i haven't seen the movie yet and i don't know if there are any good extras on the disc. is it worth a buy or just a rental?

I rented Tomb Raider over the weekend. It is a pretty good movie for the most part. The story is kind of like Indiana Jones. The extra are alright but nothing too exciting. Once you watch them, I doubt that you would again.

For me...I am glad that I rented it.

I liked the look of the movie (by that, I mean it's star) as well as the storyline and action more than The Mummy or TM Returns. Nothing like seeing a sweaty buff gorgeous woman kick arse.

i just wonder if i should buy it or just rent it. any suggestions??

I personally think it's only worth a rental. It has a pretty uninteresting treasure hunting plot with really stupid, cheap moments of comic relief. Yes, Angelina Jolie's hot, but if you're just getting it to see her pouty lips and certain parts of her body bouncing around, you should get Gia instead.

A few of the scenes are interesting just for the spectacle, but it's only a bunch of action movie cliches strung together.

In watching the extra inclusions with the movie I would vote towards a rental - unless you like AJ a great deal. It is a self-touting behind-the-scenes promotional more than an in-depth analysis...glad I rented..plus the boob shots of Jolie weren't good enough.

I thought it was at least a bit cool that her dad Jon Voight (or however you spell it) played her dad.

Angelina Angelina Angelina Angelina Angelina Angelina Angelina Angelina Angelina Angelina Angelina Angelina Angelina Angelina Angelina Angelina Angelina Angelina Angelina Angelina Angelina

Can't get enough of her. A definate buy!

Terrible film. Bad acting, incredibly stupid dialogue, unintentionally hilarious use of slow-mo, and of course, a predictable ending. Stay away from this one.

Totally disagree. Great popcorn movie. Great effects and action. The acting wasn't great, but afterall, this film wasn't a 'thinking' movie. It was just a lot of fun.

Curious. When you say bad. What were your expectations from this film?

Though amazingly light in foul language, increasingly typical of movies "acceptable" for our early teens (acceptable in the eyes of the Motion Picture Association of America anyway) is nudity [**]. Angelina Jolie displays magnificent acrobatics but that is not all that is displayed. Jolie as Lara Croft bares parts of her upper parts for the audience. In addition, Alex West (Daniel Craig), a previous cohort of Laura, steps fresh out of the shower obviously nude with only convenience objects hiding his genitalia. Though hidden from the audience they are NOT hidden from Jolie or an actress playing the part of a hotel maid -- both gaze upon his nakedness. I wonder if the computer game does the same.

In this "Summer-13" daughter of *Indiana Jones*, *James Bond* and *The Mummy Returns*, anthropologist and adventurer Lara, daughter of the famous anthropologist Lord Richard Croft (Jon Voight - her real dad) has a secret identity as a tomb raider. Finding an artifact from her father's escapades in a secret room of her mansion, Lara uses it to launch a search for the halves of an ancient triangular stone key, the Triangle of Light. The artifact reveals the locations of the halves of The Triangle of Light. The Triangle of Light also opens the secrets of an ancient tomb which will give the bearer power over time -- the "power of God" -- when the planets of our solar system line up. Another lineup of the planets, which happens once every 5000 years, is set to happen shortly.

The Triangle of Light is needed and needed badly if seekers of power over time do not want to wait another 5000 years. Written instructions left by Lara's father direct her to Manfred Powell (Iain Glen). Powell, a corrupt attorney and member of the Illuminati is looking for the halves of the triangle, too. The Illuminati is a secret society of men who have been waiting 5000 years for the next planetary lineup. Alex West is in cahoots with the Illuminati, too. And so was another key character we would next expect. In the trailers there was something about these men being able to use the power over time to conjure up Hell but I did not notice it in the cut I saw.

The film opens with a lengthy sequence of Lara doing routine exercise battle with a robot contraption built by her technical specialist Bryce (Noah Taylor). "Mothering" Lara with Bryce is her butler and standby soldier played by Chris Barrie. This segment is drenched in sensuous moves with equally sensuous dress, followed by a sensuous bath with sensuous movements which seem out of place for of bathing and saturated under sensuous music. I hope you get the focus of this part of the show -- a focus that will likely resonate in your 13 year old sons for a long time after leaving the theater, especially the side nudity of Jolie [Rev. 2:20, Luke 17:2].

There is much adventure and disaster violence in this 93-minute film. Also present is quite graphic dangers and death by crushing/incising. There is also much automatic gunfire to kill, long sequences of attacks to kill, firearm and knife threats plus very graphic murder of Richard Croft by gunfire to the face [Hab. 2:12]. The listing in the Findings/Scoring section is intended to give you line-by-line accounting of the ignominious content of this film and I will leave the rest to it.

Wanton Violence/Crime (W):

sci-fi attack sequence with gunfire and attempts to kill
reckless driving
much assault fire to kill, repeatedly
threats to kill, by firearm and knife
stone creatures coming to life to kill
death by sword
long sequences of attacks to kill
great fall
multiple injuries, some graphic
crushing/incising death
firearm threat to head
long fight
use of explosives to steal
breaking and entering to steal

Impudence/Hate (I)(1):

lie to gain favor
disrespectfulness/hatred expressed
massive tattoos
three uses of the three/four letter word vocabulary

Sex/Homosexuality (S):

much use of camera angle to force viewer on private parts
woman in tub with sensual maneuvers and music
sexual innuendo
suggestive eye movements
partial nudity, female and masked nudity, male
exposure of fellow characters to nudity
tease dress

Drugs/Alcohol (D):

offer of booze
smoking
booze

Offense to God (O)(2):

theme of magic by "astrology"
mysticism and mystical knowledge
portrayal of man being able to get the power of God
worship of false idols
mockery of faith
five uses of God's name in vain but without the four letter expletive

Murder/Suicide (M)(3):

knife impalement resulting in death
repeat visuals of the death resulting from knife impalement
auto gunfire murder
gunfire murder to face

Excellent list! It also pretty much sums up any network show/sitcom schlock out there.

Go TIVO! and All in the Family, Honeymooners, Columbo and last but not least. TNG.......... Havn't watched network TV in almost 4 months and lovin it.

I think the term "popcorn movie" is thrown around way too much these days. It just seems to be a way of excusing the fact that films like this are lacking in every area. I'm of the school of thought that says acting matters, and the amount of action and the quality of effects will never compensate for bad story, bad acting, or bad direction. My expectations were exceedingly low; the fact that the film met my expectations, then, is worth mentioning. How high or low I set my expectations has nothing to do with the quality of this film, which is execrable IMO.

The quality of the film was first rate. The action sequences were very well done. The costumes and photography were well done. The acting is subjective.

" I'm of the school of thought that says acting matters, and the amount of action and the quality of effects will never compensate for bad story, bad acting, or bad direction.

The acting in Terminator was awful, but the movie is one of the most successful, high grossing films to date. Why. Because, action and effects, for some people, do matter. WHEN they are going to see an Action movie.

Tomb Raider was an action movie. It was not a John Malcovich brain drain. When I see mature films such as Sophies Choice. My expectations are good acting, good story. When I see Tomb Raider or Schwazenager movies, I know going in that there is going to be a lot of cool effects, good action scenes and generally poor acting.

That is called being able to go out of the box.

I think the term "popcorn movie" is thrown around way too much these days.

I don't care if I just had a huge steak, I just can't watch a movie without my big honkin bowl of popcorn

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mhmurray
The quality of the film was first rate. The action sequences were very well done. The costumes and photography were well done. The acting is subjective.

Really? I was under the impression that the quality of the film was also subjective. So it's proper for you to say the film was "first rate," but the acting was "subjective?" Perhaps I find the quality of the film to be awful, and the action sequences to be an exercise in amateur filmmaking.

The acting in Terminator was awful, but the movie is one of the most successful, high grossing films to date. Why. Because, action and effects, for some people, do matter. WHEN they are going to see an Action movie.

I don't know about anyone else, but personally I find this comparison to be bizarre. These two films are not in the same genre; besides some shooting and effects, they don't have too much else in common.

Tomb Raider was an action movie. It was not a John Malcovich brain drain. When I see mature films such as Sophies Choice. My expectations are good acting, good story. When I see Tomb Raider or Schwazenager movies, I know going in that there is going to be a lot of cool effects, good action scenes and generally poor acting.

Again, you're clinging to the argument that Tomb Raider is an action movie and nothing more. I highly doubt if the filmmakers had the intention of making an "action" film where the acting didn't matter the least bit but cool effects sequences made all the difference. It is the incompetency of the filmmakers that led to this. On the same note, I found the action scenes to be ridiculous. The use of slow-mo made me laugh out loud in the theater. And again, one's expectations of a certain film shouldn't be an excuse for the film to basically suck in every conceivable area. The mindset of moviegoers today is generally just that: "Movie was ok, but the special effects kicked! What a sweet movie!" And unfortunately, the rest of us who do enjoy intelligent films with good acting, good stories, and skillful direction are left in the dust as more and more films of the Tomb Raider mold continue to overwhelm the rest of the crop. Maybe it's different for those who live near smaller art-house theaters; where I'm from, I don't have that luxury. The moviegoing experience is shite when compared to what it once was for me, as I now only have a handful of films in any given year that I can see that don't go the route of Tomb Raider/The Fast and the Furious/Pearl Harbor, and on and on.

I hear what you are saying. But I think the days of Dog Day Afternoon, Marathon Man and Jaws are over. Nowadays, it seems like most mainstream movies are big cash burns.

In the end it all boils down to each individuals taste and joy factor. I had fun with Tomb Raider, not to mention Angalina's lips. It was a joy ride for me. For you it apparently was not.

I don't know how old you are. But when The Exorcist was released in the theaters in 1975 (I think) I stood in line with my girlfriend for 2 hours to get in. We watched that movie and were scared out of our minds. Everyone was. It was the buzz across America. When it was re-released last year. I took my wife and daugher to see it. Thinking it would have the same affect on them. It didn't on them nor on myself. We were laughing so hard at the shear stupidity of the film.

Now jump 20 years ahead and Copola's Bram Stokers Dracula comes out. IMO one of his best directing feats to date. His work with shadows was remarkable. Perhaps in 20 years people will laugh at that too.

The Fight Club, IMO was so stupid I had to force myself to watch it. I even watched it again to see why so many people in this forum loved it. It was even more stupid to me after the 2nd time.

The Pledge bombed at the box office but was a beautiful, haunting movie and arguably one of Jack's best performances, that should be up for awards.

But with Tomb Raider. It's about a lady who raids a tomb of sorts, and gets the bad guys. Well, that's what she did. She fought battles, raided the tomb and went home. I have an idea. Maybe you could tell me what you would have done to improve the movie. Who should have played Laura? What affects should they have done instead of the ones they did, and things like that. I'm just not understanding why you hated this movie so much.

BTW. I agree. Pearl Harbor was a disaster. They took a monolithic historical event and turned it in to a self absorbed Ben Affleck love fest. Such an injustice to that story. Now that was a movie I went in expecting an account of Pearl Harbor, hence the name. It didn't deliver that. We all know it. They misleaded us. For that, I was dissapointed.

In no way do I see how Tomb Raider was any less than expected.

I never saw Tomb Raider in the theater, but I rented it....I thought it was a pretty entertaining movie...I wasn't expecting it to blow my mind or anything. Decent action, nice effects, etc.

I'm not so sure that it's worth a buy, but it's at least worth a rental.

I'm not saying the film was less than I expected. The fact that I have to set my expectations for every film I see now so low is what's disheartening.

BTW, I'm 20.