By Richard Allen Greene BBC News Online

The opening diving sequence is incredible

Angelina Jolie makes a second outing as the larger than life games icon in Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life.

In a summer of sequels, Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life does not quite match up to the likes of The Matrix: Reloaded and X-Men 2.

With luscious-lipped Angelina Jolie again strapping on hip holsters to bring the buxom adventurer to life, this instalment is better than the first - but that is fairly low praise.

The character is more rounded - so to speak - with the addition of a love interest, the untrustworthy former special forces agent Terry Sheridan (Gerard Butler).

Click here to review the film yourself

He provides an entertaining foil as the two race to stop an evil genetic scientist from finding the Pandora's Box of Greek myth and unleashing the deadly disease contained within.

But Lara Croft remains fundamentally a fighter, not a lover, and so the movie lives or dies on its action sequences.

A terrific opening set piece has Jolie - clad in a silver diving suit that demands to go down in costume history with the Ursula Andress bikini of Dr No fame - finding a lost temple built by Alexander the Great.

As is the way in action movies, despite having survived for millennia undisturbed, the underwater temple comes crashing spectacularly down minutes after Lara Croft discovers it.

The film takes itself too seriously

From the Greek islands, she is then off to Croft manor in England, followed by Kazakhstan, China, Hong Kong and east Africa, but none of the action sequences match up to the opening one.

Though she is a James Bond-style globetrotter, Croft owes much more of her lineage to Indiana Jones - but she lacks the sense of fun that made the early entries in that series so entertaining.

There are occasional laughs - mostly intentional - but more often the film takes itself too seriously.

It quotes contemporary genre classics like The Lord of the Rings and Terminator 2, but without the gleeful silliness of Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle.

Thus, even the rare moments where it plays against expectations (the glass elevator that is not shot to smithereens, the helicopter that does not crash in a great fireball) are lost in a sea of sameness.

The end result is that the sequel is perfectly entertaining while it is on screen, and entirely forgettable once it has gone.

Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life opens across the UK on Friday.

Have you seen the film?

What did you think? Is it better than the first film? Send us your views on the form below.

Put simply, its a straightforward star vehicle. With a rubbish engine.
Adam, UK

Given the reviews it's had, I went to the film expecting to be disappointed. Instead I really enjoyed it. As a sub-Indiana Jones action flick it's very entertaining and Jolie was made for the role. Just enjoy it for what it is.
Chris, UK

I thought the movie was pretty good , considering its genre. The special-effects and stunts were executed well, and Angelina Jolie ( although tamer than last time) seemed to assume the character with some subtle tongue in cheek style a la Emma Peel. Overall the movie although not asserting a new precedent from its peers in the action movie genre is a nice way to pass a couple of hours and not feel burdened with reality.
Jane Chakravarthy, Boston, USA

Tomb Raider was a bad cross between Wonder Woman and James Bond. Lara was the typical strong woman but the film was inflexible and protracted in places. It focused too much on the weak love interest which was futile in nature. Adventure films like this should focus on the action and not the love interest. Straight to video.
Cheryl, Bristol, England

I did find enjoyment in Cradle of Life as an action flick. Considering responses to the first Tomb Raider film, an effort was made to shore up the storyline and action to meet audience whims. Room for improvement remains, but hopefully there will be a third film with Jolie - and finally the adventure we have been waiting for.
CJ13, USA

Very bad cutting and camera work makes the movie seem over hurried. Also it feels like being on a ride you just can't get off. Whilst Jolie is excellent, all other characters are not really explored or given screen time that is too short.

This film lacked good direction, needed fewer action sequences, better character interaction and more story. Look at the build up of Indiana Jones films. Really this is a poor attempt of following on this tradition. Bring back Indiana Jones all is forgiven.
Dave Richardson, UK

The film plot follows the same transition of first movie of finding a lost artefact and racing to retrieve it to stop it being used to spread disease across the humankind. The first film was somewhat predictable and this film on the same formula is too. For hardened games fans you'll probably love it. For just an action film this is somewhat average.
William Jones, UK

I saw this film expecting a good time, drawn, in part, by some of the fantastic footage in the trailers. However, as is often the case with Hollywood these days, those trailer scenes were indeed the best and only bright spots of the entire film. It dragged on tediously in places, relying too heavily on Jolie's sex appeal to carry the plot. It was full of horribly stereotyped characters (the African tribe, for example), without being saved by Indiana Jones's rough humour or classic light-heartedness.

Pseudo-feminism, predictable plot-twists, and a lack of original, self-sustaining action sequences drove this film down lower in my estimation over it's ridiculous duration.

In short, maybe given 10 years' distance from this film, I'll look back on it as fondly as I do the tacky, sappy films of Indiana Jones. Or I might decide it's not worth the look back at all.
Felicity Larson, United States

Disclaimer: The BBC may edit your comments and cannot guarantee that all e-mails will be published.

Back to top