Top 10 WORST Films of 2018: Part 1 (#10-6)

As the 2019 film season begins, it’s time to once again reflect upon on the year prior to rank the best and worst from the past twelve months. But unlike a lot of people on the internet, I do things a little differently around here by doing the ‘Worst of the Year’ list first BEFORE the ‘Best of the Year’ list. The reason why I do this is simple; why the heck would I want to end the year on a bad note by talking about the worst films that I’ve seen? Now with that said, I’m fully aware that the annual ‘Worst of’ lists always get greater attention online because the internet loves to see people rag on the worst films of the year. But as you might have guessed, I’m just not one of those people. Even in cases where I don’t have particularly high expectations for a film, I always go into every new film that I see hoping for the best because, if you ask me, that’s exactly what a film fan should be. Obviously, though, there will be times where you’ll come across a film that just didn’t work for you, and that’s perfectly okay because film is a subjective medium. As such, do not go into these next two posts expecting any sort of intense rants on the films that will be appearing on this list because I find that I tend not to get that angry anymore when it comes to films that I don’t really like. It’s a lot like a recent situation that actor John Krasinski was in when he met with director Paul Thomas Anderson, who suggested that the word ‘hate’ is too strong a word to use when talking about film, a mindset that I certainly agree with. However, don’t assume that this means that I will be ‘going soft’ on these films as I still intend on addressing their various shortcomings. It’s also worth noting that while I will be delving into a few spoilers here and there, Spoiler Warnings will not be put into effect given that this is the ‘Worst of’ list. Thus, without further ado, it’s time to cover my Top 10 Worst Films of 2018, starting with films #10-6. Before we begin, however, there is one Dishonorable Mention… 

DISHONORABLE MENTION: TOMB RAIDER

When I first reviewed this film back in March, I gave it a 3/5 rating and noted that while it wouldn’t be the one to break the dreaded curse of poorly-received film adaptations of popular video games, at the very least it was one of the genre’s better outings. But while I do still stand by that specific argument, this ultimately became one of the rare instances where my initial opinion of the film changed considerably as time went on. Now to the film’s credit, when it does get into its big action set-pieces, these sequences are well-handled and do a nice job of replicating the thrills of some of the most standout moments of the recent Tomb Raider video games. However, these only occur during the second half of a film that suffers from an extremely slow opening that takes its sweet time when it comes to getting Lara on the mystical island of Yamatai. And even after that, it still runs on a basic ‘origin’ plot that primarily focuses on Lara’s relationship with her long-lost father Richard. Sure, there is some decent emotional depth to come from this, especially once Lara learns that her father is still alive. At the same time, though, the film would’ve benefitted more by adding in some of the characters and plotlines from the 2013 Tomb Raider game, including Lara’s best friend Sam and the other crew members who were on the same ship that Lara was on before she got stranded on Yamatai. It’s a shame, really, because despite some of the pre-release skepticism that revolved around her casting, Alicia Vikander does give it her all as Lara Croft. Unfortunately, though, the film just doesn’t match her commitment to the part. Still, compared to other films in the genre, this one at least tried.

And now we move on to the Top 10, which is always started off by films that I was generally ‘on the fence’ about. In other words, these are the films that were far from being the worst of the year but weren’t necessarily that good, either. And at Number 10, we have a prime example of this in a film that I feel rather bad about when it comes to putting it on here as it was made by a very talented filmmaker. Sadly, though, this was ultimately an underwhelming take on its iconic source material, especially when compared to its Disney counterpart.

10. MOWGLI: LEGEND OF THE JUNGLE

In the early 2010’s, two different live-action adaptations of author Rudyard Kipling’s classic novel The Jungle Book were put into production. The first of these to come out came in 2016 via Disney and director Jon Favreau’s remake of the studio’s 1967 animated classic. However, instead of just being a straight-forward remake of the original film, Favreau combined elements from both the film and the novel to give it its own unique identity. And upon its release, the film was a massive critical and commercial success, grossing over $966 million worldwide and still standing as the most critically-acclaimed installment of Disney’s recent line of live-action remakes. As such, I think it’s safe to say that the success of Favreau’s film ended up having a huge effect on the other live-action adaptation of The Jungle Book that was being developed by Warner Bros and directed by motion-capture icon Andy Serkis. For his adaptation, Serkis promised that it would be a darker and more faithful take on the source material. In other words, there weren’t going to be any musical numbers and the film wouldn’t shy away from the gruesome results of attacks made by either Shere Kahn or a human hunter. However, while the film was initially slated for an October 2018 release date, its theatrical release was ultimately canned when Warner Bros. sold the rights to Netflix, who premiered it online in December. This was reportedly done because Warner Bros feared that the film wouldn’t do so well in theaters. And yet, regardless of how it got released, something about it feels unfinished.

To be clear, the film’s darker tone isn’t its biggest issue. Even when you factor in a sequence where Mowgli comes across the decapitated head of his wolf friend Bhoot (yes, seriously…) and the occasional awkward tonal shift, it does let the film differentiate itself from previous adaptations. Plus, it does do a decent job of setting up Mowgli’s traditional arc of overcoming his status as an ‘outsider’ in the eyes of his jungle brethren, especially through the importance of him having to pass a trial known as ‘the Running’ so that he can officially join the wolf pack. However, once the film sends Mowgli to the man-village, this is where things start to get quite problematic in terms of the writing. Mowgli’s time in the man-village only takes up a small part of the run-time, and the addition of a secondary villain in hunter John Lockwood negatively affects the plot to the point where the notorious Shere Kahn ends up getting severely undermined as an antagonist. And if that wasn’t enough, these two villains are then dealt with quickly in an extremely abrupt and lackluster finale. Ultimately, though, the most disappointing aspect of the film… is that the visual effects aren’t that good. Sure, as one can expect from an Andy Serkis production, the film’s motion-capture effects are generally solid. Unlike Favreau’s film, the use of mo-cap is a lot more prominent to the point where the facial features of the actors playing the primary animal characters are easily recognizable. And yet, this film’s mo-cap work ends up paling in comparison to the effects of the Middle-Earth films and the recent Planet of the Apes films. The film’s CG jungle landscapes are even more lackluster, especially when compared to sequences that were shot on location in South Africa. In conclusion, this film at least deserves credit for its ambition. Despite its narrative flaws, Andy Serkis’ direction is solid and the film sports an excellent cast headlined by Christian Bale as the noble Bagheera, Serkis himself as a far gruffer take on Baloo, and Cate Blanchett as Kaa who, unlike the Disney films, is more in line with the novel by being one of Mowgli’s mentors instead of an antagonist. However, while I’ve tried not to frequently compare this one to the Jon Favreau-directed Disney flick, Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle ultimately lacks the visual polish and heart of its Disney counterpart.  

As fate would have it, Number 9 is also a film that was originally intended for a theatrical release before being abandoned by its studio and sold off to Netflix, and this one is even more disappointing compared to Mowgli because it comes from a franchise with a lot of potential.

9. THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX

After years of speculation, a sequel to the 2008 found footage monster flick Cloverfield finally hit theaters in 2016. However, this was not an ordinary sequel. Instead, 10 Cloverfield Lane was a Hitchcockian thriller that was pitched as a ‘spiritual sequel’ to its predecessor after producer J.J. Abrams’ production company Bad Robot reworked a spec script titled The Cellar to connect it to Cloverfield. Upon its release, the film was a solid critical and commercial hit, showcasing the franchise’s newfound potential as an anthology series a la The Twilight Zone. And later that year, another Bad Robot film, then titled God Particle, was confirmed to be the third installment of the franchise. A release date was confirmed for October 2017… before things started to get a lot more complicated. In July of that year, it was announced that the film would be pushed back to February 2018 for undisclosed reasons. In January 2018, the film was pushed back again, this time to April 2018. Once again, no explanation was given for the delay, and just like any J.J. Abrams production, details about the film were minimal to the point where these release date shifts were literally the only bits of news about them. The film continued to remain a secret until February 4^th, 2018, when its first promo was aired during Super Bowl LII. The film was officially renamed The Cloverfield Paradox and it was revealed that it would be debuting on Netflix. The biggest surprise, though, was that the film would premiere that very night after the game. Ultimately, though, this bold marketing strategy was better than the film itself.

Like Universal’s recent remake of The Mummy, this is a film that is clearly more focused on setting up the lore for its franchise rather than ensuring that its own story is solid. The ways in which the film connects to the previous Cloverfield films is fine, for the most part, mainly through the reveal that debris from the film’s main locale, the ‘Cloverfield Station’, was what crashed into the ocean at the end of the first Cloverfield. But as for the main plot itself… it’s just a clone of films like Alien and Sunshine where the crew of a space station find themselves being offed one by one by a mysterious force. Sure, this film does feature some effectively brutal kills, but the story is incredibly predictable and the characters are vastly underdeveloped, wasting a talented ensemble cast that includes Daniel Bruhl, Elizabeth Debicki, and David Oyelowo. One member of the cast does manage to get some decent material to work with, however, and that honor goes to Gugu Mbatha-Raw as main protagonist Ava Hamilton AKA the only character in the film to get any sort of character development through the reveal of a tragic incident where she lost both her kids in a house fire. In short, like Mowgli, it’s been made clear that this film’s fate as a Netflix release was because its studio (in this case, Paramount) wasn’t that confident in the final product. It has been reported that J.J. Abrams had planned on fixing the film in post-production, but he ultimately couldn’t do so due to his commitment to Star Wars: Episode IX. Still, regardless of how it would’ve turned out had J.J. been able to work on it as he had hoped, The Cloverfield Paradox is a sadly underwhelming installment of its promising franchise.

With Number 8, we have a genuine rarity in that this is quite arguably the first film produced under the Disney banner that’s appeared on my annual ‘Worst of’ lists. Usually Disney films end up on the other list, but as many of my peers have pointed out over the years, you won’t like every single film that’s made by your favorite studio.

8. THE NUTCRACKER AND THE FOUR REALMS

As I noted in my review for this film back in November, I didn’t necessarily ‘dislike’ this ambitious spin on the classic story of The Nutcracker as there are some genuinely good things about it, mainly in terms of its visuals. While it can be argued that this is another example of CGI overload like Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, the visual effects in this film are quite solid and they do succeed in bringing the bright and colorful world of the Four Realms to life, especially thanks to some solid cinematography by Damien Chazelle’s go-to DP Linus Sandgren. The film also has some solid performances from those who treat the material seriously, specifically Mackenzie Foy as main protagonist Clara, Helen Mirren as the ‘villainous’ Mother Ginger, and newcomer Jayden Fowora-Knight as the titular Nutcracker. However, this then ties into the film’s biggest issue in that it suffers heavily from severe tonal shifts. While the initial set-up for the story, specifically Clara learning more about her mother Marie’s past as the original ruler of the Four Realms, is treated seriously, almost all the sequences that take place within the Four Realms are incredibly over-the-top in nature. And because the film still tries to have a lot of serious moments over the course of its runtime, these two extremes frequently collide and, simply put, do not gel well. This is especially the case with the film’s biggest twist that revolves around the big reveal of its true main antagonist, the Sugar Plum Fairy.

Right from the get-go, Clara is led to believe that the Four Realms are in danger of being overtaken by Mother Ginger, ruler of the desolate Land of Amusements. To stop her, Clara is told of a special machine that can turn the Four Realms’ inhabitants into toys and vice versa, which is how her mother created the world in the first place. However, after Sugar Plum activates the machine and starts to amass an army of toy soldiers, it’s revealed that Mother Ginger wasn’t the sinister tyrant that she was made out to be. Instead, it’s Sugar Plum who plans on taking over the Four Realms as she blames Marie for abandoning them in favor of living the rest of her life with her family. Now while I’ll admit that I don’t have a lot of experience with The Nutcracker outside of a general awareness of it, I don’t think that I’ve ever come across a version of the story where the Sugar Plum Fairy is an antagonist. Granted, this could’ve worked in theory, but because the film has a short 99-minute runtime and a surprisingly brisk pace once Clara enters the Four Realms, this twist literally comes out of nowhere. To be fair, though, Keira Knightley does deserve some credit for, at the very least, committing to what is easily one of the weirdest performances in recent memory. In conclusion, this is another film that had quite an interesting production. While it was primarily directed by veteran filmmaker Lasse Hallstrom, fellow veteran director Joe Johnston supervised the film’s reshoots when Hallstrom became unavailable due to scheduling conflicts. And because Johnston’s contributions to the film proved to be quite substantial, he and Hallstrom ended up sharing the directorial credit in what is a genuine rarity when it comes to a production of this nature. At this time, there hasn’t been much info on what Johnston added to the film although it has been reported that he primarily buffed up the finale to make it ‘more exciting’. However, regardless of what he added to the final product, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms is an underwhelming take on its iconic source material. I mean, at the very least, it’s a harmless family flick, but at the same time, it’s still rather bland.

Say, remember back in May when I did a retrospective on The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth, the two non-Muppet films directed by Muppets creator Jim Henson? This was primarily done to honor the impending release of his company’s newest film… even though the film wasn’t set to come out until August. To be perfectly frank, the reason why the retrospective was done in May was so that I could have some new material published on this site during a time where the only other posts from that month were reviews of Deadpool 2 and Solo: A Star Wars Story. And then, if that wasn’t enough, I didn’t even end up seeing this new Henson production when it first came out. Having now seen it, it was probably for the best that I didn’t see it in theaters…

7. THE HAPPYTIME MURDERS

The Happytime Murders is a rare adult-oriented outing from the Jim Henson Company and was directed by Jim Henson’s son Brian, who also helmed the beloved Muppet Christmas Carol and the cult classic Muppet Treasure Island. The film focuses on a puppet ex-cop turned private investigator named Phil Phillips who investigates into a string of murders revolving around the cast of an old television sitcom that he has quite a history with. Like any Henson production, the main reason to watch this film is for its impressive puppetry work, as the filmmakers continue to do a great job when it comes to having their puppet characters seamlessly interact with humans. It’s a shame, then, that the story itself is incredibly predictable and goes through all the usual beats of a murder mystery plot, from a traumatic incident from the main character’s past that destroyed his career to a seductive femme fatale with ulterior motives. And while the film may tout itself as an R-rated comedy that’s ‘No Sesame, All Street’ (a tagline that literally got them sued by Sesame Street), it lacks the clever writing of other Henson productions, stranding a talented ensemble cast that includes Melissa McCarthy, Maya Rudolph, and Joel McHale. In short, it could be argued that this film’s shortcomings may have been due to it spending a few years in development hell. To put this all into perspective, I remember this film being announced around the time that the 2011 Muppets film was released, and to be perfectly blunt, this does feel like a film that didn’t necessarily evolve much from its initial story pitch.

To close out the first half of this year’s ‘Worst of’ list, we have a film that stars a talented actress and is directed by someone that she’s worked with to great success in the past. Sadly, though, their latest collaboration isn’t quite as good as their previous projects.

6. RED SPARROW

First off, let me make it clear that despite this being the second film of hers in a row to appear on my annual ‘Worst of’ list, I’m still a big fan of Jennifer Lawrence. Despite what I’ve said about last year’s disastrous biblical drama Mother and what I will be saying about this film, none of their shortcomings are her fault as she does give good performances in both. In this instance, she reunites with director Francis Lawrence (again, no relation) after they’d worked together on the last three Hunger Games films. F. Lawrence also brings in a lot of the same crew that they had worked with on those films, so at the very least, this film is well-shot and utilizes its wintry Russian setting to solid effect. Despite this, though, the film suffers from an incredibly slow pace that isn’t helped in the slightest by its hefty 140-minute run-time. And because of this, the film slogs through a very basic spy story that starts out fine enough but then ends up taking some major stumbles as the film goes on. While it has been reported that the ending was changed from its source material (author Jason Matthews’ 2013 novel of the same name) to give it more of a feminist angle, it’s still a generic finale in which the main protagonist makes a critical power move that allows her to get out of her predicament alive. In other words, this film’s a lot like 2017’s similarly-themed spy thriller Atomic Blonde but without the solid pacing. Granted, the dialogue-driven approach that this film takes over the genre’s usual action-oriented perspective is admirable, but it still could’ve benefitted from a few trims here and there as some scenes and plotlines feel quite extraneous. Thus, despite the best efforts of Jennifer Lawrence and a supporting cast that includes Joel Edgerton, Jeremy Irons, and Charlotte Rampling, Red Sparrow is a spy thriller that thoroughly lacks the ‘wow factor’ of the genre’s most iconic films.

And that concludes Part 1 of Rhode Island Movie Corner’s list of my Top 10 Worst Films of 2018. Thanks for following along and be sure to check back in tomorrow for Part 2 of this list, where I’ll be revealing the Top 5.

Tomb Raider (2018) review

Since its inception on the Sega Saturn, PlayStation, and MS-DOS in 1996, Tomb Raider has become one of the most enduring franchises in the world of video games. The adventures of archaeologist Lara Croft have sold over 63 million copies worldwide, while Lara herself has become an iconic video game heroine along with becoming rather notorious for her initially curvaceous figure that became the subject of much publicity. This overt sexuality, however, eventually ended up being underplayed in future installments of the franchise, including the source material behind today’s review, its 2013 reboot. Reimaging Lara as a college student who ends up trapped on a mysterious island, this gritty take on the Tomb Raider franchise was a major critical and commercial success. This, of course, brings us to the latest installment of the often-maligned genre of films based on popular video games, Tomb Raider. While directly inspired by the 2013 reboot, this is also the second major incarnation of Lara Croft on the big screen. Previously, Lara was portrayed by Angelina Jolie in the 2001 film Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and its 2003 sequel, The Cradle of Life. And while both films ended up receiving the usual critical derision that usually strikes a video game film adaptation, they are often regarded by audiences as some of the better entries of the genre thanks in large part to Jolie’s excellent performance in the role of Lara. As you might have guessed, this puts quite a bit of pressure on this new take on Tomb Raider to work just as well with audiences, with Alicia Vikander taking on the role of Miss Croft this time around under the direction of Norwegian filmmaker Roar Uthaug. So, does this film manage to buck the long-running curse of films based on video games? Well, not exactly, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t at least try.

In the city of London, Lara Croft (Alicia Vikander), daughter of businessman Richard Croft (Dominic West), struggles to cope with his disappearance several years prior. Because of this, Lara lives a generally carefree life where she often struggles to get by financially while also distancing herself from her family’s legacy. However, when Richard’s old business partner Ana Miller (Kristin Scott Thomas) encourages her to claim her inheritance before her father’s estate is sold off, Lara begins to learn more about what her father was doing when he disappeared when she comes across some of his old research. Specifically, Richard was investigating into a mythical queen known as Himiko, who allegedly possessed the ability to kill anyone she touches and was buried on the remote island of Yamatai. Despite her father’s request to burn his research for fear of his enemies getting ahold of it, Lara embarks on an adventure to Yamatai with the aid of Lu Ren (Daniel Wu), a ship captain whose father aided Richard in his own journey there back in the day. However, their ship ends up getting capsized during a violent storm and the two of them end up stranded on the island. Almost immediately, they are taken captive by a mysterious organization known as Trinity led by their zealot leader, Matthias Vogel (Walton Goggins), who claims that he knew her father. And as soon as Lara learns of Vogel and Trinity’s plan to find Himiko’s tomb and acquire her power for their sinister intent, she immediately begins fighting back so that Himiko’s devastating powers won’t be unleashed upon the world.

Unlike the previous Tomb Raider films, which launched audiences straight into the action (i.e. the opening of the 2001 film in which Lara battled a big robot), this film is more about building up Lara’s reputation like its direct video game counterpart did. However, in the case of the film, this means that it starts off on an extremely slow note. And it also doesn’t help that the plot is a very basic origin story about a young woman who learns major secrets about her father’s past; in other words, you can quite often tell where it’s going to go from a narrative perspective. Thankfully, though, the film does manage to somewhat pick up the pace as it goes on. Once Lara ends up on Yamatai, that’s when the film starts to really improve in terms of its action set-pieces which, like the game, see Lara overcoming various death-defying odds. And while some of these action sequences do suffer from a bit of frenetic editing here and there, the film surprisingly manages to have some teeth to it despite being rated PG-13 in contrast to the M-rated video games that it’s directly inspired by. Ultimately, though, I think that many will agree that one of the key things that should define a ‘successful’ video game film adaptation is its ability to properly capture the spirit of their source material. Regarding this new take on Tomb Raider, I am aware that there is some controversy over the film’s decision to have Lara’s overall characterization be directedly tied to her connection to her father to the point where it influences several of her actions, resulting in some ‘questionable’ bits of decision-making. Overall, though, I’d say that the film does succeed at matching the gritty tone of the most recent games.  

Just like her predecessor in the role, Alicia Vikander’s casting as Lara Croft initially drew some skepticism from those who weren’t sure if she was a good choice for the role. And in Vikander’s case, the highly positive feelings that many fans still have of Angelina Jolie’s turn in the role no doubt put some additional pressure on her as well. But overall, Vikander ends up being just as good as Jolie was as Lara. To put it simply, these two actresses succeeded at portraying Lara in the ways that she was being portrayed in the video games at the time of their films’ respective releases. The Lara of the Jolie era was defined heavily by her confidence and seductive nature, whereas the franchise’s current iteration of Lara is defined more by her tenacity, vulnerability, and ability to persevere when going through the challenges that she regularly goes through. And despite the previously mentioned controversy surrounding the script’s overt focus on Lara’s relationship with her father, Vikander does do an excellent job with the material that she’s been given. Meanwhile, Walton Goggins is the other big headliner in this film’s cast as the main villain, Vogel, who, like the film’s pacing, falls victim to not really getting a lot to do at first. This also manages to improve somewhat as the film goes on, but not quite enough to make Vogel that much of an intimidating threat, especially after the film begins to build up the mystery surrounding his superiors. At the very least, though, Goggins proves that he can be a great villain when given the right material due to his strong screen presence.

In conclusion, I can’t really say that this new take on Tomb Raider ended up being the film to break the dreaded curse of films based on video games. While it does boast a higher RT rating than other video game adaptations (which usually end up with an RT score in the mid-20’s), that rating is still technically in the ‘rotten’ category. However, at the very least, and even though it’s clearly not saying much, it is marginally better than its competition. Oh sure, it’s not perfect by any means, namely because of its initially sluggish pacing. But once it does get going, things manage to improve in terms of both the action sequences and the plot even though it’s not exactly enough to keep the film from being your run-of-the-mill action-adventure flick. It is worth noting, though, that Alicia Vikander does give it her all as Lara Croft. Simply put, she excellently personifies the Lara of this current era the same way that Angelina Jolie did as the Lara of the early 2000’s. And while I’d still consider Jolie’s first Tomb Raider film to be better than this one, as a fan of the Tomb Raider franchise (having played almost all the main games), I will say that I was decently satisfied with this new film. I mean, at the end of the day, considering some of the other major film adaptations of popular video games that have been made over the years, it’s safe to say that this could’ve turned out a heck of a lot worse.   

Rating: 3/5

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - Film Series Retrospective

It’s basically well-known at this point in the film fan community that films based on video games are often mediocre adaptations of their source material. Whether it’s due to them being made by a filmmaker who completely misunderstands the franchise (e.g. the infamous Uwe Boll) or because they just end up being way too derivative of other films, it truly is saying something when films ‘about’ video games (e.g. Tron) are usually better by comparison. I mean, to be fair, there have been some video game adaptations that have done decently with audiences like Mortal Kombat but nothing that can be considered as a ‘critically acclaimed’ project. And if recent releases like Duncan Jones’ Warcraft and Assassin’s Creed starring Michael Fassbender are any indication, we’re still not there yet when it comes to ‘great’ films based on video games regardless of who gets involved with them. Despite that, though, the hunt for the first ‘great’ video game adaptation continues this weekend with the release of Tomb Raider. Starring Alicia Vikander in the lead role of the adventurous explorer Lara Croft, the film is directly inspired by the 2013 video game of the same name. However, this is not the first time that Lara Croft has graced the big screen. Prior to this, she was portrayed by Angelina Jolie in a pair of films from the early 2000’s that, from what I can gather, tend to be some of the better-received video game film adaptations amongst most audiences. In fact, the first of these films still stands as the highest-grossing video game adaptation of all-time at the domestic box-office even after all the films that came after it that ultimately ended up out-grossing it worldwide. But before we delve further into these films, let’s briefly go over the history of their source material.

In 1996, video game developers Core Design created Tomb Raider, an action-adventure game that focused on a female gun-toting archeologist named Lara Croft who went on various adventures where she searched for treasure and took on various threats, often supernatural ones. Upon its release, the game was a huge critical/commercial success and is now often touted as one of the most influential video games of its genre. Core Design continued to produce follow-ups to the original game until 2003 following the poorly-received sixth installment, Angel of Darkness. Fellow game developers Crystal Dynamics then proceeded to take over production of the series the following year, which led to a solidly received revival of the franchise that lasted for a few years until the time came for another reboot. Thus, in 2013, a grittier take on the franchise, once again titled Tomb Raider and still produced by Crystal Dynamics, was released and once again succeeded in effectively reviving the series. But through it all, one thing has remained consistent; the characterization of Lara Croft. Since her debut back in the late 90’s, Lara has been an icon of the video game industry, regarded by many as one of the best female protagonists in video games. At the same time, though, Lara has also become rather infamous due to her overt sex appeal that was mainly due to the character’s, um, how do I put this… well-endowed physique. Ok, so there’s no real way of getting around this; back then, much attention was made over Lara having a voluptuous figure, something that has thankfully been underplayed in recent installments including the 2013 reboot that this new film is directly based on. But until then, let’s look at the two films that were produced during Lara’s first video game incarnation.

LARA CROFT – TOMB RAIDER (2001)

We start off, of course, with the franchise’s original big screen outing, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. Released in 2001, the film was directed by Simon West (Con Air, The Expendables 2) and came out exactly at the time that the franchise’s initial run was truly in its heyday. But when Angelina Jolie was cast as Lara Croft, some were hesitant about her taking on the role for various reasons, ranging from her controversial personal life to the fact that she was American despite Lara being a British character. However, in hindsight, many would agree that she was fantastic in the role. Jolie perfectly personifies Lara’s swagger and her lust for thrills, not to mention the fact that she did her own stunts. And on that note, the film does feature some solid action set-pieces despite a few instances where the editing gets a bit too frenetic. Ultimately, though, the film mainly succeeds at being exactly what it’s trying to be; a simple but fun action-adventure story. I mean, if you look at it from a narrative perspective, this film goes down some truly ludicrous routes from time to time, especially once it starts to tackle the subject of time travel (yes, time travel). Still, the film never takes itself too seriously and, of course, it’s all buoyed by Jolie’s excellent turn as Lara. She even gets a surprisingly effective foil in the form of the film’s delightfully campy main antagonist, Manfred Powell (Iain Glen), a fellow explorer and member of the Illuminati who, like Lara, seeks the Triangle of Light, a device that, as noted earlier, allows its user to manipulate time. These two are joined by a solid supporting cast that includes Jolie’s real-life father Jon Voight as Lara’s father Richard and Daniel Craig (goofy American accent notwithstanding) as fellow tomb raider Alex West. In short, yes, this film is an undeniably goofy action-adventure flick, but as far as video game adaptations go, at the very least it did its job of capturing the spirit of Tomb Raider from the perspective of where the franchise was at the time.

Rating: 3.5/5

LARA CROFT – TOMB RAIDER: THE CRADLE OF LIFE (2003)

After the first Tomb Raider film turned out to be a smash hit at the box-office, a sequel ended up getting released two years later. Titled Lara Croft: Tomb Raider – The Cradle of Life, the film saw a change in director, with Jan de Bont taking on directorial duties for this installment. Prior to this film, de Bont was well-known for directing blockbusters like 1994’s Speed and 1996’s Twister; however, it’s also worth noting that this film ended up being his last major directorial effort to date. Not only that, but the film ended up receiving the same generally negative reception that its predecessor got while not doing as well financially despite having a smaller budget. But overall, I’d say that this film is on par with the original. Angelina Jolie is excellent once again as Lara, and while the film around her boasts a goofy plot in which she races to find Pandora’s Box, it does feature some more solid action sequences. And if there’s one advantage that this film has over its predecessor, it’s that it has better-filmed action sequences. Given that Jan de Bont is no stranger to the old-school era of the action genre having done the cinematography for films like The Hunt for Red October and the vaunted ‘holiday classic’ that is Die Hard, there isn’t as much frenetic editing in this film’s action sequences compared to the first. And while the villain (a scientist named Reiss played by Ciaran Hinds) isn’t as strong as the one in the first, this one gives Lara a better ‘love interest’. Yes, despite what I said before about Daniel Craig being a solid supporting player in the first film despite the accent, his character shared little screen-time with Lara despite the film’s attempt at trying to establish romantic tension between the two; heck, there wasn’t even any resolution to their relationship. Here, though, Gerard Butler’s Terry Sheridan plays a far greater role in the story and he has solid chemistry with Jolie. Thus, while it’s just as silly as its predecessor, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider- The Cradle of Life is still technically a better video game film than many others in its genre.

Rating: 3/5

And that ends this retrospective on the Tomb Raider films starring Angelina Jolie from the early 2000’s. While by no means masterpieces, it’s easy to see why these films are considered as some of the better installments of the video game film genre. Arguably the best thing that you can say about them is that they at least perfectly captured the spirit of what the franchise was like at the time, as will no doubt be the case with the new Tomb Raider film that took inspiration from the franchise’s current era. You can expect a review of that film sometime this week, but until then, be sure to sound off in the comments below with your own thoughts on these two films.