Video game movies have entered a new era far removed from their first decade or two. The “video game curse” has always been nonsense, but most live-action adaptations were terrible. Recent examples find fun in their absurd premise or shift to animated series.Lara Crofttook three swings at box-office success. They flopped financially and critically, but which of the films finds something worth saying about the games?
Tomb Raiderwas one of the most memorable franchises on the PlayStation, but its efforts beyond the 90s struggled to stand out. Crystal Dynamics introduced a reboot franchise, now knownas theSurvivortrilogy, that reimagined Lara Croft’s backstory. The new entries may as well be separate from the sillyIndiana Jones-inspired series that ostensibly originated it. Croft’s name is their only shared element. Subsequently, the three film adaptations come from different eras of the game’s cultural impact.
Patrick Massett and John Zinman
Rotten Tomatoes Score
20% from 163 critics
Lara Croft: Tomb Raideris the 12thhighest-grossing video game movieof all time. It claimed first place when it hit theaters in 2001, though it only had nine or ten other entries to contend with. The wisest decision the production heads made was casting Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft. They tried several other actresses and took constant pushback from fans and gaming publications of the time. Of course, most only commented on the character’s body type, suggesting a grim reading of the franchise’s value. She’s since played near-identical characters in a dozen other forgettable projects, but her ability to sell abysmal dialogue and bizarre story decisions elevates the text.Lara Croft: Tomb Raiderwas widely despised by critics, but it has a charm to it. The comedic value grants the feature a purpose it sorrowfully lacks. As an adaptation, there’s nothingintelligent inLara Croft’s stagingor execution. It’s an utterly generic action movie starring Angelina Jolie as a character who happens to be named after a video game franchise.
Steven E. de Souza and James V. Hart
$160.1 million
24% from 176 critics
Few saw the 2003 follow-up toLara Croft: Tomb Raider. Its fate was shameful. It’s a substantial improvement on the original outing, which likely scared most viewers away from the theater. Jan de Bont ofSpeedandTwisterfame hasa gift for enjoyably goofy action blockbusters. Amazingly,Cradle of Lifeis de Bont’s most recent directorial effort. De Bont found compelling set pieces and a half-decent story in the secondTomb Raiderfilm. Ironically, it demonstrates the critical flaw in video game movies through its mild competence. Because it isn’t butchering the basic tenets of storytelling, it’s a blandknock-off ofIndiana Jones. Without gameplay, the franchise’s tropes boil down to elements stolen from adventure movies, dual-wielding handguns, and the protagonist’s sex appeal.Cradle of Lifeis an improvement on the first film in every significant department. It’s a better distillation of the games, though only through a sharp increase in general quality.
53% from 326 critics
This film adapts the 2013 reboot. Warner Bros. pulled the rights from Paramount afterCradle of Lifeflopped. The studio sat on Lara for almost a decade before the first entry in theSurvivortrilogy inspired a new script.Tomb Raideralso failed at the box office, continuing a poisonous trend for the franchise.As its Rotten Tomatoes scoresuggests, it’s the best film in the franchise. Director Roar Uthaug abandons the hilariously overblown action schlock of the first two entries in favor of a personal story led by Vikander’s excellent performance. Jolie suited Lara Croft’s bombastic acrobatics well, but Vikander brought humanity to the role. It’s the same shift Crystal Dynamics made in 2013, and it works almost better than it did on the Xbox.
Verdict:
Tomb Raider(2018) is unquestionably the most faithful adaptation of the gamefranchise. Though it has less than nothing to do with the PlayStation titles, it’s a solid take onthe Crystal Dynamics reboot. Alicia Vikander’s performance is the saving grace that keeps the film from the bottom of the barrel. It was the best-reviewed video game movie at the time of its release. It’s far from a perfect adaptation, but it stands head and shoulders above the first two.
TheTomb Raidermovies have varied appeal. The first two films are hilarious and compelling in a trashy, slapstick way. The 2018 entry is less entertaining after a fashion, but what itlacks in ironic entertainment, it makes up for with Vikander’s layered performance. Those looking for an accurate take on the original films will be left wanting, but the new trilogy has at least one decent big-screen outing.
MORE:Amazon’s Tomb Raider Series Could Make Good on the Movie’s Promise
