I know I'm in the the minority who thought the first Lara Croft movie was a lot of fun; and, now I know I'm in the minority who think the new one is a big snooze. (The wildly uneven Salon critic, Andrew O'Hehir, disagrees with me; although, I must admit I can't be bothered to actually read his review.) After the much ballyhooed and endless glide off the skyscraper my date turned to me and said: "Is it over?" Not because he was ready to leave but because the sequence lasted so long that you just knew it had to mean something. Turns out all it really meant was an opportunity for Joel Siegel to gush ("People actually FLY!"). But alas the ride, if you can call it that, wasn't over.

Unlike the first Tomb Raider, whose bungee and motorcycle fights I found clever and elegantly choreographed, and whose final Captain Nemo-esque set looked great, I can't honestly think of a single memorable shot or cool sequence in this one. And all the stunts are either monochromatic or clunky. Oh, wait. The night shot across the harbor in Shanghai, that was nice; but, it was a static shot.

From the incredibly irrelevant, unconvincing, stupidly directed EARTHQUAKE! opening, to Jolie's mind-numbing delivery of plot exposition to the anti-climactic non-opening of Pandora's Box I kept being reminded of nothing so much as Batman. And I don't mean the movies; I mean the series.

Those cheesy sets! Those cheesy set-ups! Lady Lara punches a computer-rendered shark and the shark screams! Lady Lara jumps on the neon dragon and rides it, slowly, toward the helicopter. That was supposed to be exciting? Your average episode of Xena was about a billion times more exciting and fun. And Ms Lawless had both better comic timing and fewer "turkey's done" slinky outfits.

And so many action sequences began exactly the same way each time: Lara, caught in the cross-fire, scrunches up her face, tosses her fake hair to one side, face framed by her guns and dives sideways in slow motion as the bad techno blasts away. Seems like they failed to get decent coverage (and apparently an adequate budget judging from the styrofoam Cradle of Life) in the action sequences because they relied on a zoom lens for both wide shots and close ups, giving the movie a cramped look. The opening sequences were missing so many connecting shots I thought the film broke and had been spliced at some point. But no, it was just bad editing. I can't think of another recent blockbuster that was so poorly imagined and inexpertly shot. Come to think of it, I can't think of a recent bad movie that was so inexpertly shot and poorly imagined. There wasn't a single cool set piece I'd like to see again. Well, actually, I wouldn't mind seeing Gerard Butler with his shirt off again. Why couldn't we see some slow motion of him? Turn around one more time there, Gerard… no, no, keep your arms up. Yeah, just like that. Have to give it to Lara she has hot boyfriends and this one got to keep his chest hair and his accent, if not his life.