MovieChat Forums > Tomb Raider (2018) Discussion > Angelina Jolie vs. Alicia Vikander

Angelina Jolie vs. Alicia Vikander


Who do you think was the best Lara?

Personally I would say Jolie, mainly because she has more charisma and likability. While Alicia Vikander may be more bland, at least she managed to do a passable job and improved herself throughout her movie.

reply

At least Alicia showed some emotions

reply

Nobody asked for that.

reply

Angelina played the old Lara
Alicia played the younger and un - experienced,still a kid Lara

reply

So did Angelina in her movies.

reply

Did you saw any emotions in jolie's TR movies? I didn't

reply

I saw some.

reply

Definitely Angelina. She was both charismatic and a sex symbol of her time. Vikander on the other hand is one of the blandest, most boring actresses I've ever seen. [spoiler]also the bewbs[/spoiler]

reply

I hate Jolie. One of the most overrated actresses ever. She had the pretty face and the breasts to play a somewhat authentic Croft. But Alicia was more palatable if only because she can at least act well enough to keep me in the movie. I am always acutely aware that I am watching someone "acting" whenever I see Jolie. Just terrible. Her performances range from F to C+. I will give her credit for a few early films and she is very good at accents.
And she's hardly the sex symbol people laud her as. Other than the face and tets, she is a mess. Always was. Bony, lanky legs and arms. Gross body. Nearly a palsy appearance when you look at her bulbous shoulders and knees. The era of Hollywood reporters losing their shit over her chicken leg jutting out of her dress slit was nearly psychedelic in its degree of disconnect from reality.

So yeah, Vikander>Jolie.
The new movie ain't great but is a little better than the first ones. To bad it didn't really commit to the fantastic traps like the first ones did. Might have elevated it to a B grade.

reply

Angelina Jolie looked like a real-world physical recreation of the Lara Croft character. She had the curves, the boobs, the legs, the lips...the whole damn package.

Alicia Vikander, while I've enjoyed her work as an actress, physically can almost be mistaken for a little boy. There's no sex appeal there.

And I don't really give a damn about the acting skills of either actress, or what kind of "emotions" they bring to this role. Give me a friggin' break. This is an action movie based on a video game with a character who's going to be on screen 90% of the time and kickin' butt for most of that...I want to watch a woman who knocks my socks off. Jolie (in 2001) filled those shoes. Vikander doesn't.

reply

Angelina is without doubt more attractive (and she became even more attractive with age), though I find the physical beauty to be irrelevant to this case.

reply

I cancel this vote with mine.

reply

Why?

reply

EASY ANSWER...VIKANDER...BETTER ACTOR,BETTER MOVIE....MY PERSONAL FEELING IS ANYONE VOTING FOR JOLIE IS VOTING MORE WITH THEIR DICK THAN THEIR BRAINS.

reply