Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Review: Tomb Raider 274

Posted by JonKatz from the lara-craft-rides-the-big-screen dept.
Give director Simon West credit for navigating some tricky ground. Some movies have been greatly influenced by video games -- The Mummy's Return -- and still others were literal, and stinky spin-offs (Mortal Kombat and Super Mario Brothers for instance) but Tomb Raider is one of the most expensive, ambitious and closely watched of this new hybrid-cinematic format -- the game that not only inspires a movie but becomes one. Games have come a long way. The movie is perhaps too faithful to the game that inspired it, raising the question of whether games and films can really mix. And Angelina Jolie is stellar bungee-jumping in those silk pj's.

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Review: Tomb Raider More

Review: Tomb Raider

Comments Filter:

  • Here is my review. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As pastor of America's most important church, few things annoy me more than throwing away the hard-earned money of my congregation by squandering collection-plate cash on disappointing trips abroad - or bad movies. I can't imagine how angry I would have been had I spent $7 of my own money to see dreck like the deceptively titled "Tomb Raider"! Apparently, I mistook the whispers of a malignant spirit for the dulcet coo of the Holy Ghost and was coaxed into an opening day screening of a film that crassly trades on the miracle of Jesus' resurrection in hopes of emptying the pockets of the approximately 400,000,000 Christians living in this country. Playing a game as old as the dinosaurs (6,000 years ago), and first tried by the Lord in Eden when he called the "tree of eviction" the "tree of knowledge," the producers lure unsuspecting, devout Christians into the theater by giving it an enticing name that never belies the fowl stench of the ungodliness that lurkingly awaits them like death itself.

    Thinking that the movie, "Tomb Raider" was going to be a historical documentary about the time when God and his angel buddies jump-started Jesus' heart 2,000 years ago and robbed His grave in the greatest "tomb raid" of all time, I went into the theater with religious anticipation. "Hollywood was finally going to do an accurate, factual, historical film about the resurrection," I thought. "They finally woke up and smelt the blood of Christ." After all, I thought, if John Travolta can make propaganda for something as outrageous as so-called "Scientology" with Battlefield Earth, isn't there room for a blockbuster about a religion for heterosexuals, too? Well, I couldn't have been more wrong!

    It's been over 2,000 years and we're still talking about the angels raiding the tomb of Christ. Mark my words (Matthew, Luke and John my words, too if you like!), not even unsaved trash is going to be talking about the film, "Tomb Raider," two weeks from now. But the problem is that that is time enough for millions of American Christian children to visit their local multiplex and have their brains pumped full of the shocking sacrilege that the angels who flocked to our Savior's dead side wore shorty-shorts that would make Daisy Duke blush and tight, sleeveless t-shirts without appropriate support and concealment of their perky, nubile bosoms. Those messages will stick like last night's gum in the cranium. Innocent minds will be polluted, and Satan's team of experts in Hollywood will rejoice in turning another batch of moviegoers into an organized army of hell bound tattooed liberals.

    It is obvious to a man of God like myself, trained in spiritual discernment that the very name of the main character of the film - Angelina -- should have given the whole thing away. Now, I don't know this "Angelina Jolie" young lady, but I assume that off-screen she is probably a lovely, chaste young lady in a modest Christian marriage. But the director of this movie has taken this sweet, innocent creature and forced her to do appalling, trampy things not witnessed by humanity since Mrs. Patsy Ramsey last picked up her camcorder. In scene after degrading scene, Miss Jolie acts completely inappropriate for her gender (like smart-mouthing a UPS delivery man - and winning in battles against the Lord's preferred gender, male). And I don't know which mortuary they recruited the make-up people from, but they made Miss Jolie's lips look they got stuck in the wrong end of her Electrolux last time she was sprucing up her rumpus room!

    Everyone knows that angels are the only ones who have the authority to raid a tomb and help themselves to jewelry. Satan knows that too, and when he cast this movie, he made dead sure he'd hock up another wad of spit and aim it at the face of Christ by casting an "Angel-ina" to make real angels look like gender confused sluts, hopped-up on hormones, on a militant lesbian-feminist "I HATE MEN AND KILL MY BABIES" shooting rampage. Lucifer! You ain't fooling me. I know what you're up to. And I'm telling everyone what you're doing! And there ain't a thing you can do about it!

    SPOILERS AHEAD, FOLKS: I'm going to give the whole movie away right now. Readers, Satan is getting his Angelina "Jollies" out of teasing Christians into seeing a film they think is about the only real "tomb raid" that ever took place. This movie is about a woman who travels back in time to steal the underwear of historical figures so she can sell them on E-Bay. She, no doubt, picked up this mercenary knack for turning the sacred into quick cash from the Roman Catholics. Jesus' t-back thong-style unmentionable is found to have so much power that simply waving it in the air can not only fend off demons and stop rivers, it can also shut MSNBC's Chris Matthews up for a full minute.

    The climax of the movie is when Angelina finally enters the tomb of Christ to steal his blessed, yet alarmingly provocative loincloth. It is then that we find out about her real plan - to fill a vial around her neck with the blood of Christ! In a fiendish scheme to thwart the salvation of millions of Americans, she plans to replicate the DNA of Christ and clone millions of Jesuses, setting them loose in cities throughout the United States. She concocts this nefarious plot with the knowledge that if most modern Americans met the real Jesus they would regard Him as uncouth liberal trash, rebuff Him and thereby assure their damnation! But the Lord intervenes by replacing the blood of His Son with the blood of a scraggly, heroin addict in Hollywood who always wears a ball cap.

    This movie will give you nothing but 2 hours of lustful looks, pants and skirts flying all over the place, shots of exposed knees and elbows, sexually suggestive back packs, naked statues, and the brazen harlotry and absolute gall of this "so-called" woman with the power to raid only what God has ordained the angels in heaven to raid - tombs!

    The only thing inherently Christian about this movie is that it teaches the proper use of firearms in close-range, sniper rifle, and distance shooting. There are also some liberal, pansy gun safety tips (which I booed and the audience could have well done without being subjected to).

    /John

  • katz plagiarizes imdb user review! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hey does this look STRIKINGLY SIMILIAR to katz's review or what?

    user review on imdb.com
    "Date: 16 June 2001
    Summary: Just barely worth taking out of the Tomb

    Video games are now a multi-billion dollar industry, with a fan base Numbering in the millions. So its no surprise that Hollywood has tried to tap into this audience. However with the exception of 1995's "Mortal Kombat," their attempts have mostly been met with dismal failure. Remember "Street Fighter," "Wing Commander" or the embarrassment that was the "Super Mario brother's" movie? I didn't think so. Audiences stayed away in droves from these bottom feeding movies. And this really shouldn't be a surprise. Most of the games in question have exceedingly thin storylines. However, this is not a problem with the `Tomb Raider' series.

    Lara croft is a wealthy, globe-trotting archeologist in the vein of Indiana Jones. Plenty of opportunity for intriguing storylines here.

    And indeed the movie's plot is fairly interesting. But its not riveting either. And this is a problem that plagues the entire movie.

    I was strangely ambivalent throughout the entire film. While I enjoyed Angelina Jolie's performance -- the rest of the cast's was nothing to write home about. The action scene's were well done -- but too few and far between. In the final analysis -- director Simon west should have taken a cue from the video game -- and pumped up the pacing of the movie. As it plays now -- "Tomb Raider" the movie isn't the most exciting game in town. 3 STARS OUT OF 5."

  • Re:boy how they managed to work... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Nixter, you're a pathetic plagiarist.
  • I'm not sure who started this story that videogames have overtaken movies in revenue, but it's complete crap.

    What is true is that the total revenue of the videogame industry from all sources (games, books, consoles, hardware, etc.) is now more than the box office revenue of the movie industry. Of course, this ignores the tiny little profits the movie industry makes from rentals, sales, toys, licensing properties, etc.

    The game industry has a long ways to go before it actually beats the movie industry in total revenue.

  • Re:Silly me (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    it might be just me, but i dont remember playing or hearing of any game that resembled "The Mummy Returns"

  • As always... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Mr. Cranky has the most insightful review [mrcranky.com].

  • Re:Which review to comment on.... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Well, that doesn't mean all people are like you, your son, wife etc? Personally I prefer Taco's review as it surely smells more up to the point than Katz rumbling.

  • Re:hmm (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Whats wrong with tits?

  • i figured out katz (Score:5)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 17, 2001 @07:12AM (#145393)
    Personally, I'll take a minority view on "Tomb Raider".

    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)

    by Alan ( 347 ) <arcterexNO@SPAMufies.org> on Sunday June 17, 2001 @09:15AM (#145394) Homepage
    Good point, except for one thing. Taco's review was not so much butting in (IMHO) as augmenting. There were two separate reviews here, just like in the old days. See theonion.com's point, counterpoint.

    Oh, and chill out dude :)
  • Geesh. PvP and User Friendly [userfriendly.org] notices that she doesn't have enough assets to even qualify. Flavor of the month indeed. Sheesh. Couldn't they of cast a better looking actor [ctrl-c.liu.se] (example only) or just animated it as a machinima flick [machinima.com]. Heck, I know I myself [ctrl-c.liu.se] can do better [ctrl-c.liu.se]. Much better. [ctrl-c.liu.se]

    Bounce ya' boobies.

    --
    WolfSkunks for a better Linux Kernel
    $Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.keenspace.com";

  • And remember, don't look at your hands.

    Signed

    Your Fiends in Bavaria & Shadowvision

    ttyl
    Farrell, Erisian
  • Hey, that's my line!

    Kallisti!
    Farrell
  • I am confused by the bad review given this movie by CmdrTaco and other critics. Giving a bad review to Angelina Jolie is simply baffling to me. How is this possible?
  • Actually Hollywood is often terrible at getting American accents correct too. Anyone here see Fargo? If it's not in the big media cities of New York and Los Angeles, they don't seem to be able to pull off the accent.

    And, hey, you Brits aren't any better. I still laugh at Monty Python skits where one of them was pretending to be an American (and it's not because of the humour). Especially the "Big Business Boardroom" scene from the Crimson Assurance skit.

  • Unlike most heroines, Xena doesn't expect anything from anybody. Lara Croft expects men to win the bread. She expects to fall off the rope bridge and wait for a man to save her.

    Xena doesn't rely on men to provide her every clue on how to do something. Lara Croft lives in her dad's mansion and needs on her dad's love notes to find the focus ring on her binoculars.

    Xena doesn't weigh 60 lbs and vibrate like a violin string in every gust of wind. Lara Croft needs to eat a sandwich.

    Xena makes facial expressions and takes chances normally reserved for a male hero. Lara Croft just makes flirty expressions while lying on her boyfriend's naked chest.

    Lara Croft earns partial income as a photojournalist. Xena supports herself and her sidekick fully and if she lived in 2001 she would be an engineer.

  • Well, IMNSHO, the movie was GREAT.

    Many movies that are inspired by games just go to far in trying to make the game believable, and go into explaining SO much so. Not this one.. From shot one, its just born on the screen. No need to have even SEEN the game to watch the movie.

    And amazingly, it actually manages to be faithfull to the game at the same time. Sorry Cmdr Taco, but this time, your SO wrong.

    To each their own, but this is one good movie..
  • Near the end of compositing tons of CGI together, someone said "Hey...we should at least pretend to add a plot to this." So they added him in at the last minute...probably some 16 script kiddie with a pirated copy of LightWave :)

    I was seriously disappointed by the Scorpion King. Tim Curry in Legend was much more impressive.

  • Re:Silly me (Score:3)

    by Sabalon ( 1684 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @11:35AM (#145404)
    The only thing "The Mummy Returns" was inspired buy was the FX guys going "Hey...look what we can do."
  • Listen, she's a 36C, which would have cut it, in my book. They gave her a padded bra, which made her a 36D (one cup size short of the 36DD that Lara Croft supposedly is...which I think is crap. She's way bigger than that.)

    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.

  • Good point, except for one thing. Taco's review was not so much butting in (IMHO) as augmenting.

    He can come down from Mount Olympus and make a, *gasp*, post, can't he? If he wants to argument or counterargument he can do so like everyone else, can't he?

  • CmdrCrack's comments.... (Score:4)

    by xinit ( 6477 ) <rmurrayNO@SPAMfoo.ca> on Sunday June 17, 2001 @07:27AM (#145417) Homepage
    Road Trip, Freddie Got Fingered, Scary Movie, Armaggedon, Red Planet, Mission to Mars, The Animal, Deuce Bigalow, My Myself and Irene, Sixth Day, any movie with cross-promotions at McDonalds or Burger King (whoops... Atlantis?), A Knight's Tale, Dued Where's My Car, Joe Dirt, Mummy Returns, Pearl Harbour, and a number that are escaping me.... These are movies with no saving graces. I only enjoyed 6th Day because it was like watching a travelogue of Vancouver, BC - one where we get to see them destroy our library. Other than that, it was a car wreck. I liked Tomb Raider. I wasn't going there looking for Shakespeare; I was expecting a genre film. One involving mystical monsters and shooting. Not unlike how I remember the Indiana Jones movies, but I wasn't expecting anything specific. I had no idea how the movie was going to progress; what little there was of plot was not given away in the first 5 minutes. This is more than I could say of the third Indian Jones movie, or of any Disney cartoon, or any of the movies I mentioned at the start of this post. Hell, I was pleasantly surprised to find any plot at all in Tomb Raider, and was grateful for it. CmdrTaco's brain has obviously been polluted by too much collect-and-trade-with-your friends of Disney memorabilia at fast food restaurants and ebay. I hate to say it, but I agree with Katz. Go see it at a matinee; at least they're generally cheaper.
  • 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.

    I just saw the movie tonight, so it's fresh in my mind. There are several scenes in the movie where she reloaded her guns. She's got a little roll-out magazine rack that pops out of her backpack that she can quickly and easily drop out the empty magazines, flip the guns to her back and load them, pull them back up, and continue to fire. Pretty nifty trick. I'm surprised you missed it. They had a close up of the rack, too.

    And the guns are strapped to her THIGHS - not her waist! What kind of Tomb Raider fan are you if you don't even recognize the thigh holsters? Jeez!

    I liked the movie.

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • Re:British Accent (Score:5)

    by general_re ( 8883 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @08:47AM (#145426) Homepage
    Don't take it personally, man - if it's not a New York or California accent, Hollywood is going to butcher it. For some reason, contemporary actors and actresses are under the impression that Foghorn Leghorn is an accurate representation of a Southern (US) accent. Just go rent Cape Fear to listen to DeNiro doing what is probably the worst assassination of a Southern accent in the history of film.

    They can't even pull off regional accents from their own country - yours is going to be a total loss, I'm afraid...
  • I never played past III. The first was the best, the second was alright. I never finished the third. It became too much of a rehash. I heard about the others, but I was not overly impressed. They need to add more to the games.

    On another note, it was interesting that there was no wholesale slaughter of endangered animals in the movie, as there is in the video games.

  • At least Chris Barrie was in it! (Score:5)

    by Mr. Flibble ( 12943 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @08:36AM (#145431) Homepage
    I admit that I was pleased that Chris Barrie (A.K.A "Rimmer" from Red Dwarf) played the part of the butler. Barrie is an awesome actor, unfortunatly it does not show in this movie, as he is basically playing Rimmer again.

    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.
  • Good point, except for one thing. Taco's review was not so much butting in (IMHO) as augmenting. There were two separate reviews here, just like in the old days. See theonion.com's point, counterpoint.

    Taco: "Jon, you ignorant slut!"

  • Ebert liked it (Score:3)

    by Chris Pimlott ( 16212 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @07:17AM (#145435)
    Not all the credits panned it. Roger Ebert gave it 3 stars [suntimes.com], in recognition that while the plot is mindless, it's got some great action sequences and cool set pieces.

  • Tom Braider? (Score:3)

    by dillon_rinker ( 17944 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @12:17PM (#145437) Homepage
    So who is this Tom Braider guy, and why is Angelina Jolie in his movie? And what's with that cartoon girl all over Tom Braider's web site?

  • Mr. Cranky says... (Score:3)

    by Mike Schiraldi ( 18296 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @11:39AM (#145438) Homepage Journal
    Mr. Cranky has a great review [mrcranky.com].

    (Don't call me a karma whore; i'm already at 50)

    --

  • RP does exist yes, but I am still arguing that American actors cannot pull it off. RP is placeable, it is placed in the Public School system (as you said) with a high degree in the Home Counties.

    American Actors generally can't do that one either. IMHO she aimed for it and missed.

  • British Accent (Score:5)

    by Amanset ( 18568 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @07:34AM (#145440) Homepage
    I'll give Angelina Jolie credit for doing a reasonable british accent

    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.

  • At first glance, I thought you had recommended Firefox [imdb.com], starring Clint Eastwood.
  • Gary Oldman does a pretty decent job of American accents. I remember when he was on Dennis Miller, and at the end of the interview Miller said, "You're such a great actor that I never realized before now that you're British!"
  • I thought Kevin Costner in Robin Hood was supposed to have had the worst 'British' accent in cinematic history, and Keanu was simply the worst actor in cinematic history.

    Or do I have that reversed?

  • A previous poster wrote ... Well, I mean, come on! Do you really expect that Hollywood could fine someone who could:

    1) Fit Laura Croft's body ... ANSWER: Asia Carrera [asiacarrera.com]
    2) Know how to operate a 9mm gun ... ANSWER:Asia Carrera [asiacarrera.com] - if she doesn't know now she would be able to figure it out
    3) Act ... ANSWER:Asia Carrera [asiacarrera.com] ... actually I am now ashamed to say I have never seen her films. Alas she was not in either Night Trips I or II, Latex, Shock, Chameleon, ...

    Maintain a questioning attitude

  • actually.. when referencing copyrighted work you have to cite the source. even if you wrote it because normally the publisher owns the copyright. in this case even if katz wrote it and the imdb published it they would hold the copyright and he would have to cite the imdb article otherwise it would be considered plagarism.

    use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that

  • Dude, you guys make me feel so sad. (Score:3)

    by YoungHack ( 36385 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @09:03AM (#145464)
    I saw TR last night and I did like it. It makes me really sad to have you guys just trashing it up and down. I'm not sure what you want.

    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 .sig go? Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
  • Yes, I know this is Malda's site. Yes, I know that gives him "creative" rights to do whatever he wants. But come on. Butting in on someone else's review? Ugh.
    I can see the point - but the criticism is really how Malda introduced his review. There was no need to refer to it as "butting in".

    Slashdot has had multiple reviewers on a single subject - be it movies or books, if I remember right. And the reviewers have had conflicting opinions before. There's already precident for that kind of thing.

    What's different this time is the method of introducing the second review. No reason to be all heavy-handed with it. Even if you're just trolling the "slashdot has gone downhill / malda has no journalistic integrety" crowd. :)

  • Well, isn't the real definition of a blockbuster a movie that's awful and people still pay tons of money to go to it and buy related merchandise?
    I'm sitting at the dr's office with time to kill. I pick up some celeb magazine that features an interview with Jolie. The magazine sets the stage - why Jolie faces a huge challenge tackling one of Hollywood's most ambitious movies. Why so ambitious? Is it a unique story? Is it thrashing against social taboos? Does it push the border of movie technology? No. Its becaues Tomb Raider is the most commercialized movie of its kind - with product tie-ins to an impressive shopping list of high-profile companies and products.

    Ambitious indeed.

    The article has pushed to my conciousness a realization. I have a confession to make. I take guilty pleasure at seeing critics rip this movie apart. I WANT it to fail. Badly.

    Its not Angelina Jolie. Its not the idea of taking a game and trying to stretch the premise into a full feature movie. Its that they're trying to wrap sex, gamer culture, and special effects around an extended commercial and glaze it with the usual "blockbuster must-see" Hollywood hype. Its a bitter pill to swallow. A horse pill, at that.

  • Recieved Pronounciation (sic).

    It is the "proper" pronounciation (sic) tought (sic) 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 was brought up speaking received pronunciation. I still can, when I want to put down some under-educated oik, such as now. But in Britain today, no-one who does not wish to be deliberately offensive uses RP - it's a great accent to be offensive in.

    I haven't actually seen this movie - yet, although on the basis of these reviews I probably shall; but if Jolie does speak RP in it that is - shall we say - not a very probable representation of modern Britain. Not, of course, that this film is seeking to be probable, so why pick nits?

  • Of course, us geeks should focus more on T&L rather than T&A.....

  • 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.

    I'm a gamer and I thought this movie fucking sucked. BIG time. I only went because my fiancee thought it had potential for actually showing a strong female lead character. Instead, I get a same old big boobs, tight shorts, cocky swagger, no-good-acting, up-on-the-screen-to-please-the-15-year-old-horny-b oys, bitch. I ended up wishing I could fall asleep during most of the DULL and BORING action scenes, but I couldn't because the annoying background music was like a screw being drilled into my head. Did someone say this movie had a great SOUNDTRACK? I guess so, if you think music has no purpose but to add a dull drone of sound to the background of mediocre, nay, nauseatingly bad acting.

    What the fuck was Jon smoking??? You GO Taco! You're the only one on this site with any integrity. Kick all the rest off and take Slashdot back to what it was in the glory days! At least get rid of that pompous bastard Katz. The man can't get a job at a SERIOUS journal source. Why should we have to read his crap? It's a fucking MOVIE. You don't have to pull your self-righteous geek shit in the review of some 3rd rate MOVIE.

    God, what has this site turned into?

    --

  • Scotland - the Horror!! (Score:3)

    by Gorimek ( 61128 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @10:09AM (#145477) Homepage
    I'm from Sweden and have travelled extensively over many parts of the world. I have never been anywhere where it's so hard to get by on my English as Scotland (I should probably say Glascow). Sure, they understand what I say, but it's very rare for me to get what they say. And you can't ask them to switch to English, cuz that is what they're already speaking.

    After 3 days, I got on a train to Greece, never to return.

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @07:42AM (#145480)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Nice of Taco to jump in here.... just what we need TWO reviews in one (and no chance for Katz to respond since he doesn't have the POWER).

    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)

    by Bogatyr ( 69476 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @07:55AM (#145485) Homepage
    Umm, not all semiautomatic pistols are 9mms. She's using match versions of the H&K .45 pistol the US military adopted for the elite units (SEAL, Delta, etc). Come on, get obvious details right.
    http://www.heckler-koch.de/html/english/civil/01 _p istols/01_07_index.html
    (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)

    by Bogatyr ( 69476 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @08:01AM (#145486) Homepage
    I want to formally protest the blackening of the Illuminati's name by being portrayed as the bad guys in so many movies, openly here in Tomb raider and in thinly-disguised slanders in so many other films and novels. Just because you're a secret underground society, it makes defending your name and good works ever so much harder...ahem, sorry.
  • News for Nerds. Stuff that matters and other stuff

  • Totally impossible, isn't it?

    I'm pretty certain most Glaswegians can't understand each other either. Or themselves, for that matter..

  • I went into the movie expecting crap. Not Duece Bigalow crap, but The Patriot crap. But while Duece Bigalow was funny and gave us some laughs Tomb Raider just ate asshole. All the times that we were expected to laugh I just sadly shook my head. There was nothing funny about this movie. All the times that Laura was locked in a desperate life-or-death struggle, I was bored stiff. Unlike the game there is no chance for the main character to die. You knew she was going to live through it all so there was no excitement or suspense. There was just an hour and a half of crap. I'm thankful that I saw it, though, for one reason. It gave me something to make fun of for a couple days. Seriously, if you haven't seen it yet, it was really bad. It was Pat the Movie bad. It was Wayne's World Part II bad.
  • 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.

    Hmmm. Actually, it's in the game that her ammo never runs out. In the film, she has to reload magazines. And she never has access to any other firepower, because she can't unlock her gun cupboard.

    As someone who enjoys great popcorn action movies, I have to say: Lara Croft: Tomb Raider sucks big time. Why?

    1. Incoherent action sequences. For some reason, it is now fashionable to construct action sequences after the fact, in the editing room, rather than letting the camera shoot properly choreographed action in the first place. This was the worst aspect of Gladiator, eg, where the fast-cutting close-ups precluded any understanding of the spatial logic of those fights. It's even worse in this movie. We don't understand - and therefore don't care - how Lara moves about and wins fights.

    2. Not enough violence. I know they wanted to make this a kiddies' film, but over the course of the entire movie, Lara only kills one person. It's like a (bad) episode of The A-Team.

    3. Not enough sex. Angelina Jolie only wears hotpants in the first scene. Shame. The one interesting part of her characterisation, meanwhile, is a sort of pseudo-sexual moan she makes whenever a situation is about to turn violent. This could have been an interesting way to go - make Lara a real psychopath - but it's never really exploited.

    4. A stupid, stupid script. I don't just mean stupid like in all blockbusters - I mean much more stupid than something like Con Air. Just boring, incoherent and dull.

    5. Bad special effects. So a six-armed giant Buddha comes to life, huh? Yeah, we saw that in Sinbad. And the CGI here pales in comparison to Ray Harryhausen's stop-motion monsters. It really does.

    6. Crap monsters. Monkey statues coming to life? Never mind, they're really easy to kill. Hit 'em with a sword, shoot them, punch them - hell, even breathe on 'em, they'll fall over. Boring.

    7. Er, did I mention it sucks really badly and in every possible way? Angelina Jolie is great, and she has some nice outfits, but she can't save the film single-handed. It really is terrible.

  • The Flick Filosopher, my way-movie-critic-of-choice, wrote a brilliant review of Tomb Raider [flickfilosopher.com] that will leave you on the floor, laughing and crying at the same time. Here's a quick taste from the beginning:

    TOMB RAIDER

    You are standing in the lobby of a movie theater. The smell of popcorn and Jujubes is in the air. To the south is the box office. To the east is the concession stand. To the west are the restrooms. To the north is the auditorium.

    A studio executive is here.

    A lunch is here.

    > take lunch

    Taken.

    Non-geeks will enjoy it too, but this one is really for us. While you're there, check out some of her other reviews and chuck a buck or two in her paypal jar if you like them.

    TomatoMan
  • Not all the credits panned it. Roger Ebert gave it 3 stars, in recognition that while the plot is mindless, it's got some great action sequences and cool set pieces.

    When Siskel died, so did any point to listening to movie critics.

  • ...so basically, I gather that when my brain's fried and I really want to watch a movie that has no plot at all, but instead a basic shoot-em-up with the main character being a Barbie doll, this would be the movie to see, huh?

    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.
  • Alright, I had to give up my chance to moderate in this story in order to point this out:

    These statements are stolen nearly verbatim from Harry Knowles' review on Aint It Cool. Now moderate the idiot back down to -1, please.

  • I might as well give my take on the movie. Basically, IT'S A FUCKING POPCORN FLICK, GODDAMMIT! It's not supposed to be a "film" or have any pretensions to greatness. It's entertainment, the kind of mindless entertainment that everyone except whiny pretentious little bitches like the geek comic book store guy on *The Simpsons* likes to watch every once in a while. Sometimes we want a little escapism with pretty scenery and totally outrageous and unrealistic themes and actions and characters. Sometimes this takes the form of things which actually have literary merit, like *Lord of the Rings*, or filmic value, like *Return of the Jedi*. However, the desire to be entertained and escape into a mythic universe for a couple hours is separate from any other value a movie or book may have, except for overly pretentious geeks like our friend from 'The Android's Dungeon'.

    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)

    by Gregoyle ( 122532 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @10:03AM (#145509)
    Recieved Pronounciation.

    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.

  • "Were you expecting another Doctor Zhivago or Lawrence of Arabia?"

    Actually, the director of the film, Simon West, exclaimed triumphantly to the press last fall that the inspirations for this film were Dr. Zhivago, Lawrence of Arabia, and the Conformist.

    Don't believe me? Check <A HREF=http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=7302 >here</A> for Aint it cool's scoop from last october.

  • Silly me (Score:4)

    by SuiteSisterMary ( 123932 ) <slebrunNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday June 17, 2001 @07:04AM (#145511) Journal
    Some movies have been greatly influenced by video games -- The Mummy's Return --
    And here I thought that The Mummy Returns was greatly influenced by it's predecessor, The Mummy.
  • i don't see anyone else butting in on your articles.

    why not just let the man have his say, just like you had your say?

    that's the single most childish thing i've ever seen taco do.


    Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.

  • Thank god there's no violence! (Score:5)

    by bellings ( 137948 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @08:33AM (#145520)
    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.

    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.
  • Well, it could be worse, just imagine:

    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)

    by natpoor ( 142801 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @08:33AM (#145524) Homepage
    Entirely true. Speaking as an American who has experienced various British accents, there seem to be a lot crammed into a relatviely small space.

    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.

  • Hurley is too tall and slender. Jolie's got less of a lankey build. Besides, they needed Jolie's lips. That's what kept it looking more like Croft.
  • Hell, there are enough movies where Americans can't even do american accents. How many movies have you seen where someone tried to pull off a southern gentleman very, very badly?

    Speaking of Keanu, how about the Devil's Advocate? Or Nick Cage in Con Air?

    And Will Smith has never even seen the 'hood.
  • Well what is to be said about this movie... First the accent; well let us think about this, when an actor must fake an accent they have a few months to (psudo) learn it and then they have to shoot, and the accent can't change. When, however, you come from that land and have spoken with that accent for all your lives of course it will sound different. I have acted and acting depends on stereotypes -- not reality. If an actor pulls off a real Brittish accent it will not sound like what an AMERICAN audience believes is a Brittish accent. However, I don't believe AJ pulled off either a fake or real Brit accent that well anyways. But you know what... it is a game to movie movie and that means one thing: don't expect ANYTHING. If you went into the movie expecting anyting more than crap you are gullable or neive (probably both) and should realize that you need to think about the roots of this problem. They have two groups of audience those who game and those who see whats popular (or liked the preview or something along those lines)... now if they wish to try and please their PRIMARY AUDIENCE they will stick to the game and not think about how bad a movie it makes (and other than RPG's not many games have plots that will translate to the screen in any way)... If they wish to please Joe the movie janitor who saw the preview and liked Jolies' Breasts (and you know Joe did) then you make some attempt at a plot and butcher the game beyond all belief... of course the end result is that the Director and Script writer will make some compromize between these two extremes but in the end it won't be very good if your expecting Shakespeare. Don't get me wrong it was a piece of crap but there was some effort made and maybe if the industry demands movies from games, then games will finally have better plots.

    Bottom Line: if you want a game to movie experiance that makes you more than thrilled wait for "Final Fantasy: The Sprits Within," if you get free movies or have money to kill see the cheap show with low expectations and you might have a good time making fun of the gaping holes in the plot line. (just destroy the half you have Lara)
    Stars: **/******
    --MEB

  • I believe what was referred to as 'the Illuminati' in the film was actually based on the Golden Order of the Hermetic Dawn judging from their symbols, rights, and beliefs. Members have included such notoriety as Aleister Crowley.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Actually, I didn't think that Angeline Jolie did a good British accent at all.

    As far as the padded bra and unrealistic figure and poses (i.e, the way she walks, the way she stands) go, it seems very similar to her unrealistic video game figure/stance/poses. Hmm. Do you think the director did this on purpose???

    As the grammar nazi, I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't point out the following sentence in Katz's review...

    The movie comes closer to the experience of playing the game than watching a film.
    Ugh? Thanks Jon. One should strive towards proper grammar *and* sentences that make sense.

  • Re:great, another stupid movie review (Score:3)

    by grammar nazi ( 197303 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @07:41AM (#145551) Journal
    Actually, I agree with JonKatz review 100%

    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.

    One dimensional characters, lousy acting, plot full of holes? What do you expect? After all, the movie is based upon a video game! Did you think that the video game 'Tomb Raider' is a premis for a great literary work?

    There were three reasons that I will see Tomb Raider, they are:
    1. Hot main character. While she admittadly isn't *that* hot, I am interested in seeing how Hollywood will further alter my idea of the perfect female figure.
    2. Video game action. I'm not talking about Crouching Tiger choreography, rather fun action that uses lots of props and weapons.
    3. Cheesy simple storyline that I don't have to think much to grasp. I'm seeing the movie for fun! I enjoy many films with great storylines that leave me thinking, but it's not neccesary to make a movie fun. I should have Requem for a Dream by that 16th, and a movie like that *needs* a light-fun movie to go with it.

    I have a feeling that I won't be dissapointed when I see Tomb Raider. I'm sure that I've already gotten most of the above 3 things from the Lara Croft Pepsi commercials, so I'm *very* sure that I won't be dissappointed when the movie comes out.

    Oh yeah, it's June 6, I'm writing this because I know what the movie will be like and I know how Katz will respond to it already.

    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 on /. without a reference to the Matrix.

  • boy how they managed to work... (Score:3)

    by NixterAg ( 198468 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @07:22AM (#145553)
    the words "TOMB RAIDER" into the script.

    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.

  • I looked this movie up on Rotten Tomatoes [rottentomatoes.com] and was astonished to see Roger Ebert, of all people, praising the movie. What could this guy be on? Is he for sale or something?

    The review he gave the movie predicted these comments and answered them: he praised "Tomb Raider" as a good "popcorn movie", and explained why. He describes "The Mummy" as part of the same category, and explains why "The Mummy Returns" fails to fit it. All in all, very interesting perspectives from a man I still consider the last word in movie criticism.

    I haven't seen the movie myself, and I don't intend to: "popcorn movies" don't do it for me anymore. I like to have my brain challenged a little if I'm going to spend $20 to take myself and my date out for popcorn and a show. But I'll take Ebert's word for it: if you're looking for mindless entertainment, this is probably better than most.

  • i just got tired of the 3rd person perspective - and staring into her ass through the whole flick. I mean - they didnt have to follow the game *that* closely.

  • Re:Here is my review. (Score:3)

    by kyz ( 225372 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @11:59AM (#145566) Homepage
    Hello, John. Give some credit [landoverbaptist.org], damnit.
  • Bellings,
    This is perhaps one of the most right-on posts I have ever read. The negation of what you espouse (because you do it satirically) is exactly my view about violence in movies (explicit or otherwise), and in fact I don't watch any movie that has violence as a plot-device (yes, I look at the rating labels) so that I might not support it. (I did not like the action scenes in Atlantis even, which I had been told erroneously was g-rated, although I did not feel I could mention it in my review and be taken seriously by Slashdot.). I have never been able to phrase my reasoning for doing so in any way that was satisfactory for me, and certainly not in any way that would convince anyone to adopt my view, but your phrasing is perhaps the most perfect I could possibly imagine.

    For such an eloquent being, though, (eg the next thing I read, after clicking your slashdot id to see what else brilliance you offer, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/06/16/00182 36&cid=134 [slashdot.org]) you really did surprise me with your http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/06/12/22222 07&cid=228 [slashdot.org]. laugh. Nice to see Oxford hasn't over-refined all our brilliant orators :))))
    ~
  • Hey Jon look, its the internet!

    No, bad, *grumble* bad very bad *mumble* no real freedom, all illusion *mumble* [ insert depressed post-modern mumbling here ] *grumble* too corporate, *mumble* no utopia *sniff* stupid wired magazine, they
    LIED to me *mumble*...

    Hey Jon look, its Lara Croft!

    Mmmmmm..... Hooters... *drool*

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @07:08AM (#145584)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • SMB (Score:4)

    by dasmegabyte ( 267018 ) <das@OHNOWHATSTHISdasmegabyte.org> on Sunday June 17, 2001 @07:13AM (#145593) Homepage Journal
    If Katz is going to give shit about the greatest movie of all times, Super Mario Brothers (starring Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo in a futuristic wonderworld and featuring a freighttrain plot that crosses dimensions and social rolls with such reckless abandon), we're going to have to throw down. Think I'll start by bouncing off his head, thereby turning him upside and making him kick his feet in the air.
  • > I'd take a flat chested, big-assed girl anytime over Lara.

    I, too, am a fan of Jennifer Lopez and Kate Winslet.

    Do you want to know the funniest thing? A magazine asked men which women in Hollywood they most wanted, and Jennifer and Kate came out on top. Another mag asked women which Hollywood woman they would most want to have sex with, if they were to have sex with another woman, and Ms. Jolie won that contest.

    So, feminists, you seek to know the evils of Hollywood with respect to starvation ideals? Look into thine own eye, not to the eyes of men.

    • No matter where you hear Shakespeare performed, or by whom you see it performed, you'll most likely hear it performed in a generic English lilt

    Gaaa! Fakespearean! My other bugbear is Austinese, the sing-song falsetto often employed in Jane Austin adaptations (that were never meant to be performed anyway). Why speak like an Oscar Wilde character when the period accent was more like Yosemite Sam?

    And there's - demonstrably - just no need for it. Shakespeare in Love and Elizabeth both featured some commendably naturalistic performances.

    We're not completely anal about it; British reviewers and audiences have been praising Rene Zellweger's accent in Bridget Jone's Diary. OK, Rene's accent flips inconsistently between different dialects, but they're all British dialects. What she doesn't do is to affect a consistent but utterly imaginary American English dialect like Angelina's. It really is as easy to get it right as to get it wrong.

    • IT'S A FUCKING POPCORN FLICK, GODDAMMIT

    It's a fucking bad popcorn flick, goddammit.

    It's dull. It's tedious. It's shoddily made. It's about as involving as 4th person gaming, i.e. watching your little brother playing Tomb Raider. I've already seen that. I wanted a little more.

    Specifically, I wanted some smart lines. I wanted to be interested in Lara. I wanted a film that didn't look as though it was written by a commitee of twelve year old dateless wonders and shot by Film School 101 dropouts. I wanted a film that looked as though it was made by people who actually gave a damn about what they were doing.

    Men In Black was a popcorn flick. Galaxy Quest was a popcorn flick. American Pie was a popcorn flick. Tomb Raider is cheap, dull, uninvolving exploitation rip off.

    Do yourself a favour; watch your little brother play Tomb Raider for a couple of hours, then go and whack off to some decent porn. Much cheaper and less painful than this travesty.

    • I saw TR last night and I did like it. It makes me really sad to have you guys just trashing it up and down. I'm not sure what you want.

    Uhhh... how about...

    • One action scene that was actually involving.
    • One character about whom we could give a damn.
    • One decent line.
    • One hint, however small, that this movie wasn't made by guys watching the clock.

    Any one of these would do.

  • "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!' "

    Actually, Yoda would have said, "Luke! The ways of the force you must learn before STRIKES BACK THE EMPIRE DOES!"

    Which would have made a lousy title for the movie.

  • All true, but what is still THE defining statistic in (and from) Hollywood? Box-Office sales. If a movie bombs on the screen, but does record sales on the VHS/DVD release, does anyone even hear about it? Hollywood themselves promote their idiotic numbers more than anyone, it's no surprise that this is what the videogame industry uses as comparison.

    It's actually rather impressive to think that Pong sales could even APPROACH the money spent in the theatres, let alone surpass it.

  • Really? I didn't think this happened at least until the Nintendo heydays! Then again.. 30 million Ataris does add up to a lot of games... :)

  • Terrible accents can really be an irritation, yeah. Worse than any movie accent I've ever heard were the accents of the voice actors in Age of Empires 2. The Scots accent in the William Wallace campaign was so grating I had to turn off the sound.

    On the other hand, however, I'd argue that how accurate an accent is isn't what's important. What's important is how accurate the audience perceives it to be. A perfect example of this principle is Shakespeare. No matter where you hear Shakespeare performed, or by whom you see it performed, you'll most likely hear it performed in a generic English lilt. Why is this? Shakespeare's own accent was not even vaguely like this generic Americanised conception of an English accent. Shakespeare's accent, it is hypothesised, would have been more like a modern urban Scottish accent. Why read his plays in an accent common to neither the audience or the playwright? The answer, I think you'll agree, is that it is read in that accent because, in the public mind, this is the accent we (quite wrongly, but that's irrelevant) attach to the romanticism of the period.

    I heard the same criticism of accents in response to A Knight's Tale. Some confused critics suggested, without any clear point, that the English language of the period would have been nothingly like the modern pseudo-British the characters spoke in. Yes, that's true. The language of the middle english period was nothing like the modern one. So much so that it is virtually unintelligible to modern ears. So what would be the point of performing in it, especially when, as far as 99.99% of the audience is concerned, it bears no relation to their mental image of middle-ages romanticism.

    If Jolie's accent convey's to the audience, due to cultural misconceptions, the idea of an upper class English woman better than a more accurate one would, then, as far as I'm concerned, that's just fine (though it may torture British ears).

  • It's called Neurtal American English and it's what most newscasters speak i at least try to speak. It's closest regional analogue is probably the English spoken by the middle-upper class in the western United States and Canada (Alberta, Arizona, British Columbia, Calafornia, etc). The interesting thing is either because of its prevelance on TV, the nature of the accent, or both is that most people from all over America regard someone who speaks it as not having an accent.
  • Watch Fight Club sometime. The lead female actress is actually British and she does a pretty darn good western American accent, not perfect, but very good. You can tell there's something not quite right with her speech but then again, considering the ature of the character she plays it's something you can just put down to another one of her eccentricities.
  • I suppose they theoritically could be 9mms. I mean Hollywood has lots of money and it actually wouldn't require all that much work by an armourer to modify the guns to shoot 9mm ammo, however I fail to see the reason.

  • Noooooo.... (Score:3)

    by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @08:39PM (#145620)
    That little deal is actually part of the pistol. The gun she's using is called the Heckler and Koch USP Match pistol. You can see a picture (and information) here [remtek.com]. They are .45 pistols so unless the studio got an armourer to redo them, they are .45s. The unit on the front is a barel weight.

    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)

    by mod you later ( 326902 ) on Sunday June 17, 2001 @07:26AM (#145624)
    if you're thinking of just going to to see this for angelina jolie, you might consider just renting foxfire [cndb.com] instead because it contains much more porn.

    i was angry:1 with:2 my:4 friend - i told:3 4 wrath:5, 4 5 did end.
  • Don't be mislead - there's an awful lot of words said in Scotland that belong to the old 'Lowland Scots' (as opposed to Gaelic from the north west). So, it's not really English that's being spoken most of the time. Designed with an anti-English bias methinks, puts them in their place and all that!

    And lets be clear here. Mike Myers' accent (as Fat Bastard in Austin Powers 2) is not the way anyone speaks in Scotland.
  • there's only one even remotely sexy scene. It fails to do anything.

    Well, it certianly didn't fail to do anything to my masculinity. *grin*
    ---

  • You should here the way Hollywood butchers the northern New England accent. I live in New Hampshire, and contrary to the Steven King movies, I have never said "ayuh" or "You cahn't get theyah from heerah" (spelled as it sounds, I can't say phonetically because I don't know the proper symbols.) In addition, I'd like to know why New Englanders in movies always, without fail, wear plaid. I don't have even one plaid shirt! True, I have a plaid pajama shirt, but that doesn't count, damnit!

    Hollywood feels perfectly free to caricature any accent.

  • No, the worst actor in cinematic history was Pauly Shore. (See Jury Duty. With a barf bag.)
  • Um, in C++ != means "not equal to". Are you saying in the subject that tomb raider is not equal to crap?
  • Hey, they tried to stay true to the spirit of the original work. They should be commended for that, and not trying to make the game PC.
  • Admittedly, there is a liquor store right off every Interstate exit in New Hampshire, and they are state-sponsored, but that doesn't mean a thing. I think you're taking us for granite, man.

    I know that was bad, but I couldn't help it.

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis

Close