used in the correct way.
I think the potential I'm talking about comes from the fact that "Tomb Raider" franchise is not based on a "pretending-to-be-real" kind of storytelling. The stories involving Indiana Jones are always expected to be "believable" (at least those of the movies). But "Tomb Raider" was born as a childish videogame. When I come to think about a possible third movie, an unlimited world of new ideas crosses my mind.
We know Lara Croft is a winning character. Her two friends in the movie canon, Hillary and Bryce, were a really funny addiction to the mix. With all of this premises, I think the franchise only needs a very good story, a story written with the heart... but the possibilities are billions.
That's why I think "Tomb Raider" does have the numbers to become a STRONG movie series, even if I know they partially failed their first couple attempts to let it do it.
Ok... I think the content of this post is actually quite disappointing... but now that I've written it... oh, well...
Last edited by The Stranger : 01-15-2008 at 04:09 PM.
I've always seen Lara Croft with a ponytail hairstyle, so I think that's what you're thinking of. In any case, I have seen Elizabeth Hurley with a ponytail before, and she still looked great.
I agree with your points on how TOMB RAIDER is not an Indy rip-off as well. Like you said, Indy is more along the "serious" and "believable" line, whereas TOMB RAIDER is more of a "fantastical" concept with all kinds of creatures, living stone monsters--heck, even dinosaurs! Sure, there are similarities because Indy was obviously an inspiration for Lara Croft, but both concept are otherwise very different.
Location: The Host City of the 2018 Commonwealth Games, Australia
Posts: 3,158
I was ok with the first one - it was the second one that really sucked. I didn't have any expectations towards either (no this will be like Indy, etc) and the second one still sucked. Personally though, I don't like the way Jolie plays Lara. She looks like her, but in truth, Lara's a redhead in the games and comics. And Lara was more vulnerable and even witty in the comics. Jolie kinda of played her as a rather cold woman, a character that I just couldn't connect to, like Marion or Diana from "The Phantom" (though those two are considered second bananas to their male leads, but I have always felt both of them could have their own spin-off comics and novels, the same way Lois Lane and Leia has, special edition issues) In fact, the artifacts and monsters were better in the games and comics than the films. The comics also had better storylines and characterisations.
I wish they'd do as they're doing with Resident Evil. Re-start the series with a CGI film more closely related to the games. And I actually don't mind the first Resident Evil... too much. It's a moderately entertaining piece of fluff. The second is beyond horrendous and I never did bother with the third...
But yeah, reboot the series. Jolie is awful, she has no sense of the character; just animate it with the voice-actors from the game. Tomb Raider Legend was so much more cinematic than that god-awful first film (and the best TR game I've yet played).
I wish they'd do as they're doing with Resident Evil. Re-start the series with a CGI film more closely related to the games. And I actually don't mind the first Resident Evil... too much. It's a moderately entertaining piece of fluff. The second is beyond horrendous and I never did bother with the third...
But yeah, reboot the series. Jolie is awful, she has no sense of the character; just animate it with the voice-actors from the game. Tomb Raider Legend was so much more cinematic than that god-awful first film (and the best TR game I've yet played).
Wow, I can't believe you're for remaking/rebooting something! But yeah, video games get the shaft when it comes to films and great ones deserve a second chance. I don't think most film makers quite understand that they're more than just action games but have stories to them with some worthwhile characters. Uwe Boll, for example, is a total joke and I can't stand the fact he's setting out to do so many more video game movies. He's not helping the cause.
I agree 100% about Legend. It altered Lara's origin a bit, but it made for a great cinematic experience. The flashback bits were a nice touch
Wow, I can't believe you're for remaking/rebooting something! But yeah, video games get the shaft when it comes to films and great ones deserve a second chance. I don't think most film makers quite understand that they're more than just action games but have stories to them with some worthwhile characters. Uwe Boll, for example, is a total joke and I can't stand the fact he's setting out to do so many more video game movies. He's not helping the cause.
I agree 100% about Legend. It altered Lara's origin a bit, but it made for a great cinematic experience. The flashback bits were a nice touch
It's not really a "remake" at all. It's an entirely different story divoreced of the films' timeline. All we know so far is that it has Leon and Claire and takes place 7 years after Raccoon City... It's called Resident Evil: Degeneration and will be straight to video. The trailer looks great, check it out.
Any rate, the TR movie series could seriously use the revamping...
). 
). 
