Review of Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - The Cradle of Life (2003) by Andrew G — 23 Oct 2010

"No guns, no money, no weapons of any kind." Lara Croft - Angelina Jolie.

As far as Adventure Icons go, Lara Croft is behind Indiana Jones and Flash Gordon as one of the most famous and iconic. Lara Croft was a very bad film and highly unsuccessful. Well, I'm half right with my statement. The film just plain stunk; it reeked of mediocrity and cliché. The shame is, a lot of people really loved it. So what happens when you make a successful film? Make a sequel, no matter how pointless it could be. Really? Was the first Lara Croft film so good that it needed a sequel? I am one of the people that thought it was absolute trash. To put it simply: the game franchise is good overall, but the films are crap. What about it spells out good to some people?

Adventure icon Lara Croft has made perhaps the most important archaeological discovery in history: an orb that leads to Pandora's Box. Unfortunately, the Orb falls into the hands of an evil scientist named Jonathan Reiss, who deals in killer viruses. Recruited by British Intelligence to get the Orb back from Reiss, she recruits her former love interest, Terry Sheridan, a British Marine turned Mercenary. The adventure spans continents, and action ensues. Now I'm not the biggest fan of the Tomb Raider video games: I enjoy them, but as far as the stories are concerned, I'm not entirely certain as to what happened in what happened. Speaking from just someone who has watched the film, I can honestly say that I found the plot to be extremely dull and uninteresting. The adventure aspect is the sort of thing I loved in Indiana Jones, but that wasn't because of the story itself, but because of the character. If you took away the Fedora hat and the Whip, Indiana Jones is still one of the most beloved and iconic characters in the history of film. He's really interesting, and not invincible like a lot of Adventure icons. Lara Croft is known for being a female heroine, as well as her over-sizes breasts in the Video Games. As far as the film is concerned, she's not at all interesting a character. I never got an impression of excitement or care for the character, and that's what brought the film down. I also found the aspect of the plot that paired ex-lovers together to work for a common goal to be predictable and cliché. It never engaged me, and following the 2 uninteresting characters wasn't enjoyable. If the characters in an adventure film aren't interesting, then you lose a hell of a lot of enjoyment from it. What I found to be most insulting about the film was that it tried to make up for the shallow characters by showing off Angelina Jolie and how wonderful she is to look at. I'm going to make one thing straight: I'm not a big Angelina Jolie fan. I think she can be decent, but most of the praise she gets is undeserved, and unlike most men on the planet, I don't think she's a perfect physical woman either. They shove it in your face though, the first few scenes she is in features her in a bikini. It came off as a desperate attempt to get the majority of the male audience to get into the film, and it didn't at all get me excited for the rest of the film. What makes the film difficult to sit through is the length and pace. It's 2 hours, which is nothing new for an adventure film, but it's paced too slow in my opinion, and is really boring when you consider that this slow pace is present in order to attempt to develop the characters. It comes off as a boring sit, and feels much longer than the 2 hours.

As mentioned, Angelina Jolie plays Lara Croft. I've already said she isn't an actress I am a fan of, but for all the bad I have to say about some of her performances, she's decent in the role of Lara Croft. The English Accent she puts on works well enough for the role, and she does indeed look the part, even if that's what they try to make you remember most. The character is boring, but Jolie is nonetheless decent in the film. Gerard Butler plays Terry Sheridan. Butler again is decent, but he doesn't stand out at all and could easily have been replaced by a better actor. Ciarán Hinds plays the villain Reiss. I feel that the Villain was really underplayed, and Hinds never got the opportunity to display how good/bad an actor he is. The performance is forgettable.

The special effects were decent, but nothing to brag about. The practical effects where you'd see Croft fight or perform stunts ranged from fun to watch and interesting, to downright awful. If you choose to watch the film purely for the special effects, then you're going to be really disappointed because they're not too good. They do the job, but barely.

It's another example of a lazily made Video Game adaptation. It does everything it can to be basic entertainment and nothing more. Personally, I think you're best skipping it and checking out a much better Action/Adventure film. But, if you like basic special effects and films that lack a complex plot, then this is for you.

Andrew's rating: 2.5 out of 10.