Tomb Raider (Reboot)

Embedding the official trailer, complete with the proper aspect ratio

HandsomeBob wrote: »

The Guardian have an opinion piece bemoaning the perceived privileged white girl characterisation based on the trailer. Even as I guy who studied social studies in Uni I'm starting to feel beaten down by the constant hijacking of film and tv to push gender and identity politics.

At the same time, the same article's comments have pretty much leapt on what was obviously a kneejerk 'outrage' piece from someone without any obvious experience or knowledge of the source material.

I wouldn't pay too much heed to it; The Guardian is a fine newspaper that does a lot of good work & investigative journalism, but you can spot their blatantly trolling, pearl-clutching screeds a mile off. Real anti-Daily Mail stuff, perfect for sharing on FB.

It actually looks half-decent, and already much better than the monumental idiocy of those previous Tomb Raider films. I hope Walter Goggins has a chance to shine as he is a pretty magnetic presence in most appearances.

The action scenes do look a little too fake mind you, and none of them particularly groundbreaking either: I'm a big critic generally of his work, but were this a Tom Cruise film you absolutely know he'd have a prop airplane built over a waterfall & perform the stunt himself. It often makes all the difference in these sort of scenes.

Sad Professor wrote: »

It looks okay if visually very bland. I still say if they wanted to emulate the game reboot this should have been R-rated with a horror atmosphere. And like her game counterpart, Lara should have been more vulnerable since this is her first adventure. Without those elements you are left with the weakest part of the game - the story.

Indeed, but it says a lot that 'OK but bland' will make this film arguably the best Game Adaptation ever made - the bar is pretty low here :P

I think Silent Hill was probably one of the few game adaptations that had something resembling the spark of creativity and vision, married with the source material. Uh, apart from Mario Bros. that is

Sad Professor wrote: »

Is this a good time to mention that I like the Resident Evil films?

Oh good professor, there's is NEVER a good time to mention one likes the Resident Evil films

It's out on home release now, and out of curiosity thought I'd catch it; it made such little impact or noise I honestly forgot to give it a whirl while playing in cinemas.

Sure, in broader terms it was probably one of the better cinematic adaptations of a video-game, only insofar as its stunning mediocrity still put it leaps and bounds above the drek that populates the genre. On its own merits though, it just flailed around looking for a reason to exist, never good enough to raise a pulse, never bad enough to raise an eyebrow, and hobbled by its studio-mandated rating from embracing the dirt and griminess of the rebooted game. It just tottered along with its box-ticking; even the teasing of a sequel itself feeling a bit half-hearted, while the cribbing of Indiana Jones (admittedly unavoidable given the source material) wasn't particularly inspired either.

In fact it was so perfunctory, I had wondered if this was a licensing ploy; if MGM were about to lose the rights, necessitating a quick film knocked out before time ran out.