Action movies need to have someone in peril

[soleft]

Someone that you care about. Usually you're pretty sure that Indiana Jones and James Bond and Jack Ryan aren't going to bite the dust. So what separates a great edge on your seat story from a ho hum, gee, how much money did they spend on that effect is how much the hero is invested in the character who's life is at stake - and therefore how much we're invested.

That's why the Star Wars Sequels failed so badly. Who gave a crap about Liam Nisson's character, or Princess Whoever.

Pearl Harbor - as opposed to Titantic - okay, I cared about Jack Dawson, I knew he was going to die, but they kept me guessing as to when and how and how much it would affect Rose. I don't even remember the name of Ben Affleck's character and didn't feel particuly moved when Josh Harnett succombed.

The reason T2 worked well is because you were invested in Sarah Connor, not the Terminator. Die Another Day, you know nothing was going to happen to Bond, but you sure as hell didn't want to Hallie Berry buy the farm.

The reason why Tomb Raider hasn't worked is because there's no one Lara Croft really cares about. I don't want to see her chasing some relic because she has to save the world. That's not going to keep on the edge of my seat - there has to be someone she cares about in constant peril, and it can't be herself.

Pirates of the Carribean almost achieved this - but I never believed anyone was actually in any danger. I haven't seen Spy Kids. Don't know what the peril factor is there.

[VelmaD]

1. raises hand...

uh, I cared about Liam Neeson's character...but only because he was a hottie. :-)

The Star Wars prequels failed because George Lucas is a shitty dialogue writer and a worse director.

Just my 2 cents.

Darth Velma

[AngryYoungMan]

2. With tremendous diffidence and respect, I must point out...

...that your opinions of "Tomb Raider" must take a backseat to those of a hetero male like myself.

The first Tomb Raider was, without question, one of the worst movies I've ever seen. However, I saw it twice.

Why? Oh, I think that's fairly obvious... The computer game is based on the idea that, if you're watching "yourself" as a badly animated protagonist on the bottom of the screen, why not be watching an attractive female character? So they invented this "buxom babe" erzatz Indiana Jones character, and gave her a British accent just to make it more titillating for adolescent males.

Nobody ever dreamed that a movie star of the caliber of Angelina Jolie would actually be portraying this one-dimensional game protagonist on movie screens. It's basically fantasy casting come true...and I should probably stop typing before I begin getting poetic about what it's like just to watch Jolie move like that. There doesn't need to be anybody in peril.

Actually I'll stop typing right now...sorry all.

[ForrestGump]

3. Are you trying to say that her bra is imperiled?

[soleft]

4. I own tomb raider on DVD, okay

nuff said.

However, even tho the sequel providedd even more pure visual entertainment for Angelinaphiles - the movie did not do anywhere near the box office it should have with the combination of heroine/actress. I think they really squandered an opportunity for a mega block buster but not having a better story.

Chances are there will not be a tomb raider III, which totally sucks for a champion of female action characters.

[Jonte_1979]

5. Good points

The thing I liked the most about T3 was the real sense of "gravity" in all the action scenes. I hate it when directors settle for half-assed CGI effects and expects that the audience can't tell the difference between a bunch of pixels and a real object.