Well, this will be out tomorrow. Will anyone be seeing it?
is this the new one from "academy award winner Angelina Jolie"?
Yeah, it's the sequel to the first Tom Raider.
Quote from: filmcriticYeah, it's the sequel to the first Tom Raider.
Tom Raider? must have missed it
The first one was stupid and goofy but also kind of fun.
are you easily amused?
No, I really did enjoy it. I felt the same way Roger Ebert did about it. It's stupid, implausible but entertaining. :yabbse-thumbup:
I'm kind of looking forward to seeing the sequel.
Quote from: filmcriticI'm kind of looking forward to seeing the sequel.
:yabbse-rolleyes:
Quote from: EEz28Quote from: filmcriticI'm kind of looking forward to seeing the sequel.
:yabbse-rolleyes:
Well, it certainly looks better than the first and it does have a better action director behind it (Jan De Bont). I just hope this one has a story.
Quote from: Ma©GuffinQuote from: EEz28Quote from: filmcriticI'm kind of looking forward to seeing the sequel.
:yabbse-rolleyes:
it does have a better action director behind it (Jan De Bont).
Lets look at his last two films: The Haunting= SHIT; Speed 2: Cruise Control= SHIT
i think hes going for a 3-peat.
Quote from: EEz28Lets look at his last two films: The Haunting= SHIT; Speed 2: Cruise Control= SHIT
i think hes going for a 3-peat.
"Haunting" was shit, but it wasn't action. "Speed 2" is not as bad as it's made out to be.
No matter how bad it might be, it will probably be better than the Charlie's Angels sequel. :yabbse-thumbdown:
SPEED TOO is worth watching, if only for one classic scene. in order for us, the audience, to understand that willem dafoe is a bad guy, a crucial scene is inserted. willem dafoe arrives in his room on the boat, and gets out a jar with leeches. he then, starts putting them all over his body and going "ahh". i havent seen this movie since the theatres when i was 15, but i still remember how hilarious this scene was. i dont remember ever figuring out what purpose it served, but it was a pretty great scene. the first one i loved however and watched many many times in the theatres and on video.
I saw "Cradle of Life" and it was about the same as the first one but a little better. :yabbse-thumbup:
I despised the first one, and so I'm having trouble mustering up the interest in seeing this one, even though I probably will.
Charlie's Angels 2 rocked, though.
Anyone else see it?
Although this topic is not actually about the movie, but rather the look of the movie, and could apply to any movie done the way Tomb Raider was, the powers that be have directed me to this thread, which will probably be overlooked by people because they're not interested in the topic and don't know this is about a seperate topic, *large gasp of air* but...
Can anyone explain to me just why the visuals of Tomb Raider II (and I think I noticed it in the first one too, but it's really noticable in the commercials and trailer for this movie) are so horrible? The colors look really wrong for some reason and it's not crisp... it sort of seems like there's really low contrast or something, but I can't put my finger on it... I just know that it looks extremely artificial and unattractive. What did they do to acheive this wretched effect? Is it the film stock? The lighting? The look they have is just so dull. I don't understand how/why this is possible.
Quote from: Jake_82Although this topic is not actually about the movie, but rather the look of the movie, and could apply to any movie done the way Tomb Raider was, the powers that be have directed me to this thread, which will probably be overlooked by people because they're not interested in the topic and don't know this is about a seperate topic, *large gasp of air* but...
Can anyone explain to me just why the visuals of Tomb Raider II (and I think I noticed it in the first one too, but it's really noticable in the commercials and trailer for this movie) are so horrible? The colors look really wrong for some reason and it's not crisp... it sort of seems like there's really low contrast or something, but I can't put my finger on it... I just know that it looks extremely artificial and unattractive. What did they do to acheive this wretched effect? Is it the film stock? The lighting? The look they have is just so dull. I don't understand how/why this is possible.
Yeah, I can't believe filmcritic re-directed someone...
Anyways, I didn't see anything wrong with 'the look' of the TV spots. Maybe there's something wrong with your TV? Do other shows and commercials appear this way? :roll:
For me, Tomb Raider lost its appeal a long time ago. Why does there always have to be some glowing floating holographic map or some crazy magical relic that could destroy the Earth if it ever fell into The Wrong Hands? EDIT: Here's what I mean, why can't they simply embrace the sheer, simple awesomeness of a hot chick with dual pistols?
And
Speed 2: Cruise Control deserves any and all negative criticism it has ever received.
Why do these movies look so boring and uninteresting? Id honestly rather watch somebody play the video game then watch the movie... actually, Id rather watch somebody set up the video game then watch the movie also...
they should have made Angelinas outfit sexier and more revealing
Quote from: Duck Saucethey should have made Angelinas outfit sexier and more revealing
...and while they're at it, they should've just went ahead and made it a soft-core porn. Angelina is already good at that sort of thing anyway.
Though the trailer for it seemed suprisingly cheap, I'm still stunned at how 'Cradle' just flopped. Its just keeled over and died on arrival. Who would've thought? Especially considering how the first was so big. I haven't seen 'Cradle' yet and I don't plan to. I enjoyed the first but this sequel isn't tempting me much (other than sitting for another perv-fest).
As for 'Speed 2', I like it. Its has an unfair rep. Its just too relaxed a film, there's no Keanu and the cruise ship is slow as fuck. I don't care. There's some great action and I like the relaxed feel to it.
'The Haunting' plain sucked, though.
"Tomb Raider" isn't doing too well at the box office. It was at number 4 the first week, so I'd imagine that it will go down even further later. Particularly with "American Wedding" and "Gigili" opening this weekend.
Okay, it was better than the first one and the action scenes did a lot more energy to them, but the franchise has yet to give Angelina Jolie (who hasn't looked hotter than she does in this film) a script that accentuates her talents and abilities. She is perfect for this role, does the action with great ease, but the films are not up to her level.