The reviews are in for Alicia Vikander’s ‘Tomb Raider’ and they aren’t that great

Film Premiere of Tomb Raider

By now I’m sure many people have heard about the YouTuber and blogger (?) The Amazing Atheist and his “take” on Alicia Vikander’s Lara Croft. The Amazing Atheist tweeted out: “Do I have to be the a–hole who says her t-ts are too small for me to see her as Lara Croft? Do I have to be that guy? Do I have to be the one who f–king says it? I guess I do. Sorry.” People yelled at him and defended Vikander, and many are arguing that Vikander is playing the updated-video-game version of Lara Croft, where Lara is slimmer and has a more athletic figure as opposed to the buxom OG video-game Lara. Plus, what is Vikander supposed to do, get implants just to please the Neanderthals who refuse to see Tomb Raider if Lara doesn’t have big boobs? It’s just a dumb criticism overall.

But there are other criticisms. Many critics have dropped their reviews of Tomb Raider, the reboot of the franchise that few people were asking for. The Rotten Tomatoes All-Critics score is currently sitting at 52%, and the Top-Critics score is 47%. The Hollywood Reporter did a review-roundup, which you can read here. There is no huge consensus, but it seems like many critics just think that this reboot is aggressively dull more than anything, and that the actual story is just a boring rehash of the Angelina Jolie-led Croft movies.

With a 49 percent score on Rotten Tomatoes as of Wednesday, the critical consensus so far seems to be that the film’s origin-story setup, which shows Croft traveling to the mysterious Pacific isle Skull Island in order to find out what happened to her missing father, is a derivative bore. The film’s deviation from previous versions of the Tomb Raider mythology, which shows Vikander’s Croft as a capable, powerful and unobjectified heroine, has, however, energized many critics familiar with Jolie’s take.

The Hollywood Reporter’s Todd McCarthy found the film derivative of the original two movies starring Jolie, which were released in 2001 and 2003. He said the pic was “a grimly determined by-the-numbers rehash of the same sort of plots and action moves that animated the first two Lara Croft films back in the early 2000s” which featured supporting characters that were “straight out of 1930s movie serials.”

The one bright spot to the movie, he added, was Vikander herself, who “fully embodies physical tenacity and grit, along with absolute determination not to give in or up.” Though her character recovers from injuries remarkably quickly, the actress “is the element here that makes Tomb Raider sort of watchable,” McCarthy added.

The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw similarly pointed out that the film’s origin-story setup — which shows how Croft came into her wealth, her martial arts skills and interest in tomb raiding — borrowed much from movies of the past, especially the Indiana Jones films. But Bradshaw was less taken by Vikander’s take on the heiress heroine: “[T]hroughout Vikander maintains a kind of serene evenness of manner. Blandness is Lara’s theme,” he wrote.

In Vanity Fair, critic Jordan Hoffman complained about the slowness of the action in the new pic, pointing out that it takes 76 minutes for Croft to complete her titular mission in the 116-minute film: Raid tombs. Of director Roar Uthang, Hoffman wrote, “Uthaug’s take on this material is almost aggressively boring.” He additionally argued that the action scenes are often so dimly lit that it’s difficult for viewers to see much of the action, and called Alien vs. Predator a “masterpiece” by comparison.

“Having Lara Croft leap around and avoid traps should be an easy formula — but for this crew, it remains an unsolvable puzzle,” Hoffman wrote.

[From The Hollywood Reporter]

This cracked me up: “it takes 76 minutes for Croft to complete her titular mission in the 116-minute film: Raid tombs.” Say what you will about the Jolie-led films, but chica was out there raiding tombs nonstop. Not so much with Vikander’s version. In any case, most critics do think Vikander is okay-to-good as Lara Croft, they just wish the script and direction had been better. Will you see it? Or was this reboot just sort of unnecessary? The box-office tracking is looking okay – the trade papers say that Tomb Raider will probably open domestically with $20-25 million and come in second to Black Panther, which is eyeing its fifth straight week at #1 at the box office.

Warner Bros. Pictures "Tomb Raider" Premiere

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

94 Responses to “The reviews are in for Alicia Vikander’s ‘Tomb Raider’ and they aren’t that great”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Astrid says:

    I don’t need to see it…

  2. Louisa says:

    Meh. On another note, can anyone ID those earrings? They are amazing!!

  3. Louisa says:

    Meh. On another note, can anyone ID those ratings? They are amazing!!

  4. SM says:

    Not interested. And it’s got nothing to do with her boobs. For me Vikander as an actress never was a draw, her in a lead AND in a boring film – no thank you.

    • Anners says:

      The early Tomb Raider movies worked because Jolie, love her or hate her, commands your attention. Also, she looked like she was having a great time, which made up for the cheesiness of the movies and her less than stellar acting skills. I just don’t get the appeal of Vikander. She may be a terrific actor, but she has ZERO presence for me. She is the embodiment of an empty canvas, which may work well for her in serious films, but is essential if you want to be the lead in an action flic.

      • Esmerelda says:

        Yup! The old movies worked because Jolie had enough panache to shower in slow motion, keep the future James Bond as a loser love interest, and act out daddy-issue-princess scenes with her actual deadbeat dad without losing her sense of irony and conveying that irony, “let’s not take ourselves too seriously here”, to the viewer. They’re bad movies, but they’re fun.
        Vikander looks way too serious here… it’s like they wanted to play Tomb Raider straight. It was never the point, it’s cheese or nothing.

  5. BaronSamedi says:

    I find Vikander agressively charisma-free so I’m not remotely interested in her movies. I also just don’t buy her in a physical role like this.

    I guess I’m just tired of being told that bland waifs are the only kick-ass women out there. Especially coming off a movie like Black Panther I’m just not going to support this kind of casting anymore.

    • Anners says:

      Yes! This^^. Show me a Lara Croft with Danai Gurira or Robin Wright’s badass Antiope-like skills and I will watch the hell out of that! Vikander always looks like she either needs a nap or has just woken from one.

      • lucy2 says:

        I agree – ever since they announced her casting, I thought she was an odd choice – she just doesn’t have the physicality to play that particular role. I’ve liked her in the right roles, but this just seemed like an poor fit from the start.

        Is anyone surprised by the reviews though? It’s a video game movie, they’re rarely great. Aside from being a female led action film, the only other good thing about it, IMO, is it raising the profile of the extremely talented Walton Goggins.

      • VirgiliaCoriolanus says:

        @lucy2
        It’s like they tried to copy the same formula with AJ i.e. cast an Oscar winner who’s had critical acclaim. But what makes Angelina such an amazing actress for me is her charisma. I’ve never seen a boring performance from her, and she absolutely elevates every film of hers I’ve seen, even when the film was crap *coughAlexandercough*. You can’t cast someone like Alicia and do that, because I think Alicia basically is only as good as the script/direction. I think she is a good actress, but she is not anything special/unforgettable. I’ve never watched her in anything and thought she was the absolute best for the role.

    • Bridget says:

      I’m ambivalent on Vikander, but I’m tired of these movies that blatantly pander to the male gaze are called feminist just because they star a woman (Red Sparrow, I’m looking at you too). Tomb Raider is built on Lara Croft’s boobs. Stop trying to package it as empowering.

      • crazydaisy says:

        Amazing Atheist could have been the PC-ish guy who said “Because Alicia V’s figure is so different than the video game character’s, it’s hard to accept her as Lara Croft” instead of being the jerk who commented “her t*ts are too small”. That said, even Angelina wore a specially padded bra to play Lara.

        On another note, large breasts are no more or less empowering than small breasts. Empowerment is a function of one’s thoughts and actions, not one’s body shape or size.

      • Bridget says:

        I’m not commenting on Amazing Athiest (I can’t believe I even had to write that). More that this is a movie that’s trying to be sold as empowering and feminist, but they’re willfully ignoring the fact that this is not a character that most women want to see. Again, the character and franchise is built on Lara Croft’s boobs. It wouldn’t matter who was playing her as long as she’s BOOBS.

        But I also feel that you’re willfully ignoring my point, which is that this is a movie and a character that has been created in order to pander to the male gaze. Are breasts of any size inherently empowering or not? It depends on how they’re being ogled.

    • H says:

      After the beauty that was Black Panther, yeah I’m skipping Tomb Raider. I’m going to see Love, Simon instead.

    • ichsi says:

      Yep. General Okoye a hundred times over this. I want more female led action hero movies and I want to support them, but how can I when all I get is male-gaze-y sex kittens and/or tiny 100 pound girls who magically take down dudes twice their size? And it’s not as if small girls can’t be strong, I’m just so annoyed that this is the default and they don’t ever cast any other body type for this. Plus, some small girls are incredibly believable as dangerous fighters (thinking of Daisy Ridley and Elodie Yung here f.ex.) , but I’ve seen the action sequences in this and Alicia absolutely isn’t. She’s going through dance choreography motions, there’s no energy or force behind her punches. Also I refuse to buy into the hype that she’s a good actress. Because no, dear God, no.

    • AG-UK says:

      I agree her voice tone is so bland in the trailers, all I can see is her hanging on with one slight arm to that branch and her voice “seriously” or “really” I think she says. All I can say is love love Walton Goggins since The Shield.. and Justified.. but no maybe if I am bored on a 10 hr flight to kill time.

    • Lacia Can says:

      I read a review that said this movie does a good job of making the action more “realistic” for a woman’s body. I haven’t seen the film so don’t know what the reviewer meant but I wonder if that’s why it’s not getting great reviews – it’s not 100% catering to men, so it sucks? The Amazing Atheist’s review would suggest that it’s part of the negative reviews. 🙄 According to this article, one critic complained that she recovered from injuries too quickly. Has he never seen an action movie before? If that’s the worst thing he can think of then he’s just being bitchy.

      I was ambivalent about going because I don’t care for reboots but approve of female-led movies. My daughter loves the new Tomb Raider games though so I think I will take her even though I’m not sold on Vikander as an action star. Also that Amazing Atheist p’d me off so now I’m going!

    • norah says:

      alicia is no fun as lara croft. the whole thrill of the earlier aj movies was fun and humor etc – zero charisma and hope it flops badly.

  6. QueenB says:

    Movies based on video games always suck. Not too surprising when games are obviously mostly about good mechanics that dont translate to movies.

  7. Maya says:

    Angelina is Lara, Lara is Angelina – Alicia never stood a chance.

    • Evie says:

      @Maya: THIS!!!! Love or hate Angelina Jolie– no one is ever “meh” about her. Vikander to me, is “meh” from start to finish. Angelina, boobs or no boobs, is a commanding charismatic presence. All eyes are on Angelina as soon as she appears in a scene. She commands it and holds your attention. Vikander is attractive but bland. Certainly not fierce.

      After seeing Black Panther and Wonder Woman, the bar is raised. I want General Okoye or Wonder Woman or Antiope, LOL!
      On another note: Eddie Redmanye outshone Vikander in the looks department in The Danish Girl: better legs and more sensuous mouth. And I still want to know what shade of red lipstick Eddie was wearing in that film, because I covet it.

    • Thank you. I’d rather go back and watch the original, cheese and all. Angelina is Lara to me.

    • magnoliarose says:

      This wasn’t needed. In fact as weird and out there this may sound I think Hollywood is desperately trying to find a younger AJ to turn into an action star. Maybe if they considered women of color and stopped with the obsession with youth, they could find several women to play action roles.

      This was just an odd choice to remake.

  8. Yeahright says:

    She was miscast in spite of her looking like a strong wind would blow her over.
    The budget was at least 100 million pre advertising so 25 opening is a bomb.
    Oh well.
    I don’t plan on seeing this but I will replay the game in her honor.

  9. OG OhDear says:

    Not surprised, but at least she’s getting decent reviews for her performance?

    That being said, I really want to know her workout and diet regimen in preparing for this movie!

  10. sunnydeereynolds says:

    ‘Chica was out there raiding tombs nonstop.’

    Hahaha. Jolie will always be The Lara Croft.

  11. Krill says:

    I doubt the original was popular with critics. It certainly wasnt with me. I hated how it nakedly pandered to the male gaze. Its been years but I still remember loling at a really ridiculous slow motion shower scene. If that wasnt solely scripted to bring teen boys into the theatre, I’ll eat my shoe. But it killed at the box office and generated a genre of female led action flicks that focus on getting the male audience hot. I will never not miss the foundation that Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton had laid that was shattered.

    Now Alicia, I already have beef with her perma tan so the less said about her the better.

  12. Nicole says:

    Not surprising. Just didn’t buy her as an action star

  13. Sarita says:

    The original movies have 20% and 25% on rotten tomatoes so… I don’t need to see *any* of these films lol.

  14. lamontagne says:

    They should have stuck with the game’s plot instead of making it all about Lara’s daddy issues. 2013′s reboot had her going on an expedition on her own volition, trying to make her own mark in the world and disassociate with the craziness of her father (ironically discovering he was right all along).
    Lara had friends, a best friend she risks her life to save.
    They had gold, and they delivered wet white bread and sausage fest. No wonder it didn’t work

  15. mannori says:

    With a U$S100 million production budget and adding promo budget that should be another 50M at least, an opening of 20M is quite underwhelming.
    I’m sorry but she was terribly miscast. I’m not a Jolie fan but she sold those movies singlehanded. The plots and scripts were equally terrible but she had enough on and off screen presence to pull it off. But let aside Angelina who’s not coming back and shouldn’t be compared to Vikander, actually, this is an action movie franchise where the lead actors are not really required to have dramatic talent like Alicia’s. Actually not at all. That’s why kind of bothers me that she showed up to the promo tour having lost ALL her physical top form and barely having any muscle left from that training. She does not look the part, and that’s something that helps a lot selling an action movie too. Think The Rock showing up to the promo tours of his movies with the body of Steve Buscemi (sorry he just came to mind as a skinny frail looking guy, I adore him though)

    • Bridget says:

      She did not sell those movies singlehanded. At the time it was a huge deal that it was her and Voight onscreen as father-daughter. Not to mention, Lara Croft the character was probably a bigger draw – Jolie was costumed as the spitting image of the character (fake boobs and short shorts included).

      • LetItGooo says:

        @Bridget

        Riiiiiiight. Roflmao. Because in the early aughts, Jon Voight was such a box office draw. The lengths the usual suspects will go to cast shade. People forget Voight had fallen off the face of the earth for the most part after his nice run in the 70s. By the 2000s most video gamers and gen Xers didnt know or care who Voight was. In fact, his casting when it was written about, was very much framed as ‘hot IT girl movie star Angelina Jolie gives has-been estranged Dad a boost.’

        No one can really explain why Voight went so far underground and didn’t work that much between the 80s-2000s. My cynical side tells me it’s because he didn’t want to give it away in child support and alimony. It might not be a coincidence that after he officially became a senior, and his kids were long past grown and wealthier than he, that he became the hardest working actor in Hollywood.

        But the fact remains, his career wasn’t happening at all when Tomb Raider released, he’s barely in the official trailer. Ian Glenn, or Jorah from Game of Thrones, is in it more.

        As for Lara being the draw, why sure- but as we see with Vikander, if you can’t pull off the character, in looks, acting or appeal, no one will care. People cared because Angelina was onscreen and inhabiting/creating the character.

        Also, you can jaw about boobs and the male gaze all day, but the fact of the matter is, there’s practically zero cleavage in the official trailer. Let’s not revise history. I think you guys are recalling the game more than the movie. What’s given most is just great face. Angie’s in black tshirts up to her neck, long sleeves and baggy pjs. Zero boobage.

  16. Alessio says:

    The movie is currently the highest rated videogame adaptations movie, which is more than enough for a tomb raider reboot given no one was betting on this to be decent to begin with. And i think it will surprise us coming opening weekend similarly to the legend of tarzan, but we’ll see

  17. Bridget says:

    The first two movies were terrible, so why would we expect this one to miraculously be good?

    • crazydaisy says:

      I loved both the first two, of course!! It was the first time we had a female action lead that I can remember, carrying a film. Thrilling!! I actually bought them both when the DVDs came out. They were the first DVDs I ever purchased, lol. Oh, wait, I think I bought Blue Crush before that. The male gaze is not just for men. ;-)

  18. kimbers says:

    not interested at all. the casting and plot are not interesting enough for me to even bother.

  19. Seán says:

    Reviews for Vikander’s performance are not okay to good. They’re good to great with a number of reviews singling out Vikander as a really great Lara Croft poorly served by a bland movie script. I will never understand why this site is always trying to undercut everything Vikander does.

    Alicia is seemingly really good as the updated Lara in the later games, that many people may be unfamiliar with because they haven’t played those games. Jolie was excellent as the cultural phenonemon that first appeared in the late 1990s video games. Why pit them against each other or barely disguise your glee that film is a disappointment.

  20. TheOtherViv says:

    Am I the only feminist who does’t mind at all if they gave her bra inserts to make her busty if the character she plays actually has more booby? Actresses should embody the character they are playing and most movie productions go very far to make actors look like their character.
    I would be upset if they had made her more busty than the original video game character just to attract more viewers. But if they had bound her breasts flat or given her a belly to embody the character that would have been fine, too. What I hate is when they ask actors/actresses to put on weight so they can play a chubby or fat person- instead of hiring a talented chubbier actor ( yes, looking at you, Bridget Jones….)

  21. smee says:

    She always seems low energy to me. Way too low energy to be Laura Croft. They totally “fixed” her nose in the poster she’s standing in front of – that would piss me off if I were her.

  22. sus says:

    It was interesting to hear, according to the NY Times, that the original script had a lot more women in it, from what I understand characters on a ship, but at Vikander’s request it was changed to all men.

  23. Madpoe says:

    Miscast. Period. End Game.
    The rehash reboot reimagined (whateva!) arrived without the necessary Lara Croft medical bags you’d find in the game.

  24. Div says:

    The film opened last week in some international territories and is doing well, which seems to be the norm with a lot of films nowadays (bad domestic, good overseas).

    I think people are just sick of reboots. I like Alicia and the director and even I was like meh, another reboot.

  25. guest says:

    Angelina Jolie was so perfect in tomb raider. It wasnt my fave movie or anything but she did an awesome job. no one else could compare.

  26. Patty says:

    What everybody else said, lol. This was yet another reboot/remake that was unnecessary, not needed, and uncalled for. It also does not help that Vikander is not a big star and also so very bland and dull. I think art house serious movies are more her speed, because even she cannot fake enthusiasm for this film. I think like a lot of actresses, she has limited range, and can be fantastic in films that suit her range: Ex-Machina, The Danish Girl; but isn’t that great in films that require more of her: Bourne, Light, Tomb Raider, Man From UNCLE (I think she was so dull, great wardrobe, but Elizabeth Debecki killed it – although in my humble opinion ED is a borderline goddess).

  27. Grant says:

    The Tomb Raider movies with Jolie are absolute tripe, so I hardly think they set any kind of precedent. Also, I’m hearing that Vikander is actually getting pretty good reviews for her performance in this movie so I’m cautiously optimistic.

  28. Harryg says:

    Because she looks like twelve years old? Because she seems barely awake? Because the effects are crap?

  29. Giddy says:

    Was there no one else to cast? AV is more wood sprite than action heroine. I need a root canal, and I think I’d rather have it than go to this.

  30. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    Weren’t scores for the first two lower? They keep missing the mark. AJ was memorable, sure, but not for her acting chops. The movies sucked. Plenty of actresses could better pull off a kickass Indiana Jones character. Don’t know why it’s so hard lol.

  31. teacakes says:

    ….the original Tomb Raider movies also got terrible reviews and this time around all the reviews are basically saying Alicia and her performance are the best thing in a crap movie, so why are so many people here ignoring that and pinning the failure on Alicia?

    I get it, she’s rather boring offscreen but I didn’t see anyone bitching out Margot Robbie for how crappy Suicide Squad (again, another great performance in a bad movie, and recognised as such) was, what is the issue here other than her doing the mk. II of a role originated onscreen by Angelina Jolie?

    • anon says:

      Alicia had the whole tone and the dialogues of this film altered according to her wishes, so said the writer, so she should take the blame when those features are criticized too. And she’s an Oscar winner 8as every publicity says),so the expectations from someone so well regarded are bound to be higher. Being the best thing in a mess is not being good. And please, don’t bring Margot into this conversation! Comparing apples and pears?

  32. Andrea says:

    Is iut just me or did you feel also she should have been more muscular, less scrawny?

  33. DesertReal says:

    I’ll be seeing it this weekend with my stepdaughter, and I’m not excited about it…but I’m hoping to be entertained at the very least?

    Just be better than season 2 of Jessica Jones lol

    *fingers crossed*

  34. Kizzy says:

    I’ll admit it, I wasn’t planning on watching it but I was offered free advanced tickets last night and went with a friend who is a huge fan of the game. Alicia actually made a quick appearance in the theater to say hi. That being said I really enjoyed the movie. It’s an origins story so of course it’s a bit slower to get to the “raiding tombs” bit, but we had such a blast. It’s not a critical darling by any means but definitely a fun movie to watch.

  35. Lina says:

    I sute she is a nice person but as an actress.. She’s like a robot which acts like human and does it great. but it’s still a robot.

  36. Blackbetty says:

    Another remake no one wanted!

  37. Racer1 says:

    Eh, I’m not into action movies male or female. I didn’t see the orignal and will not see the reboot. That said, the previews gave me a slight tingle of interest but Vikander as an action hero requires a level of suspension of disbelief I can’t achieve. It’s a ‘no’ for me Siskel and Ebert.

  38. Gina says:

    I watched it last night, thoroughly enjoyed it. found it refreshing. Was never a fan of AJ. But I’m a millennial and a gamer and found this more in line with the game, so it all made perfect sense to me and was true to the game. I love Alicia Vikander. I would kill for her body. Those weird pointy cones on AJ’s chest were just freaky and weird.

  39. Sunnyjyl says:

    Saw it. Loved it. Vikander was amazing as Lara Croft. The End.

  40. Sarita says:

    Girl…totally agree with you, except for the fact that the original movie is actually on 20% not 30.

  41. lucy2 says:

    Thanks, I was about to go look up the original 2 films, I don’t remember them being huge critical successes either. The first one was a commercial success, but the second made about half of the first. It’s odd to me to hold up those films as some great thing to compare to.

  42. Umyeah says:

    Excellent point, so the new tomb raider is actually getting better reviews then the original. I do appreciate that Lars gets to wears more clothes this time around

  43. littlemissnaughty says:

    We also pinned the various Batmans against each other. If you do a remake and recast the lead, it’s a fair discussion. What is not a fair discussion is the boob talk. It’s 2018. WTF?

    And defending a mediocre remake with “Well the original ones were even worse” is really not that great. If that is the bar, we might as well pack it in. Overall, I’m not that interested in the storylines of … raiding tombs, I guess. I might still see this one because I feel like supporting female-led action/adventure movies.

  44. mannori says:

    You obviously referring to my comment about The Rock but you must have be mixing it with another comment because nowhere did I write that “she’s too small to play an action star”. Angelina isn’t much taller than her and she was totally believable. Is about screen presence. Is about the bad*ss vibe, both on AND off the screen. Is not even about the muscles if you want me to be honest. Angelina walked those red carpets and gave those interviews promoting her Lara Croft and people were interested, drawn to her movie star charisma. She was playing the character on AND off the screen. Nobody even cared about her talent chops certainly. This is not a drama, action movies, blockbusters and comic book movies have a whole set of rules of promotion which include actors playing also a part off screen, while promoting. Now I’m not asking Alicia to become a person that she’s not to sell a movie, but it would certain help if she’d look a little bit more like the character she’s trying to sell to us. And maybe if she could take one or two double espressos before interviews and red carpets that would also help.

  45. mannori says:

    Let me add this because is interesting that you cited The Rock being a wrestler and it just occurred to me that if Ronda Rousey had been cast as Lara Croft, that would have been PERFECT casting. Me, someone who totally loads these type of movies and I’m not even in the target demographics for this, they could have taken my money on opening weekend. Nobody is here for a perfect script and an Oscar winner. I’d dare to say even the dude bros crying for bigger boobs and a movie strictly for their male gaze would have loved Ronda.

  46. anon says:

    Yes, charisma is very necessary for such a lead role. And Vikander misses it.

  47. magnoliarose says:

    She is a horrible and I mean horrible actress. She was on SNL and it was fine because she isn’t an actor but if she was it would have been tragic.

  48. truth hurts says:

    I agree with everything you said mannori. Again people who say the first two were garbage are not Angelina fans. This type of movie isn’t about script. It is about selling the character. Lara Croft is and always will be Jolie. Yes the first movies were cheesy. Jolie said herself she didn’t even want to do them but she made the character. She was badass, hell just listen to the soundtrack. It was hyped and definitely not because of Jon Voight. Angie was a hot ticket then and people wanted to see HER as lara end of story no matter how bad the script was.
    TR2 script was horrific and that is why it didnt do as well period.

  49. Gio says:

    Vikander?! I don’t think she has ever made a SNL appearance.