TOMB RAIDER Reboot (49% Rotten Tomatoes Score)

If you have seen TOMB RAIDER (2018), how would you rate it?


  • Total voters
    25
she looks like a man with hair on her head. Not appealing in the slightest

angelina is not super hot perse to me but shes definitely hotter in almost ever category. Prettier face better body, bigger tits and ass. Prettier eyes, face, lips

angelina-jolie-career-statistics-1024x466.jpg

angelina-jolie-workout1.jpg

angelina_jolie1a_300x400.jpg

Angelina-Jolie-2-beautiful-female-celebrities-35406318-1400-1752.jpg

Angelina is incredibly hot but Vikander is more my flavor, and I much preferred her as Croft.

I don't think Vikander looks like a man, she looks super fit. I've dated dancers with that build and I'm a huge fan. There are obviously quite a few people who feel the same way, which is why she's getting cast as a sexy female lead so often.
 
One of the most painfully average flicks I've seen in the last few years. I literally forgot 50% of it before even getting back to my house. Nothing stood out except for the end, which I thought was fairly bad. Still, not really horrible, as I would remember more of the bad stuff about it. Just average and not memorable. 5/10
 
Temple of Doom should've absolutely been rated R. Especially in 1984. They fucked up with the rating for that one.

And are you saying the Mummy wouldn't be a better movie with Rachel Weisz's tits in it?

Can you honestly think of an R movie that should've been PG-13 instead? Because I can think of plenty of the reverse.

Wasn't the PG-13 rating invented especially for Temple of Doom?

It depends a lot on the nature of the film itself doesn't it? Temple of Doom has a much darker edge to it than the Mummy and I think benefits from making the violence that much more extreme.

Indeed my main criticism of the Mummy films was that they felt like a family friendly version of the Indy films losing any edge the latter had.
 
Just finished this flick, and I really enjoyed it.

Most of the time I'm far too critical when watching movies, TV shows, and listening to music. I'm always comparing what I'm watching/listening to the absolute BEST I have ever watched/listened to.

For example, I think ONE (just one) of the reasons why the recent DC comic movies are thought as... well.. is because they're following Christopher Nolan's Batman movies.

Even while I watched Deadpool 2 recently, I was constantly comparing segments of it to the original Deadpool. Sometimes I thought 'well, so far I give this movie a 6, when the other movie was a 9.5 at this point.'

But, Tomb Raider (2018), was pure fun. Watching it, I felt like a kid in the movie theater watching an action/adventure. Without going into nitpicky bullshit, yes, the movie clearly has flaws, but nothing about it was glaringly stupid as if I felt the producers/writers/director was insulting my intelligence.

It's a damn videogame movie, and I'd say its the new best videogame movie ever.

Dominic West & Walton Goggins were both great in their roles.

The 'twist' at the end was unexpected, and well played. This isn't the type of movie that seems like there would be a twist, and that's why it was an extra layer of unexpectability.

I expected this flick to be around 5/10 or a 6/10, but the overall quality of damn near every aspect of it brought it up to a 8/10, and then the twist brought it up to 9/10.

If the studio plays its cards right, they could have a James Bond / Indiana Jones hybrid series.


Oh, and its worth mentioning I didn't detect any 'SJW' 'Strong Female Character' bullshit themes in the movie. I can smell that shit a mile away.
 
Call me old fashioned but I don't really think that women should be getting naked on camera unless there's a damn good reason for it. I always lose a little bit of respect for them when they do.



Not sure, but I can say that I think Jurassic Park works a lot better as the family-friendly movie that it is than it would as a hard-R horror picture.

PG-13 is a good rating because it has leeway. The JP movies have some pretty violent and horrific stuff. I was just watching the first one and what a classic it is. As exciting as the overall film is, nothing, to me, beats the initial t-rex attacks the halted cars scene. Key example of being able to pull off something thrilling and frightening without the need for an R rating.

Now of course the counterargument I'm sure is always that you could do anything you can do in a Pg-13 and more in an R but not vice versa but just cause they have broader possibilities doesn't mean they are inherently better.

To give the example of how exploiting of the broadness of an R can work and not work within the same film- you have Logan. From the get go, the opening scene, Logan does an insanely good job of showing that this isn't your typical Wolverine movie. The fury that Logan unleashes on the gangbangers who attack him is something you wouldn't see in a PG-13 and perfectly fits the vibe that Mangold and co. were going for. It works really well. But then you have that scene late in the film where Logan starts dropping f bomb over and over again out of frustration. To me that is just comically obnoxious pushing of the rating. Yeah this is an R-rated film so we can say fuck a lot! I'm reminded of Vince Vaughan in Old School, "I'm making a point, Frank, you don't need to celebrate it."

I guess what I'm saying is that the R-rating is of course very appropriate for certain films. I, for one, often balk when I find a horror movie with a PG-13 rating. Yet the reaction is not necessarily accurate. There are exceptions that have showed you can do well within that genre even without pressing the R. But, all things considered, in that genre, you're looking for that rating.

But in terms of action blockbuster type films, I don't need to hear the characters curse like I'm watching a Scorsese film or see over-the-top violence. Stakes can be set and action can be convincing without it.

That said, films like Goodfellas and Raging Bull would lose a lot without the R rating. It depends on the genre, it depends on the filmmaker's intention, but PG-13 and R both have a definite place.
 
One of the most painfully average flicks I've seen in the last few years. I literally forgot 50% of it before even getting back to my house. Nothing stood out except for the end, which I thought was fairly bad. Still, not really horrible, as I would remember more of the bad stuff about it. Just average and not memorable. 5/10

Yeah it's a very standard type of adventure film. But I found really nothing particularly subpar or problematic about it. It was like an entertaining, paint-by-numbers action flick. In my opinion, it did virtually everything right. If being unmemorable or feeling redundant was its worst issue, then it's really not in a bad spot.

I definitely liked it and am hoping for a sequel down the road. Vikander was really solid.
 
Looks like we are getting a sequel

Which is cool because I enjoyed this movie

 
Back
Top