Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
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
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 8 of 32: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [Next]
Index 312 reviews in total 

Very entertaining adventure film.

7/10
Author: senortuffy from Glen Ellen, CA
20 November 2003

This was a fun movie to watch, sort of a mix between James Bond and Indiana Jones. I'm surprised by the relatively negative reviews others have given it. Usually I'm in sync with most people on these things, but I enjoyed this one.

The story is a basic Indiana Jones adventure. Laura Croft uncovers an orb in a lost tomb, Alexander's Lunar Temple, and when a certain musical tone is played, the orb reveals the location of Pandora's Box. An evil scientist hires someone to steal it - he wants to release a plague to wipe out most of the world's population and leave everything to him and a select few. Laura Croft sets out to recover the orb and prevent anyone from getting to Pandora's Box.

As befits a director who made his bones in cinematography, Jan de Bont made a film with lots of stimulating visuals. The scene of the two jumping off a highrise in Hong Kong and parasailing to a ship in the harbor was really impressive. There's a fair amount of CGI, but with all the stunts and action, it was necessary and I didn't find them intrusive. The actual cinematographer here is David Tattersall, who filmed the last Bond movie and the newer Star War releases.

Angelina Jolie is just a fair actress, but she handles the role of a heroic action figure well enough and certainly fills out the physical requirements. Gerard Butler and Ciarán Hinds, though not well known by name, also play their roles as Laura's partner/maybe-love-interest and evil villain well.

The production isn't quite as slick as a Bond movie and de Bont certainly isn't Steven Spielberg, but I found this movie more enjoyable than "Die Another Day." Maybe because the Bond formula is getting tired.

If you like films of that genre, then I suspect you'll have a good time watching this one. I did.

Was the above review useful to you?

ok

Author: PimpSkaterStar from Az
15 November 2003

I wish I liked the two video game movies, but I can't say I do that much. This one was an inmprovment over the irst one because it had more action and a better story. Jolie has never been sexier, but she uses her body to make the audience forget how bad the movie really is. ** out of **** stick to the games.

Was the above review useful to you?

Not as bad as expected

6/10
Author: GJBStar from UK
12 October 2003

Having missed the first film but having seen the negative publicity it received, I must admit that I had serious doubts about this film but I actually quite enjoyed it nevertheless. Angelina Jolie sports an impressive and accurate English accent as Lara Croft (she sounds like Tamara Beckwith, IT girl) and I can't think of another actress who could play the role. Gerard Butler is also pretty good as the potential love interest. The plot which revolves around the search for Pandora's Box, whilst far-fetched as one would expect is certainly of the genre. Ciaran Hinds plays the biological weapons expert, Jonathan Reiss and has presence but stands out so much as the bad guy that he might as well have Bad Guy tattooed on his forehead.

However, one cannot avoid the flaws of the movie. I must admit that I've never been a Chris Barrie fan (Brittas Empire anyone) but both he and Noah Taylor as Bryce grate somewhat and seem ever so slightly superfluous. Also, set design and production values in the opening scenes looks and feels cheap - from one of the worst CGI sharks (maybe, left over CGI from Scooby Doo) and Alexander the Great's Temple which looks as if it's made of polystyrene. Also, parts of Chinese countryside look more like Scotland. This though is in marked contrast to production values later in the film and Hong Kong and the Cradle of Life are both impressive - one can only imagine that the budget ran out somewhere. Despite this, Jan de Bont's direction is generally pretty good and the opening shots of the wedding sequence (especially the wine glass shots)show what he can do when not burdened with CGI.

Overall, this movie is fun but slight and similar in tone to the Charlie's Angels movies. However, it is a little more staid and perhaps takes itself too seriously. It will always be a poor man's Indiana Jones but the franchise, should it continue, could be stronger than Charlie's Angels if it loosened up a little. Worth a look when you want something easy.

6/10

Was the above review useful to you?

Craptacular

Author: 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 ****).

Was the above review useful to you?

Entertaining and not bad

7/10
Author: Stuart from Melbourne, Australia
7 October 2003

- Tomb Raider 2: The Cradle of Life: 7/10

I really enjoyed TR2, even though the reviews have been largely negative. Angelina Jolie is just great as Lara Croft, and the movie was really interesting and fast paced. The ending was kind of flat though, subtracting half a point from my rating.

Was the above review useful to you?

pandora's trash

2/10
Author: dertilee from Athens, Greece
5 October 2003

90 million dollars, exotic locations, an exciting and all-suggesting leading lady and... what? This? Incoherent, underwritten, flashy, trashy and close to the naively insulting. It could have been exciting interesting and magnificent but no they had to go and make it like a videogame ! Well, haven't they heard the news? 10 year olds are not the only film audience in the world. Now let them reap the poor box office and count the loss. It takes more than this to make the female combination of James Bond and Indiana Jones: it takes the art of cinema...

Was the above review useful to you?

some things are better left alone!

Author: nifabs
3 October 2003

I like the plot more in this movie but the action paled as they tried to imbue it with realism.

This is a "chick kicks flick", skip the realism and get whipping. Jolie does a remarkable job as usual but the many sideeffects and supporting cast detract from her performance unlike in the first one where she simply blows the screen away with that figure.

Still Good

5/10

Was the above review useful to you?

Second installment of one of the most mind-numbingly boring adventure series ever.

Author: Christopher Attrill
2 October 2003

*1/2 of ****

Unintentionally hilarious sequel that establishes it's intelligence level early on by having Jolie punch an animated shark in the face! There's enough excruciating cornball dialogue and superfluous CGI to pad the running time(over 2 hours worth no less!)of a pointless and ludicrous plot involving Croft beating the bad guys to -wait for it-Pandora's Box! Despite everything this still is an improvement on the first film. Although that's hardly an accomplishment given that just like the original this immensely forgettable adventure hokum is stupifyingly un suspenseful!

Was the above review useful to you?

Awful

4/10
Author: AragornsQueen from Cape Town, South Africa
1 October 2003

I was actually looking forward too seing this one, thte first wasnt toooo bad. This was terrible, i was bored halfway through and wished they could put me out of my misery.

i hit rock bottom 3 sec in, when she hit the shark. come on! credit us with some sense!!!

4

Was the above review useful to you?

Much better than I expected

6/10
Author: hamtun from southampton
27 September 2003

I enjoyed this. It was much better than I expected. It worked extremely well at the level of mindless entertainment. You don't expect Shakespeare from a video game. All that is required of this type of film is that the main character has screen presence. Angelina's got it in spades. In fact she is so strong no other character really gets a look in except for Ciaran Hinds as the stock lunatic who wants to rule the world. The pacing is good, special fx excellent and the use of sound increases the enjoyment. It was 2 hours well spent.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 8 of 32: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [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