Will Smith seems to have the Owen Wilson syndrome when it comes to acting. No matter what part he plays, he’s always playing himself in the role. However, much like Owen Wilson, his character seems to work in most applications (except for Wild Wild West). However, it did work well in I, Robot, even though it was Will Smith playing Will Smith in another movie. Smith still managed to play a believable and somewhat humorous performance in one of the darker sci-fi movies in recent memory.

In I, Robot, Will Smith plays the role of detective Del Spooner, part of the Chicago police department in the not so distant 2035. Spooner has a serious problem with the growing robot population, and the introduction of the new series NS-5 robot has him completely techno-phobic. He is called to a crime scene by a holographic projection of the pioneer of robotics, Dr. Alfred Lanning. Dr. Lanning, who was a top scientist at US Robotics, seems to have committed suicide, and Detective Spooner finds an NS-5 robot as the prime suspect. However, he is alone in his quest as everyone else in the free world believes that robots are incapable of committing a crime as it violates the basic 3 law system that all robots are built to abide by. The robot suspect, Sonny, seems different, somehow, and not like the others. It is up to Spooner to get to the bottom of the situation without being labeled crazy.

The aspect of this movie that really shines is the effect department. The transition from real scenery to CG is nearly seamless, and the completely CG robots seem to interact with the actors with lifelike quality. The robots in this movie were purposely made with small abdomens and thinner limbs, to make them more realistic, but required that stand in actors not be used. Instead, they were able to green screen a pole with a tennis ball for a head, so the actors knew where to look and interact, and required less editing to fit. The parts where facial expressions of the robot Sonny were used, a true actor was employed, wearing a green leotard (voice and face acting done by Alan Tudyk). He was then edited out, except for the face, where motion capture was used to emulate the prosthetic face of Sonny. The technique seems more costly both in time and money, but provided quite a realistic and amazing robot onscreen.

The only thing that made me want to stay home from this movie was the pre-release buzz that this film was not originally based on the book of the same name, but was actually a completely different script called Hardwired. When Fox picked up the rights to Asimov’s stories, Hardwired was rewritten as I, Robot, and, apparently, only has a very loose affiliation to the actual book, but I can’t be the judge of that until I actually read the book.

A few substandard acting jobs and reused camera tricks were the movie’s only faults. A scene featuring a showdown between the people of Chicago and robots seemed to have the exact same camera pan set as a similar scene in Lord of the Rings, which took away from the uniqueness of the scene. At least it wasn’t a stolen technique, as WETA Digital, who did the effects for LoTR, had their hand in this movie as well. I’m somewhat surprised that Lucas and ILM had nothing to do with this movie.

Bridget Monynahan played a somewhat campy role as Susan Calvin, robotics expert and psychiatrist. Not quite a normal choice of majors in college, but who knows what those crazy kids will be learning in 2035. Her acting just didn’t click with me. She tried really hard to cry when she was supposed to be crying, and it showed. But she seemed to nail the bitchy attitude when that was necessary, maybe that’s what they were going for, bitchy-brainiac-who-tried-too-hard-to-cry. At least she had a PG-13 shower scene, but, so did Will Smith, if you are into that sort of thing.

All in all, the film wasn’t too bad. Definitely one of the top 5 films of the summer, but that’s not saying as much as I wish it was. As Tom put it, “I came to this movie expecting crap, but I got better than crap.” So we’ll leave it at, “better than crap.”

Homer’s epics of The Iliad and The Odyssey are two of the greatest literary works in the history of the world. They contain great battles, a great story, and everything that made Ancient Greece one of the most amazing civilizations still studied in school. Wolfgang Peterson’s Troy seriously bobbles the ball when it comes to adapting the source material for a new generation of movie fans and still staying true to the way the story is suppose to be told. While the ending credits note that the film is “inspired by” The Iliad, I seriously hope screenwriters can do better than this in adapting written epics to the big screen.

Truth be told, if this film had been released prior to The Lord of the Rings trilogy I might be singing a different story, but I believe fans are to the point where, after three years of “epic” battles, we have seen enough of massive computer generated armies facing off against one another. Yet, Troy was released nearly six months after the masterpiece that was Return of the King, and we are left with a been-there-done-that feel that may plague historical films for years to come. Add in the nauseating effects of an over-used shaky-cam that makes it almost impossible to discern what is going on during the battle sequences.

Troy tells the story of the mythical city surrounded by high walls and ruled over by King Priam (Peter O’Toole). Priam has sent his two sons, Hector (Eric Bana) and Paris (Orlando Bloom), to make peace with Sparta ruled by King Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson), brother to Agamemnon (Brian Cox). While in Sparta, Paris falls in love with Helen (Diane Kruger), Menelaus’ wife, and beacons her to return to Troy with him. At this betrayal from the prince of Troy, Menelaus seeks the help of his brother to go to war with Troy. In order to win the war, Agamemnon enlists the help of Odysseus (Sean Bean) who, in turn, recruits the help of Achilles (Brad Pitt) to fight for his country.

Many aspects of the story are well known in pop-culture. The Trojan horse, now made infamous by the Internet viruses of the same name, the battle between Achilles and Hector, and the city of Troy itself. Yet, in adapting the story for the screen some creative “liberties” were taken in order to bring the story to a head much, much faster. Over the course of the 163 minute movie you seem to think the siege of Troy only lasted a few days when, in fact, it lasted many years. The acknowledgement of the existence of the Greek God’s is thrown out the window. IMDB quotes director Wolfgang Peterson as calling the God’s “silly” and “not relevant to the story.” They may not be relevant if they weren’t some of the biggest characters/plot devices in the original work. The existence of the God’s tells of origins of Achilles and the fall of the great warrior. Therefore, story never goes into the origins of Achilles and never even acknowledges that he is invincible except for a small portion of his heel. But he can dodge things pretty damn well.

Casting of the characters seems reasonably well done. Eric Bana’s Hector is exactly how I pictured the character when reading the original story and Brad Pitt’s Achilles is almost what you would expect. Brian Cox, as usual, over-acts his character of Agamemnon, but by the end of the film you will be ready to see his fate, except for the fact that it is never suppose to happen. The “liberties” that I spoke of before erase characters, create new ones, and change the fate of others who are suppose to survive to have further adventures in further books. The only casting choice that I found spot on was Sean Bean as Odysseus. The man has a way about him that makes him entirely likable even when playing the villain, but in this case, he gets to play one of the biggest heroes of all time.

My displeasure for the film doesn’t mean I didn’t have a good time watching it, but knowing the original story, and seeing what was changed made me think entirely too hard on the negatives rather than the positives. Coming home and refreshing on the mythology and the original works through a bit of Internet research, made me realize just how much they had changed the source material. While I’m not against a little bit of creative freedom, when you change one of the most well known literary works of all time, you had better change it for the better. Screenwriter David Benioff should stay away from any more literary works and leave the transitions to people like Peter Jackson who are able to change things and still wow audiences world wide. One can only hope that if an update to The Odyssey is planned in the very near future, no one associated with this film will be allowed within 30ft with the intention to use an “inspired by” credit.

If Van Helsing is what $170 million dollars buys you these days I can’t wait to see what $200 million will buy us next weekend when Troy opens. Van Helsing, starring Hugh Jackman as the title character, comes to us from monster movie mogul Stephen Sommers who delivered The Mummy and The Mummy Returns as well as the cult-classic Deep Rising. Yet, with Van Helsing, Sommers seems to falter on his penance for creating fun movies with shallow, yet involved characters and tons of great action. Make no mistake, VH is one of the loudest, biggest summer movies to come along this decade but after all the CGI monsters are reverted to wire frame, and the script is filed in a cabinet, we still have a completely average movie that shows only small signs of greatness.

The movie, as the title alludes, revolves around Gabriel Van Helsing, a man with no memory of his past but has been chosen by the church to rid the world of evil. Van Helsing is a troubled man who must kill creatures of the night as he sees them, but after they are dead, they revert back to their original form (as seen with the opening battle scene). This reversion has earned him the label of murderer and is wanted by many police forces all over Europe at the turn of the 20^th century. Van Helsing is sent to Transylvania to seek out a well known guy by the name of Count Dracula (Richard Roxburgh) who, as we find out, is attempting to bring life to his offspring and create swarms of vampires to ravage the known world. Van Helsing will eventually met up with the beautiful Anna (Kate Beckinsale) who is the last of her family line sworn to destroy Dracula at all costs.

The story of the film draws parallels from many other vampire/werewolf movies of the past, including heavy influence from the Beckinsale headlined Underworld released last year. Dracula seems to be the enemy of choice at the moment, later to be seen as Drake in Blade: Trinity later this year, but is it really necessary for Roxburgh to overact the part to the point it becomes more comical than menacing? There was more than a few times when I cringed at the screen not only because of the cheesy lines, but the way they were delivered. I know Hollywood likes to keep things tongue-in-cheek, but this above and beyond.

The overacting isn’t the only problem with the film. Sommers decided that Dracula, a vampire that is almost impossible to kill, wasn’t evil enough so he gave him henchmen, but not just any henchmen, mutant-Ewok henchmen. These three foot things scamper around making growling sounds for almost the entire movie, yet they are only referred to once and that reference doesn’t explain who they are, or what in the world they are doing here.

One of the biggest draws of the film was using some of the back-catalogue of Universal’s movie monsters like Frankenstein’s monster and The Wolf-man. I give props to Sommers for writing a clever way to get all of these monsters in the same script, but I fear he wasted to many pages trying to explain how many of these monsters could interact together and left out the back-story we really would have liked to see. When we learn who Van Helsing really is it is only uttered once and the audience doesn’t even get a flashback to help explain what was just said. It seems odd that we get information on most of the monsters, Anna, and the organization the Van Helsing works for, but nothing on the man himself.

If I sound as though I didn’t enjoy the film, that isn’t fully true. I actually had a great time viewing the movie and didn’t stop to check my watch at all, but with heavy reliance on CGI effects and huge amounts of eye candy it makes it painfully obvious that there isn’t much to sustain the film as far as story goes. I’m sure Universal is already planning a sequel, but for the amount of money that was spent on this film I was expecting a lot more and came out of the theater being somewhat disappointed and almost insulted by the horrible, rainbow-coated ending. See the film, but leave you expectations at the door.

The Punisher is one of Marvel’s best known non-super-hero characters which centers on the dark existence of a former government agent and soldier by the name of Frank Castle. Castle, in the comics, helps those in need destroying crime at its source, the criminals. There was a lot of fan-boy backlash when Artisan (now owned by Lion’s Gate) announced that Thomas Jane (The Sweetest Thing) has been cast as the title character, many sighting that he didn’t even look like the comic book version of the man clad in black. While Jane wouldn’t have been anyone’s top choice for the role, the final result, this past weekend, showed that with some perseverance on holding judgment before the film was even released, I think I enjoyed it much more.

The Punisher, as mentioned above, follows the origins of the title character AKA Frank Castle who witnesses his entire family gunned down before his eyes in a brutal display ordered by one of Florida’s most prominent business men and underground crime bosses. On Frank’s last mission before retirement, the job goes bad and Howard Saint’s (John Travolta) son is killed in the melee. When Saint gets word that the whole operation was a set up, he orders the killing of Castle’s family, including his wife and son, but the goons sent to do the job don’t kill Castle, and he comes back with a vengeance in one of the most brutally violent, yet brutally honest films to come along in a while.

Mind you, this film isn’t for the faint of heart in some parts. The violence is adequately portrayed on-screen, just as it is in the pages of the comic. As Castle is being set up to die in the beginning of the film he is being beaten up, and shot, point blank, to the chest, all in full view of the camera. Throughout the film head shots and the spilling of blood are as abundant as one-liners and Thomas Jane taking off his shirt.

The story itself isn’t the most original to come along, and while it tells the origins of the character, it does so in a way that is incredibly cheesy. John Travolta’s Saint is an over the top crime boss who is similar in many ways to the character Travolta played in Swordfish; he even sports the same hairstyle. Yet there are times when the film’s story goes above and beyond the call of duty to show us glimpses of ingenuity. The highlight of this is Castle’s very elaborate way of getting Saint to believe his wife is shagging up with his top lieutenant, which includes parking tickets and a portable fire hydrant.

The fight scenes in the film are also very well done; most notable of these is The Punisher’s fight with The Russian (Kevin Nash). The fight, resulting in the basic remodeling of Castle’s apartment is the highlight of the film. While Nash is a big star in the WWE, he could stick to being a hired goon in any number of films, resulting in some grade-A-ass-kicking.

Again, going back to Jane’s portrayal as the title character, I certainly believe that he brought the character alive on the big screen. His dead-pan style of talking after the massacre, his take no crap from anyone attitude, and his general disregard for anyone but his fellow tenants shows that the killing of his family had ultimately sent him over the edge as he fights with drinking and suicidal tendencies throughout the film. Certainly touched upon at the end of the movie, where does The Punisher go from here? Where does a man go after his revenge has been achieved and there is nothing else to live for in this world? These answers will, hopefully, be answered in a sequel.

I for one believe the money is critic proof, much like other comic book movies. They are not usually taken in by the casual audience in huge droves, therefore I, or any other critic, could slam the film as being too cliché, too color-by-numbers for its own good, and those who still have an affinity for the character will still see the film because it represents a coming of age for one of Marvel’s lesser known characters.

Regardless of how the film does this weekend at the box office (Editor’s Note: The Punisher finished in second with an estimated $14 million dollars), I believe the first movie set up the franchise very well. While the movie won’t go down as one of Marvel’s biggest opening weekends, it will still go down, among comic book fans, as the day one of the most human characters was brought to the big screen, in style, and got his revenge.

While waiting in line to see Hellboy on Friday night a few things were put into perspective for me. The first is lots and lots of people see movies, but almost none of them know anything about them, and the second was that there is still money to be made on new ideas, cult followings, and unknown comic book characters that come to life with the love of a great director. While waiting in line for about an hour before the film I was privy to a conversation between the only two men ahead of me. They simply stated, “I didn’t know this was based on a comic book.” To add insult to injury they then stated, “Did you know they were making a Spider-Man 2? I just heard about it on the news.” While the comments continued for a good 45 minutes, it gave me a perspective into the common moviegoer, someone who can’t remember an actors name, and also thinks The Matrix Revolutions was the best movie “ever.”

Regardless of what the general public knows, Hellboy is based on a cult classic comic book of the same name. The story centers on a demon, brought to earth through Nazi experimentation in the occult, and then raised by his adopted father to be an agent in a government bureau for paranormal research and counter-action. Hellboy (Ron Perlman) is joined by Abe Sapien (Doug Jones), voiced by David Hyde-Pierce, and Professor Broom (John Hurt), Hellboy’s adopted father. The man responsible for Hellboy’s appearance on Earth, Rasputin (Karel Roden), has returned from being sucked into a portal he opened up at the end of the second world war, and how he intends to open it again to bring the end of the world.

John Myers (Rupert Evans) is brought in to work with Hellboy, at the request of his father, to help him become more “human” in his actions. An awkward love triangle then forms between Hellboy, Myers, and Liz Sherman (Selma Blair) who longs to be anything but a freak. Under the guise as waste management employees the agency begins investigating the reappearance of Rasputin and what he is doing back on Earth.

The story itself parallels the first Blade film in more ways than one, especially in the latter half of the film, but it’s the film’s heart, and the car that was taken into elevating it from “just another comic adaptation” to “a truly rewarding comic book adaptation” that makes seeing it worthwhile. Hellboy is a tormented soul, he wants to fit in, he loves Liz, and he wants to be free from his underground home, but it can’t be done. Unlike other comic book films, Hellboy is seemingly venerable, and he doesn’t always win. The X-Men fight for the good of mankind, Spider-Man is there for the common man plagued by crime. Like Blade, Hellboy doesn’t always get his man, and he doesn’t always win, he makes mistakes and they have consequences.

A lot of publicity has been given to the film based on the fact that it had be stuck in Development Hell for such a long period of time, partly because of the un-established character and director Guillermo del Toro’s instance that only Ron Perlman, a beloved character actor, could portray the character on the big screen. After the success of Blade 2, in which del Toro directed and Perlman had a small role, Sony greenlit the project and the success is apparent. Realistically, I can’t see anyone but Perlman in the role. His familiarity with working in make-up and comedic timing give the movie an extra bit of life and entertainment value.

For the most part the film is balls to the walls action, much like del Toro’s Blade 2, but instead of relying too much on CGI, one major fault of the daywalker’s second adventure, the action in Hellboy is represented well by the actors, and when computers are used the transitions are much more lifelike and seamless when compared to similar fare. The story starts us right off with the introduction of Hellboy and dives into origin stories for Abe and Liz, as well as introducing us to Professor Broom as a young man during World War II. The steams seems to diminish a bit as the movie winds down, and all the eye candy has been flashed on the screen, but the ending is fulfilling.

Not many may have heard of Hellboy prior to the first trailer hitting theaters and the web last year, but now that the comic has been introduced to a whole new generation of teenagers it seems unlikely that the graphic novel will remain in obscurity for much longer. It seems very likely, however, that a successful launch of this franchise could bring many other lesser-known comic book heroes to the big screen and bring the talents of many, now shrouded in darkness, into the limelight.

Director Todd Phillips is really enjoying himself on the director’s A-list, and he has ever right to be there. His three films have grossed hundreds of millions of dollars and become staples of college life. Road Trip introduced to us a break from the standard college teen comedy; Old School put us back into a college setting in our mid-thirties, and now Starsky & Hutch re-envisions the 1970’s television show for a new generation full of campy stunts and great personality.

Starsky & Hutch (TV) ran for 88 episodes in the 1970s in a decade that was known for putting out some zany television shows. The pairing of a by-the-book cop and one who takes things now quite as seriously isn’t a new concept in Hollywood, in fact, you could say the idea has been beaten into the ground more times than you can count, but for Starsky & Hutch the formula is fresh with an excellent screenplay and enough jokes to get you through the films 90 minute running time.

David Starsky (Ben Stiller) is the aforementioned by-the-book kind of guy who is out to catch the bad guys, shows up to work on time, and never does errands while on city time. Ken “Hutch” Hutchinson (Owen Wilson) is the exact polar opposite of Starsky, so it is only natural that they would become partners in this wacky world of fighting crime. Along for the ride is Snoop Dogg’s wondrous portrayal of Huggy Bear, one of Hutch’s most valuable informants. To say that Snoop steals the movie would be an understatement. He steals every scene that he is in, which is refreshing after such disappointments as Bones.

The antagonist this time around is Old School alumni Vince Vaughn playing Reese Feldman and arrogant drug cartel kingpin who has a short temper and a ditsy mistress (Juliette Lewis). Starsky and Hutch soon learn of Feldman’s goal in selling cocaine that cannot be detected by dogs, and tastes strangely like sugar, as one of the film’s funnier moment’s points out. After the disappointment of Club Dread, Starsky & Hutch was a welcomed change.

Phillips doesn’t want this film to be a parody or a spoof of the original series, rather a re-envisioning of the show and that is precisely what it is, but we aren’t to forget the film’s roots. The film is shot in a distinctive 70s style with wide angle shots from across the street that zoom in on a pair having a conversation to the way some of the scenes are cut together. Even the stunts scream 1970s with flying cars and big shoot outs in the streets of Bay City. The retro feel to the film only stimulates the nostalgia felt throughout, even for non-fans of the series. I’m willing to bet an equal number of patrons bought tickets to see this film based on Phillips name attached to it as those that bought tickets based on the franchise name. Also the headlining pair of Stiller and Wilson couldn’t have hurt.

The film is not without some problems. There is a general lack of story throughout, and what is present is laced relatively thin. The screenplay is very strong, and as mentioned before, the direction is top notch by Phillips. The 1970s overacting by Stiller and Wilson is just what you would expect from the duo, which could be a problem in itself. The dynamic pair virtually play the very same characters they play in every film, and now Wilson has been paired up with just about everyone in the industry, there aren’t too many people left besides Chris Tucker who has mysteriously disappeared since Rush Hour 2. Still, even with the basic plot and devices to progress it along, Starsky and Hutch is a fun and enjoyable film that rightfully opens the door for a franchise to bloom.

One part of being an objective reviewer is to keep the opinions of other critics out of your head when you view a movie for review. Sure, there are parts of their review that sink into your head and pop up when you are actually viewing the film, but for the most part I try to keep everything separate.  The pre-release press for House of the Dead was skimpy, but what was released wasn’t good at all. Director Uwe Boll has recently stated that he wants to make a movie based on the hit Dungeon Siege or WarCraft game series, I’m hear to beg and plead Microsoft and Blizzard, respectably, to never let this man within 100 feet of their licenses as House of the Dead now has the crown for worst video game adaptation…ever.

There isn’t just one part of the movie that stands out as the real downfall, there is so much wrong with this so-called-film that I don’t know where to begin. Absolutely no part of this movie is coherent at anytime during the excruciatingly long 90 minute running time what the producers call a script is nothing more than some fanboy fantasy of gratuitous nudity, extreme violence, and the tale of an action hero in a video game.

Our story starts off with a group of friends attempting to charter a boat from Captain Kirk (yes his name really is Captain Kirk and he doesn’t like Star Trek jokes). These over-sexed teens are attempting to hitch a ride to the rave of the century conveniently held on the Island of the Dead (cue evil music). The kids arrive on the island to find the party deserted, the beer on tap, and the guys realize they have tools in their pants that must be used, for fear of rust. Once they finally discover the cheapest zombies in Hollywood are roaming around, they gear up (how convenient that Captain Kirk is a weapons smuggler) and participate in one of the stupidest action sequences ever printed to film.

I originally wanted to give props to Artisan and Uwe Boll for bringing a game like House of the Dead to the big screen. It wouldn’t be an easy task for an arcade game only designed to eat quarters, but now all I see is a huge failure and a missed opportunity to cash in on one of videogaming’s most lucrative licenses.

As the film progresses the teens are picked off one by one, but as they die the lead characters don’t shed a single tear, in fact, after one teen blows himself up with gunpowder a simple, “He didn’t make it,” is all it takes for the grieving to end. Hell, at least the underwhelming House of 1000 Corpses had a respectable house, Dead‘s house looks more like a one bedroom painted grey with a blind groundskeeper, a far cry from the mansion featured in the game.

Most video game adaptations get a bad wrap because they are, in fact, based on video games, believe it or not, but where all those adaptations tried to bring in the masses House of the Dead flaunts the movie’s roots in the stupidest way possible. Between scene transitions the film actually includes clips from the video game, and while this might be okay for stylistic reasons, some of the clips they use prominently feature “Free Play” and other arcade notifications at the bottom of the screen. It looks like some guy with a DV camera filmed some other guy get his butt handed to him and then spliced it into a low-budget horror film.

But what is a horror film without the horror? The zombies, as stated before, are so cheap looking, they look like actors with grey paint. It appears as though they attempted to include every horror cliché imaginable, but where Freddy vs. Jason made the cliché, campy horror genre funny, House of the Dead attempts to take these bits seriously leading to horrible dialog and terrible leaps in believability.

As the film begins the main characters are scared out of their minds. Zombies have just killed all of their friends, but put a gun and grenade in their hand and they become military trained experts landing aerial kicks, reloaded brutally fast, and, presumably, becoming extremely nauseated with the camera swinging around them like it does.

House of the Dead suffers from so much that the film isn’t even worth watching, your $6.50 would much better be spent heading over to the local arcade and logging in an hour’s worth of time with House of the Dead III. It would be a much more rewarding experience and cause much less frustration. Don’t even see this film if you are a fan of the series.

I’ve never read the graphic novel on which The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is based and after viewing the film I wonder if I ever will for fear of my sanity. LXG is a mish-mash of action sequences, faulty, flimsy dialogue, and in sorry need of an actual script. In fact LXG feels as though bits and pieces of every movie to be released this year have been carved up and reanimated in some bastation that might be identified as a movie.

This, believe me, is hard for a critic to say on a film that he has been anxiously awaiting since the trailers first appeared. The film looked to have it all. A dark, gritty feel coupled with interesting character brought to life from the texts in which they were described, and Sean Connery, who we all know is one of the greatest actors to step foot on this planet. Ultimately not even Sir Connery can save this film from meeting the B-Movie Bargain Bin at Blockbuster. The biggest hope you could of had for this film is the pedigree of director Stephen Norrington who successfully took Blade from comic to film, but, alas, the same isn’t true here.

LXG takes place, mainly, in Europe, where a badass known only as The Phantom is plaguing the European nations, circa 1899, to instill war and sell off his highly advanced weaponry (WWII era) to the highest bidder. In order to do this he goes to opposing nations and blows stuff up speaking the language of an “enemy” country. Seemingly people in the 19 century don’t realize that there is more than one nation which speaks bad English. With imminent peril facing the world a group of the world’s greatest scientists/spy/immortal/etc. are assembled, including Dracula’s bride Mina Harker (Peta Wilson), immortal Dorian Gray (Stuart Townsend), explorer Captain Nemo (Naseeruddin Shah), the invisible man Rodney Skinner (Tony Curran), Dr. Jekyll (Jason Flemyng), US Secret Service agent Tom Sawyer (Shane West), and Allan Quatermain (Sean Connery) with the intent to destroy The Phantom and free those whom he has enslaved.

The problem with the film really begins and ends with the script which appears to have been written in the form of a 1st grader constructing a thesis on whale migration. As you can expect this isn’t a good thing. I wouldn’t be surprised if the actual screenplay to this film turned up in a museum for having the most loose ends and unexplained phenomenon in the world. You never actually learn where this advanced technology the Phantom has came from, he just busts down walls with a tank and runs over English Constables.

Characters appear, disappear, and change hairstyles with the blink of an eye. Of course, as with any movie focusing on an ensemble cast and special powers, there are certain problems that can be exploited by only one member of the team, but in the end these plot devices feel so contrived that you groan in disgust, mainly because you can see what’s coming.

The best acting in this mess is that of Shane West and his accurate portrayal of Tom Sawyer, now mysteriously a Secret Service agent, but when you call a teen movie character actor the best in any film you’re dwelling at the bottom of the barrel. Granted we do get some witty quips between certain characters, and the true identity of The Phantom is rather cool, if you read books, that is, but it still doesn’t relieve the sour taste in your mouth.

The film does have some redeeming factors. The action scenes, while hardly making sense, are cool to watch, and show that Sean Connery can still kick some ass, but this isn’t enough to bring the movie out of mediocrity.

In the end the betrayal by one member of the league is hardly a surprise, and how the movie will progress and end is nothing that you haven’t seen played out in countless other action films. Tack on the Hollywood ending and obvious door for a sequel and that’s all she wrote. Fox originally wanted this film to start a franchise, and I can still see that happening, but if they do decide to produce another keep in mind that for anything to succeed a script is the most important key, and a story not taken from 20 years of action films might help the cause.

LXG does a few things right, but what it does wrong knocks the film from extraordinary to just plain ordinary.