Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life

The film crew may have had a lot of fun travelling to various locations around the world, but the same cannot be said for the audience. After Twister, De Bonte shows nothing but creative stagnation. What can I say, the locations are attractive and Angela's role fits like a glove when everything else fails. The script is pathetic, the action is dull, the direction is inept, I didn't care what happened in the next few minutes, I didn't live with the main characters and that's too bad. The only thing that snapped me out of my lethargy was the mini-role of my favourite actor Djimon Hounsou, which is woefully inadequate for a two-hour film, admittedly. Overall, even the weak first Tomb Raider was better than this sequel. But The Cradle of Life has one thing that stands out, and that's probably the most embarrassing plot finale I've seen in years. That's why it was deservedly a commercial flop. (09/07/2004)

Compared to the first movie, this is ever so slightly better, not in terms of quality, but entertainment. It certainly isn’t such sleep-making boredom as last time. The screenplay is even worse and dumber. However, the production design and directing have considerably improved. The result is spoiled by the movie being too long, and the “dialogs" and the scenes aren’t even up to B-movie quality. Particularly Lara versus the shark is an experience for connoisseurs who like falling off their seats with laughter at the expense of the creators (or was this a clever nod to the cult scene from Zombie Flesh Eaters?). Again it is Angelina Jolie who carries this picture on her shoulders, well supported by Chris Barrie. This second jab at becoming a second Indy fails again. (13/03/2005)

Jan de Bont had a more colorful screenplay for the first film, with more exotic locations and a more spectacular climax, but he didn’t shine as a director any more than Simon West did with The Cradle of Life. West’s action is half-baked, boring and lifeless, like a straight-to-video B-movie. Though the sequel is half a star better than the formless first Tomb Raider, it still no better than average. The final verdict remains the same: If there is any reason to see this film, it’s Angelina Jolie, who gets sexier by the day. (21/07/2003)

If Simon West tried to have a little bit of style, De Bont put a stop to that and he conceived the directing in a relaxing way instead. You'd be booed for that even in a B-movie. Boring, conservative, cumbersome, and completely unsuitable to Lara Croft's profile as a light-footed and brisk acrobat. So, it’s even a little worse than the first film, and that can already be considered a state close to disaster. Luckily, you can see the increased budget at least a little (the effects are ok, the soundtrack noticeable)... But there is no improvement in the plot itself, Lady Croft still defines her place in the world only with awkward poses, Chris Barrie is buried more than last time, and the story is no less stupid and dull. The filmmakers take you to several exotic locations that uniformly crack into a confused amalgam of action and retarded dialogues. My impression of the film is perfectly captured by the scene where the chief of the African tribe promises Lara what she will see in the cradle of life. The fact that we see a flashing stroboscope instead of the terrible secrets may not surprise the viewer. I very much hope that Lara Croft is definitely done after this film, because she has already had enough embarrassment. (11/11/2004)

Slightly more interesting characters than in the first movie, but maybe it's just the cast. The action is once again bad, with some surprisingly weird and unfinished cuts, but the scene with the shark was the most disappointing for me, it could have been extra cool, but in reality, it was shit. Then it just became too dragged out. (08/06/2017)