*Spoilers Ahead*
The first thing to consider is simply the timing of these films, and how that changed the production of them. The 2001 film was released back when the videogames were still an over the top, fantastical, overtly sexual adventure series. Meanwhile in the world of blockbusters it was filled with simplistic Indiana Jones inspired family adventure films with little logic but a lot of charm (Think The Mummy/National Treasure type scenario). Because of this, the film really doesn't put all too much focus in developing things such as plot or characters, but is just trying to be an extreme and stylish action flick, filled with impractical stunts, techno music and a heavy use of cgi & slo-mo. It's certainly got a lot of charm to it, if you can accept the tone of the film then it's easy to let go of most of the flaws, because there are tonnes of them, cliched characters, nonsensical story, dated cgi. Yet because that's not the focus and instead the focus is just on having cool stunts and badass one-liners, making everyone look as awesome as possible, even some of the more dated elements have somewhat of an endearing factor to them, ironically a movie all about uncovering relics of the past is a relic in itself of action movies of the early 2000s.
Meanwhile the reboot film is coming from a different background, taking more so from the 2013 reboot of the franchise (Even repeating several major plot points), this is a story more grounded and brutal, showing the birth of what would become Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, rather than highlighting her in her prime. Toning down the goofiness & sexiness, and replacing it with more brutality and emotion, the film is basically the polar opposite of it's predecessor, meaning both its pros and cons are also switched.
Let's compare two scenes in both films that are very similar, Lara Croft coming face to face with her father for the first time in years. Both scenes are supposed to be emotionally heavy, yet because the original film didn't spend any time showing the vulnerability of Lara, or even that great a range of emotions, the moment feels completely hollow. However in the remake, the relationship between Lara and her father is the core of the film, and the majority of the movie up to this point is about exploring their relationship and how Lara never gave up on finding him, making it quite an effective scene.
On the other hand, because the first film is just a simple adventure film, it can get away with having stock characters or scenes seeing as they're just there to help progress things along, meaning everyone is easy to understand and their relationships are more clear. The new film, trying to be more realistic, whenever it fails to develop something in greater detail, it suddenly stands out more than it would in the other film. Take the supporting cast for example, the original film doesn't explain to us how these people became friends with Lara, but they give them such energetic personalities and play off of each other really well, that you just accept it. However the new one, trying to be more realistic, needs to give us a stronger reason to believe the relationships these people (Okay, one person) would be so dedicated to Lara, and you just don't get it.
Then there is Lara herself, yet again, two very different characters, but I'd argue both equally compelling. The Angelina Jolie one somehow has one of the thinnest, yet also most engaging motivations behind what she does - She's just an adrenaline junkie. She doesn't do it for the knowledge, the glory or the money, she does it all just because she's good at it, and gets a kick out of it. After all, this is a woman who regularly trains against giant killer robots just because she can. Honestly...I can't think of any other film like this that does that, it's so simple and could so easily be seen as lazy, but the fact that it's so rarely done, it's surprisingly refreshing. The downside of this is that because she's like this, she's too good at what she does, at no point does the danger ever seem too much, or that she isn't constantly on top of things, she always seems to be the smartest, toughest and most in control person in the room. This type of character certainly can lead to a lot of cool action and one-liners, but not necessarily an engaging protagonist.
Then there is Alicia Vikander, who has a much better defined motivation (Finding her father), has a clear arc throughout the film, and still gets a lot of well done action scenes, without ever ruining the tension. For example, her first scene in the film is her losing an MMA match, and later on in the film we see her get in a fight similar to this, where she learns from her mistake the first time round and winning the fight. This is a Lara that's allowed to be vulnerable, we see her get beaten down and be emotionally honest, meaning we connect to her more and get excited to see her overcome obstacles and grow as a character.
It's hard to say which one is better, it really depends on what you prefer, the perfect badass who you want to be, or the stubborn survivalist you relate to. Personally I would say I have a preference for the Vikander version, seeing how broken a character can get just makes them more engaging to watch and root for, someone who never screws up loses my interesting rather quickly. But which film is better? Honestly it could go either way. Again, neither of these are great films, I'd say they're decent at best, but even decent films can still strike up an interesting debate, and this is one that I'd say I've had fun thinking about, even if I didn't come to any sort of conclusion, but comparing movies doesn't have to be about definitely deciding one film is better than the other, just seeing how two films can interpret the same source material differently.
-Danny
No comments:
Post a Comment