Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 3 of 32: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 314 reviews in total 

10 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

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

Author: Aaron1375
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

After being hugely disappointed by the first, here's what I thought of the second...

Author: Tom James from London, England
25 August 2003

I went into this film with mixed feelings. On one hand, I wanted to be excited- especially after seeing the trailers. But then I had seen the trailers for the first Tomb Raider movie, and boy, had I been disappointed. So, I went into this movie with restrained excitement. However, from the moment this film began, it was no longer restrained excitement... but pure hair-raising EXCITEMENT. The action in this movie was absolute eye-candy, and one of those few instances, where it seemed necessary within the narrative. Angelina Jolie was sensational... she gave personality to Lara. Lara Croft can now be put in the same league as James Bond, Indiana Jones, etc. I loved the little laughs she had, and she really was amazing when she performed her stunts. The English accent was perfect, too. The character Terry Sheridan was great, and the chemistry between him and Lara was electrifying. The plot was tight and understandable, unlike the first movie.

This is not ARTISTIC or a movie-trying-to-be-clever, it is pure entertainment. It delivers the action, but is three-dimensional because of the characters, and the emotion. It moves along, and doesn't get boring! Fans of the game will be pleased, because there are many scenes that closely resemble the game, especially the way Lara moves. :-D I really recommend this film and hope they make a third.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

It's Great to see Angelina Jolie in the role of Lara Croft

Author: Jerr
18 November 2003

I like Lara Croft. I like Angelina Jolie playing the role of Lara Croft and I liked all the special effects they used to make this movie. Movie is entertainingly good. I wished Jolie considered playing a third part, but she already declared she won't do it again. "Two Tomb Raiders is enough" I hope she changes her mind.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

Thankfully, No Third Is Planned

Author: ccthemovieman-1 from United States
16 July 2006

Considering "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider" was pretty good entertainment, this sequel was a disappointment. Critics disagreed and liked this one better, but I disagree with them. As with most sequels, it just overdoes what was popular in the first film.

In this case, that means the action is WAY overdone (since it was too much on the first film, to begin with); "Laura" becomes WAY too much of a feminist-macho icon and Jolie's British accent here is so phony it's embarrassing, and annoying to hear.

On he good side, I enjoyed the exotic locales (Far East and Africa), it had very little profanity and some of the stunts were wild and fun to watch. As far as I know, they don't have another sequel planned, which is smart.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

I don't feel this one

Author: Pihlaja from Helsinki
23 December 2013

I'm torn about this film. On the other hand, I cannot quite pinpoint the differences between this and the original Lara Croft film, and yet it feels inferior in every aspect. But why is that? Why do I feel that this isn't as good as the original. Well, novelty might be one explanation. The first Tomb Raider was fresh, new, something we hadn't seen before. This one is just the first one with a new coat of paint, which is never a good thing.

One explanation might also be that I don't really like Gerard Butler's Terry Sheridan as a character. The first Tomb Raider was great because the focus was on Lara. She was the undisputed hero of her own story. In this one I feel that they regretted that decision and decided to add some unneeded masculinity into the mix. And yes, this is hypocritical, because if any sequel to a male lead adventure film decided to add a kickass female character, I wouldn't complain at all. Unfortunately, that's the world we live in, and I cannot lie about how I feel about Terry.

I also miss the interplay between Lara and her father. The first film was very focused on her character and the stages were personal. Not so much in this film. Lara quests for the Cradle of Life, not because it means something to her personally, but because she's ordered to do so and she just went: "Yeah, I didn't have anything planned for the weekend anyway." A workable solution if you don't have anything else, but it's a bit on the weak side.

Otherwise the movie is pretty much identical to the first one. Gorgeous locations, great stunt sequences, imaginative action scenes and Angelina Jolie is as great as always, although the need to cover her up in order to cover her tattoos is a crime against humanity. So, if you liked the first one, I'd give this one a watch as well. It's not quite as good, but it's not noticeably worse either. If you didn't like it, this won't change your opinion.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A good follow up

Author: breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com from United States
3 June 2013

In 2001, fan boys and gamers alike were able to get their eye full with Angelina Jolie in the lead role as Lara Croft. It may not have been a success in critics' eyes but it did well at the box office and fans wanted a sequel. So as a follow up, this movie doesn't perform badly at all. But it does lack a few details that keep it from being as good as the first. The majority of these flaws lie in the writing as well as some character development.

In this story, Croft is set on the quest to find Pandora's Box and keep an evil money mogul from getting his hands on it and causing countless deaths around the world. So to accomplish this task, she once again calls on her friends and companions at home and around the world to assist her. The two important ones that most fans like are Hillary (Chris Barrie) and Bryce (Noah Taylor). I was happy to see them reprise their roles - their presence in the first added comedic relief to various situations, as do they in this installment.

Of course, Jolie as Croft is still a great choice. Her athletic and flexibility abilities are still impressive and are similar if not the same as the moves that Lara Croft does in the video game. And I don't know if it's just me but I found Jolie to be even more attractive in this picture. Her face is different. Playing the evil money mogul is Ciarán Hinds. Hinds also puts in a good performance. He may not be the most sinister of villains but he's no fresh apple either.

Accompanying Croft in her journey across the globe is an ex-boyfriend named Terry Sheridan (Gerard Butler) who is good with guns and I agree, he is. I also found him to have a funny sense of humor with his Scottish accent. What upset me about though was that writer Dean Georgaris wrote his character to be untrusted and unpredictable. That caused the character development between Sheridan and Croft to whither. They had good chemistry but they were always up and down. Like a love-hate relationship. Can we just pick a single tone for these two? I also didn't like how Georgaris did not explain what happened to Alex West (Daniel Craig) from the first movie. Craig's character did not die so why wasn't it at least explained where he was or why he left? Continuity people! But that's really all I have to nit-pick about. I enjoyed the action which felt solid. The director, Jan de Bont, who also directed the megahit Speed (1994) seems to have a good idea what an action movie needs even though his profession lies in cinematography. I also felt that the musical score provided by Alan Silvestri instead of Graeme Revell was an improvement. It expressed action, tension and feeling at the right moments. Although it's not as great as the first, I still liked it.

Its writing is a little off with character development and continuity but it still holds up strong. The characters are still fun to watch as well as the action and improved musical score.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A Boring Movie

Author: Blacktrack from United States
17 June 2006

Now I am very laid back on movies and give all movies chances and most them I've seen haven't been as boring as this one. Well laura croft was at it again trying to find some treasure, (I forgot what it was because I fell asleep). Then I tried watching it again then I fell asleep. The action sequences don't even get you into the movie. The acting good but the storyline didn't really draw me in this movie. I tried giving this movie a chance and I'm not a person who wants it extactly with the video game or something, I didn't want a movie that would change my life or anything, just an enjoyable movie I can watch over and over again. My suggestion to you is don't try this movie out because I think it would be a waste of time.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Jolie in tight outfits. shame the film is little else

Author: TheNorthernMonkee from Manchester
1 September 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***


For a long time the worlds of cinema and video games have been interlinked. For every film which has it's own game released, one game has a film created in the opposite direction. In 1993 we were introduced to the Bob Hoskins' picture "Super Mario Brothers" based on the original game. Eventually it wasn't long before the Lara Croft series would continue this route and therefore in 2001 the first "Tomb Raider" film was released. Whilst this first outing was a suitable story with relevance to the original series, the 2003 sequel was shocking in the fact that it was awkward, badly written and badly filmed. Ultimately, not even Angelina Jolie in tight outfits and bikinis could save this film from the rubbish dump where it belongs.

In this second film, Jolie's Lara Croft is dispatched off around the world in the search of Pandora's Box, also referred to as "The Cradle Of Life". Along the way, Croft picks up an exlove in the shape of Terry Sheridan (Gerard Butler) as she attempts to prevent greedy, virus dealer Jonathan Reiss (Ciaran Hinds) from unleashing an awful plague across the globe.

In James Hart's story, the idea of "Tomb Raider" dies a painful death. Whilst the original story was clever and intriguing with Croft travelling around the world with her butler Hillary (Chris Barrie) not far behind, this second adventure was relatively limited in location and with more violence than thought process. The first inspired people to think and actually focus on such a mindless film. In contrast, "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle Of Life" is monotonous and infuriating. This film is in fact so pointless that the brain rots as you slowly watch more of it.

As well as the awful script, this film suffers from a lack of acting ability. Whilst Chris Barrie's butler has evolved from a butler to a ridiculous comedy figure, Angelina Jolie has increased her posh English accent and produced a truely hideous performance. It's a shame actually because Jolie has the perfect body and appearance to represent Croft, but she just makes the role slightly too hilarious to be taken serious. Jolie has a nice body, ridiculously good in a black bikini, but mentally the actress is too stressed to provide a suitable performance.

Ultimately this second "Tomb Raider" film suffers from a lack of plot and a bit too much special effects. The thought process of the series and game have been removed in favour of Jolie in tight outfits and pointless elements. In some films this could work, sadly in the "Tomb Raider" series, it doesn't.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

A Fun Female-Hero who has a Human Touch

Author: dj_wang from Canada
7 October 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Angelina Jolie is a gorgeous woman. Her lips are just full and rich. She makes a fantastic Lara Croft. I was very impressed by all her action sequences. Particularly the bo staff training sequence with her butler at the beginning of the film. You can tell that it's Angelina doing the impressive moves with the bo staff and then the twin sticks.

Lara Croft is a character with a human touch.

I enjoyed the flirting Lara does with her Greek friends in the beginning of the film. It makes Lara out to be in control, but still very personable.

Lara Croft is still a really unique character in today's world. She is a strong woman. She is the leader among men. It makes a very enjoyable role reversal.

I really liked the scene with Lara and the Chinese family on the boat in Hong Kong. It was a very sweet moment with the little Chinese kids and the family being awe struck by having a beautiful white woman using their television to hook up high-tech gadgets and then having their cabin filled up with a 3-d image of far off Africa. Naturally it was a bit strange that with all Lara's resources she needed to resort to using a random Chinese family's television to communicate with her friends.

Another plot hole that Lara's friends were found by the bad guy. It was just something random and unexplained.

Still another plot hole was the ending of the film. Why did Lara's would be boyfriend decide that he wanted Pandora's Box so badly all of a sudden? Sadly it felt contrived, and not really fair to the character.

Overall though the film was entertaining.

I think that further focusing on Lara's strength, her total confidence, which is coupled with her sense of humanity and playfulness, perhaps more scenes with her demonstrating how much fun she is, at the same time being humane and sophisticated, would make another movie even better.

Now, speaking of humanity in a broad sense, I have the feeling that we are reaching the point where we are going to evolve beyond the need to have celebrities and heroes to look up to. Action movies with stylish heroes will become a thing of the past, because people will be living amazing, exciting lives of their own, they won't need some artificial action to substitute their genuine need for adventure in their lives.

I look forward to the day when everyone is having exciting lives and don't need to find that excitement in movies (which is a poor substitute anyways).

Still, a fairly good movie, and Angelina Jolie is gorgeous and a lot of fun!

(I think she is a caring, loving person too. I greatly admire her desire to take care of as many children as possible.)

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

A decent James Bond movie (!)

Author: georg-imdb from Helsinki, Finland
15 October 2006

First, I have never seen the computer game, but last night I saw the previous Lara Croft movie.

This one is much better. If you look at it as a female James Bond, then it beats the Bond movies made since the Real Men (Connery, Moore) quit starring Bond.

It would behoove the Lara Croft brand owners to seriously consider what they have in their hands. With a little refinement, this could become a franchise as big as Bond, no question about it. But it does need some serious work.

Ms Jolie has yet to prove she has the required depth to really start acting. To rise from a cartoon figure into a believable superior being (as Bond was), requires as much mental effort as she's done with her physique for the Croft role.

A believable Lady Croft needs more than an arrogant one-face tomboy on steroids. What's inside her must be a woman, an aristocrat, and an intellectual with a superior intelligence and solid values. Even harder and much more important is to convert the cocky pretense of self-confidence into a powerful internal peace and determination, like you can see only in Connery's eyes. Even the best actors can't make that believable by putting facial expression #252 here and #311 there -- instead, one really has to "become" the character and start seeing with her eyes.

If Jolie can't cut it, then the obvious next choice would be Halle Berry. But her problem is of course Hollywood's schizophrenic attitude towards "black" heroes. Berry could probably pull this off with flying colors. And there are others.

Somehow this movie shows that the Bond formula is easy enough to copy and get a decent result. But the last steps to excellence, they can only be reached with a capable lead actor. How hard that is, is amply demonstrated by the travails of the Broccolis in their quest for a decent Bond.

After two movies, Bond wasn't anything special. Already Lara Croft has a much larger audience. The Bond producers made Bond into a global icon, something larger than life, and a brand as well known as Coke. But it took decades of relentless work and an exceptional determination.

Today, a female Bond is in tune with the modern values of audiences the world over.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 32: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history