(l-r) Angelina Jolie (whose lips hang open through most of the movie), Chris Barry, and Noah Taylor – waiting for something to happen in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. But its stupidity and missteps do not stop with such small details.
While ascending a Jules Verne-esque time shifting device, why does badguy after badguy get sliced-and-diced by its rotating arms – when all they had to do was pay attention to what was going on around them like the two people who manage to easily & successfully traverse the machine? Why do Eskimo sled dogs feel the need to attack an undulating, dimensional warping effect which is doing nothing to provoke them when, in reality, such a thing would scare the piss out of any self-respecting canine? Why is Lara Croft's house so atmospherically hazy/smoky a person could get lung damage just by looking at it? This film is ludicrous, and stupid in ways it did not need to be stupid. LC:TR ignores (or snubs) the most basic tenets of storytelling & filmmaking: why do people use flashlights in caves when the caves they're in are lit by close-to-daylight lighting? Why did an ancient civilization create gigantic stone signed to spring to life and kick the ass of anyone messing with their temple.if these stone warriors can be taken down by karate chops (or a bullet) just like a human? Why did the same civilization break a stone key needed to control time into two pieces.and hide them on opposite ends of the Earth to prevent anyone from ever using/abusing said key.instead of pulverizing the key entirely so it could never be re-assembled and utilized? This civilization doesn't seem too smart – no wonder it's extinct. This is a simple case of garbage in, garbage out. Lara Croft: Tomb Raider's problems are rudimentary and fundamental – and represent a profound lack-of-vision & complete conceptual laziness which should have been evident from the outset. It's difficult to imagine how no one noted this movie's apocalyptic suckiness before it was too late to resolve such issues. In this instance, they were right to be concerned about how people will receive their swirly turd of a movie. The point being: yes, filmmakers often do know when their product is troubled. At the time of this posting, it's still unclear whether West will remove his name from the project.
#Tomb raider 2001 movie movie#
Then rampant rumors emerged, suggesting Lara Croft: Tomb Raider director Simon West ( Con-Air, The General's Daughter) was contemplating having his name/credit removed from the film after teams of editors (including editorial god Stuart Baird – who edited Superman: The Movie and was employed to "fix" an apparently broken Mission: Impossible II shortly before its release) failed to resolve LC:TR's catastrophic narrative deficiencies. And, if they eventually managed to find their way into a screening, they were promptly asked to sign an agreement not to review the film until its opening day (an effort to diminish negative word-of-mouth before the movie's Friday opening). While online journalists weren't exactly shut-out of advance screenings of Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, Internet press in my neck of the woods had a tough time getting information about screenings of the film. a review can be online an hour after someone see a movie).
When a movie blows, the Public Relations firms who handle these advanced screenings (for the studios) often try to prevent online "journalists".like myself & fellow Austinite Harry Knowles of Ain't It Cool om reviewing a movie too early – due to Internet publications' near-instantaneous turnaround time (i.e. I first figured Lara Croft: Tomb Raider might arrive FUBAR when much of Austin's online media didn't receive word regarding advanced screenings of the film.
0 kommentar(er)
