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 7 of 32: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [Next]
Index 312 reviews in total 

not as good as I hoped

Author: brianh-9 from Mississippi, United States
10 February 2004

Well,the first film was criticised for being boring and actionless. I disagreed with the naysayers and really enjoyed it. As did my wife,so we were really wanting to see the sequel...then we saw the sequel. Yep,I'll tell you..our baloon was deflated. This film really just never got off the ground. I don't necessarily need a lot of plot to be pleased with an action film. Still,this action film just never found it's way into my heart. It didn't seem to feel inspired to go anywhere or challenge me. I didn't really even say in my mind.."That was cool." You see I thought that to myself a lot when I watched the first film. The action almost limped along to me never really trying to be very creative. This sequel really wasn't as good as even "Bad Boys 2." The funny thing is,this film was critically lauded. Well..not this critic. *1/2/*****

Was the above review useful to you?

Pretty much flat except for the ending!

Author: Maciste_Brother from the rock
4 February 2004

The first 2/3s of TOMB RAIDER 2 is a pretty forgettable action movie. But when they finally arrive at the Cradle of Life place, the film suddenly became exciting and cool looking. Had the entire film been like the ending, TOMB RAIDER 2 would have rocked. The look of the spooky environment and those shadow monsters and the Escher kind of caverns were fun to watch. But unfortunately, for most of the film there's a "been there, done that" kind of feel to it which never really elevates it above the level of tediousness.

The actors are pretty much wasted here. The actor who played the villain wasn't good. Chris Barrie and Djimon Hounsou are wasted in minor roles. But Gerald Butler is a revelation. Hope to see more of him in other movies. As for Angelina, well, she's beautiful but she's sports one expression throughout the movie: a stupid smarmy grin with her eyes beaming. I don't know who decided for her to act in such a way but it just didn't work. I don't blame Angelina for this but director Jan De Bont, who's one of the worst directors working in Hollywood these days. Jan simply cannot direct actors or action scenes. Yes, Jan directed SPEED but he also directed the wretched SPEED 2, TWISTER and THE HAUNTING. TOMB RAIDER 2 is not as bad as the three previous De Bont films I've mentioned but aside from the really cool ending, there's nothing memorable about it.

Was the above review useful to you?

Much better than first part

Author: grzhorse from Cyprus
8 January 2004

I found this sequel much better than the first.The first part was dissapointing for me because there was no adventure as it should be for a lara croft movie.At this sequel there was more adventure and more fun to watch.I hope that if Jolie does another part of lara croft

it must be full of action.

Was the above review useful to you?

Angeline Jolie is great as Lara, the film itself is so-so

Author: clydestuff from United States
29 December 2003

In the summer of 2001, having had a whole lot of time to kill, it seemed I was destined to view every release that year between May and September. Some of the films I saw during that long long summer were not ones I would normally have bothered to make a trip to the local cineplex to see. Circumstances being what they were, and having seen just about all the releases available one particular week, I decided to give the first Tomb Raider a look. To my surprise, I was one of those who found it more than mildly entertaining, thanks in large part to the fact that I felt Angeline Jolie had somehow managed not only to bring a video and computer game character to the screen with a bit of flair, but to also give that character a bit of complexity and depth. Not an easy task by no means. It wasn't the best adventure film I had ever seen, by any standards but it was passable. It was because of this that I looked forward to see if Jan De Bont would be able to improve on the promise of the original in Cradle of life. As it turned out, Cradle of Life wasn't any worse, but it wasn't an improvement either. Kind of disappointing when you consider how much of an opportunity there was to explore the character even greater and give her more depth.

With the hokey poky sub-plot of Lara's missing father dispensed in the first film, you would have thought that this would have freed Lara up to carry the sequel without any personal demons invading the plot. Alas, it is not to be, as the writers found it necessary to introduce the character of Terry Sheridan (Gerard Butler), who happens to be not only an imprisoned mercenary, but also a lover from Lara's past. Lara no longer trusts Mr. Sheridan, but needs him to get her into China and help her find the Orb that will lead her to Pandora's box. This plot twist also gives us one of those whose side is he really on plot twists that of course won't be resolved until the end of the movie. This all would have been OK except that the past relationship between Lara and Terry is never dealt with enough to give us any reason for it. This is one time a few quick flashbacks might have helped make the film a bit more interesting and the ending as it turns out, more suspenseful.

Laura's companions Bryce and Hilary are back also. Their parts have been whittled down considerably in this film and they are quite a bit less interesting than before. Ciaran Hinds is on hand as Jonathan Reiss, the villain who is in search of Pandora's box also for the usual diabolical reasons that could destroy mankind. He is evil enough but in the end not a particularly smart villain. I found Iain Glenn as Manfred Powell in the first film to more of an adversary. If you're going to make sequels I think the first rule should be make the adversary more evil, more intelligent and more diabolical than any of those that came before. Any video game player could have told the writers that.

Jan De Bont's direction keeps the film moving at a rapid pace. This is good to the point where it doesn't give us time to dwell on the silliness of what's going on, but it's bad because he should have taken the time to bring more depth to the character of Lara Croft or delved deeper into her relationship with Terry which may have been enough. Angeline Jolie should be given a lot of credit. She does manage to take a computer generated icon and breathe life into her, something that is not an easy task. It's a shame, because I would have liked to seen what she could do as Lara, if given a chance to explore the character even more. I don't know if there will be another sequel, and I won't particularly miss the Lara Croft films if there isn't. I will miss Angeline Jolie as the Lara Croft character though. Guess you can't have everything, can you?

My Grade: C+

Was the above review useful to you?

Angelina Jolie IS Lara Croft, and then some!

Author: Renaldo Matlin from Oslo, Norway
26 December 2003

It's ironic (and depressing) that this movie - which in many ways is a vast improvement on the first film - might mean the end of the "Lara Croft" film series, because it didn't do well enough at the box office. If the studio had some brains it might realize that the reason this movie did worse than the first one is because millions of people thought the first one sucked and imagined this one would do the same.

As opposed to the first one, in "The Cradle of Life" one actually feels for the characters, especially the tension-filled relationship between Lara and Terry Sheridan (played to perfection by Gerard Butler) works great, and Ciarán Hinds is so loathsome as the chief villain that you wish him a really painful death; this man is so inconsiderate and fiendish he hides a biological weapons lab inside a public shopping mall! Thank God they had the sense to loose the overrated Simon West as director after his abysmal job on the first one. On top of that, if you think the use of locations was exotic in the first movie, wait till you see this one! I can not remember seeing a movie that conveys such a strong feeling of a screen character using the entire world as their private little playground (the only real competitor has to be James Bond). The filmmakers also help underline a feeling that was never really explored in the game series; that when you scrape of all the muscles and get under that icy outer shell, Lara Croft is really a tragic figure. Most people associated with her seem to die. In the end that's very sad of course, but it also helps to give the character (and film) the soul and heart the original lacked. "The Cradle of Life" does however suffer a little bit by the same thing plaguing the original movie: it *is* a bit overlong.

One comment on something that takes place during the first fifteen minutes of the film: I saw some people in the discussion board talking about how ridiculous a scene between Lara and a shark is. What did they expect? This is Lara Croft, not Veronica Guerin! And what she does to that shark is even described in the well known "The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook" so all these things considered the scene is truly one of the highlights of the film and only an uninformed moron can dislike it.

I played several of the original games on Playstation and loved them, but after the first movie I was almost provoked when hearing there would be a sequel, but now after seeing "The Cradle of Life" I would love to see the series continue for another film.

Was the above review useful to you?

The Earthly Goddess in Action ! ! !

Author: Ahmed Fahmy ( from Alexandria, Egypt
25 December 2003

Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life

The Earthly Goddess in Action ! ! !

Ho Haaa ! ! !

I am a great admire of Angelina Jolie; she is truly one of today's most beautiful and talented actress, who is also able to perform very hard physical stunts. In Tomb Raider I, she was able to perfectly portray the character of Lara Croft exceedingly well. And since I enjoyed the first installment although a lot of critics do not agree with me, but I think when you have got this gorgeous female in a movie, together with Jan De Bont you've got a good action/adventure movie to watch.

Overall the movie is average, it does not succeed its prior installment, and Simon West (Con Air) was able to deliver a better story, cast, stunts and directorial than De Bont (Speed, Twister…). The opening of TR II was very weak, not to mention that scene where she punches the shark, but from then the movie is stable and exciting in many scenes. The sound score is also weak, not like TR I. The action scenes are cool enough, De Bont is better when it came to gunfight scenes.

Anyway Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life is a joyful adventure movie for family but a disappointment to the fans of the first movie who expected more.

I enjoyed Jolie kicking ass and saving humanity from what ever . ..

I think that Jolie has much more potential in her; if another director supplied her with better tools and idea's this would have been a better movie. The lovely Angelina, the passionate Gia, the smart Amelia from The Bone Collector, the amazing mentally ill Lisa in Girl, Interrupted and the seductive lady in Original Sin has much to offer us beside her beauty, in movies yet to come, hopefully in Oliver Stone's upcoming Alexander.


Was the above review useful to you?

Better than expected

Author: moviefan2003va from Washington, DC
22 December 2003

This movie is typical summer fare in terms of implausible action sequences and such but it has a solid story line that it sticks to and even manages to fit in a story line of choosing personal happiness over what's best for the rest of the world.

Was the above review useful to you?

They made another one?

Author: themarina1 from Vancouver, BC
8 December 2003

I wanted to like this movie but I couldn't. I'm always up for girl kicking butt movies but this one really wasn't great. Yes, she looks good. Yes, she has guns. Yes, she has gorgeous hair but give me a break!!! This movie was really bad! Even the plot was pathetic and sad. I fell asleep halfway through and had to be brought back to life a few minutes later. Sadly, my wake up call also made me watch the 10 minutes I had missed. What a disaster this was. I can't possibly see another of these movies being made in the near future.

4/10 (She has to get SOMETHING for looking good....)

Was the above review useful to you?

Angelina the Great.

Author: fastmike from Long Branch, NJ, USA
1 December 2003

Angelina Jolie gives a great repeat performance as super heroine Lara Croft, (combination 'Indiana Jones' and '007') as she sets out to save the world from bio-terrorist.

It's a little 'far-fetched' at times, but the run-chase-find action is non-stop, and the special effects are cleverly blended in to 'sum-up' to a really fun unique action adventure.

Was the above review useful to you?

Angelina Jolie is great BUT.....

Author: popzit from Atlanta
29 November 2003

Although this film is worth watching, that's all I can say about it. When Hollywood sets out to make a big-budget blockbuster, they "give it all they got" and so it was with the first Tomb Raider, which was a solid success and a great movie. Then they think this magic feat can be duplicated by another blockbuster with the same star. Sorry but it rarely happens like that and didn't in this case. Ms. Jolie is great and sexy and wonderful but the screenplay and story just falls short of the original. To be fair, the temple battle with the Rock Creatures in the first movie was just too hard of an act to follow. The same can be said about many of the original's scenes. Everything about this film was good-just not excellent. Good entertainment and worth watching once but I wouldn't buy the DVD for my home library.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 7 of 32: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [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