Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Le berceau de la vie

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.

Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life is an improvement over the original as it delivers more action and adventure. Archaeologist and explorer extraordinaire, Lara Croft, journeys to a temple which has sunken underwater in search of lost treasures. During her expedition, Croft happens upon a sphere that contains the mythical Pandora's Box, only to have it stolen from her by Chen Lo, the leader of a Chinese crime syndicate. Chen Lo is in league with a bad guy named Reiss, who wants to use the priceless Box as a doomsday weapon. The plot sounds okay but the main reason someone would see this film is for the action scenes and Angelina Jolie. People just wanting those two things will probably enjoy this film. People that want a good story and better direction should skip this film. The action scenes are really cool and are done well. However, the story is weak and the film doesn't quite make sense at times either. I think the person that should be blamed is Jan de Bont. He is a terrible director and can't build up suspense very well. He did a bit better then Simon West but still the studio should have hired someone else. The acting is good not great but nothing horrible either. Angelina Jolie does a good job of playing Lara Croft and she is also very breathtaking in the film. Gerard Butler does a good job as well though sometimes his performance wasn't very interesting. The action scenes are really cool and are done well. Another problem I had with this film is that it gets boring at times. Having a lot of action doesn't mean its audience will be entertained. The movie's running time is 117 minutes which is a bit longer then the original. I think they could have cut the film down to about the same length as there some pointless scenes. If you hated the original then you should skip this film as the film is more of the same but it is more entertaining. As long as you don't try to notice too many of the mistakes in the film then you should enjoy it. If your looking for a serious action flick then just skip this. Rating 6.8/10

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 ****).

Although Cradle of Life won't go down in movie history as an all-time classic, I am mystified at why so many critics and moviegoers hated it.

In my opinion, this movie is much better than the first Tomb Raider film. The first film was entertaining, make no mistake, but it still had too much of a comic book feel and 'Angelina Jolie' (qv) had not yet gotten a firm grasp of the Lara Croft role. In Cradle of Life, both Lara and Jolie show newfound maturation, and this makes her (both actress and fictional character) much more interesting to watch. Heck, even Jolie's faux British accent is more convincing the second time around. I was one of the many who protested when she was cast in the role; the first film left be unconvinced, but she finally won me over in her second outing.

The story is also more interesting in the second film, with the whole Pandora's Box angle being something more worthy of Tomb Raider than the tired old "conspiracy out to take over the world" plot of the first film.

There are some aspects of the second film that I didn't care for as much. Lara, for one thing, is far more deadlier this second time around and at one point seriously considers gunning down a man in cold blood. This type of behavior is more fitting for James Bond than Lady Lara Croft. But once I got used to the idea of Lara Croft 007, I didn't mind it so much. (Indeed, if Hollywood ever follows through with it's long-threatened female Bond film, they could do far worse than get Angelina Jolie for the role of Jane(?) Bond.)

What appealed to me in Cradle of Life is how familiar Lara, her background, and her supporting characters have become with only one previous film under their belts. No time is spent explaining who she is and why she lives in such a huge mansion (which sadly appears only briefly). This level of familiarity, of character comfort, is something I've only ever seen once before -- in the Bond series.

Cradle of Life also features some most impressive set pieces that may not necessarily advance the story, but are great to watch, such as a zoom in from outer space on Lara riding a motorcycle, an incredible zoom-in shot THROUGH the window of Croft Manor, and a great scene of Lara shooting at targets while riding a horse -- sidesaddle!

Sadly, the critical and box office failure of Cradle of Life probably guarantees no further entries in the series, and even if it does continue, Jolie looks ready to follow Audrey Hepburn's lead and put acting on the back burner in favor of humanitarian work so the role will probably go to another (possibly less talented) actress. If this turns out to be the case, I believe the Lara Croft series looks set to be remembered as fondly as the Derek Flint films of the 1960s.

Anyone who has been scared away by the bad reviews could do worse than to rent a copy from their local video store and check it out. You might be surprised at how much fun the movie is.

When an earthquake in Santorini, Greece uncovers the lost Luna Temple of Alexander the Great, wealthy globetrotting treasure hunter Lara Croft (Angelina Jolie) jumps at the chance to unearth the secrets of this lost temple and uncovers a strange glowing orb. However when Lara and her associates are ambushed by the Chinese crime syndicate, Shay Ling, the orb is lost with Lara now only possessing partial images of the orb. Lara is later contacted by MI6 who inform her the orb is of interest to biological research magnate Dr. Jonathan Reiss (Ciarán Hinds) who on the surface is a respected doctor whose efforts in medical research have earned him the Nobel Prize, but beneath that façade is the leading creator of biological weapons who sells his weapons to anyone for the right price. MI6 says Reiss is trying to find Pandora's Box in the elusive Cradle of Life, where humanity is said to have originated from, with intent to use the Box as a weapon. Lara agrees to pursue the orb and Reiss and requests Terry Sheridan (Gerard Butler), a former soldier turned mercenary who possesses knowledge of the Shay Ling and is an old flame of Lara's. Now Lara and Terry must travel the globe from Mainland China, to Hong Kong, to Africa to prevent devastation to humanity.

Following the smash success of Lara Croft: Tomb Raider in 2001, development began on a sequel with the film financed as an international co-production through tax credits and presales similar to how the first film was done in a manner that profits were generated before the movie hit theaters. The movie underwhelmed in its debut opening in 4th place behind holdovers Pirates of the Caribbean and Bad Boys II in 2nd and 3rd place respectively, while the top spot was seized by Robert Rodriguez' Spy Kids 3D: Game Over. While the film petered out stateside with a final tally of about $65 million, well short of the $130 million produced by its predecessor, international numbers did bring its final tally to $160 million worldwide which while not great was still profitable thanks to the offsetting of financial risk with presales and tax credits. Paramount blamed the underperformance on the failure of Eidos' then latest release in the game series with Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness garnering bad reviews and souring the brand (which would lead to a soft reboot with Tomb Raider: Legend). While Angel of Darkness' poor reception from fans and critics probably didn't help, Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life feels like it's somewhat lacking in the energy and drive that was present in the previous film.

In many ways The Cradle of Life does improve on the previous entry with elements like Lara Croft's killer training robot or the dodgy CGI elements seen in the first film dialed back by a considerable degree. The opening action beat where Lara finds the Luna Temple is really good with some nice acrobatic work for Lara in initially obtaining the Orb that starts off the adventure in a nice visual reference to sequences seen in the games and once again Jolie is doing a nice job inhabiting the character. There's also a fun dynamic between Jolie's Lara and Gerard Butler's Terry with the two sporting a fun sexually charged dynamic and the two playing off against each other quite well. Terry feels like an expansion of what was only hinted at with Daniel Craig's Alex West character from the previous film and as a result is given much more presence and purpose in comparison. Unfortunately the same can't be said for the film's primary antagonist, Ciarán Hinds playing Johnathan Reiss who's just boring as a villain and wants to use Pandora's Box because "wouldn't the world be better with fewer people?". At least the last villain from the previous movie wanted world domination, here, our villain wants to destroy the world because "meh, what else am I gonna do?"

Another part that doesn't work as well is with the film's visual identity or creativity of its adventure sequences. While Jan de Bont has given us some entertaining films as a director and cinematographer with his work photographing Basic Instinct and Die Hard showing his eye for such material as well as his entertaining if silly directorial efforts on films like Speed and Twister, De Bont feels a little more restrained here with a lot of scenes not really matching the level of distinction we saw in the last film. The first movie was objectively speaking a sillier film, it also had a stronger sense of visual identity with two major Tomb Raiding sequences set in Cambodia and Siberia with the tombs both having unique designs as "puzzles" and action beats, as well as distinguished environments that were well established. The cradle of life on the other hand only has ONE major Tomb Raiding sequence at the beginning of the movie and for the rest of the film with its heavy emphasis on Chinese crime syndicates and corrupt pharmaceutical magnates doubling as biological weapons dealers, it hit me that the movie is going less for Indiana Jones and instead more for James Bond. The Cradle of Life is for the most part feels like it's more in line with a spy thriller than an adventure film, down to the fact Lara is working with MI6 as well as a former mercenary who's a love interest. The movie also has a predominantly orange color palette which just doesn't feel all that appealing and leaves the film lacking much visual identity. The movie does eventually return to adventure aspects with a third act set on Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa, but the sequence substitutes the orange color palette for a dark grey color palette and takes a promising idea of a room with no set direction of up and down and does virtually nothing with it leading to an underwhelming climax.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider-The Cradle of Life feels just so lifeless. While Jolie and Butler are engaging leads, the adventure they go on in the movie is lacking in adventure and feels more like a generic spy movie that occasionally puts in lip service to adventure. It's not a terrible movie as there are occasionally some standout action sequences or moments with the cast that do work, but there's really not much here that wasn't done with more fun and drive in the last movie.