Hoo boy, here we go again with yet another movie based on a popular video game. And not just another movie, mind you, but a SEQUEL to a movie that was based on a popular videogame. The wave seemed to have started back in the early 1990’s with the release of “Super Mario Brothers” starring Bob Hoskins and John Leguizamo as the venerable brothers, and Dennis Hopper in a career making move as the villainous King Koopa. Up until this time, most movies were turned into videogames as opposed to the other way around.

Not to be outdone, the venerable heroes (why are they always venerable?) from the outlandishly popular videogame “Mortal Kombat” were brought to life in a movie of the same name. They teamed up with action flick actor extraordinaire Christopher Lambert to fight the villainous Shang Tsung, who was played by Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa. (This was also considered to be a career making move, considering Tagawa went on to play a Gorilla in the remake… excuse me… re-imagining of “Planet of the Apes.”)

Ever since these movies came out, along with the rumored existence of a “Pong” movie floating around, starring Jean Claude Van Damme in the dual role of the villainous Paddles (in yes, you guessed it… a career making move), there have been more videogames-turned-movies than I care to count.

But now, with the advent of CGI, and the enormous amount of money being pumped into these summer blockbusters, at least those that lack in plot or coherence, can at least make up for it with flashy visual style.

When “Tomb Raider” first came out in 2001, I was actually all jazzed up to see it. I was vaguely familiar with the videogame, and having seen pictures of the animated Lara Croft, agreed that Angelina Jolie was the perfect choice physically. The previews got me ready for non-stop over the top action, and for the most part, I wasn’t disappointed. But for all the flash, bombast and visual grandeur, the film still felt kind of flat for me. I felt that director Simon West just didn’t give the actors much direction and for all its spectacular action sequences, it was just kind of dull.

With the imminent release of the sequel, “Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life” I found myself still jazzed up to see it, yet I can’t figure out why. I believe it might be because I hoped that the new director, Jan de Bont, would find a way to deliver even more spectacular action sequences, while making the characters more interesting than they were before.

The main plot surrounding “Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life”, has our venerable heroine, Lara Croft traipsing around the globe in search of an infamous site known as ‘The Cradle of Life,’ in order to keep a ruthless villain from discovering Pandora’s Box and unleashing it’s deadly secret upon the world.

Now that I’ve finally seen the movie, I’m happy to report that it is much, much better than the first. Now, this isn’t to say that “Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life” is a great movie, but it is at least an entertaining one. The plot was more straightforward, the action almost non-stop, and Jolie’s Croft nearly showed emotion.

“Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life” is exactly what it was supposed to be… a videogame come to life. The heroine escapes inescapable situations, often in unbelievable ways, but ways that fit within the fantasy world of the film. I can’t count the number of times I rolled my eyes, but again, in Lara Croft’s world anything is possible.

The overall look and feel of the film was also superior to the first, thanks to Jan de Bont’s cinematography background. Every shot was very well set up, especially during the action sequences. And unlike some of the awful CGI work in “The Matrix Reloaded”, here I could only catch one time where a computer generated Lara was used. One thing I did like was the look of the Cradle of Life itself. (It made me think of a Bedrock version of a famous M.C. Escher drawing.)

This isn’t to say the film was perfect, however. There were a few little things that kind of annoyed me. I’m not aware of the official term for it, but for some reason, de Bont decided to use slow motion ‘stutter’ shots at the end of some of the action scenes then would suddenly speed up. It was very jarring, and it looked terrible.

The acting “Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life” is about what you might expect. Angelina Jolie was grim and dour, and admittedly it was quite obvious that the only reasons she got the part was because she knows how to move, has a fairly strong screen presence, and judging from some of the costumes she basically just… uh… ‘fills’ the role.

I did like Gerard Butler as Croft’s ex-flame (and newly sprung from prison) Terry Sheridan. His character was especially likable, but I had to question some of the directions the writers took him in. They made what I considered to be one really bad decision with his character, and it almost ruined the movie for me. I can’t write about it here, but you’ll know it when you see it. (And a side note to fans of “Angel.” Tell me he didn’t remind you of the late Glenn Quinn from the first season, accent and all.)

Don’t expect any kind of emotional roller coaster ride with “Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life.” It’s not meant to be deep or meaningful, it’s only meant to entertain. It’s definitely worth seeing in the theatre, but only if you see it in one with a powerful sound system and a huge screen. I wouldn’t pay full price for it, but I certainly enjoyed it enough to pay for a matinee to at least see it on the big screen.

Oh, I do have one last observation before I run off. If you see the movie, listen closely to a conversation Lara has with some elders of an African Tribe in the last quarter of the movie. I’d swear at one point one of them said, “Hakuna Matata.”

Directed by: Jan de Bont

Starring: Angelina Jolie, Gerard Butler, Ciaran Hinds, Christopher Barrie, Noah Taylor, Djimon Hounsou,

Website