|Page 8 of 31:||               |
|Index||308 reviews in total|
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.
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
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.
Craptacular is the one and only word to describe this piece of trash
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 ****).
- 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.
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...
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.
*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!
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!!!
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.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Well, the future of the Tomb Raider film franchise doesn't look too
good after this effort. Although the first movie seemed rather light
and flimsy, it had it's moments. Not so with this creation.
For a start, there's the character of Lara Croft. In the first movie, the viewer routed for her to win, but in this, after about five minutes,the viewer is praying she gets shot, whacked with a stick or even punched. She's just too infallible. On those occasions when she does get hit, I felt really happy.
POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD
Another problem is the arrogance she displays in everything she does. A good example is when she pulls out her gun to shoot Sheridan saying he's wasting time. WHO THE HELL DOES SHE THINK SHE IS?!? The poor bloke's been stuck in prison for who knows how long, of course he wants to relish his freedom a little bit.
A third problem is Terry Sheridan's accent. Just where is he supposed to be from? The actor is Scottish, so why didn't he use a Scottish accent instead of fluctuating all the time?
Hillary and Bryce, by far my two favourite characters aren't in it anywhere near enough although I suppose to be fair Lara is supposed to be the main character and they are the sidekicks. Perhaps she should take one or maybe both of them with her on her next outing.
The idea of the Pandora's Box isn't bad, and all the actors have the right look anyway.
But the whole thing left me feeling angry at Lara and thinking bad things about her.It is not a good sign for an action film when the viewer doesn't like the main character.
If there is a third Tomb Raider, the producers will need to start by making Lara more likable.
|Page 8 of 31:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|