|
Review by Dustin Putman
2 stars out of 4
The summer of laughably protracted movie titles continues with "Lara
Croft: Tomb RaiderThe Cradle of Life," a superior sequel to 2001's
"Lara Croft: Tomb Raider" in that it is a divertingly tolerable experience,
rather than a numbingly dull one. One possible reason for the notable
improvements in pacing is the change in director, from the hack-style
Simon West (1999's "The General's Daughter") to the more stylish Jan
de Bont (1994's "Speed"). If there is one thing de Bont has proven
in the past, it is his adeptness in setting up and pulling off action
seq uences. However, while there are more moments with flair than
in the original fiasco, it remains a one-dimensional and suspiciously lifeless affair.
Based on the video game character, Lara Croft (Angelina Jolie) is
a wealthy Brit who raids tombs, and saves humanity in her spare time.
This time, Lara's mission is to retrieve Pandora's Box, which lies
dormant in a secret place and has the power to destroy mankind. Standing
in her way is Jonathan Reiss (Ciaran Hinds), who has stolen a magical
ball with the power to lead anyone in its possession to the sought-after
box. With time running out, Lara enlists the aid of ex-boyfriend and
convict Terry Sheridan (Gerard Butler), who still may hold feelings for her.
"Lara Croft: Tomb RaiderThe Cradle of Life" holds scenes of vivid
imagination and effectiveness, but for every one that inspires or
stimulates or even frightens, there are two more that lack narrative
cohesion, professionalism, and energy. The key to the franchi se's
failure, thus far, is its confusion in how to handle the lead heroine
of Lara Croft. As with Charlie's AngelsDylan, Natalie, and AlexLara
is strong-willed, tough-as-nails, and sexy. Unlike the crime-fighting
threesome, however, screenwriter Dean Georgaris gives Lara no true
character shades, and Angelina Jolie (2002's "Life or Something Like
It") keeps her role at arm's length, unable to endear herself to audiences.
When an action film (or any genre, for that matter) can't even get
the viewer to care about its protagonist, then it has more than likely
failed. Nothing much is learned about Lara in the process of the film's
admittedly brisk-seeming two-hour running time; she is little more
than an unfocused cipher.
Fortunately, much of what surrounds the spoil-sport Lara works in
spite of itself. The plot is preposterous and I wouldn't even wager
a guess at what, exactly, it is about outside of the basic premise,
but there are worthwhile bits. An underwater opener involving a buried
city and a hungry shark is thrilling, as is a creative and unexpectedly
spooky climax set within a dark, creature-filled forest. Likewise,
some of the stunts are awesome to watch, all the more so because the
camera shots linger long enough on the action to understand they have
been done with a minimum of visual effects. Lara and Terry's motorcycle
race, their death-defying jump off a building wearing parasailing
gear, and Lara's bamboo stick gymnastics are silly, yet fun in an
eager-to-please way that the first picture didn't even attempt. At
the same time, the stuntpersons too often feel obvious, and are not
as seamless with the real actors as s the norm for big-budget filmmaking.
Angelina Jolie has turned in electric performances of emotional weight
and depth, and she will undoubtedly have more such roles, but her
Lara Croft is not one of them. Jolie is athletic and beautiful, but
she sorely lacks heart. Ultimately, this is the case with the entir
ety of "Lara Croft: Tomb RaiderThe Cradle of Life," a motion picture
that, like its precursor, is a joyless, emotion-free slog that never
seems to take off before the end credits have rolled. Giving viewers
a reason for why they should care about, or even watch, Ms. Croft
is awfully difficult when the filmmakers themselves obviously have
no idea who she is. They don't even seem to care.
Copyright © 2003 Dustin Putman
|
