Critics’ reviews

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

12 reviews from 12 publications. Critics’ score 44: 1 positive, 4 mixed, 7 negative.

Back to our review of Lara Croft: Tomb Raider

44
Positive
1
Mixed
4
Negative
7

Most critics find Lara Croft: Tomb Raider disappointing, with praise clustering around Angelina Jolie rather than the adventure built around her. Her casting, screen presence and command of the role earn approval even in several negative reviews. The action has some defenders, and the location work attracts praise, but neither produces much agreement that the film works as a whole. The recurring complaint is that Jolie has too little worthwhile material to work with.

The reviews differ sharply over how much she compensates for the weak story. Screen Daily finds her performance enough to lift a routine adventure, while Total Film sees a solid franchise-starter despite clumsy plotting and a disappointing climax. More hostile reviews describe the film as flat or tedious, with complaints centred on the script and direction. Jolie is not exempt: The Guardian finds her humourless, while Eye for Film questions both her athleticism and personality.

Screen Daily
13 June 2001 · Emanuel Levy
75*

The review is positive, finding that Angelina Jolie elevates an otherwise routine adventure. It singles out her splashy performance as the film’s main strength.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
15 June 2001 · Stephen Holden
64*

The review text is inaccessible, so its verdict cannot be determined. No specific praise or complaint can be verified from the available page.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· NF
64*

The page identifies this as a film review, but the review text is unavailable. Its verdict and any specifically praised or criticized element cannot be determined.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
15 June 2001 · ★★½/4 · Roger Ebert
62

Ebert gives the film a mixed verdict, finding it an entertaining action adventure despite its limitations. He singles out Angelina Jolie’s casting as a strength.

Read the full review →
Total Film
6 July 2001 · ★★★ · Total Film
60

The review calls it a solid franchise-starter, though its clumsy plotting and disappointing climax hold it back. It praises Angelina Jolie’s portrayal of Lara and the energetic action sequences.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Simon Braund
40*

Braund finds the film disappointing despite some effective action. He praises the blazing gun battle but criticizes the lack of an engaging story and memorable characters.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★ · Andrew Collins
40

Collins says the adaptation fails to live up to expectations. He finds Angelina Jolie credible as Lara Croft but criticises the story as unsatisfying.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
15 June 2001 · ★½/4 · Ed Gonzalez
38

Gonzalez finds the film boorish and lethargic, though its camp makes the melodrama entertaining. He praises Jolie’s commanding performance while lamenting that the film wastes her talents.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
6 July 2001 · Peter Bradshaw
25*

Bradshaw finds the film weak, with action and style outweighing a coherent plot. He praises Angelina Jolie’s commanding screen presence but finds her portrayal humourless.

Read the full review →
Variety
14 June 2001 · Todd McCarthy
20*

McCarthy finds the film flat, unimaginative and unlikely to satisfy either fans or general audiences. He praises Jolie’s embodiment of Lara and the distinctive location work, while criticizing the script and direction.

Read the full review →
Evening Standard
10 April 2012
15*

The critic finds the film mindless, weak and tedious. They single out the filmmakers’ access to the Angkor Wat ruins as its only visually impressive feature.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
5 July 2001 · Angus Wolfe Murray
15*

The critic gives the film a strongly negative verdict, finding its story nonsensical. He especially criticizes the plot and says Angelina Jolie’s portrayal lacks convincing athleticism and personality.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate