Tomb Raider: The Cradle Of Life

Video game-to-film adaptations seldom work. It's the principle of the thing. The standard plot line for a video game is set piece after set piece after set piece with minimal story expansion - and the plot that is there is usually shamelessly derivative. In the case of games that actually have decent storylines, these are generally so clichéd that you'll find they've already been stolen from blockbuster films. Metal Gear Solid, of course, was a prime example of this, having nicked the bulk of its inspiration from Escape From New York. But despite the consistently poor quality, adaptations nonetheless make money, because for all the bad acting and repetitive scenes, people still go to see them - presumably people like me who don't know any better.

And so we move to the second Tomb Raider film, a picture that's allegedly doing poor box office business because, according to the distributors, "the latest game wasn't very good". Never mind the fact that it's the sequel to a piece of celluloid that was so poor that I wouldn't wipe my backside with it - it's inconceivable that this should scare people away. I'll admit that on this occasion I actually went out of duty: I'd anticipated that Cradle of Life would be bad but felt that I owed it to myself to see it before I started to criticise it. You need a frame of reference.

One of the biggest problems with the original TR was that you never really felt Lara was in any danger. She was a feisty and seemingly impassable heroine who, you felt, would save the world in plenty of time and with more than enough lives left. Her guns never seemed to run out of ammo, and she survived with little more than a couple of scratches - it was visually impressive, but it was *boring*, a video game demo made flesh. The lost-father backstory was a redundant afterthought that was thrown in to give some 'depth', but it was too little too late.

Happily, the writers seemed to have rectified this problem come the sequel and suffice to say that in Cradle of Life, Lara bleeds. She takes cuts and scratches, damages limbs in falls and fights, and even goes so far as to cut herself (don't worry, it's not self-harm, she's got a reason for it) during an early sequence. What's more, the stakes have been upped considerably, thanks to Ciaran Hinds, who makes a convincing - if rather clichéd - villain, and Pandora's Box (the object of their mutual affection) is such a terrifying and devastating artifact that there are moments when you wonder whether Lara might actually not manage to save the world after all. This adds to the dramatic tension to the extent that the action set pieces are - initially, at least - much more enjoyable.

Supporting Jolie, who is as feisty as ever and perhaps a little darker and moodier, is Gerard Butler as the swanky Terry Sheridan - a brooding Scottish ex-commando whom Lara recruits in her quest to infiltrate Chinese gangs. Sheridan is a slightly ambiguous character and always looks slightly lost next to Lara, who - for the sake of keeping the fans happy - consistently seems to be one step ahead of the game. Chris Barrie is also back as Lara's butler Hillary, and once more has absolutely nothing to do except remind you that he really was much better in Red Dwarf.

Jan de Bont's direction is pedestrian and slightly mundane, juxtaposing the occasional surprise with oh-so-predictable changes in direction - must we greet every location change with a glorious crescendo and a sweeping panoramic view of the landscape and local wildlife? I know that this is aimed at ten-year-old boys but is their no subtlety left in cinema? It's not all his fault, however, as he's not helped by the dialogue, which is at its best merely exposition and, at its worst, riddled with "English" clichés - in other words, lines that the British can pull off and the Americans can't.

But you don't go and see something like this and then moan about the script; it's like eating in MacDonalds and then complaining that your food had too many calories. The action sequences are, thankfully, sufficiently interesting to keep you entertained, even though you can see exactly where they're going from the moment the first bullet flies. You want Lara and Terry to get away clean and then gaze wistfully into each other's eyes, if only to see what the next absurd setup will be.

Sadly, it all goes horribly wrong in the last twenty minutes or so. There are lots of ominous buildups and then bang! evil soldiers. And horrible monsters that will seem remarkably familiar to, like, anyone. And then a finale that contains strong references to at least two fantasy / action movies, in what is either respectful homage or blatant rip-off, depending on where you're standing. Couple this with a "twist" that is not only completely out of character but that makes absolutely no sense, and you've got a final act that is far, far less than the sum of its parts.

Still, these things happen. It's a shame really because, like the first one, it's a missed opportunity - but people will go and see it anyway, if only out of curiosity. View it strictly at face value and it's an entertaining hour and a half that provides some amusement, not all of it intentional. Towards the end, one of the characters turns to Lara and says "We're close. I can see it in your eyes". When films contain dialogue like this, how can you possibly expect to take them seriously?

(Wednesday, 27th August 2003)