Tomb Raider (2018)

[lokie56]

Originally Posted by mertz523

[Show spoiler]Amanda?

[Show spoiler]I assume one of the OG game villains?

[Spirit Zero]

Tomb Raider (2018)

So Tomb Raider was a game from Core Design that was released back in 1996 primarily for the Sony Playstation. Many sequels followed over the years taking us up to the 2013 release which was a reboot of the games series. This 2013 version gave us a new in depth look into the origins of the games protagonist, Lara Croft. This 2018 movie is an adaptation of the 2013 game reboot whilst also being a reboot of the first two Tomb Raider movies from 2001 and 2003.

A Tsunami of Cliches (the plot): The most generic plot they have come up with? Yep.

Lara (Alicia Vikander) is essentially a mega rich British woman thanks to her fathers business of whatever. But for some reason Lara is not interested in accepting her fathers inheritance because reasons. Her father Richard (Dominic West) disappeared whilst searching for Himiko, a mythical Queen who was said to have power over life and death. Richard is presumed dead (of course). So after much personal angst and discovering the stereotypical hidden chamber stocked with clues, Lara goes off on an intrepid adventure in search of her dad.

Briefly, she meets up with a good looking toned Chinese bloke. She convinces him to help her. They both sail off to find this mysterious island set right in the middle of a treacherous section of the Pacific (where no on ever survives type scenario). They get shipwrecked on the island. Lara gets 'rescued' by what turns out to be the bad guys. The bad guys work for a dodgy company who are also after this mystical supernatural power. The bad guys are all big muscular blokes carrying large automatic weapons. They find the location of the mystical Queens tomb. Its chock full of booby traps. They get past all the booby traps. All the bad guys get killed. Lara makes it out alive as the whole place comes tumbling down. Generic enough for you?

The start of this movie doesn't really help. Lara is in London working for as a bike courier and decides to enter into this rather childish game of chase for money. Basically loads of blokes try to catch her and grab this fox tail off her bike (essentially a flag) before she can reach a certain destination, I think? The entire sequence looks lame and stupid. Its cringeworthy because the whole time there is this rock soundtrack playing in the background as if the entire sequence is supposed to be 'kewl'; like its some kind of extreme sports around west London, pfft! All the guys chasing her have these extreme haircuts, shades, clearly expensive bike gear, inked and pierced up etc...Its so flippin' pathetic.

But at least that sequence was real in real locations. Unfortunately so much of this movie looks fake because its bolstered with tonnes of CGI. The now infamous waterfall sequence which we all saw in the trailers, yeah it looks terrible. The bomber looks terrible, the rapids look terrible, and Vikander copy and pasted against it all looks terrible. Speaking of that bomber, kinda looked like a WWII plane. That in itself would be a huge discovery...but who cares! No time for that. Literally everything Lara does in this movie is against bloody obvious CGI. All the set piece backdrops, every time she leaps across something (in cliched slow motion), hangs from something, stands in front of something.

Not only that but Lara is bloody useless in this movie too. She literally spends the whole time getting beaten to a pulp by various blokes, only occasionally does she manage to actually win...kinda. I mean on one hand that's more realistic for sure but blimey does she take a beating in this. Lara also takes a huge amount of damage ranging from really nasty landings from heights, getting struck by objects, and even getting a puncture wound in the belly! Its like they went for realism in terms of fighting blokes, but went down the videogame invincibility route for surviving really nasty incidents.

The whole bit with Lara finding her dad was incredibly incredibly predictable and cliched. I mean it was so fudging obvious right from the start. The fact it actually happened and director Roar Uthaug tried to make it surprising just made me facepalm. Not only that but naturally her dad just happens to have a bow and arrow with him, something that Lara just happens to be a dab hand at (ugh!! please!). So now Lara's running around with an apparent unlimited supply of arrows. Oh and all the bad guys drop dead straight away after being shot by an arrow, stone dead instantly.

Lets take a quick look at the bad guys who are led by Mathias Vogel (Walton Goggins) and who all work for the shadowy Hyd...I mean Trinity organisation. Well as I said before they're pretty much you're bog standard merc type in movies these days. All roided up with hipster beards and tattoos. There only appears to be about six of them at first but their numbers become inexplicably bigger during an action sequence. Suddenly there are loads of guys just waiting to get shot with guns or arrows. The only bad guy of any worth is of course Vogel. A solid slimy villain who is quite happy to kill people. The rest are just background fodder for weapons and booby traps.

I find it amusing in movies like this how both the protagonist and antagonist are looking for one specific item and often ignore everything else. Like in this movie they discover this ancient tomb with wall to wall treasures such as ancient text on walls, markings, various artifacts, what looked like precious gems or stones to stop a booby trap etc...Heck even the various skeletons lying around the place could be historically important. But they always totally ignore all that, often allowing the stuff to get destroyed in the process.

Frankly the entire movie is a snooze fest until Lara and co reach the subterranean tomb of Himiko. There we get some nice thrills with the booby traps but even that can't detract from the fact its retreading very familiar ground from a certain Spielberg/Lucas franchise. I mean they virtually copy some aspects beat for beat to a degree. I quite liked the notion that this ancient mystical power turns out to be a deadly potent disease. But then they absolutely ruined it by going down this zombie-esque state route. I mean honesty, hasn't that whole angle been totally milked dry already, come on guys.

I quite liked how they made the movie a bit more adult orientated, a bit dark. Its was also acceptable that Lara wasn't a superhero type character all the time, although I felt she did need to be a bit tougher at times. Its a fine balance I know but Lara did seem a bit sidelined in her own movie at times (maybe that's just me). But overall I'm pretty shocked at how generic this was and the fact they copied other movies.

4.5/10

[Troll2fan]

My wife and I rented this tonight and what a waste of time and money. This movie has very few redeeming qualities and Spirit Zero summed up most of what I found wrong with this garbage movie.

2/5

[Diesel]

Rented this earlier this week after missing it in theatres due to our local theatre dropping it so fast. Thoroughly enjoyed it; fun and entertaining movie with good performances from Goggins and Vikander. Will definitely buy for Black Friday.

Shame it won’t get a sequel; repeat of Prince of Persia for me

[L.J.]

Watched this the other day, thought it was an entertaining adventure film. Like how Lara wasn't some kind of invincible character. Story although not original was interesting enough. Know it probable won't happen but would like a sequel.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Rented this earlier this week after missing it in theatres due to our local theatre dropping it so fast. Thoroughly enjoyed it; fun and entertaining movie with good performances from Goggins and Vikander. Will definitely buy for Black Friday.

Shame it won’t get a sequel; repeat of Prince of Persia for me

it should get a sequel it did 3 times its budget.

[Geoff D]

Knew what that ^ post was gonna say even before I clicked on it

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by mredman

it should get a sequel it did 3 times its budget.

Only just, and most of that intake was international. I want a sequel as much as the next guy, but it's not guaranteed.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by mredman

it should get a sequel it did 3 times its budget.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Knew what that ^ post was gonna say even before I clicked on it

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Only just, and most of that intake was international. I want a sequel as much as the next guy, but it's not guaranteed.

Tomb Raider's Box Office
Domestic: $57,421,715
Foreign: $216,100,000

If we go by the 60/40 rule Tomb Raider has made $34,453,029 domestically and $86,440,000 internationally, that's $120,893,029 worldwide for the studio. From a budget of $94,000,00.

I think we're going to have to wait until home video and ancillary sales are in before they start thinking about sequel plans.

[Prog5000]

Movie studios do not get 100% of a movie’s gross.

[BeastCreatureTrapper]

I was surprised by how much I thoroughly enjoyed this, as predictable as it was. The action scenes were few, but they had a visceral quality to them which really had me engaged. The waterfall sequence had me more on the edge of my seat than anything in the entire two Jolie films could even dream of doing.

The production and direction were above average, but it's Alicia Vikander who really elevates what is standard matinee fare. The film did a great job giving her balance between being heroic, and also being an actual human being who hurts and who screams when frightened. I also appreciated that, at no point, did the film turn her into a jungle bunny. Her sexiness came from being a fully-realized character, not from pandering camerawork.

This type of realism makes me now dread going back to the Jolie films, which I fear will almost seem like outright parodies at this point.

Speaking of the first two TR films, I almost wish they didn't exist at this point, because I can't help but wonder if the box office for the 2018 version would have been that much better without the baggage casual moviegoers brought to the table from the Jolie era.

I know I'm going to be forgetting a title, but Tomb Raider (2018) is, honest to goodness, a solid, good film adaptation of a video game.

[dallywhitty]

Tickets go on sale tomorrow!

[Leonidas King]

At least it's a given that will be much better than this mediocre ass movie.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Leonidas_King

At least it's a given that will be much better than this mediocre ass movie.

[Show spoiler]

Leo, why do you hurt me so?

[Leonidas King]

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Leonidas_King

[Show spoiler]

[Shingster]

Originally Posted by chip75

Tomb Raider's Box Office
Domestic: $57,421,715
Foreign: $216,100,000

If we go by the 60/40 rule Tomb Raider has made $34,453,029 domestically and $86,440,000 internationally, that's $120,893,029 worldwide for the studio. From a budget of $94,000,00.

I think we're going to have to wait until home video and ancillary sales are in before they start thinking about sequel plans.

And this doesn't take into consideration that at the very least it would have cost them $50million to promote the film, probably closer to $100million.

This film clearly didn't make three times its money back, it's barely broke even if it has at all yet!

[morphinapg]

Originally Posted by Shingster

And this doesn't take into consideration that at the very least it would have cost them $50million to promote the film, probably closer to $100million.

This film clearly didn't make three times its money back, it's barely broke even if it has at all yet!

First of all I doubt they spent that much on promotion, but secondly, why isn't promotion included in the stated budget? Seems like it wouldn't make any sense to exclude it.

The movie screamed low budget to me in the way it was marketed, so based on that I would assume a low budget spent on marketing. Also who in their right mind would spend that great of a percentage of the production budget on marketing? That would be absolutely bonkers. You're suggesting they may have even spent more on marketing than on actually making the movie!

[mredman]

Originally Posted by morphinapg

First of all I doubt they spent that much on promotion, but secondly, why isn't promotion included in the stated budget? Seems like it wouldn't make any sense to exclude it.

The movie screamed low budget to me in the way it was marketed, so based on that I would assume a low budget spent on marketing. Also who in their right mind would spend that great of a percentage of the production budget on marketing? That would be absolutely bonkers. You're suggesting they may have even spent more on marketing than on actually making the movie!

yeah what he wrote deserves :faepalm: there is noway thats right. Even Deadline wrote it had to make 250 million to break even and it did that. A sequel should definitely be talked about. The set up is there as well

[morphinapg]

Originally Posted by mredman

yeah what he wrote deserves :faepalm: there is noway thats right. Even Deadline wrote it had to make 250 million to break even and it did that. A sequel should definitely be talked about. The set up is there as well

If it does well in the home, a sequel would likely draw larger numbers, especially in the China market, so that would also be a factor.