IMDb > Cross (2011) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Cross
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Cross (V) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 7:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]
Index 61 reviews in total 

31 out of 46 people found the following review useful:

Dire warning. Literally dire. Warning

1/10
Author: reece_is from United Kingdom
31 May 2011

I cannot work out if this film is that bad deliberately or worse that they didn't realise. The acting was beyond cheese, even rank stifling cheese. Not one member of the cast stood out as anything other than awful, wooden, reluctant and hardly present.

Maybe I'm being harsh, perhaps they did everything they could with a script that I'm pretty sure was written by a couple of 12 year old kids blitzed out in a comic book euphoric haze.

The score was bland and occasionally misplaced enough break what little concentration it took to focus on the film. If there was any directing I must have missed it, perhaps it took place after the credits. Special effects were special only in the way they managed to get some out of about a dollar ninety five and I'm sorry to say they didn't even get value for money.

I've tried and tried, for about 15 seconds, to think of any redeeming feature or angle to this film. I failed. Kind of suits the film really.....

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Painful to Watch

4/10
Author: gavin6942 from United States
8 June 2011

Given incredible power by an ancient Celtic cross, Callan (Brian Austin Green) continues to fight evil... Now, joined by a team of weapons experts, Callan battles an unstoppable empire in Los Angeles.

I want to find the words to describe this film without being disrespectful, but it is just not a good movie. I see the potential, and some moments are better than others, but the film wavers between humor and seriousness with a cacophony of sound and juxtaposition of images that hurts the mind. Some films, notably "The Spirit", have balanced this well. This film has not. Would it make more sense if I had read the comic? Probably. But as a comic fan, I never heard of this one, so I think it is safe to say few people will know what is going on any more than I did. I learned a new word, though: Anzshlastic. Does it mean anything? Probably not.

Seemingly, the movie was made to coincide with the Green Lantern movie. Not that there is any connection, but someone here has a glowing green cross that gives him super powers. Sounds like another hero's ring. Beyond that, no connection, and the plot is a big mess. There is the concept of finding the bloodlines of the Greek gods. For some reason, only one person has the bloodline when you would think all their distant cousins would, too. And there are multiple villains, with little background offered about them.

The dialogue is written for a ten-year old. Sometimes we get decent one-liners (most of which come from Backfire, Jake Busey's character) and there was a good Gary Busey "Point Break" joke. But often we have everything dumbed down. Gunnar (Vinnie Jones) says over and over again that he is immortal and will be the last to die. Yeah, I got it. Did he have to repeat it? No. All this does is take a great actor like Jones and make him look like a fool.

The press release is far from accurate, too. It says "beautiful, young women start disappearing". Young, maybe. Beautiful? Hardly. And what is this about Gunnar being an immortal Viking? That never plays into the plot at all, and he clearly has an English rather than Norse accent. The only thing really going for this film is the cast. Besides those mentioned, we also have Brian Austin Green, Tom Sizemore, Michael Clarke Duncan, Danny Trejo, Lew Temple and C. Thomas Howell. How such a great ensemble ended up in this stinker is beyond me.

Nowhere in the press release or on the DVD cover is there a single quote from a review. Also, it arrived for me to review a week after it was released. This leads me to one conclusion: the people behind this film know it is not good and want to avoid more bad coverage (though, to do that, they should never have sent it at all). Possibly redeeming it is a director's commentary (I have not listened). There are deleted scenes, but those amount to single sentences trimmed from various spots. Why they were cut at all is beyond me. In short, avoid this film like the plague. Besides Jake Busey, it is a failure (and that is a sad thing when Busey is the best part of your film)

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

About on par with C-Grade made for TV shows

Author: damian5000 from Thailand
3 August 2011

I felt a lot of heart went into making this movie, but it just doesn't make the grade.

Cheesy one liners, though delivered well and fit the spirit of the movie well, still end up being cheesy one-liners.

Special effects were worse than what you would see in an episode of a Sci-Fi Channel original or TV episode like Stargate.

The only thing that got this movie beyond TV was the mid level, mostly washed up actors, who have been popular in the past, or were in good movies at one point in their careers.

Regarding Danny Trejo at the top of the Bill, he shows up for literally less than 20 seconds, and wasn't even part of the movie from what I could tell.

Names like Shark,Ranger,War,Riot,and Backfire make me think they did everything they could do put the movie at C or worse. It's like they didn't even make a pretension of trying to be better than that. Almost like they all got together and said "let's make a really good D-movie, and let's work really hard to make it that way!"

Anyways, to sum it up...The heart and hard work was there, and the acting mostly decent, but I feel with the cast and the story line it could of been better...Maybe even end up something of a cult flick, but it doesn't quite get there.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Destroyed my night

1/10
Author: markus_isteri from sweden
31 October 2011

oh my god, how is it possible to make such an terrible movie. there wasn't a thing in the entire movie that was good, i sat an watch through it all just to see if they had done something right. there are 2 things i especially disliked. 1: the camera work, the way they were filming was annoying and just made it even more clear what a big amateur movie it was. 2: the guy that ran around with the ball, i mean in a movie with terrible actors he out shined them all in being a terrible actor. This movie is honestly the worst movie I seen. i've seen adult movies with better actors! catastrophe, ridiciculous, ombelivlible ,sucks. silly: cross

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Huge disappointment

1/10
Author: ansarm
2 June 2011

I give it one star because of the huge disappointment it is. Nice cast, OK story. The direction and editing is just awful. Add to it the really primitive special effects. I had a feeling I was watching a 1990's SciFi channel production. To top it wall C Thomas Howell the king of rip-off B movies has a bit role. And it has big name bad guys and the younger Busey in it. It must have had some financing, they just blew it or were forced to work on a shoe-string budget. Lesson learnt, once again, don't see a movie for the cast. And it has some good reviews here. Who wrote them? It is mind boggling how someone can like it. On the contrary it is unintentionally funny at quite a few points. Unless u have time to kill, spare yourself the aggravation of watching this.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Bad movie

1/10
Author: balhau from Portugal
5 July 2011

The sound is bad. The soundtrack is not pleasant don't fit with the movie. The acting is also awful. The storyline is a bad joke. The action part is very poor and there is no interesting points in the whole movie. In my opinion this is one of the baddest movies ever. Don't loose your time with this piece of trash. You'll wait until the end to say: Well this is it? The single good part in this movie is the end. Even the girls seemed to be taken from a porn movie. No expression no feelings. Nothing. Heaven this is outrageous. I just hope don't get a psychological problem as a bad consequence of this movie from hell.. I hope this director stop using drugs.

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

It doesn't get any worse than this...

1/10
Author: Terry Roehrig II from United States
31 May 2011

Oh boy. What a mess of a movie.

It starts out just fine, we're treated to a comic book intro, given some back story on how whoever possesses a staff has the ability to kill everyone on Earth and then it turns into a live-action film. I think maybe I would have preferred the voice over and comic book art over the real-life actors myself.

It took about the first 30 minutes of the movie just to introduce all the characters -- with their name and area of expertise superimposed across their bodies and/or faces. Do we really need this many bit players, hell, some of them don't even have lines! This movie broke every law of bad film making, it's just beyond bad -- and not in a good way. You know how those cheesy movies that are so bad, they're good? Not this turkey, not by a long shot.

The acting was downright laughable most of the time, it was like they were reading cue cards or trying really hard to make some stuff up. It's billed as an action/comedy, yet there is hardly any action in the movie at all! The stage blood looked like watered-down ketchup, the actors who got shot wouldn't just fall down, they had to "brace" for the impact.... this movie is just plain terrible.

We even had the old throwback to the 1950's cop shows where the cop goes into an alleyway and pays for information on where the bad guys are hiding -- at least make it fun or play the scene tongue-in-cheek like Frank Drebin did in "The Naked Gun" because the only thing "funny" about this movie is that it even got made in the first place. Awful, awful, awful. I think I actually lost a few IQ points by watching this piece of garbage. More reviews at www.soveryterry.com Final Grade: F

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Poorly Made Film That I Nevertheless Respect

4/10
Author: amnesiac12001 from United States
18 February 2012

This film is a textbook case of "biting off more than you can chew." Which sucks because with a couple million bucks, it could've been something impressive.

The premise is actually promising: mythological-powered heroes sharing the spotlight with action heroes in a comic book universe as they save the world from supernatural threats. There are actually some clever and well-written lines and zingers in the script, and these are the lines usually best delivered. It also manages to not take itself too seriously, which makes it easier to digest. I'd argue that it's a direct descendant of "Adventure of Buckaroo Banzai" which makes it's failure all the more painful.

Unfortunately, the movie tries to do too much with too little. While half the cast is composed of well-known and very talented actors, the other half is composed of stunt men and friends of the director's, and it shows. The budget is woefully small for subject matter of this magnitude, and while there's some spirited camera-work and clever production schemes to compensate, it doesn't quite pull off.

The biggest problem is that the director didn't have what he needed to light it properly. Considering that the budget was likely under $800,000 it could have been anything: not enough lights, not enough money to get additional shooting days, or not enough money to keep the talent on longer than needed, etc. but the limits of the budget really show. The setups are nowhere near as dynamic as they need to be, the lighting is stark and practical, and the set design virtually nonexistent. The setups reminded me of a lot of mid-budget HD porn movies where they shoot the action head-on and in two shots to keep the borders of the set (and the warehouse beyond) out of frame.

The cast is staggeringly impressive; there's some real talent here, and Sizemore, Busey and Jones tend to have the best delivery of some truly underwhelming lines, but even their contributions can't distract from the fact that the film was so rushed that they didn't have time to learn their lines as well as they should. In the commentary, the director admits that Sizemore often had to learn his lines minutes before they shot a scene, so this probably happened more often than not. More than anything, it looks like Hollywood actors doing a favor for a film student and his buddies.

Visually, it looks like a cross between "Repo: The Genetic Opera," "The Batman XXX" parody, and the "Angel of Death" web series with Zoe Bell.

Still, the fact that the director managed to get the film made with the cast he did for the money he had and in LOS ANGELES (at God knows WHAT rates) is nevertheless impressive, and I have to respect him for that. Because the budget was so low, it's hard to tell how much of the film's failure is due to ineptitude or finance, so I'm not going to write off the filmmakers just yet. With more money and a larger crew, he might actually have done this (or the sequel) right.

It falls short of the "Buckaroo Banzai" level it wants to be, but its a digital age cult curio nonetheless. Perhaps not one of the best, but no less worthy of consideration.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Worth Watching

Author: joemvedder from United States
8 August 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

For an independent film like Cross to have sparked the interest of all those stars involved and Sony Pictures, it deserves a round of applause. This action flick is not like the big budget films out now, but carries its own unique, good-wins-over-evil story. I liked it from the first comic book opening not even knowing what to expect.

It takes us back to the time of superhero films when I was growing up in the late 70s and early 80s with the stylistic cinematography fusing together some of the best elements the big guys like Superman and The Dark Knight utilized in their films. Such as the hero, Callan, played by Brian Austin Green. Green does an excellent job as the mild mannered, serious yet powerful and lethal new super hero. Green proved that you don't need a flashy costume and expensive special effects to show his super powers.

The story clearly told us what the film was about and ended with both a conclusion to part 1 and an opening to the possibility of a sequel. Will there be one? I don't know. But with the roles those reputable actors signed on for, I knew from the very beginning that I was in for an enjoyable film. The serious moments Cross would have were quickly replaced by a sitcom timed shot of someone's clever banter or another character doing some other quirk. I found it rather amusing and enjoyable throughout the entire film. Thumbs up!

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

Not Your Typical Action Movie

10/10
Author: zlebmicron from United States
4 August 2011

I'm not a real fan of action adventure movies. However, I'll make an exception for this one. It rather stirred my soul a bit. Especially since it didn't come across as being strictly serious. I found this surprisingly but pleasantly exceptional. It nearly reminded me of one of my favorite all time films. I'm talking of course of, "Escape from LA". Since you're probably wondering why I'm singling out that film, allow me to digress. One: Kurt Russell and Peter Fonda surfing a tsunami. Two: when Kurt Russell was beset in a medical ward by The Surgeon General of Beverly Hills. The anticipation of extracting blood from innocent females in Cross and Robert Carradine's crazy Doctor persona was similar in attitude and presentation.

So after having avoided like the plague any kind of film who's previews include the same... You know: explosions, the tough guy goes after the bad guy, tough guy and nice girl fall in love, more explosions, tough guy kills bad guy, etc…..I can now find a movie like Cross that for the first time in 15 years, I can thoroughly enjoy.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 7:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Ratings External reviews Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history