I went to see two films last week: 2001 and Tomb Raider (don't laugh!).
2001 is a brilliant brilliant film but almost totally devoid of any characterisations whatsoever. The acting is purely functional, like an illustration from a science textbook. Despite this, it's a good film because the story and the direction are perfectly executed.
Tomb Raider on the other hand is a film with a very badly executed plot. Ms Croft's motives become very unclear towards the end, where the narrative seems to fall apart from the moment Ms Croft simply hands over to her enemies a vital artefact she's been fighting for. The climax is especially muddled, with tension in the finale practically non-existent. Earlier set pieces are much more impressive and exciting, especially the raid on Croft Manor.
However, for some reason I really liked the film, and I think I know why. Even most of the bad reviews mentioned that Angelina Jolie was the best woman for the job, and I'd have to agree. Jolie conveys something no actress since Diana Rigg has managed, to be a convincing independent action heroine who isn't driven by some po-faced desire for power or a wish to be a man. The director of the film compared Jolie to Sigourney Weaver, but I think Weaver is much more serious and much less charismatic. Jolie in this film presents something unique at the moment, a non-serious strong and playful leading woman who doesn't turn to anyone else to solve her problems. I might also add that it's a very new and strange (but probably also extremely healthy) experience to heroine-worship a woman you're also lusting over.
For me, the height of the characterisation is right at the end, where Croft is in the middle of fleeing a collapsing cave and for no particular reason she starts to beam a satisfied smile, as if she's getting off on the jeopardy.
The way Jolie's Croft just cheerfully goes ahead and does things is reminiscent of Sean Connery's Bond, and this is why I think it deserves a sequel. The first Bond film, Dr No, was pretty dull and derivative, but Connery and the whole formula of camp adventure well delivered was the thing reviewers at the time picked up on. The set-up in Tomb Raider is good too, and I could well see Croft Manor and Chris Barrie's butler being a nice equivalent to M, Q and Moneypenny.
The characters are good, the premise is good, the setting is good, Angelina Jolie is excellent (and essential to any sequel). If they could just nail down a better script and some more tension-building direction as well, I'd be first in line to see Tomb Raider II.
2001 is a brilliant brilliant film but almost totally devoid of any characterisations whatsoever. The acting is purely functional, like an illustration from a science textbook. Despite this, it's a good film because the story and the direction are perfectly executed.
Tomb Raider on the other hand is a film with a very badly executed plot. Ms Croft's motives become very unclear towards the end, where the narrative seems to fall apart from the moment Ms Croft simply hands over to her enemies a vital artefact she's been fighting for. The climax is especially muddled, with tension in the finale practically non-existent. Earlier set pieces are much more impressive and exciting, especially the raid on Croft Manor.
However, for some reason I really liked the film, and I think I know why. Even most of the bad reviews mentioned that Angelina Jolie was the best woman for the job, and I'd have to agree. Jolie conveys something no actress since Diana Rigg has managed, to be a convincing independent action heroine who isn't driven by some po-faced desire for power or a wish to be a man. The director of the film compared Jolie to Sigourney Weaver, but I think Weaver is much more serious and much less charismatic. Jolie in this film presents something unique at the moment, a non-serious strong and playful leading woman who doesn't turn to anyone else to solve her problems. I might also add that it's a very new and strange (but probably also extremely healthy) experience to heroine-worship a woman you're also lusting over.
For me, the height of the characterisation is right at the end, where Croft is in the middle of fleeing a collapsing cave and for no particular reason she starts to beam a satisfied smile, as if she's getting off on the jeopardy.
The way Jolie's Croft just cheerfully goes ahead and does things is reminiscent of Sean Connery's Bond, and this is why I think it deserves a sequel. The first Bond film, Dr No, was pretty dull and derivative, but Connery and the whole formula of camp adventure well delivered was the thing reviewers at the time picked up on. The set-up in Tomb Raider is good too, and I could well see Croft Manor and Chris Barrie's butler being a nice equivalent to M, Q and Moneypenny.
The characters are good, the premise is good, the setting is good, Angelina Jolie is excellent (and essential to any sequel). If they could just nail down a better script and some more tension-building direction as well, I'd be first in line to see Tomb Raider II.