Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - The Cradle of Life (2003) User Reviews

goofball action film

[Buddy-51 · 6/10 · 11 August 2005]

Angelina Jolie returns as a distaff Indiana Jones in "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life," an action/adventure film (based on a video game character) that is just goofy enough and inane enough to be almost entertaining.

In this follow-up adventure - which is designed to give historians and social studies teachers a severe case of the heebie-jeebies - Lara, the world-famous archaeologist and adventurist, finds evidence that the mythical Pandora's Box is really no myth at all, but rather an actual object loaded with enough plague and pestilence to wipe the entire human race off the face of the planet. It lies buried somewhere, hidden by Alexander the Great in the 4th Century B.C. when he discovered how virulent and deadly the contents of the box really were. Now, twenty-four centuries later, Lara has to try and prevent an evil billionaire capitalist from locating the container, prying open the lid, and bringing an end to civilization as we know it.

Though the storyline is clearly not one to be conjured with, all that really matters in a movie such as this one is that the action move quickly and the stunts be sufficiently enterprising to engage the audience. Credibility is the last prerequisite in a Lara Croft adventure, as evidenced by the fact that if Lara isn't parachuting smack dab onto the deck of a ship or into the passenger seat of a moving jeep, she's hitching a ride on the back of a great white shark and riding it to safety. Ah well, it's all in good fun, I suppose, and Jolie not only looks stunning in all the outfits she's been given to wear, but seems to be having a fine time playing along with the joke.

The ending is inevitably anticlimactic, but viewers can have a pretty good time getting there at least.

Adventures and action-packed in charge of a video-game heroine

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 9 May 2005]

The movie centers on Lara Croft (Angelina Jolie) who is assigned by the British Intelligence -MI6- to discover the Pandora box that the baddies (Ciaran Hinds and Til Schweiger) want to find with the purpose of ruling the world . She is helped by an imprisoned mercenary (Gerard Butler) that will be freed , and two sympathetic underlings who appeared in the first part (Noah Taylor and Christhopher Barrie) . They'll have to confront amount of dangers , adventures and risks until reach their aims .

Run-of-the-mill action film because from the beginning to the final the frenetic action , thrills and fast movement are continued and unstopped . The picture blends emotion , intrigue , thriller , suspense , rip-roaring scenes and a little bit of violence when the fights happen . It is a film pretty bemusing and entertaining . It's a typical modern action film : continuous struggles in leaps and bounds , running men while are shooting and interminable pursuits . Besides , there are spellbound landscapes of various countries where the starring are traveling around the world to resolve the enigmas . The ending confrontation amongst the protagonists and enemies on the Kilimanjaro's skirts is breathtaking . The picture is similar to previous part with the difference in this latter there is an adventure chum (Gerard Butler) playing a type of ¨buddy movie¨ role. Thus , the storyline is basically a rehash of the former picture . Just as in the first film, there are several scenes in which the live-action Lara mimics are mingled with the computer generator effects . The film attained moderated success at box office , less than the first one , and not as good as the anterior . I don't know if the producers are going to make a third part .

David Tattersall's cinematography is glittering and glimmer as is well reflected on the awesome and impressive outdoors in charge of the production designer Petruccelli . Alan Silvestri's music is atmospheric and marvelous . The motion picture was well directed by Jan De Bont (Speed) . It is very spectacular , it is a film for adrenaline lovers . The yarn will appeal to Angelina Jolie and Lara Croft videogames fans.

Raiders of the Lost Ark... I mean, Box

[Jexxon · 1/10 · 6 February 2005]

Pointless sequel to the not so successful first film. The story is basically a rehash of the original, with slightly less supernatural stuff, but more unnecessary violence. The plot, involving a globe that shows the location of Pandora's Box, is just an excuse to go from one action scene to the next.

There are a lot of plot holes though: Growling sharks, secret labs located in the middle of a shopping mall, the question of why anyone would want to open Pandora's Box since it brings misfortune to those who does, and the fact that nobody knows the location of said box, except of course, an entire tribe living next door to it...

The first film was pretty bad, but compared to this disaster it was better in all departments. Jan de Bont is obviously just a 1.5-hit wonder (Twister is still pretty good) and he fails to do anything exciting with Cradle of Life. It's tired dialouge, clichéd characters, boring action pieces, and a slow pace where nothing really happens.

Angelina Jolie was by far the best thing with the original, but here she too lacks any sense of being happy to be back (read, contractual obligation). There are two minutes or so at the very end that actually are quite good, and gives Jolie a chance to prove that, given the right material, she's a really good actress, worth better than crap like this. [1/10]

I enjoyed it for what it was, but not as good as the first.

[Aaron1375 · 7/10 · 29 July 2003]

This movie was all right, kept me entertained for the most part, but it needed more and less. The story is a bit better this time in parts, but it is also worse in others. I was kind of hoping I would hate this movie as most critics and people seem to, but I enjoyed it so now I suppose I will get private messages from people saying I should hate the movie. Well don't bother writing me please. The movie starts out with a cool underwater temple scene, and this is the highlight of the movie. It is also the only part in the movie that feels like the tomb raider video game. The rest of the movie has some good stuff, but it doesn't feel like tomb raider, more like a spy movie or something. At one point there is a scene with monsters that look like they belong in the Lord of the Ring movies. For what it was worth it was ok, but these monsters were kind of out of place. At least the stone warriors from the first movie have actually appeared in the game. I would also love to see Lara go into an actual tomb for once. Sure the underwater temple was cool, but it was just one room. Like the first one all the tombs here are usually one room. Can't they have here go through a really long tomb with multiple traps and stuff for her to shoot at? Also, I wish she would have used her guns more. I shoot more in five minutes of the video game than she does in this entire movie, and she always loses her weapons too. Not that I don't want to see character development and stuff, but this is a movie based on a game, it should be a bit more action packed than what we get. All in all though it was okay, I enjoyed it, but it just wasn't as good as the first for me.

Nothing to care about.

[Flarch · 1/10 · 6 September 2003]

At the beginning of the film the viewer knows nothing about any of the people with whom Lara is associating. Most get killed rather early on, but since the viewer has no clue who they are, who's to care?

Jolie, Butler, Hinds, Taylor, and Barrie are the only actors who's characters are developed in the slightest. And the body of knowledge viewers come to have of them is razor thin. Taylor and Barrie are completely wasted, having nothing to do. Hinds and Jolie are wasted because they're like cold dead fish in all but a couple scenes each. Butler is just annoying. There was no wit. No humor. Nothing to break up this icy dull drama that took itself WAY too serious for an action flick, especially one based on a video game.

TR2 is nothing but a big stream of stunts and effects without the slightest reason to care why anything is taking place, including the many deaths. A stunt person with no acting experience would have done nicely in any or all of the roles.

The soundtrack was confusing, noisy, and far overstated. Since when does someone hopping over a dead body make a sound like a golf club swooshing through the air amplified through the PA system at a heavy metal concert? WAS there music in there? I didn't notice.

The editing was dreadful! I could swear the person in charge of it grew up watching MTV on fast forward? Maximum chaos.

The only good thing in the entire picture is some of the very scenic cinematography, made all the more impressive as i viewed the film on an IMAX-like super large screen.

This ghastly glob of noise pollution should have been left in the can!

The Best James Bond Film In Five Years!

[johnnysugar · 7/10 · 31 July 2003]

Let's face it, the James Bond franchise has become rather limp lately. "The World Is Not Enough" was a debacle of miscasting and an an endless parade of meaningless subplots and tertiary characters. "Die Another Day" suffered from much of the same, but was also saddled with an inexplicable amount of stereo feedback and one of the oddest (if catchiest) theme songs in recent memory. The series has been re-energized with the new entry "The Cradle Of Life," a high-spirited, far-reaching film that doesn't quite succeed but is such an improvement on the originals that you're ready to overlook all that.

Actually, this is a review of "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle Of Life", the sequel to 2001's abysmally dull video-game-based film "Tomb Raider." Angelina Jolie is back as sexy, gun-toting archeologist Lara Croft, and at first glance, it's easy to mistake her for Bond, Jane Bond. Lara is a British citizen of refined taste, highly competent in various forms of weaponry, travels around the globe to exotic locations, has friends (and lovers) in virtually every port, uses a wide variety of nifty gadgets, has an amusing yet dry form of wit, looks fabulous, and routinely saves the world from a madman bent on global domination. She's a better 007 than Timothy Dalton in any case.

The film begins with Lara diving into a sunken temple off the coast of Greece. While there, she is attacked by Chinese mercenaries, her support crew killed and left for dead, the mercenaries making off with a mysterious glowing orb. Seems that mad scientist Jonathan Reiss (Ciaran Hinds) is looking for Pandora's Box, and the orb is the key to finding it. Lara is appointed by MI:6 with stopping Reiss because opening the box would unleash an amazingly nasty plague upon the world. Besides her support staff of Hillary (Chris Barrie) and computer expert Bryce (Noah Taylor), Lara joins forces with ex-lover Terry Sheridan (Gerard Butler), a shifty mercenary and the only person who knows how to get to the mercenaries who stole the orb in the first place. And of course, time is running out.

Jolie is excellent as Lara Croft, and there probably isn't an actress around who would be better cast in the role. Jolie has the physicality, the look, the voice, and the attitude to pull off the role effortlessly. She was the only redeeming factor in the first film, and she's great to watch here. The supporting cast is a mixed bag. Hinds refrains from chewing up too much of the scenery, but he brings to mind some of the more notable Bond villains of recent times. Butler is great to look at, but his performance is far too low-key and deadpan for a movie as bombastic as this one wants to be, especially when he's paired with Jolie, who enters each seen with a relishing look in her eyes. Taylor again acts as a dry kind of comic relief, and he displays far more chemistry with Jolie than Butler does.

One of the biggest improvements in this film is the director. Replacing Simon West (responsible for the monotonous "Con Air") is Jan de Bont ("Speed"), a much more competent director even if some of his films are only barley entertaining ("The Haunting"). de Bont has a knack for action on a small scale, most vividly in a gun-fight staged in a laboratory/office, but his large scale pieces, like Lara body-gliding off of one of Hong Kong's tallest buildings, lack drama. Still, de Bont has chosen good locations and sets for the film, and there is a blessedly welcome lack of the "Matrix"-style visuals and candy-colored bombast so popular in action films of recent memory. He is nothing if not up to task. The film operates well within its own set of rules and physics, unlike many other films that tend to sacrifice internal logic for cheap stunts.

As much of an improvement on the first film as this is, there are still flaws. The script, while improving ten-fold on the original, still falls flat on several occasions, sometimes held up only by Jolie's confident line readings. At almost two hours, the film displays a desperate need for tighter scenes and a quicker pace while simultaneously leaving some scenes cut too quickly. The movie can be very easily divided into stages, which may hold true to the spirit of the video game's levels, but often leaves the audience doing nothing more than predicting when the DVD chapter cuts will occur in six months. Also, like the James Bond films, there is rarely any doubt that Lara will escape any dire situation she finds herself in. Like 007, we always know the hero will prevail in the end, which robs some scenes of the tension needed to excite the audience.

Despite some of these flaws, "The Cradle Of Life" is a fine movie and a good way to spend 2 hours on a summer afternoon. Jolie obviously enjoys the role, and if nothing else, the film is worth it for that alone. Here's hoping the third entry into the series is even better than the this one. 7 out of 10.

THIS is "better" than the first film?!

[filman79 · 1/10 · 25 July 2003]

I have not seen the first 'Tomb Raider' movie, but if what people are saying is true -- if the sequel, 'The Cradle of Life,' is indeed BETTER than the first movie -- than thank goodness I did not have to subject myself to the original "adventure" of Lara Croft. As it is, the second film is an incomprehensible mess of poor direction, editing and writing, overloaded with awkwardly filmed, joyless action scenes and pockets of deadening plot explanation. I especially blame director Jan de Bont for this mess -- for someone who started so promisingly ('Speed,' 'Twister'), de Bont has certainly collapsed into such a studio hack that one wonders what Paramount was thinking when they hired him. Seriously, there is an action sequence set in Shanghai that involves a pagoda, a helicopter, Lara Croft and some kind of orb, but I could not tell you for the life of me what exactly HAPPENS during that sequence.

The only saving grace here is Angelina Jolie, who must be the acting equivalent of teflon -- the movie's sheer badness just slides off her as she floats through the film with as much good humor and aplomb as one could possibly be expected to muster. But this is the last time she can allow herself to be the best part of a gawd-awful movie -- audiences can only be expected to endure so much.

3/10

Weakest Action Movie of the Summer

[dromasca · 6/10 · 1 September 2003]

This second movie in the 'Tomb Raider' series was a disapointment for me. I was not a great fan of the first one either. Certainly Angelina Jolie is as sexy as you can get, but there is too little else in her character to make her the female James Bond that the authors of the series want her to be. Even the sentimental track in this second movie does not succeed to make her more real. Director Jan de Bont succeeded much better with the original story in 'Speed' or the reality-TV like effects in 'Twister'. In 'Tomb Raider 2' he is just mixing a potion of James Bond with a little bit of Indiana Jones, without too much of a result. If you did not see it yet, you may as well wait for the DVD. 6/10 on my personal scale.

Why do so many people hate this movie?

[23skidoo-4 · 8/10 · 28 December 2003]

Although Cradle of Life won't go down in movie history as an all-time classic, I am mystified at why so many critics and moviegoers hated it.

In my opinion, this movie is much better than the first Tomb Raider film. The first film was entertaining, make no mistake, but it still had too much of a comic book feel and 'Angelina Jolie' (qv) had not yet gotten a firm grasp of the Lara Croft role. In Cradle of Life, both Lara and Jolie show newfound maturation, and this makes her (both actress and fictional character) much more interesting to watch. Heck, even Jolie's faux British accent is more convincing the second time around. I was one of the many who protested when she was cast in the role; the first film left be unconvinced, but she finally won me over in her second outing.

The story is also more interesting in the second film, with the whole Pandora's Box angle being something more worthy of Tomb Raider than the tired old "conspiracy out to take over the world" plot of the first film.

There are some aspects of the second film that I didn't care for as much. Lara, for one thing, is far more deadlier this second time around and at one point seriously considers gunning down a man in cold blood. This type of behavior is more fitting for James Bond than Lady Lara Croft. But once I got used to the idea of Lara Croft 007, I didn't mind it so much. (Indeed, if Hollywood ever follows through with it's long-threatened female Bond film, they could do far worse than get Angelina Jolie for the role of Jane(?) Bond.)

What appealed to me in Cradle of Life is how familiar Lara, her background, and her supporting characters have become with only one previous film under their belts. No time is spent explaining who she is and why she lives in such a huge mansion (which sadly appears only briefly). This level of familiarity, of character comfort, is something I've only ever seen once before -- in the Bond series.

Cradle of Life also features some most impressive set pieces that may not necessarily advance the story, but are great to watch, such as a zoom in from outer space on Lara riding a motorcycle, an incredible zoom-in shot THROUGH the window of Croft Manor, and a great scene of Lara shooting at targets while riding a horse -- sidesaddle!

Sadly, the critical and box office failure of Cradle of Life probably guarantees no further entries in the series, and even if it does continue, Jolie looks ready to follow Audrey Hepburn's lead and put acting on the back burner in favor of humanitarian work so the role will probably go to another (possibly less talented) actress. If this turns out to be the case, I believe the Lara Croft series looks set to be remembered as fondly as the Derek Flint films of the 1960s.

Anyone who has been scared away by the bad reviews could do worse than to rent a copy from their local video store and check it out. You might be surprised at how much fun the movie is.

how to squander 90 million of dollars on a lousy sequel

[dbdumonteil · 1/10 · 1 July 2006]

I am not nutty at all about video games but I admit that "Lara Croft Tomb Raider" is a benchmark in the history of video game. Such a triumph with an adventuress who made a household name around the globe could only have repercussions in the cinema with the decision to transfer to the silver screen Croft's adventures. Thus, the first installment opened in the summer 2001. Its amount? A shallow, empty adventure movie because it remained stuck on the aesthetics of the video game and the clichés of the adventure film. But rather excellent figures must have rejoiced the producers to prompt them to do it again.

Francis Veber, a French filmmaker who gave a boost to French comedy by giving it the recipe of the mismatched pair (see the delicious "la Chèvre", 1981 and "le Dîner De Cons", 1998) once expressed his judgment about sequels in general: "what is a sequel? Generally a shoddy remake of the first film". How this relevant opinion is applicable to "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: the Cradle of Life"! It's chiefly a photocopy of its elder brother, so why bother? Take and pen a faded, join-the-dots story which takes Croft in the four corners of the world searching for a mysterious object supposed to guide her to the Pandhora box which shelters deadly powers. Fill this story with characters or rather puppets because they have so little depth including the one-time lover who may have or not a crush on his fiancée again, the caricatured boss of the baddies. Then, bestow this story with two-bit obligatory elements (the Chinese mafia, notably the boss Reiss has a keen interest in finding the Pandhora box and so tracks Croft down), lackluster action sequences and you get a cheesy product cluttered with so-so special effects probably to palliate the glaring weaknesses of the scenario. A skimpy one which lets the average viewer guess that the scenarists may have experienced a block writing their story or maybe its loose potential reveals a strong intention from the producers to count on a second commercial success while neglecting rigor in storytelling. Then, what is annoying is this nagging would-be deadpan humor which helps to mar the film and even the presence of a specialist in action film, Jan De Bont doesn't redeem at all this abysmal product from absolute wreckage.

From the Pandhora box, everything baneful that can damage a film like "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: the Cradle of Life" got out and destroyed it. At the bottom, remained what could have cured this film: originality. The fans of the video games: why not rushing on them again instead of wasting your time with this poor man (woman)'s Indiana Jones?

Pretty Good, If All You Want Is A Brainless Action Movie

[christian123 · 4/10 · 1 July 2005]

Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life is an improvement over the original as it delivers more action and adventure. Archaeologist and explorer extraordinaire, Lara Croft, journeys to a temple which has sunken underwater in search of lost treasures. During her expedition, Croft happens upon a sphere that contains the mythical Pandora's Box, only to have it stolen from her by Chen Lo, the leader of a Chinese crime syndicate. Chen Lo is in league with a bad guy named Reiss, who wants to use the priceless Box as a doomsday weapon. The plot sounds okay but the main reason someone would see this film is for the action scenes and Angelina Jolie. People just wanting those two things will probably enjoy this film. People that want a good story and better direction should skip this film. The action scenes are really cool and are done well. However, the story is weak and the film doesn't quite make sense at times either. I think the person that should be blamed is Jan de Bont. He is a terrible director and can't build up suspense very well. He did a bit better then Simon West but still the studio should have hired someone else. The acting is good not great but nothing horrible either. Angelina Jolie does a good job of playing Lara Croft and she is also very breathtaking in the film. Gerard Butler does a good job as well though sometimes his performance wasn't very interesting. The action scenes are really cool and are done well. Another problem I had with this film is that it gets boring at times. Having a lot of action doesn't mean its audience will be entertained. The movie's running time is 117 minutes which is a bit longer then the original. I think they could have cut the film down to about the same length as there some pointless scenes. If you hated the original then you should skip this film as the film is more of the same but it is more entertaining. As long as you don't try to notice too many of the mistakes in the film then you should enjoy it. If your looking for a serious action flick then just skip this. Rating 6.8/10

Okay 2020, who opened Pandora's box?

[Calicodreamin · 6/10 · 21 October 2021]

Solid Lara Croft action thriller, except for the ridiculous punching a shark scene which I'm still not over. The acting is decent enough and the storyline is the right shade of over the top. Jolie and Butler have great chemistry with their love/hate thing.

Craptacular

[glennz20 · 10 October 2003]

Craptacular is the one and only word to describe this piece of trash movie. I never knew I could hate a film so much, until I saw Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life.

After the medicore, but entertaining first Lara Croft movie, comes this just-plain-crap and boring sequel. Half the time during this movie, I found myself staring away from the screen, wondering about other things - it was just totally uninteresting.

A plot you ask? Well, a plot is very non-existant here, save for a recycled story from the first movie. Lara Croft must find the much desired Pandora's Box, along the way teaming up with her old friend, Terry (an incredibly bland Gerard Butler). Sound familiar? It should - we've seen it before.

Bad action scenes, trashy dialogue and enormous plot holes make up 117 minutes of this movie. Was it really that long? It seemed like a lifetime.

Not even the usually fantastic Angelina Jolie can save this film. Avoid at great risk - (* out of ****).

Jan De Bont, thy name is wasted potential...

[mentalcritic · 2/10 · 16 October 2004]

When I look at Jan De Bont's resumé, I think of all the brilliant Dutch projects he has worked upon, and then I think of the films he has directed in America. The gulf between the two is such that even the less discerning can't help but be amazed. This is, after all, the guy who worked alongside one of Holland's favourite sons, the legendary Paul Verhoeven, on such indisputable triumphs as Turks Fruit or Flesh + Blood. To call directing such dreck as Speed or Tomb Raider 2 a comedown is a form of flattery.

Lara Croft, Tomb Raider: The Cradle Of Life, also proves one of a certain critic's rules regarding appreciating film based on their titles. The rule basically states that the longer the title is, the worse the film will be. Just as RoboCop, clocking in at a mere seven characters, is one of the greatest films the American film industry has ever been blessed with, Tomb Raider 2's full title clocks in at a whopping forty-two. Believe me, the quality level indicated by this under the aforementioned rule is very much in force here.

A classic example of this film's idiocy is when Lara, bleeding from one leg and stranded outside an underwater crypt, punches a shark in the face before riding on his back and finding a quiet place to sleep out on the ocean for an unspecified period. I'm no expert on sharks, but I would have thought that the impediment to motion that being under several hundred feet of water poses would make a punch in the face feel to a shark what a light poke in the nose would feel to us under normal circumstances. Not to mention the fact that, after lying out in such a large body of water for so long with an open wound, at least another shark is bound to come along sooner or later.

One area where Jan deserves credit is that I've never seen him resort to the use of shaky-cam. Thankfully, directors of European origin saw right through the party line that this puts the audience into the action, and realized that it does nothing of the kind. As a result, while many shots are too close for comfort during action sequences, they are at least stable enough that one can make sense of the actors' motions. The fight scene choreography is of such a quality that it doesn't need to be hidden from the audience.

Angelina Jolie seems to have a lock on strong woman characters that are so generic she can portray them all alike, yet she does this template so well that at least this audience member fails to notice. The problem here is that every character in this film is so generic that you cannot help but notice. Jolie's acting is never that brilliant, but she looks like Anna Paquin next to Gerard Butler. Noah Taylor is another classic example of a reason why I am not surprised that Australian entertainers rarely manage to get out of the isolation tank that is Australia. Seriously, this guy could be reading a description of Angelina's naked body and bore the hell out of me.

I gave Lara Croft: Tomb Raider: The Cradle Of Life a two out of ten. Don't mistake this to mean that it is necessarily better than the films I gave a one out of ten. When I give something a two out of ten, that means its mediocrity makes it seem like a deliberate waste of a good hundred million. Aside from Angelina Jolie in skin-tight lycra and a clever twist ending, there ain't nothing to see here, folks.

Mean Spirited

[mrskywalker · 4/10 · 27 July 2003]

I so looked forward to this film. I liked the first one better than most people. I thought this would be great. It started good with great scenery and powerful music. Jolie commands the screen the best of all modern actresses.

But as the film progresses we see changes to Lara. After she stabs one guy in the foot she smiles and says "nice" etc.. She is kind of sadistic and is not the hero of the first. Naturally the villain is middle aged British. But he seems no match for her so no real conflict. The worst part is bringing in a ex boyfriend making this soap opera time. The heavy graphic kissing scene is definately not for youngsters and so out of place. I thought it would pick up at the end but it ended with a dud. I am a croft fan and I wanted so much more.

I don't know why it has such a low rating

[rafaelacavlina · 10/10 · 18 June 2018]

I think this movie is even better than the first one,which is not often the case. It sends a strong message while the first movie doesn't send any message at all. I think also that the plot is way better than in the 1st one. That is why I don't know why it has lower rating that the first Lara Croft: Tomb Raider movie..

I want a third

[imdb-10-goober · 7/10 · 26 July 2005]

I would love to see a third Tomb Raider movie with Angelina to round out the series a la Indiana Jones/Harrison Ford. Time, life, and: bridge to the universe? Ultimate energy? Plain vanilla knowledge?

I liked the first better than the second, but that's partly because a) I love the games although they have necessarily linear plot lines b) It had a clearer set of three acts more like a straightforward treasure hunt: clock, first piece, second piece. The second movie could have done something along the lines of map, reader, box but it seemed to get bogged down in a long middle in China. c) It had a more compelling back story. The history with Terry Sheridan wasn't a driver to her quest, in fact it got in the way more often than not although I love Gerard Butler. Ideally the Tomb Raider movies would have been originated as a trilogy with a story arc circling Lara's parents to continue to flesh out her reasons for doing things and her entry to the game. Although I hear that Jolie and Voight are on the outs so maybe he wasn't available to play her father.

Since I watch the first over and over and over again (Angelina rules!) I'm still giving the second a high score.

embarrassing rubbish that can't even spoof itself

[kellan-uk · 3/10 · 21 August 2004]

if you have nothing to do, and you have tidied your room and phoned your mum, put up shelves and watched paint dry, well maybe this film is for you. But.... beware....... this is a film where the contest is between a wooden script and actors who cant decide how much they are expected to be hamming it up badly for laughs. Is the cgi deliberately rough-draft quality or did they just forget to render it later on.

Lots of eye candy if you like your men hairy and well toned. Laura Croft slides yet again tho from all-action killer-babe in boots and dual guns to barbie does relic hunter.

In fact thats not fair to Relic Hunter. At least they have a vaguely plausible plot. Well - in comparison to this.

The prob with Laura Croft partI was they made an excellent Tomb Raider-does-real-action and then savaged the 2nd half in the editing suite. The prob with partII is that they made an embarrassing slapstick version of Tomb Raider and used an pair of pinking shears for editing.

Saying all that, Gerald Butler does a good job within the limits of an appalling script; the geek boys and the Greek brothers all work hard at squeezing something out of what little they offered. And Angelina Jolie plays her role well.

If only the studio had had the courage to go proper satire, spoof or even plain comedy. But from the mandrills to the skydiving, this was waste of a lot of movie money, some good actors and a lot of potential.

On the other hand, with all the cuttings from part 1 & 2, they must have enough to string together a whole third film with no need to reshoot anything.

Maybe one day EIDOS will vet enough pre-production rushes, scripts and cinematography and give us something that matches the addictive pleasure of their game. But on this form... don't hold your breath

Mindless fun that just goes

[dbborroughs · 7/10 · 19 January 2008]

It assumes you've seen the first film and so it just goes....

WOW.

What a fun movie. Mindless Fun of the lets just go sort.

Its nothing great it just is a fun two hours of action and adventure. Frankly it felt like a long ride, but a good long ride, like I've been around the world and then some. This is opposed to the "can't anything exciting happen" of Bad Boys 2 (released about the same time).

If you liked the first mindless film this is better, different, very different its a stripped down machine that goes at top speed to the end, where the first had to introduce characters and tried for a complicated plot.

The villain is evil from the first introduction of the Ebola laced drink to the last gasp before Lara puts him in his rightful place.

The characters are well defined and perfectly realized in the action speaks louder than words sort of way.

As mindless entertainment its a four star romp- it probably should be a star lower but with the bad movies I've seen of late its nice to see a really really good fun movie..

Borring

[Spanner-2 · 4/10 · 5 August 2003]

This sequel again finds Angelina Jolie as the female Indiana Jones, jutting around the world... this time in search of Pandora's Box of all things.. While I wasn't a big fan of the original, it had some impressive stunt sequences and production design... this one on the other hand just doesn't work for me.. A collosal bore of a film that almost put me to sleep, Jolie sleepwalks through the film, displaying not one iota of genuine human emotion, and the supporting cast of lunkheads is just worthless.. The opening sequence has some good action, but from there it degenerates into tired and badly staged sequences that do little to involve the viewer. Hopefully the series will not continue. GRADE: D-

Better than the first!

[SamTheMovieMan-1 · 7/10 · 25 March 2005]

Rating Key: **** Brilliant ***1/2 Terrific *** Great **1/2 Good ** Pretty good, mostly lame *1/2 Bad * Godawful

In this sequel to the 2001 action yarn, Jolie returns as Lara Croft who teams up with her ex to find Pandora's box before a maniac scientist harness's it for world domination.

Now, the only real problems I had with the film were that the performances and the writing fell flat. I thought Jolie looked so damn gorgeous it was near breathtaking for one thing. The films set design overcame that of the original so, "The Cradle of Life" does have a bit of decent eye candy. In the previous film, I felt that Simon West's direction was only lively sometimes. Here, De Bont's direction stays lively through the whole film and he creates well made action sequences. I have to say, "The Cradle of Life" is a lot of fun, very entertaining, and tops the original in every way.

*** out of **** (7 out of 10)

Worst Movie going experience of my life. GOD AWFUL TORTURE!!!

[drivensnow · 1/10 · 2 August 2003]

Forgive the length of this comment...I must purge this experience from my system. Uh...

Allow me to start by saying that I love movies. I love great films, big blockbusters, indie, foreign, musicals...You name it, so long as it has good production value.

And I can positively say that I have never, ever felt that I wanted my money back after seeing a film...even if I was mislead by marketing or word of mouth. I have always been able to understand where the filmmakers were coming from, even if I didn't like the film or if thought that it was a complete sellout, I understood and was willing to chalk it up to experience. Hey, I see a lot of movies.

But that all changed with Tomb Raider 2. Hands down the worst movie that I have ever seen in a theatre. What were they thinking??? I don't understand how anyone can make a movie this bad.

I want my money back. Both tickets.

Normally I would not see this movie, but my date made me take her and it was so bad. Thank God I didn't see the first one.

I cannot describe the loathe that I feel for this movie. It is beyond my desire to leave but reluctantly stay for the ending of Battlefield Earth (I had never seriously contemplated leaving a movie theatre midway before Battlefield Earth). It is way beyond the handful of smokebreaks that I took during Pearl Harbor.

This was torture. Plain and simple.

The script was horrible. The dialogue was the epitome of crap. But even worse was the execution. HOW? The stunts were riduculously fake--I could tell the OBVIOUS difference between takes which nobody seemed concerned about during the editing process. Forget that they were too overblow in the first place (I have sadly grown used to this extravaganza of ludicracy so recently invading the boxoffice). The

cinematography reminded me of a cheesy Kung-Fu flicks from ancient times...the framing was seemingly all up close giving no sense of space. The timing of slow motion to fast action gave the pure sense of cheesiness. The sheer amount of different camera angle close-ups of ridiculous action that did not match made me sick at heart. Other than ariel shots for different locales (which were used WAY TOO MUCH) the film was completely claustrophobic. Note to filmmakers: I never want to see another close up of Angelina Jole again after this movie.

I don't want to, but I feel that I have to comment of the God Aweful special effects in this movie. Please, please make it look realistic and don't jump frames at times during FX shots (pay attention to a diving sequence). Oh, I hate it. I could elaborate but I will just say that these was the worst CG images that I have seen (looked fake like the Mummy series...but even worse because I don't think they did it on purpose due to the inconsistency.)

And for the grand finale, the ACTING WAS EXCRUCIATING! Oh...God, I wouldn't know where to even begin. I guess that in addition to the horrible script and dialogue the editing seemed to make it really shine. It was as if someone yelled "action" then dubbed it out in so many shots...there were so many little pauses before the actors actually began to act (and it was not edited out). Talk about completely ruining the sense of suspended disbelief...if it ever existed. But even worse than that was Gerard Butler. Words can't describe my agony while watching him act in this picture. I don't want to go on...I really am getting sick thinking about different performances.

And thank God I can't complain too much about the plot, or lack thereof, because I actually FELL ASLEEP FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER IN A THEATER. Unfortunately my snoring (no joke) at times prompted my date ask me if I was okay, otherwise I might have slept through more of this film.

There really are so many intangible things that make this film so bad that I would have a hard time articulating them all. I would love to hear from someone who worked on this film to try and find an answer to this tasteless disaster.

Wow.

Fun Movie

[estarbuck252 · 6/10 · 15 July 2005]

This was a fun movie. Angelina Jolie certainly chomps away at the script and a lot of it is somewhat over the top. But it kind of reminded me of the old Indiana Jones movies with a lot of action. And, whoever you might be, you have to concede that Lara could kick your behind! But I must be honest! The only reason I watched this movie is because of Gerard Butler! He is sooooo darn sexy! He plays second fiddle to Angelina, but in my mind he steals the show! But I think he may become a great leading man in the near future! That Scottish accent! That cock-eyed smile! Those gloriously kissable lips! Plus, he has a very powerful screen presence. When he's on screen, he's the only thing you can see! He just oozes off the celluloid! He's magnetic. And I look forward to watching his career move forward! He is fast becoming my favorite actor and has even supplanted Johnny Depp at the top of my list of "heartthrobs"! And I've been watching Johnny since 21 Jump Street! But it's not just his looks. He's a really good actor! After seeing him in "Phantom" I think he also proved his versatility!

Nice to see a woman in lead action role!

[nhover · 9/10 · 1 August 2005]

If you're a die hard Indiana Jones fan, or any of those movies that take you all over the world on a great treasure hunt, you will LOVE Tomb Raider! Both movies show a new side to Angelina Jolie, a smart, skilled, self- reliant woman who can kick butt! So the characters don't have 10 dimensions, what person looking to watch a true action flick really CARES if the main character had a rough childhood or not? Not hat it is JUST like those other adventure movies either, yes there native tribesman, booby traps, and lots of bad guys who show up at just the right time, but the places this movie takes you are unique and extremely exotic! Plus when was the last time you saw a movie about Pandora's box, or where the FEMALE lead saves the day? So grab your popcorn and get ready to go for an adventurous ride with Lara Croft, Tomb Raider!

Another quite good adventure...

[paul_haakonsen · 6/10 · 25 March 2023]

I very much enjoyed the 2001 movie, and I have watched this 2003 sequel a couple of times since it was initially released. And thus, I sat down to watch it again here in 2023, after having just sat through the 2001 movie once again.

Writers Dean Georgaris, Steven E. De Souza and James V. Hart put together a fair enough script and storyline for this 2003 sequel, however it just wasn't as impressive as the first movie. I think it was because they went a little bit overboard on the supernatural stuff. Don't get me wrong here, because I am not saying that "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life" isn't a good movie, far from it. It most certainly is an enjoyable and entertaining movie, it just isn't up to the level of the first movie though.

Like the 2001 prequel, then "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life" also benefits from a rather good cast ensemble. Angelina Jolie returns to reprise her character, along with Noah Tyler and Chris Barrie. Aside from these recurring stars, then "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life" also have the likes of Gerard Butler, Ciarán Hinds, Djimon Hounsou, Simon Yam, Terence Yin and Richard Ng on the cast list, so there is something for us fan of both Western and Eastern cinema in this movie.

There is a good amount of action and adventure throughout the 117 minutes that the movie ran for. And honestly, the movie doesn't feel like an almost two hour feature. So thumbs up to director Jan de Bont for that accomplishment.

Visually then "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life" is quite nice. Lots of good effects that looks realistic and cool on the screen.

If you enjoyed the 2001 movie, then you definitely want to check out the 2003 "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life" as well.

My rating of "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life" lands on a six out of ten stars.