Lara Croft: Tomb Raider
Angelina Jolie is a cruel temptress. Or, at least, she was in 2001, when her striking beauty and figure blinded me from just how ridiculously bad this 2001 adaptation of the adventure video game really is. I never thought it was the modern “Raiders of the Lost Ark” it so wants to be, but I at least enjoyed it, and the pleasures of watching Jolie play the role physically. Now, I just see absurdity and empty thrills with nothing behind it. It’s, frankly, a bit disappointing.
“Tomb Raider” was one of the first Hollywood films I saw projected on IMAX, and even then, it was very much about the desire to watch Jolie’s physically-fit performance as the titular Lara Croft more than it was the movie itself, which was fun, but kind of disposable. Time has not been kind to this film, and the seams show big time. Directed by “Con Air’s” Simon West, the film looks like a video game in the way it goes about its business, and is laughable when it attempts to add some depth to the story. Does this film not age well.
When the film begins, we see Lara in a situation of tomb raiding that involves a robotic adversary. Turns out that the scene is a training simulation in her mansion, where she lives with her butler, Hillary (Chris Barrie), and Bryce (Noah Taylor), who is sort of her Q. Not long after, the plot begins to kick into motion as Lara discovers a mysterious clock that has begun to tick with an alignment before a 5000-years in-the-making solar eclipse of all nine planets. Unlike most clocks, however, this one is counting down, kicking off an adventure to retrieve an artifact capable of controlling time and space that Lara’s father (played by Jolie’s father, John Voight) was searching for his whole life before the Illuminati (seriously) and their own tomb raider (Iain Glen) can find it. Oh yeah, and a pre-Bond Daniel Craig is here, as well, for some reason.
I think I tried to play the old video game once on PC when the movie came out, so I’m not coming at this as a fan of the original material. As a movie fan, however, this movie really does suck, if I’m being completely honest with myself. The action scenes are ridiculously constructed and silly to watch, the story has all the emotion of a 12-inch floppy disc, and Jolie’s scowling she does with her face is, honestly, distracting as all get out. It’s understandable why people saw her as the right fit for Lara Croft (physically, she certainly fills out the role), but West and the writers on this film (including the co-writers on “Face/Off” on story with TV writer Sarah B. Cooper, with the script credited to Patrick Massett and John Zinman) hangs her out to dry with a one-dimensional personality that doesn’t hold up at all after 17 years. Jolie was basically coming off of an Oscar when she made this, but you wouldn’t know it here. It’d be easier to put the film’s failings on her just being a pretty face if there wasn’t ample evidence in her career (“Girl, Interrupted,” “Changeling,” “Pushing Tin,” among others) that she was capable of much more.
Ultimately, though, “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider” is West’s mistake more than Jolie’s. Gone is a steady-hand producer like Jerry Bruckheimer to guide the reigns and put the pieces in place for him to succeed with “Con Air” (or Stallone with “The Expendables 2”). He’s a good director-for-hire when he has someone looking over his shoulder, but seems lost at telling a coherent and entertaining story otherwise. I seriously did not expect to be this down on the film after so long. I was hoping I would at least have fun watching it again. Yeah, this didn’t hold up one bit.
