Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - Cradle of Life

<<

The Arcade

>>

As far as video game movie adaptations go, I never found the first two 'Tomb Raider' films to be particularly bad ones. I knew very little of the 'Tomb Raider' series, but I still had enough familiarity with it to see a thing or two they seemed to get right. However, I think that in resembling those first few games, this one does a better job of it. The film's only real problem is that it's basically what we saw last time with add-ons. It's the formula of "adventurer must intercept ancient magical object before bad guys can use it for their own selfish means". But honestly, that seems to just be the formula for a standard adventure story. I mean, 'Indiana Jones' does it too.

An earthquake in Greece unveils the underwater location of the Luna Temple; a temple built by Alexander the Great in which he kept his treasures. One such treasure is an orb, which is what begins our story as Lara Croft (Angelina Jolie) and her partners Nicholas and Jimmy Petraki (Daniel Caltagirone and Fabiano Martell, respectively) find it. Just as Lara goes for it, however, the group is ambushed by Chen and Xien Lo (Simon Yam and Terence Yin, respectively). The ambushers manage to take the orb, but Lara manages to escape with a medallion. Lara later learns from MI6 that the orb she was after is actually a map that leads to the Cradle of Life, which houses Pandora's Box.

Meanwhile, Chen plans to sell the orb to a bio-weapon dealer, once a Nobel Prize winning scientist, named Dr. Jonathan Reiss (Ciarán Hinds), who will be our bad guy Lara's racing against in this story. Agreeing to find the orb and keep it away from Reiss, Lara sets the condition that if she is to help, her old special friend, Terry Sheridan (Gerard Butler) needs to be released from prison to help her, due to his familiarity with Chen's operation. If the pair can't stop Reiss before he finds the Cradle of Life, he will unleash a plague contained within Pandora's Box, and save only those he considers worthy.

I might consider this one a touch better in quality than the first, but on the whole, I feel pretty much the same about this one as I did with the first one. It's the standard adventure premise, and there's not a whole not of new and fresh ideas going on here. That said, considering the games they are based on, it's hard to discredit the plot for being so standard. It's something that works for what it's supposed to be. Really think about that adventure formula I mentioned in the beginning though. It's used a lot! The question is what separates the good ones from the bad ones? Well, I think a lot of it has to do with the lead's passion for what they are doing.

When you take 'Indiana Jones' or 'Uncharted', Indy and Drake are always really into what they are uncovering. They have this almost child-like wonder to their reactions when they find something interesting out, or there's some kind of big reveal. Lara Croft has similar passions, but she spends a whole lot of time either posing, or being a badass. I find you don't get that sense of awe on an adventure with her like you do with Indy or Drake. I compare the three, as all three use said formula, but I tend to like Indy or Drake more than I enjoy Lara. Having said that, it's my understanding that they have since improved on her character, so I really should try out the latest series of games for myself.

On the whole, I think the 'Tomb Raider' movies are a pretty worthy adaptation for what the games are. Things may not be so directly adapted, but I can't honestly say I didn't really get what I expected in either film. They make for a decent back to back adventure pairing, but I don't feel any need to revisit them in the near future. I'd much sooner re-watch the 2018 version, but that's perhaps a bit closer to where my tastes lie. This version has a bit of a 'Bond' feel to it, where the other is a bit more rough and tumble. But for what these are, neither is bad, neither is great, and both times I can't deny I got pretty much what I expected.

​3/5

---