Is it too trite to say that this movie sucks?

Rating: 3/10 (21 May 2004)

While I can't say I'd nominate the leads in this film for Academy awards in their previous roles, (XMen & Underworld) I did enjoy those films. Ditto both Mummy films, which I thought were carried more by the cast's charisma than the FX or the less than stellar writing. So I was optimistic about this film.
I hate it when I'm disappointed. This film has very few redeeming qualities. I had thought that the second Mummy film had pushed the cartoonish action limit about as far as it could go. Wrong, it can go farther, but it shouldn't have.
This film would have been much BETTER if they had spent $50M less on FX and $100K more on a single talented writer. And the same amount on nearly any other director.
This completely cliché', wholly unoriginal and derivative weird mishmash of steam punk, vampire, werewolf, James Bond and superhero film is ... a mishmash. It has all the appeal of a cold plate of goulash combined with cabbage and ice cream, all topped with mustard.
So, given its name, I think one can best sum up this film by saying, it sucked!