Tomb Raider Forums  

Go Back   Tomb Raider Forums > Tomb Raider Franchise > Tomb Raider Motion Pictures, Shows and Shorts

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-04-16, 02:20   #1
jackraider
Inactive
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,289
Default Why is Cradle of Life usually considered a "improvement" over 2001's Lara Croft TR?

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001) was so much better! More like the games IMO and more ancient ruins. Also, great soundtrack! Better wardrobe for Lara too. Again, they got Lara's look right in the first film. Sure it was a bit cheesy, but it was a video game movie!

Last edited by jackraider; 08-04-16 at 02:21.
jackraider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-16, 02:44   #2
Zebra
Member
 
Zebra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 26,911
Default

It is ? I thought it was universally agreed upon that the first one was better.

Last edited by Zebra; 08-04-16 at 02:49.
Zebra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-16, 04:36   #3
jackraider
Inactive
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebra View Post
It is ? I thought it was universally agreed upon that the first one was better.
Box office wise yes. But critics at the time deemed COL as being slightly better and improving upon LC:TR. I guess in terms of action sequences, story, etc.

Meta Critic:

CRITICS:
Lara Croft TOMB RAIDER 33
Lara Croft TOMB RAIDER CRADLE OF LIFE 43

USER SCORES:
Lara Croft TOMB RAIDER 6.0
Lara Croft TOMB RAIDER CRADLE OF LIFE 8.1

I really thought the first one was a better action/adventure film. Also, I liked the CGI in cambodia temple and the climax temple in Iceland I believe, which was totally a tribute to TR4's cambodia levels. Overall, the original felt like it captured more of those moments from the earlier games. Felt more like a Tomb Raider game. The sequel takes a couple things from the games like the wetsuit, TR3's Underwater Propulsion Vehicle, sharks and The Great Wall of China (TR2). However, I just feel the original film utilizes content from the earlier TR games more effectively. For example, the first scene really feels like a training level at Lara's Mansion. The intruder break in really feels reminiscent of TR2's Home Sweet Home. The Venice, Cambodia, Iceland locations were perfect, and beautiful! Overall, just love the vibe and atmosphere of the original film more so than COL.

Now I really want to watch the original film! I rarely (if ever) watch COL. The villain was weak, hardly any tombs, and the final climax/ set piece was so lame compared to LC:TR's crumbling Iceland ruins w/ the huge globe (a la TR4's Race for the Iris).

Last edited by jackraider; 08-04-16 at 04:46.
jackraider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-16, 08:13   #4
Trenton
Member
 
Trenton's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 19,214
Default

While both films were panned and considered pretty much the worst films ever made it seems like critics generally hate CoL slightly less.

Rotten tomatoes:


TR (2001): 19%
CoL: 24%


As far as people goes they hate both almost equally, while hating the travesty CoL slightly more:

IMDB:

TR (2001): 5,7
CoL: 5,5


Which one of these films are worst? As much as I hate the first film with a passion I've always considered CoL even worse, but lately (after watching Philip's video about CoL being underrated ) I've been thinking I should really rewatch both films again to judge properly. Not sure I'll be able to get through the pair of them without ripping out my eyes though.
Trenton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-16, 23:49   #5
Dustie
Member
 
Dustie's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,208
Default

I've always thought CoL was worse, but in all fairness it carries the burden of being a sequel, which means that from the get go it's banned from doing certain things as a movie.


Maybe the reason more critics liked it is because it might fit the adventure film genre a lot easier than the first one. I think it is a bit closer to your usual Indiana Jones fare, isn't it? And in that way easier to understand, which is why the critics "got it" a lot more than they did the first one, which arguably, in my opinion, was closer to the games and more awe-inducing. I think Cradle of Life is like a Bond film except with - literally - a female Indiana Jones.

Also, Lara's character has more time to reveal herself for who she is in the second film. There's less development, or general character exposition, in the first one, while in the Cradle of Life she seems to clash with people a lot more, she deals with her ex-lover, she makes an irreversible choice... again, this is seen positively.
Dustie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-16, 00:14   #6
jackraider
Inactive
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,289
Default

That's a good way of putting it Dustie. COL is a bond film with a female Indiana Jones, while the first film sort of just focuses on being a Indiana Jones adventure esque film w/ a female indiana jones. It's just I think the family dynamic between Lara & her father in the first film is what might have thrown critics/ & viewers off. However, I didn't really mind this. It felt raw to me given that Jon Voight is Jolie's father in real life and they kind of had a estranged relationship w/ each other. So really the performances felt real and genuine on screen. On the outside, the playful side of Angelina Jolie chose a fun video game film to star in, but I think on the inside it was a chance to connect w/ her father. Off screen the stars really don't have a deep relationship. So in essence I just feel the original was a more personal film for Jolie. She also adopted a child very shortly after filming. I think her experience in Cambodia really changed her and opened her eyes.

However, I don't think critics/ viewers really connected with the emotional aspects of Lara's Character. As you said, COL deals w/ more developments, but it's w/ a love interest. Lara is a bit more cold in her responses. It's more James Bondy so viewers are familiar w/ this it's just strong female (lara) on man instead of strong male (bond) on female. In indiana jones films, we had Indiana's father in I think The Last Crusade, but he was added for more comic relief. Jon Voight was added in LC: TR for emotional relief and I'm guessing that just didn't impact viewers and critics alike. It wasn't really necessary as Lara is more a action/adventure heroine so maybe people just didn't want to see her "emotional" side. They like that "strong female-I-can-beat-the-crap-out-of-any-man-or-woman Lara." COL kind of resorted back to that mentality of the character. Same thing with the Crystal Dynamic games (specifically L-A-U). It goes into the family dynamics in same vein as the first TR film. The games that came before the first film had Lara's family labeling her as a black sheep or outcast. She was rebellious. So in essence the first film is what really tried to reinvent Lara's motives. Crystal Dynamics took a lot of ques & elements from the first film. I think they were just trying to attract a new generation of TR gamers and those familar w/ the films more so than pleasing fans of CORE's games.

Last edited by jackraider; 10-04-16 at 00:26.
jackraider is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 15:10.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Tomb Raider Forums is not owned or operated by CDE Entertainment Ltd.
Lara Croft and Tomb Raider are trademarks of CDE Entertainment Ltd.