Aug 29, 2001 03:58 PM
3212 Views
Having seen the trailer for Tomb Raider several times, I was really looking forward to this film. The casting of Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft seemed to be – and it was – a masterstroke. Plus, I must confess that the thought of her jiggling jugs bouncing about inside skimpy outfits was quite a pleasurable thing to long forward to as well.
BUT - and I am not referring to Ms Jolie’s tempting rear end either – this film completely misses the mark.
Firstly, I must confess to knowing nothing about the Computer game that this film is based on. I’ve never played it, know nothing about any other characters apart from Lara Croft. But then I never even knew she was LADY Lara Croft either. So I came to the film as a bit of a virgin, so to speak. I assumed that it would be a little like a cross between ‘The Mummy’ and ‘Indiana Jones’ with Lara being played as a female ‘Indy’ or ‘Rick’. That assumption was correct and she plays – as well as looks – the part excellently.
Angelina Jolie IS Lara Croft – of that there is no doubt. But who are the other also-rans in this film? Why are they in the movie? There are at least a couple of characters who add nothing at all to the film.
Well actually the characterisation of the other players is poor. The baddies are NOT Bad enough. The secret society – the Illuminati – is sketchily drawn and appears to be a bunch of old men who are easily blown off course. Far from being an all-powerful, all-knowing group set to take over the world, which basically is what the plot – and I use the word advisedly – would have us believe, they are just background material.
The baddie that Lara must thwart is the Illuminati’s chief henchman, Manfred (played pretty tepidly by Ian Glen). The secret of a good ‘baddie’ is that he must be evil. He must be the one person in the film you would love to see skewered to death in the most horrific way imaginable. A cheer goes up from the audience as he dies and the hero/heroine saves the day. Well, not in this film.
A basic run through of the plot is that once every 5000 years, the planets are in alignment and two halves of a magical artefact can be brought together. Whoever holds them at that juncture can control time and thus become a God and rule over the Earth. Pure hokum, I know – but no worse that the kind of plot in both ‘The Mummy’ films, but they pull the whole thing off so, so much better, believe me.
I read a quote that Lara Croft was a kind of female James Bond. Maybe, she has the fast car, loads of money, plenty of gadgets and can get herself into and out of scrapes athletically. She literally ‘kicks ass’!
The gadgets come from one of her two ‘staff’. First there is a Butler, Hilary, played by Chris Barrie (yes, he of Brittas Empire and Red Dwarf). I would assume he was cast to add some humour – and so he would, if only some one had written him some funny lines! He looks like a fish out of water at times, although it was quite a hoot to see him don a bulletproof vest and load up with a machine gun in the scene where the Mansion is attacked. Anyway onto the ‘gadget guy’, Bryce.
Unless I missed something, we are not told he is in fact Lara’s brother. I only know that because I read it in another review of this film – but it was news to me. He is superfluous to the plot as far as I am concerned. OK So he has built a robot which acts as Lara’s ‘in-house’ nemesis when she is at home ‘training’ for her tomb raiding exploits. But later in the film, he accompanies her on her trip to find the other half of the ‘triangle artefact’, but does bugger all. He’s got a laptop computer on him, but when the action hots up, he’s ignored. When Lara finally wins the day (sorry gave that away – but I’m sure you really didn’t think she’d lose did you?), he’s not there. And the final scene shows him and Hillary, the Butler, back at the Mansion greeting Lara who is now wearing a dress. Duhhhh – so what is the point of his character? I realise that maybe he was part of the original game, but like I said, I know nothing about that. Surely he is not in the film just as window dressing. Talking of ‘window dressing’, Mr Pimms – Manfred’s assistant – what’s he all about? Apart from looking iffeminate and standing around sometimes, he is virtually invisible. Either he is there to add to the plot or just cut him from the film, save on his salary and cast someone else.
Too many of these characters or plot lines lead nowhere. The Director of this mish-mash, Simon West, did a fine job with Nicolas Cage’s ‘Con Air’. But remember he had some good actors to work with there, loads of action and twists a-plenty along the way. The twists in this film are missing – apart from the occasional braiding of Ms Jolie’s hair.
This film does not live up to my expectation of it – does not even come close. It misses too many opportunities to be a good film. The casting of Lara is perfect – but basically this film is just about Lara Croft – gun toting, high kicking, athletic high wire stunts, motorcycle riding, explosions etc etc. Mindless crash-bang action, but not, I’m afraid done in an exciting way. Visually it’s pretty good, but wholly and ultimately unsatisfying as a movie, because of the lack of a strong character base.
I found it more of a cross between Mission Impossible 2 (because of the motorbike sequences and death defying stunts) and Tank Girl than anything else. They will make a sequel – of that you can be sure. This film is making and will continue to make – loads of money. Enough adolescent kids will queue up to get their kicks from their favourite ‘babe’ come to life that cinemas will be packed for a while. But hopefully the next time we see Lara Croft on screen it will be in a film with more substance – with more of an ensemble cast – rounded characters (apart from just Ms Jolie’s ‘rounded’ ones) and a plot that doesn’t just fizzle out.
