Review of Lara Croft: Tomb Raider

Introduction

Lara Croft - Tomb Raider was one of 2001`s most eagerly anticipated movies. It had Con Air`s Simon West as its director, Gone In 60 Seconds` Angelina Jolie as the eponymous heroine. Most of the movie`s crew had been involved in the Bond movies and blockbusters like The Mummy. It was based on the most recognised computer game ever and boasted locations as diverse as Hofn in Iceland and Angkor Wat in Cambodia. It should have been the hottest ticket this year.

Why then, should this movie get so nervous as the festive season approaches?

Because it should have a Paxo transfusion. Serve it up with roast potatoes and cranberry sauce. Half an hour to the pound and half an hour over. It.. is.. a.. turkey.

I feel sorry for the cast and crew, for all the obvious hours of work they put into crafting this unwieldy mess of a movie. The technical crew of Tomb Raider includes some of our finest film technicians, and the front-of-camera talent includes some very talented actors. The blame for this movie lies squarely with the director, Simon West, and the screenplay by Patrick Massett and John Zinman.

I didn`t see this movie at the cinema, but I had read the adaptation of the screenplay before I saw this disk, and I`m glad I had because I needed some way of making sense of the movie. Frankly, I`m reminded of that cinematic fiasco "The Avengers". Like LCTR, that movie cut a number of key scenes and plot exposition for no apparent reason and attempted to tell quite a complicated story in a largely disjointed fashion.

LCTR is based on the conceit that an ancient Siberian race had technology that gave them power over time, and that technology was hidden from man (and the villains of the piece The Illuminati) for our own good. The technology was split into two pieces, the key to which was located and re-hidden by Lara`s deceased father. It becomes Lara`s job to locate the other pieces and then destroy them. She also has to do this within a short time scale of an alignment of the planets which only happens once every 5000 years.

Simple stories are always the best.

The structure of the movie is the standard action format - a teaser which introduces the hero (or in this case heroine), meeting the baddies, then three or four big, noisy set-pieces. Unfortunately, there is little else to the movie in terms of building up a relationship with the characters, establishing the villain and telling the story.

Perhaps most depressing of all, and most reminiscent of "The Avengers" is that the movie is totally miscast. Angelina Jolie, while physically an excellent Lara, plays her far too po-faced. She pouts consistently through the movie in one-expression mode (but the special features material shows her looking more relaxed and happy - why couldn`t she have played her part like that?). At least she`s not totally miscast as Uma Thurman was as Emma Peel. Angelina`s real life dad Jon Voight is the only gem in the picture, turning in a brilliant impression of Anthony Hopkins playing Lara`s dead dad. Iain Glen plays villain Manfred Powell QC, a man of breeding and taste. Sadly, Glen looks too lean and mean to fit the part, which should have gone to an older, more well-fed, QC-ish type (Leslie Phillips, f`rinstance who is wasted in a minor role and who gets his head chopped off in one of the deleted scenes). Glen would have been better suited to the role of the romantic interest Alex West. That role is played by Daniel Craig who unfortunately has little screen presence and no chemistry with Lara in his scenes with her. Lastly there is Noah Taylor and Red Dwarf`s Chris Barrie as Lara`s pet boffin and manservant respectively. Taylor, who gets higher billing than the romantic lead, turns in the stereotypical British nerd performance, swearing and surrounding himself with junk. The real crime is the waste of the always-excellent Chris Barrie in the thankless "Yes, Milady" role of Hillary the butler. If they had combined his role with that of the boffin and made him a genuinely Unusual butler, that would have worked a hell of a lot better.

Without giving any plot points away, the denouement leaves a lot to be desired, giving the end of the movie an unfinished feel. In spite of declarations to the contrary, much of what goes on in this movie we have seen bigger and better in other movies.

Video

Considering the picture is only a matter of months old, one might expect a rock solid transfer. In this age of all-digital transfers, a movie on DVD should be sharper, cleaner and generally better than watching a brand new print in a theatre. Take the Columbia release of Charlie`s Angels - spotless, bright, vibrant - everything you`d want in a movie (even if the content wasn`t). LCTR is a disappointment. The 2.35:1 transfer is anamorphic - so far so good - contrast is perfectly good - colours are muted (some might argue "naturalistic") but why should there be any wear and tear on the picture? Some bright scenes have print dirt visible that might be acceptable on a five-year-old movie, but not on something brand new. Print weave (a slow, side-to-side oscillation of the image) is alarmingly obvious, especially on the titles. All in all, a surprisingly lacklustre presentation.

Audio

Okay, my sound system isn`t the most cutting edge technology, but it reproduces most soundtracks just fine. LCTR boasts two English mixes (DD 5.1 and DD 2.0) and a French DD 2.0 mix. Are these exciting, well-modulated showpieces? Are they hell as like. The dialogue is distinctly muted and loses out to the pic n` mix score and effects tracks. I`d hope this picture is showing up shortcomings in my audio setup, but I suspect otherwise.

Features

At least Paramount have made an effort here - even if it`s all electronic press kit material. There are five short backslapping mini-documentaries which are quite fun and an alternate title sequence that could have been used as the background for the menu system. There are four deleted scenes, including one where dear old Leslie Phillips loses his head (bad joke) and the U2 music video "Elevation". Simon West provides an audio commentary, and everything on the disk is fully subtitled, so brownie points there.

Conclusion

None of the Special Features material gives any idea how such a sow`s ear can have been made from such best-silk ingredients. Perhaps there is some kind of curse on cross-platform movies, as so many movies based on computer games and tv series turn out so completely godawful. My initial impression of the film could best be summed up by Steve Coogan`s Paul Calf character.

The basic premise of Lara Croft has such potential for completely subverting the whole action adventure genre, and every opportunity has been wasted. I can recommend the movie as a salient lesson in how not to make an action movie. Three out of ten, could do better. Miss Jolie, see me after class.