I'm not as disappointed with this film as I should be. I mean, how good is a movie based upon a video game really supposed to be? Tomb Raider, like the video game it is based on, does feature the rare view of a tough female lead, takes us to varied exotic locations, features action packed scenes with both human and inhuman monster, and isn't necessarily limited by reality. However, Tomb Raider, like the video game it is based on, is also choppy, illogical, shallow, focuses on the title character's body way too much, doesn't end well, and when it is over makes you feel a little like you've just wasted a large portion of your life.

Will this be the first movie based on a video game to have a video game based on it? I'll bet money on it! There is a line a character says in the movie: "One Tomb Raider is good. Two is even better." Since Jolie has signed on to do at least two more of them, let us hope that this turns out to be true.

The opening scene really confused me. I always pictured the world of Lara Croft as taking place in the 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' time period of the mid 1930's. I mean that is the feeling they were always going for, right? However, this film starts with Lara walking through what looks like the inside of a tomb full of cobwebs, ropes and stone pillars. Suddenly a very futuristic robot springs to life trying to batter and crush our heroine, and even tries slice her open with little buzz saws on the ends of its arms. After this brief music video segment, she tells it to "STOP", which it does. Then she opens up a computer panel in the front, and tells it to play "Lara's Party Mix" and the robots chest view screen begins to show what looks like a Winamp Plug-in. Even without the lightning fast editing, it is clear from what happens that Simon West used to be a music video director.

Apparently this robot was just a training simulation even though she was shooting live ammo at it, and the robot was clearly trying to hurt her. And then we see her dragging it into her living room. Where exactly is this add-on faux temple room located anyway? We then meet her two companions. A butler, and a computer hacker employee, who also designed the robot for her. We know he is a serious robotics person because when he sleeps, little 4" tall robots are running randomly across his floor, and also a few are in the bed with him.

Angelina Jolie is a good actress. I wasn't sure if she could pull off the character, but after seeing the film, I realize that a lot of actresses could have. There are a number of physically adept women out there, who could pull off the action scenes as realistically as she did. Nothing else was really required of the role, except maybe a figure that could fit inside each particular costume. Angelina uses what was supposed to be an upper class British accent to help define her character. Unfortunately, it sounded more like a New England snob to me. I would've liked her accent to be a little more rough. She also is wearing a very padded bra. I don't think it was really necessary for the role, but at least it is approaching the character in the video game.

Like the Lara Croft in the video game, you never really worry about her getting killed. You can just tell in this film that it isn't going to happen. Apparently so does she. Even when slightly wounded, she neither acts like she cares, nor does she flinch from danger. Action scenes always work better when we presume that the good people can get hurt, and the bad people will at least be a challenge.

Some people say that Lara Croft is a good role model for women, in that she is a 'strong woman'. I remember hearing these remarks when the game came out in what I think was 1995, and I have to make the same criticism to that remark for both. That in both mediums, this isn't really a good female role model, but a male role model, in a woman's skin. There is nothing about the film's Croft that is really feminine. She is put in a dress at the end for shock value, or humor's sake, but that is about it. The same character could have been played by a man, and the movie wouldn't have required anything different of the character. Maybe that's the point of woman's action film? I don't know.

The arch-villain in the movie, Powell, is never really given much to do to make him seem that evil. In the last 20 minutes or so, we get that impression, but for the most part he is about as interchangeable with the masked gunman who drop like flies during an early combat scene. I guess his motivation was to have the same power the entire Illuminati wanted. Powell works for the Illuminati, who wants to find a key, and two pieces of a triangle that will allow the user to control time, but only during a total solar eclipse that happens every 5000 years.

First off, all the planets are in alignment much sooner than that, and it isn't every 5000 years. Perhaps I'm picking on the movie's astronomy unfairly, but two more items really riled me up. The first was when Lara is looking through a telescope commenting about how the planets are almost lined up. What she sees are three or four planets, illuminated from somewhere, slowly lining up. I had hoped the camera would pull back to show that Lara was looking at a piece of artwork, but no, that is what she was apparently seeing through the telescope. Then she starts talking about how when all the planets line up, there is going to be a total solar eclipse. Do the writers even know what this means? I mean, all you need is the moon in the right place to do that. And so what if all nine planets are in alignment? So Pluto has more of an eclipse than normal?

Another character, given no chance to have a third dimension at all is Alex West. He is supposed to be another 'Tomb Raider'. When we first see he and Lara together, they act as if they used to be lovers, but in this 'no sex allowed here' movie, they offer no explanation or description of their past encounters. Lara lets West know that she is still disappointed in that West is in tomb raiding for the money, while Lara foolishly only cares about the glory. Some people might think that stealing artifacts from ancient sites is actually somewhat disrespectful, but I digress. I'm sure the writers meant to show that they cared for one another at one point, and maybe still do. Instead we get a scene where he stands idly by when Jolie is being shot at by dozens of soldiers in Cambodia. We also later get a shot of Lara sneaking into his shower, and writing 'Traitor' on steamed glass. The scene ends there almost immediately. Later, he is unable to kill her when he has the chance. And towards the end, she is willing to sacrifice almost everything in an attempt to save him. All these scenes together that could be construed as describing their relationship totaled maybe 90 seconds, and I'm not exaggerating!

My friend, Paul, whom I saw the movie with said after the movie "If they ever give out awards for 'Most Useless Lackey', the two in this movie would win." Lara's lackey gets taken from Venice to Iceland towards the end for absolutely no apparent reason. He doesn't do anything or say anything. The arch-villain's Lackey, Pim, does two things in the movie. In the beginning, when Manfred Powell is talking to the Illuminati, he is holding a stack of books for him in the background. In the end, while Lara's lackey is doing nothing useful, Pim at least gets to hold 'the box' containing Lara's piece of the triangle. Come to think of it, at the end, when Powell shoots West to convince Lara that she needs to 'control' time, why didn't he instead shoot her hacker employee? I would think she would care about him just a little more.

There are four really big action sequences. The first with the Robot didn't work for me. The 2nd with the shoot out at her house was a great premise, that they only filmed it somewhat interestingly. Lara is practicing her gymnastics in her grand two story living room by being supported from the ceiling on bungee cords. When the soldiers break in, she only briefly stays in the cords as she flies around shooting, stabbing and punching the dozens of armed soldiers. The third was easily the best taking place in a Cambodian temple. Some guards, and Lara, are attacked by a few dozen easily destroyed monkey statues, and then finally a large six armed goddess that reminded me of a similar battle from "The Golden Voyage of Sinbad". It was only about this point that I began to actually enjoy the film. I was rather bored up until this point, but these scenes were very well filmed, and rather exciting. Although, the way it ended was ludicrous, at best. Lara runs outside only to find all of her opponents just sitting around, not really that worried about giant six armed goddesses coming after them. She runs away at full speed, only to end at a waterfall, where the other 'tomb raider' is waiting, not breathing hard with an Uzi. What happens next is even more ludicrous. Trust me.

The final action scene would be a fistfight between the two main protagonists that came out of nowhere. Powell was never seen as a formidable opponent with anything but a dagger. Why do we get a fistfight between them at the end? They both had guns aimed at one another, but then they decide to drop them and duke it out. Couldn't they have shown Powell's superior fighting skills in at least one scene before this?

The dialogue isn't as ludicrous as "The Mummy Returns", but this may be because there wasn't even as much as was in that similar film. The movie really is about the sets and the action pieces, but as a message to the producers of films like this, all it really takes is a brief line or two to explain what and why the villains are doing what they are doing to make everything seem more plausible. Why exactly do the Illuminati want to control time for the brief period they have available? We see it make a dog younger, I think. No one I've asked seems to really know what was going on in that scene. And why exactly are we to believe that if you stop time, and reverse a thrown dagger in mid air it will go in the opposite direction when time is started again. Wouldn't it keep travelling where it was going, only butt first? Again, I digress away from larger complaints.

A dead zone is mentioned surrounding this large crater that an ancient city, and the final destination is located inside of. I can see the writers turning hours into days trying to decide how they can explain this in a line or two. Finally the director and producers say to them 'why bother', and so they don't. They just land their helicopters miles away from the crater and continue in trucks, and then on dog sleds as they approach this crater. As they cross their ice, Lara's hacker servant's laptop screen starts to get blurry. Lara quietly says, "Welcome to the Dead Zone", and then the trucks stop working too. Wouldn't this phenomenon be far more important of a study to world powers, military mights, and people like the illuminati? And how come their machine guns still work, complete with battery powered laser sites? Never mind, I digress again.

The legend tells us that the two pieces were sent to the ends of the earth so that no one would ever try to control time again. Well, apparently someone lied, since only one piece was sent away, and the other one remained inside the time control device, in the large crater / dead zone. There were maps to where these pieces were supposed to be located. For some reason one could only be opened at a set time during the eclipse, and then another at a set time during the eclipse. This also confused me. I know I shouldn't be thinking about stuff like this, but I've noticed that the great adventure films traditionally seem to make sense.

Here is another concept to think about. We learn about two-thirds of the way into the movie that Lara's dad (her real life dad, Jon Voight) was actually a member of the Illuminati, but who betrayed them. Since he was apparently the expert in trying to locate these items, wouldn't you think that someone else from the Illuminati's would have searched his house, for the missing key, maps, etc.?

As one other odd note, the creators of the video game have always insisted that her name be pronounced "Lar-a", not 'Laura'. However, I guess the makers of the movie thought that this might cause confusion, so they spell her name Lara, but have everyone in the movie pronounce it like "Laura".

"Tomb Raider" is certainly no "Raiders of the Lost Ark", but I doubt that the long-standing benchmark for adventure films will ever be reached again.



Recommended:
No

Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 9 - 12