Dreadfully Boring

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Whoever said "Angelina Jolie IS Lara Croft" should simply delete that review and stick to video games rather than movie reviews. Because Angelina Jolie pretty much used those movies to show off her body and make morons think she's invincible. Alicia Vikander is so much better in the role. Not to mention the whole 2018 recreate blows the original out of the water. It's actually a movie you can watch without shaking your head every thirty seconds. She rides a bicycle. Shes not a show off with all her ridiculous modes of fantasy transportation.

"Lara Croft: Tomb Raider" really disappointed me. So I didnt go into "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life" with much expectation. I felt that this movie had more and better dialogs and way better acting. Jolie was good in both movies, but especially the male actors in this movie surprised me. I liked Butler's acting a lot and even Schweiger, who I never seem to like, did fine in this movie I feel.I also felt that this movie had a way higher production value - even though the budget was lower than the first movie's one, according to imdb stats. All that action abroad in China and Africa gave the movie nice graphics.All in all I think this movie is fine to watch. Even though the story really lacks and some quotes are just horrible the acting is fine and the graphics are good.

Movie Review: "Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life" (2003)Losing 50 percent of its domestic box office attendance in Summer 2003, the succession to a highly, yet expensive 115-Million-Dollar videogame adaptation from 2001 "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider" starring Angelina Jolie as martial arts as trained with two-gun-firing heroine directed by Simon West, comes here the cinematographer-turned-director directed sequel by Jan De Bont, known for a fulminate lucky strike debut in directing high-concept action-movie "Speed" (1994) starring Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock, which former well-paced as organic action ingredients can hardly be translated in overly-down sequences of action with a capable supporting cast surrounding Gerard Butler as double-vision Terry Sheridan, Ciarán Hinds as "Pandora's Box" seeking nemesis character and actor Djimon Hounsou utterly exploited as Native African tribe-member Kosa, when "The Cradle of Life" just denies itself a decent showdown scenario, where cheaply-animated guardian-monsters attack under constant unnaturally flashing light-strikes of thunder initiated by unless competent cinematographer David Tattersall in all-too fake because on an obvious sound-stage-designed fountain of underwater gold-shimmerings with the seemingly hidden spot of the supplementary title-given treasure to let the first "Lara Croft" movie of successful Summer 2001 surprisingly shine in comparison.© 2018 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)

Adaptation is one of the hardest things to do, regardless of the mediums that you are dealing with. Trying to make a book into a movie is hard, trying to make a remake of a movie already done (especially when done well) is terribly difficult, and so far making a video game into a movie has been nearly impossible.When I saw the first TOMB RAIDER movie, I enjoyed the popcorn, but fell off the train, so to speak, once we reached the scene involving the stone statues. Because up until that point, all we had was very entertaining action fare. Angelina was amusing, her comrades were entertaining, the threat against her was legitimate (as long as we're talking about the actual gunmen. If we're talking about the heavy, Manfred Powell, rotten soup noodles are more intimidating). But once you start throwing living statues that have no reason to be alive, you know you've crossed over into video game territory, and getting back from there is a shaky prospect indeed.So I didn't love the original TOMB RAIDER. Fun popcorn, good soundtrack. Terribly weak bad-guy. Meh.I've heard that those that loved the video games were quite pleased with it, said that the movie followed the games well. Can't speak to it, myself, because I haven't played any Tomb Raider game. Not yet, anyway.All that aside, I LOVED this movie. Angelina's portrayal of Lara got boosted several notches, in performance, accent, charm, and character. Gerard Butler adds to the plot as Terry Sheridan, giving Jolie something to play with as she goes about her business. Ciaran Hinds plays Jonathan Reiss, a cold and cruel disease-wielder who happily dispatches as he pleases with his nasty little bugs, complete with a superiority complex to match. The butler and computer expert are back (sadly not in as much of the scenery as before, but nobody's perfect).We've got top-notch action, we have lethality in the combat this time, we have the strange side-game of cat-and-mouse between Terry and Lara, and we have a heavy that Lara deserves. The cheesiness is left for the final act, with hulking black creatures made of not terribly bad CGI trying to guard the treasure they seek. Not bad, all in all.It's amazing to me that certain movies can have deal-breakers so large that it crashes the entire movie for a general audience, and in other cases terribly impossible action can pass without anyone caring. In FAST AND THE FURIOUS movies, no action is impossible. Anything goes. Nothing is a deal-breaker.In this movie, everybody flipped out because Lara punches a shark. Silly, yes. Over-the-top, perhaps. A deal-breaker? NO. I've seen worse. Living statues that come to life to kill everyone in the chamber AFTER you've already lifted the final treasure comes to mind. I mean seriously, after the battle, are they supposed to REPLACE the fragment somehow? Or does it just sit on the floor in the middle of the room as their partially damaged bodies go back to sitting in the corners, waiting for the next sucker to come on in and pick up a broken triangle? Seriously, guys, LET THE SHARK THING GO. Swallow it, and move on.But finally, the thing that really gets me surrounding all of the hate of this movie is something that has stuck with me for years. The first Tomb Raider movie was a success. Enough of one for Hollywood to make this film. The first movie was passable as a theatrical experience. It felt like the reenactment of a video game, which is, I guess, what it was supposed to do.THIS movie, however, felt like a movie. An Indiana Jones-type deal, complete with heroic protagonist, silly setup, great villain, awesome music, and overall fun ride. No video game-related material ANYWHERE.And that, apparently, was the problem for everyone that didn't like it.So the first movie is a pass, where it's essentially medium-rate popcorn that felt like a video game. The second is an actual solid movie that felt nothing like a video game. What the public wants, apparently, is to watch a movie about a video game they've already played. They do not want original stories involving the characters of those video games. They want to go from an interactive experience where they feel like they are shooting the guns, killing the bad-guys, and finding the treasure to… Watching somebody re-do it all on a giant screen.I think this is why we may never, ever see a successful hit movie based on a video game that actually satisfies on every level. People want things that aren't real. It's like criticizing THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy because it didn't cover enough of the book.Jesus, guys. What the hell do you really want, anyway?