“Tomb Raider is just okay, but because I didn’t expect much more, okay was fine. […] I hope they don’t make another one of these films, because cinema doesn’t need it. I also hope that the next time Hollywood try and adapt a computer game to the big screen, they have a clear sense of story, tension, stakes and payoff, so the cinema experience is worthwhile.”
It wasn’t that I didn’t want to see Tomb Raider, it’s just that I didn’t have any inclination to see it. When my mum asked me to take her to the movies amidst an intense rehearsal season, my first questions was, “What film do you want to see?” I wasn’t in the mood for anything remotely intellectual, preferring a cup-of-tea and twenty minutes of television, the perfect time it takes to finish a good brew, over anything on the big screen. When she said the new Lara Croft film, I brightened up and said, “Oh yeah, I could do that.”
The fact that I went into the film expecting nothing more than cliché action says a lot about the expectations of the series, or maybe it says more about video game adaptations as a whole. I love video games, particularly when they have a great story and even more so when they are based around the adventure genre. I’ve played a couple of the Tomb Raider games over the years and they have never disappointed. The recent Uncharted series are the new Tomb Raider and they have filled that gap in the market wonderfully, producing games that are lush, challenging and a whole lot of fun. Video game to film adaptations have not seen nearly as much success. The recent Warcraft film has had mixed reviews, the Silent Hill and Resident Evil films have meandered along, and the Hitman films have failed to get any major traction. For all their depth and themes and ideas, video games have yet to be successfully transferred into the cinema world adequately. I wonder if it is because video games often mean different things to different people. Each player dictates their own game and experience, to a certain degree, and so the films often try to be many things to all people. Perhaps the stories in video games are just so different in structure that they require complete reengineering to translate successfully on the screen? I don’t really know. All I know is, I’m never that excited to see a film adaptation of a video game, and so Tomb Raider was understandably met with low expectations.
As a teenager, I remember going to both of the Angelina Jolie films. I remember enjoying them, though never feeling any desire to go back and watch them. The genre is appealing: puzzles, adventure, temples and action, with usually a good dosage of magic or the supernatural. It’s a style that has its roots in pulp fiction and comic books, perfected in the 1980s by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, with the Indiana Jones series. The influence of Raiders of the Lost Ark and its sequels are clear here in Tomb Raider. The film starts in civilisation and slowly moves more and more into the ancient world. It is a formula that has been trotted out a number of times now and so many of the beats feel like clichés or tropes, and for the most part they are. The fact that the genre elements are generally the best parts of the film is not wholly a bad thing, because we haven’t had a film like this in a long time. Not since the last Indiana Jones film in 2008 anyway. While most people may feel like the film is offering nothing new, a sentiment I don’t disagree with, adventure film enthusiasts like myself will be happy to go along for the ride. As far as recent films go, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle remains the far superior offering, dealing with the same genre and cinema tropes, and yet manages to do so while feeling wholly original.
Alicia Vikander plays the lead role of Lara Croft and she does a good job. It’s not really a character with much depth, beyond having daddy issues. Her origin story is similar to Bruce Wayne, as a girl from money, who tries to pretend she is just like everyone else. I expected from the start that by the end, she would have made peace with being mega-rich. I’m not a huge origin story fan, at least, not in this day and age of superhero film saturation. Seeing Lara Croft become an action star is not something I was ever going to be really interested in. Thankfully, the fan service is kept to a minimum and the film focuses on Croft as a human and how she is driven to search out her lost father. What can be said for Vikander’s portrayal of Croft is that she is an understated dynamic force on the screen. Much of the screen time is devoted to her alone and her trials. Whether it be hanging from a rusty plane over a waterfall, dodging pedestrians in a high-speed bicycle race, or sneaking around an enemy campsite, her performance is compelling. It is easy to overlook the incredible amount of work that goes into physical roles of this type, often having to perform some of the stunts and learn much of the weapons that the character engages with. Vikander presents a real version of Croft that is both believable and interesting.
Most of the supporting cast are brilliant actors in generally forgettable roles. Walter Goggins is always fun to watch and does his best to make the villain leap off the screen. Dominic West does what he can with the bland father role. Kristin Scott Thomas plays a small role at the beginning and end, which she does a fine job in, but she doesn’t have much to work with. I quite enjoyed Daniel Wu’s sidekick character and he felt like a good equal to Lara Croft. My only qualm about his role is that he wasn’t in the film nearly enough. Apparently Derek Jacobi was in this film, which I don’t remember at all. Looking at the cast list, they really managed to get an all-star cast. What a shame the characters and script didn’t have more for them to work with.
As far as action set pieces go, the best are saved for the first half of the film. As mentioned earlier, there is a high-speed chase through the streets of London on bicycles. The simplicity of a cat-and-mouse chase makes it clear to follow and thrilling to watch. Using a simple gimmick of a can of paint leaking behind Croft’s bike, the film creates a visual cue of both order and chaos. It gives the creative team a chance to develop different action ideas, with Croft’s bicycle flipping and jumping from trucks to alleyways, while still having a clear narrative reason for her to be pursued. In short: if her pursuers lose track of her, it doesn’t matter, because they still have a green line to follow. I equally enjoyed a chase through junk ships in South East Asia. Again, the simplicity of a chase makes for an enjoyable action sequence. Croft is in pursuit of her backpack containing precious papers. Precious papers seems to be the cornerstone of any great adventure story. As the film progresses, much of the jungle shoot-outs and shipwreck scenes feel overly chaotic to make much sense. Plus, you know as a viewer that Croft will survive, so it is a case of just waiting out the flashing lights and booming bass.
Overall, Tomb Raider is just okay, but because I didn’t expect much more, okay was fine. Vikander and the rest of the cast do a good job with the little they have to work with, while the creative team behind the film do a generally good job with bringing the mediocre story to the screen. I hope they don’t make another one of these films, because cinema doesn’t need it. I also hope that the next time Hollywood try and adapt a computer game to the big screen, they have a clear sense of story, tension, stakes and payoff, so the cinema experience is worthwhile.
Rating: ★★☆☆☆
Look Tell 