Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle Of Life Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
Intrepid British archaeologist Lara Croft (Angelina Jolie) has made perhaps the most important archaeological discovery in history: an orb that leads to the mythical Pandora's Box. Unfortunately, the orb falls into the hands of Jonathan Reiss (Ciarán Hinds), an evil scientist who deals in killer viruses and hopes to sell the secrets of the box as the ultimate weapon. Recruited by British Intelligence to get the orb back from Reiss, Lara recruits Terry Sheridan (Gerard Butler), a British marine turned mercenary (and her former love interest) to help. The two embark on an adventure that spans continents in an attempt to regain the orb...
| Angelina Jolie | Lara Croft |
| Gerard Butler | Terry Sheridan |
| Ciarán Hinds | Jonathan Reiss |
| Chris Barrie | Hillary |
| Noah Taylor | Bryce |
| Djimon Hounsou | Kosa |
| Til Schweiger | Sean |
| Simon Yam | Chen Lo |
| Terence Yin | Xien |
| Daniel Caltagirone | Nicholas Petraki |
| Fabiano Martell | Jimmy Petraki |
| Jonathan Coyne | Gus Petraki |
| Robert Cavanah | MI6 Agent Stevens |
| Ronan Vibert | MI6 Agent Calloway |
| Lenny Juma | Village Leader |
| Jan de Bont |
5.20 out of 10 (16015 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Lara Croft needs better tombs to raid
posted on 24 Aug 2009*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*The Tomb Raider is back and she's raiding tombs. This time Lady Croft has to find Pandora's Box before the bad guy does. This leads her on an adventure around the world to prevent the box from falling into the wrong hands. Action, adventure, excitement etc.This is a classic 5/10 movie. You'll walk out of the movie theater feeling pretty ambivalent about what you've just watched. Croft is invulnerable so there's no point in working up a sweat over her many dangerous predicaments. Is there anything worth working up a sweat over? Not really. The only thing the Tomb Raider movies have gotten right is Angelina Jolie. She is perfect as Lara Croft. Hot, sassy and looks great in a black bikini. Perfect Tomb Raiding attire.Unfortunately the filmmakers can't dream up any truly thrilling action set pieces to put their Tomb Raider through. "Cradle of Life" snatches pages out of the Indiana Jones and James Bond playbooks but doesn't know how to execute them. She travels to this or that exotic locale but they all becomes meaningless background when the filmmakers just let her become involved in another generic shootout. It's one of those flicks that is begging you to have a good time but it's hard to get too worked up over it when the same action scene is repeated over and over.Angelina Jolie is great. "Cradle of Life" is so-so.
What a waste of a movie theater ticket!
posted on 16 Aug 2009Plot was so easy to figure out. Spoon-fed humor, plot and action; makes for a boring movie. On top of boring it had a pathetic attempt at a love story to be rekindled. The movie was way to long for such emptiness. My wife and I had hopes that it would be better than the first mistake of a Tomb Raider film. Of course the special effects, and both leading actors were great eye-candy for the audience but that is all that carries the film. I would have otherwise given it a 2 instead of 5.
*sighs* Say no to bad CGI...
posted on 31 Jul 2009OK, I have never played the games so I have no idea how they compare to the films, but I have seen the first one and I can tell you that compared to it this one is just bad. I am a huge fan of Angelina Jolie, so having to watch her wasn't what was painful about this movie, it was the direction and screen play that had me clenching my fists. A lot of times I caught myself yawning when I'm sure the director intended us to be entertained. Not to mention the bad CGI...I guess it's safe to say I'm not a fan of this modern technological advancement many Director's choose to use in their movies. If it wasn't so obvious looking I just might enjoy it as much as the next Digital Media major, but it is and thats my problem. Unless a film is composed entirely of CGI (IE: Ice Age, Toy Story) then I can't help but feel like I'm watching part real life and part cartoon. Perhaps in the future CGI will advance even more than it has now, making us TRULY believe the Hulk really does look that way. Until those happy days come I guess I'll just have to deal with what we've got now...yay...5/10
Just as boring as the first Tomb Raider
posted on 27 Jul 2009(Warning: Spoilers ahead)Why oh why did I go see this movie? I remember seeing the first Tomb Raider movie, and it was one of the most boring action films I had ever seen. Perhaps I was drunk (or under some sort of influence) at the time. Whatever the case, I went to see The Cradle of Life, and came out ready to go to sleep.In Lara Croft's latest adventure, she tries to stop an arms manufacturer named Reiss from getting to Pandora's Box, which has the power to kill millions of people. To help her she enlists the aid of convict Terry Sheridan, and together they travel all the way from Hong Kong to Africa in search of Pandora's Box.One of my gripes with this movie is that we seem to get too many pointless shots, which I am sure is supposed to wow us, but instead had my eyes rolling away from the screen due to lack of interest. For instance, one scene has Lara and Terry jumping off of a tall building in flying suits to escape some bad guys. It was cool for a very, very short time, but for some reason the camera kept focusing on them flying for what seemed like forever (okay that might be a bit of an exaggeration). It made me want to yell out "I get the point! They're flying! Big deal!!!" There was also another scene in which Lara parachutes into a moving jeep that was picking her up. Now, I don't know about you, but I would think it would be easier (and more logical) for the jeep's driver to stop, wait for her to land, then pick her up, but hey what do I know.There is no doubt that Angelina Jolie looks great as Lara Croft in her many skin tight and revealing outfits. However, she often times seems to have no personality, as her facial expression does not change all that often. Also, we get no real insight into the character of Lara Croft herself, and what really makes her tick, but admittedly I don't think that there's much depth to Croft's character in the first place. The sad thing is that I know that Ms. Jolie can act, but it doesn't show in this movie. Is it the director's fault? The writers' fault? Who knows?This movie also tries to work in some sort of relationship between Lara and Terry. But, as with much of this movie, it falls under the category of pointless plot device. The characters don't have any real motivation or need to be together, and in the end the "affection" between them seems way too forced and unnecessary.One of the oddest things I noticed when watching this movie was that I did not get excited during the movie's action scenes. I would even say that some of these scenes (like the fight near the movie's start) were actually slow. Some people might attribute this feeling to me being spoiled by movies like the Matrix, but I very much doubt that considering I have seen many post-Matrix action movies that had cool action scenes (i.e. X-men 2, Terminator 3, and The Hulk).So is there anything about The Cradle of Life that's any good. Well...there was this one scene in Africa where Lara was attacked by these weird monsters. That scene actually held my attention for some time. Also, as mentioned before, Angelina Jolie just looks great in this movie.In conclusion, if for some reason you enjoyed the first Tomb Raider movie, than you will most likely enjoy this one. To everyone else who did not, there are better movies out there to spend your money on.
Trademark Jolie
posted on 17 Jul 2009Every actor/actress has their trademark character: Harrison Ford-Indiana Jones/Han Solo; Arnold Schwarzenegger-The Terminator; Sylvester Stallone-Rocky. You get the general idea. This was a trademark Angelina Jolie film. Her character acting intensity, as well as looking good on screen, was the saving grace for a dude of an action movie concept. Cradle of Life was much better that than the original, partly because Angelina was able to refine some of the character's attributes.For instance, in the first film the Laura Croft character seemed too rigid, mechanical and scripted, like a video game. In the sequel, the character had more depth and emotional intensity. You could see in Angelina's eyes that she had more fun making the second film, which translated into a more fluid and vivacious on screen character.As far as the story and plot was concerned, it was your formulatic action adventure movie. The timing and choreography of the action sequences made the film fun to watch, however, in the climax of the film the action trailed off and fell flat. Typically, the best action sequences are during the final conflict at the end of the story. In this film, the best action was in the beginning and middle of the film.In short, Angelina Jolie made Laura Croft a sexy likeable action character. However, in order to propel Laura Croft to the level of Indiana Jones, the Tomb Raider series will need a story line with more originality and whit than we have seen in the first two installments. I would recommend this movie just on the basis of the Laura Croft character alone, she was a real kick to watch.
Just like No. 1. "S" for spectacular, not for story.
posted on 05 Jul 2009Lara Croft No. 1 has been more a spectacular show-off of choreography and some less spectacular show-off of technical know-how and special effects. The second part has even a thinner plot line – funny, since the first movie has also been criticized for lack of story. Pandora's Box might have been utilized well, nice thought, but then again, it wasn't.The below-the-surface shots are once again good-looking but lack credibility (especially the shark part).The mean guys fail to make a mean enough impression. I do not know who included Thriller as one genre of this movie at IMDb, perhaps there is a meaning of this phrase that eluded me so far.You might argue that the rare dialogs are just there to fill up the time between the action scenes. Should this disturb you, do not watch. Otherwise as enjoyable as the first one. The scene with the stone figures coming to life is as remarkable and memorable to me as has been the flying-around hall-fight scene in the first Lara Croft movie.I venture to say I like these movies, but if there is ever, ever going to be another sequel, try find somebody who can do a script for a change. Stick to the choreographer and the visual effects department, though!
What is this?
posted on 23 Jun 2009I don't know what the hell is going on with Jan De Bont.After his Speed and Twister,he made horrible film as this one and The Haunting. VERY,VERY BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!Intrepid British archaeologist Lara Croft (Angelina Jolie) has made perhaps the most important archaeological discovery in history: an orb that leads to the mythical Pandora's Box. Unfortunately, the orb falls into the hands of Jonathan Reiss (Ciarán Hinds), an evil scientist who deals in killer viruses and hopes to sell the secrets of the box as the ultimate weapon. Recruited by British Intelligence to get the orb back from Reiss, Lara recruits Terry Sheridan (Gerard Butler), a British marine turned mercenary (and her former love interest) to help. The two embark on an adventure that spans continents in an attempt to regain the orb...I would rather recommend first part adventures of Lara Croft:Tomb Raider,because it's much better and,...better!
Infinitely better than the first!
posted on 17 Jun 2009TOMB RAIDER: CRADLE OF LIFE. Angelina Jolie. Gerald Butler. DIR: Jan de Bont. Though not breaking any new ground and certainly not original, TR: CoL definitely improves over the original and is an enjoying and breath-taking adventure that surpasses even James Bond in excitement and adventure. ANGELINA JOLIE's portrayal of Lara Croft is amazing and she comes across with both beauty and dignity. What I liked about this movie is that it's not your typical low-brain action movie ala "XXX" or "James Bond" where the hero is invincible. Lara Croft struggles, is put in perilous situations, and bleeds like a human being. Sure, there are some plot holes and the story is not perfect but this film is arguably the most enjoying movie of summer 2003. Also, it should be pointed out that YOU DO NOT NEED TO SEE THE ORIGINAL FILM TO EITHER UNDERSTAND OR ENJOY THIS FILM. It is actually better if you never see the original and it should be wiped off the face of the earth in shame. It is a pity that this film was brushed aside by critics as it is undeserving and this movie should be the start of a very interesting series. I hope the films continue and can continue to improve with more skillful writing and direction. Although JAN DE BONT did a nice job in direction of this film to keep it interesting and exciting, the music was at times rather dull and the numerous slow-motion shots really took away from the movie. I definitely do recommend this movie and if you are a fan of either James Bond or Indiana Jones than this is a must-see! (2.5 out of 4)
Lame
posted on 17 Jun 2009Why I should find myself in the cinema again watching a sequel to a film that was in itself unacceptably poor is a triumph for the screen presence of AJ - however she cannot save this film. It is a shockingly poor piece of work that appears to have little or no artistic merit.
Lara Croft doesn't speak swahili???
posted on 28 May 2009I was amazed that Lara Croft was able to speak different dialectsbut not swahili, and needed a translator. Surely-- her quests toexplore the world-and as an archaeologist-to search for lostancient artefacts have never taken her to East Africa?! And/or if theyhave, did she not want to take the opportunity to learn thelanguage?Otherwise, I enjoyed the movie, I think this was better than the firstone. I am looking forward to a third installment. Hopefully heradventurous quests will again take her back to Africa and she'll beable to speak the dialect of the natives this time.
Infinitely better than the first one
posted on 26 May 2009I bet the creators of the Tomb Raider video game truly had no idea Lara Croft actually existed, but she does, in the form of Angelina Jolie, possibly the only actress on the planet who is capable of doing her justice.
She was more than up to the challenge in the first one, and it's very satisfying to see her in this second offering, which has a much better script, and the always-superb Gerard Butler adds even more panache to the proceedings.
This dialog says it all.
posted on 22 May 2009Lara: We are getting closer to the Cradle of Life. Guide (amazed): How do you know? Lara: I feel it in the crystal!The only trouble is that the guide is taking her to the Cradle of Life, and that's what happens when you go somewhere. You get closer to the place you are going. Did the guide think that without a crystal, when you go somewhere you get further away?Dumb, dumb movie.
I had to forced fed myself 10 times to finish watching this
posted on 22 May 2009Tomb Raider in terms of technical things, such as special effect, cinematography, music, camera (no shaking), location, action adventure, costume designs, is near perfect. The problem is the story fails badly on three things:1. Casting 2. Editing 3. StoryCasting. Terry Sheridan - what chemistry? Rust chemistry. Too much relationship overtones terrible mix. He talks too much without any meanings, undertones. In other words the script relates nothing to the pace of the story. Oh yes, all Directors understand the pace of the story, but the don't understand that the script MUST MATCH THE PACE OF THE STORY. If the script aren't razor tight concise, to the plot or the story, then cut it out from the story. I can name 90% of the script to remove, and most of it is Terry Sheridan. His accent is too thick, too obnoxious, talks too much. It irritates the viewers. The biggest mistake a script can make is when the script or the character irritates the viewers. It can really turn off the movie and by god, I bought this movie for a year and have struggled so badly to finish movie at least 10 times. I just went to sleep after 15 minutes. Something is seriously wrong with the movie!!!The second casting: the scientist. This scientist doesn't convince you much about why he does what he does. It falls flat on believability as to why he does what he does. Even the looking of the watch was not even convincing. The entire plane scene can be edited OUT! Give the guy more mystery like James Bond Spector.The third casting: Shen Lo. What? Who? Why? Enemies if they don't appear evil enough should not be cast. Somehow this enemy is not convincing. Compare the enemies of Robocop 1. Wow! How about the bad guys from the Joker in Batman. Wow! To solve this casting issue, I suggest a convincing screen play that you use the Joker, Two faced in Batman or something as a starting point. If it is not better than I suggest you redo it until you can come up with a truly evil bad guy making it entertaining to watch. All actors are "washed out" lacked unique characters. Now look at the uniqueness of character in Minority Report - wow! 2. Editing. Half of the story can be edited because the script spoils the pace of the story. This is especially true in the first 30 minutes of the movie.3. Story. People expect Tomb Raider to do one thing and one thing only. Tomb Raiding. Where is that? Flying over Hong Kong? Flying in Stealth Plane over China? Motorcycling? Pandora's Box - good concept. But why? The story has little weight in why we need to pursue them. YOU need solid reason why you need to pursue them, without it, forget it. Now look at Dr. Strangelove. There was a solid reason why this incident can and should happen. The plot reveals it quite clearly. But where is the weight in pursuing Pandora's box? Is there such thing as peekaboo into a Pandora's Box?The script should closely follow the plot. It doesn't. The word should be memorable or stick in the head. It doesn't. If you want a good story, one writer should write the plot and story board and another one should write the memorable words and script that makes the story work. Apparently it is messy on two counts.I am a big fan of Angelina Jolie and Tomb Raider and still think Cyborg 2 is a wonderful movie, but all her later films are just flops. I can't blame the actress, we just have a bad writer who don't know the power of words and a convincing story line and the director who doesn't seem to read the scripts.
This is the real point...a woman in charge!
posted on 18 May 2009Having read many of the reviews, I was quite surprised that major points were overlooked. I'll give you some personal background which will help clarify where I am coming from. I'm a father of three daughters and I'm always looking for good role models for my girls. I've also just recently heard a documentary on date rape on CBC radio and was appalled. The usual question came up: is date rape a societal issue or a result of exploitive media? Well I think it's mostly societal and the media is a window into that world. Violence against women starts the minute a male discovers that he can exert power over a female and get what he wants with impunity. Yes men have greater physical strength and women are known for stamina.Now for the movie. I took my middle daughter, aged 10, and was glad I took the risk. Here was a role model, Lara Croft, who was in total control of her life and had a solid moral code. She has brains and she has brawn. Not once does she have to use sex appeal to get what she wants. (Yes there are the stolen kisses and a tumble on the floor; but Lara uses Terry's sexual advances in order to confine him for justifiable reasons.) However, most importantly, she is never rescued by a male. I know you may think this is trite or even tripe but I feel that this is important. Films are dominated by males taking command and solving the problems...but let's face it...more often than not...it is also males who are the source of the problem. This was abundantly evident in this film. Yes it may have been preachy but men were the war mongers and they paid the price. Is this really so far fetched from reality? Look at the world now...look at the wars we are now having...but who actually pays the price: the women and children. (Notice also that no women, children nor animals were hurt in this film...is that a bad thing?)So get off of the fact that you'd have liked to see a little nipple or the fact that Lara Croft seemed like a cartoon cut-out (what about James Bond, Spiderman, etc.) I think that this movie, Cradle of Life TR2, shakes up the status quo and so what of it? This is finally a chick-flick with a vengeance. Men haven't done so well in the last 4,000+ years. I think it's time to give the women a chance.
Good as entertainment
posted on 16 May 2009This is a good action and adventures movie. It's really unrealistic, but who cares? Most stunts wouldn't be in the movie if it wasn't a video-game adaptation, but it doesn't matter - and they make the movie more enjoyable! Angelina Jolie is a great Lara Croft. She's a mix between Indiana Jones and Xena, and she reminds me of the TV heroine Sydney Fox in "Relic Hunter" (Sydney is obviously inspired in Tomb Raider's Lara). The other actors are OK, I don't really got impressed but I doubt the movie pretended that. The plot is in fact quite interesting, although not original at all (the evil guy wants to earn millions of dollars by selling a powerful biological weapon which is kept in Pandora's box). The places Lara visits (Greece, China, Africa...) are beautiful and are good choices (I love when she rides in her motorbike on the Great Chinese Wall). The end was good, I didn't think Lara would kill his mate in order to keep the world safe from Pandora's box.To sum up, a very good movie if you just want entertainment.
Nothing to care about.
posted on 12 May 2009At the beginning of the film the viewer knows nothing about any of the people with whom Lara is associating. Most get killed rather early on, but since the viewer has no clue who they are, who's to care?Jolie, Butler, Hinds, Taylor, and Barrie are the only actors who's characters are developed in the slightest. And the body of knowledge viewers come to have of them is razor thin. Taylor and Barrie are completely wasted, having nothing to do. Hinds and Jolie are wasted because they're like cold dead fish in all but a couple scenes each. Butler is just annoying. There was no wit. No humor. Nothing to break up this icy dull drama that took itself WAY too serious for an action flick, especially one based on a video game.TR2 is nothing but a big stream of stunts and effects without the slightest reason to care why anything is taking place, including the many deaths. A stunt person with no acting experience would have done nicely in any or all of the roles.The soundtrack was confusing, noisy, and far overstated. Since when does someone hopping over a dead body make a sound like a golf club swooshing through the air amplified through the PA system at a heavy metal concert? WAS there music in there? I didn't notice.The editing was dreadful! I could swear the person in charge of it grew up watching MTV on fast forward? Maximum chaos.The only good thing in the entire picture is some of the very scenic cinematography, made all the more impressive as i viewed the film on an IMAX-like super large screen.This ghastly glob of noise pollution should have been left in the can!
a slick, stylish action flick
posted on 08 May 2009LARA CROFT TOMB RAIDER: THE CRADLE OF LIFE(2003)***1/2 Anjeline Jolie.Intrepid British archaeologist Lara Croft (Angelina Jolie) has made perhaps the most important archaeological discovery in history: an orb that leads to the mythical Pandora's Box. Unfortunately, the orb falls into the hands of Jonathan Reiss (Ciarán Hinds), an evil scientist who deals in killer viruses and hopes to sell the secrets of the box as the ultimate weapon. Recruited by British Intelligence to get the orb back from Reiss, Lara recruits Terry Sheridan (Gerard Butler), a British marine turned mercenary (and her former love interest) to help. The two embark on an adventure that spans continents in an attempt to regain the orb...A huge improvement over the original, this sequel is very unusual: most sequel never live up to the original, but this not only led up to it, but this made the first look like a teaser trailer for a new bond flick(and I liked the original more then the critics). Anjelina Jolie is perfect as Lara Croft, once again showing that she can be sexy. I thoroughly enjoyed this light, fun action flick.PG-13: action violence and a scene of sexuality.
It's Great to see Angelina Jolie in the role of Lara Croft
posted on 04 May 2009I like Lara Croft. I like Angelina Jolie playing the role of Lara Croft and I liked all the special effects they used to make this movie. Movie is entertainingly good. I wished Jolie considered playing a third part, but she already declared she won't do it again. "Two Tomb Raiders is enough" I hope she changes her mind.
Movies used to make good video games...
posted on 30 Aug 2009There used to be a time when movies were better than TV, and video games were an afterthought. I remember a time when a great movie would come out and it might spin off into a crappy TV show and a good action movie might spin off into an 'OK' video game.Oh how times have changed. Now movies are so empty of originality and creativity that the tables have completely turned. Now marginally good video games are recycled into incredibly bad movies, and third rate TV shows are now plundered for their core idea and turned into fifth rate films.If Hollywood is wondering why their profits are down and why people aren't going out to the movies anymore, its because they continue to make sheer festering piles of uselessness like "Lara Croft: Video Game Idea Raider". Its not just because the economy is bad that we avoid these movies like death itself, its more because we know that an emotionless video game shoot-em-up is not likely to produce any greatness up on the big screen.The talent in the movie industry is now spread so thinly that its virtually undetectable.How about next summer instead of 20 unbelievably awful movies, how about they just make 1 good one.