|Page 9 of 32:||               |
|Index||312 reviews in total|
*** 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.
I am a fan of the Tomb Raider games as well as a fan of Angelina
She's perfect as Lara Croft. The movies are good as entertaining action
movies go, but they could be great if captured more of the soul of the
In the game most of the fun is experiencing Lara Croft discover new
and puzzle all by herself while making her way over and out of difficult
obstacles with athletic prowess. In the movie they only allude to this
or three time for a few seconds. The only disappointing element in this
movie, is the fact that Lara has so much help from others, whereas in the
game she's pretty much a loner.
It's seems as if the people who are making these movies have never played the game. Their vision seems limited by James bond and Indiana Jones. Lara Croft could and should be so much more. James Bond was about gadgets,and Indiana Jones was about exotic places, puzzles, and secret passageways. Tomb Raider was about these things as well, but mostly about Lara climbing, jumping and performing many other athletic feats while completely alone in a wonderous ancient tomb-like setting. The movie slightly touched on this in the beginning, but there wasn't enough exploration.
Maybe if the people who made "The Mummy" made this movie it would be closer to the fun of the Tomb Raider games. Just replace Brendan Fraser with Lara Croft. That would be a classic! If they concentrated more on Lara Croft and less on her enemies this movie would be closer to the classic. They should give wacky Angelina license to go buck wild!
All in all I enjoyed this movie and plan to buy it. It's fun, Jolie is obviously having a good time and her co-star is easy on the eyes! When it's out on video/DVD, rent it or buy it, make some popcorn,turn your brain off, relax and enjoy. I'm ready for the third installment!
This is a "movie", not a "film".
8 out of 10
I was amazed that Lara Croft was able to speak different dialects
but not swahili, and needed a translator. Surely-- her quests to
explore the world-and as an archaeologist-to search for lost
ancient artefacts have never taken her to East Africa?! And/or if they
have, did she not want to take the opportunity to learn the
Otherwise, I enjoyed the movie, I think this was better than the first
I am looking forward to a third installment. Hopefully her
adventurous quests will again take her back to Africa and she'll be
able to speak the dialect of the natives this time.
The original Tomb Raider didn't take itself seriously - it was fun,
exciting, and with a reasonable plot. It didn't pretend to be anything other
than what it was.
The sequel manages to abandon the exciting elements and replaces them with
an overkill of cliches.
Angelina Jolie returns as Ms Croft, who's on a hunt to find the 'Cradle of
Life', a concept which is never actually explained that well, as well as
Pandora's Box. Or something.
At its root level The Cradle of Life is nothing we haven't seen before, and
was done better in the original Tomb Raider, and miles better in all the
One of the problems is that Croft never seems to be in danger - invincible
actually. And we can't relate to a character who seems to be completely
perfect and ahead of the game to the extent she is. How many times do we see
everything working for her obscenely perfectly? It's not
Angelina Jolie tries hard to come across as charismatic and enigmatic, but
succeeds in appearing contrived and bland. Not really her fault, it's the
Ciarán Hinds plays the bad guy here, but he's a fairly staple bad guy,
The plot is wafer thin and seems to be nothing more than a loose link
between scenes. Fair enough if the eye-candy and action make up for
They don't. At no point does the movie ever appear to care. A weird analogy,
yes, but it just seems to be going through the motions and most players
appear quite bored.
It's entertaining in a brainless kind of way, and tolerable, but really, to be inferior to the average original is unforgivable.
Cradle of life is much better than the first one, although it could've
done little bit better. Action is missing on several places.
On the other hand, Gerard and ANgelina have incredible fire between them, couple is simply great.
This is all built on the age old Hollywood-joins-Silicone Valley equation.
Find a really popular computer game, make a movie that does really well in
the box office... and then... wait two years and release another one
do just as well as the first movie, right??? Wrong!
'Cradle of Life' seems to lack the OOOHHSS and AAAHHSS that the first Lara Croft movie had. I don't know why but I found I couldn't get into the flow of things with this film. I couldn't relate! I can always tell when I am loosing interest in a movie... I bite my nails and start looking at my hands a lot. My poor nails are ruined now!
Don't get me wrong though, it does have its moments. There are some fabulous scenes in it with a lot of shooty gunny action that's good for amusement value and not much else. I'd wait for this to come out on DVD though, but because I'm a sucker and love going to the cinema (duuhhhh), I had to spend the dosh to go see this at the movies! I'll probably buy the DVD as well, only because I have the first one and now have to have the complete set of course (duuhhhh).
I'm gonna be semi-kind and give this one 7 flaps outta 10.
The special effects are spectacular but, in many cases, way over the top.
Special effects have to have some modicum of "it might be possible to do
this". If not, it becomes Star Wars, or worse.
The Story line is totally impossible and incoherent. It jumps from one location to the next without reason or rhyme.
A film that should have gone straight to the video rental stores. This is not even a B-movie.
As a fan of the Tombraider video game, and of Angelina Jolie, as well as a fan of the original film, I was raring to see this film. Especially after many critics claimed it was better than the first. I'm not sure exactly what made them say that, but boring action scenes, mostly poor dialog, and less screen time for Christopher Barrie made for a far worse film than the first. If you are going to make a tongue-in-cheeck action film, you don't need a believeable plot, or a brilliant script, but you do need exciting action sequences and funny one-liners. There were perhaps 3 scences in this movie that weren't boring, not worth the $6 I paid (yes, I only paid $6, I'm a student, and I'm not in a metro area).
this movie was ok i don't think it was great or even good just ok. it has to much of that Hollywood B.S. where one person kills 500 and dosen't even get a scratch. i know that this film is based on a video game but a little more realism wouldn't have been bad. i gave it a 6 for some of the cooler ideas of the movie namely the story line. it was a good idea and it got lost in the explosions and gun fights along the way.
Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life (2003) Angelina Jolie, Gerard Butler, Ciaran Hinds, Christopher Barrie, Noah Taylor, Djimon Hounsou, Til Schweiger, D: Jan de Bont.
Intrepid Lady Croft journeys to a Greece temple, sunken underwater, where she pinpoints an orb containing the map to Pandora's Box-which brought about life and also brings death. When the leader of a Hong Kong crime syndicate steals the orb from her, Croft hires a turncoat prisoner as her companion to get it back before an evil scientist (Hinds) uses the Box as a weapon.
It actually follows the same storyline as the first in someone wanting to take over the world. Even though a slick production that's better than the first movie and has everything of a big-studio summer picture: exotic locations (Shanghai, The Aegean Sea, Africa, etc.), thrilling beginning scenes, a less convoluted discovery, the later scenes keep bringing new elements into its heavy plot that it turns sillier than how it started. Extremely loud.
Running Time: 116 minutes and rated PG-13 for action violence and some sensuality.
RATING: ** ½ (out of ****)
|Page 9 of 32:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|