Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life (2003) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

The Cradle of Life is about the scariest box in human myth or history. It is a box so covered in ancient runes and mystic symbols, that mankind has no record of what it used to look like. I am speaking, of course, of Angelina Jolie's tattoed coochie. No, just kidding. If that were true, the movie would have been much more popular at the "box" office.

According to IMDb, this film was banned in China because it gives "the impression of a country in chaos, with no government and over-run by secret societies". Wow, no wonder so many Chinese people feel at home in California.

Seriously, the problem with this series is that the people in charge think they are making Indiana Jones movies when they are actually making James Bond movies.

So what's the damned difference? Don't they both feature spectacle, larger-than-life adventures, and exotic locales as a backdrop for the star's battles against various evildoers bent on world domination? Yes, but the difference is this. Indiana Jones is to James Bond as Spiderman is to Superman. Indiana Jones movies and Spiderman Comics focus on the star, while James Bond movies and Superman comics focus on the sidekicks and baddies. It has to be so, because Indy and Spidey are interesting and vulnerable, while Bond and Superman are too freakin' perfect.

Indiana Jones acts like a real person. Evil guys scare the hell out of him. Other things frighten him. He's not a great gymnast nor a great fighter. He's a professor. He screws up. You can build on a character like that, because he reacts to most situations the way you and I would.

James Bond is boring. Two words: Roger Moore. He's always cool, under control, in charge, predictable. He doesn't even sweat. He's the master of every skill known to man, from bartending to witty banter to Sudanese Croc Wrestling. Take away the bad guy, and every Bond movie is exactly like every other one. "Bond, James Bond" probably says the exact same words in each one, for all I know. When the requisite naughty Bondbabe says her sexually suggestive name - "I'm Pussy Galore" - doesn't he always say, "of course you are", or does it just seem that way? Like Superman comics, Bond movies need a really good baddie to be in top form: Christopher Lee, Christopher Walken, or the Goldfinger/Oddjob tag team.

Here's the difference between Bond and Indy in a nutshell. What would Bond have done when the crazy guy came out in the market twirling his Balinese Shark-Gutting Swords? Showing deference and respect for the thirty years it took the swordsman to master such skills in the Benihana training program, Bond would have taken off his coat, folded it neatly, handed it to a gorgeous onlooker, and then executed the perfect defense to the Multiple Balinese Shark Thrust, parrying the guy's puny attack as easily as Kasparov would beat Dan Quayle at chess. After finishing the match victorious, he would adjust his cufflinks, straighten his bowtie, and take his coat back from the female spectator, but not before arranging an assignation with her that evening. All that would take several minutes of screen time. What did Indiana Jones do? Made a face, shot the motherfucker, and got on with the treasure hunt. Five seconds.

All that is important background to understanding the Lara Croft movies because Lara is the same character as James Bond,  same invulnerable, know-it-all twit, only with breasts. She even uses the same gimmicks. No personality at all. Completely boring. In order to be watchable, she needs great baddies and great sidekicks.

The people making these movies don't seem to realize this. They focus on Lara, perhaps because their basic adventure concept is so similar to that of the Indiana Jones series. The premise in Lara Croft 2 is important and preternatural and Indy-like. Pandora's Box is real, and some baddies want to use it to destroy the world. That's very similar to the quests for the Ark of the Covenant and The Holy Grail. But Lara Croft is not Indiana Jones. Her superficial resemblance to Indy disguises the fact that she is as boring as James Bond. When she's on camera, the fun ends. 

The sidekicks? Just as uppity and omniscient as she is. Between them, they possess the sum total of all human knowledge, plus a lot more we haven't thought of yet.

The bad guy? Some overweight guy with a gun. What's he gonna do, hide secret codes between his chins?

Except for Roger Ebert, the critics hated Lara Croft 2. I didn't hate it. I liked the sweep, the spectacle, the stunts, and the locales both real and imaginary. Angelina Jolie is about as good a James Bond as Roger Moore. I didn't think it was a perfect movie, by any means, and I did hit the fast forward button a couple times, but I liked it about as much as I like most Bond movies, which is to say that I won't go to the theater to see them, but I'll watch them if they come up to the top of the cable rotation. It isn't bad.

But it isn't good, either, so I'm glad this one lost money. It deserved to lose money. With one hundred million dollars to spend, they could not come up with humor, suspense, clever dialogue, and a bad guy as cunning and brilliant as Lara herself. That is the real tragedy of Lara Croft 2. It could have been Raiders of the Lost Ark or Goldfinger, but it wasn't, because for all the positives, the script just wasn't ready to be filmed.