|Page 1 of 3:||  |
|Index||151 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This was possibly the worst movie I've watched in 2012. It made me want
to walk out of the cinema before half the show was over, and that's
saying a LOT as I've sat through movies like 'The hotty and the notti'
and 'epic movie'. I pretty much went into the cinema with zero
expectations, having seen the awful ratings it received and at the same
time being a fan of the Alex Cross series. Still, i was left squirming
in my seat and muttering what the f-? half the time. The script was
terrible, even a children's picture book would be more fascinating and
less predictable. A complete waste of decent actors with totally
one-dimensional roles such as Tyler Perry himself and supporting actors
like Jean Reno, who did such an amazing job as Leon the Professional,
and eventually ended up being remembered only as the rich man with the
ridiculous two-digit-karat diamond ring with less than 10 minutes
screen time YET being revealed as the mastermind behind the murders.
In the James Patterson series, Alex Cross isn't just revealed as a brilliant psychoanalyst solely because his fellow colleagues and family members said so. There is solid evidence provided to gradually convince readers into believing and respecting this man who fiercely loves his nana and holds his own as a black man in a chaotic society like Detroit. However, the audience in the movie is expected to believe that this man can make amazing deductions just because he deduced that his wife drank a frappé from a foam stain on her blazer jacket? That is pretty much the only deductive abilities he portrayed, aside from the wildly random 'HE'S ON THE TRAIN' comment which was just implausible. The other characters are just as bad; Alex Cross' partner Edward Burns was always conveniently missing from action scenes in an absurd attempt to allow Perry and Fox to have a showdown between themselves. Getting stuck by an iron wall and injured in a car accident which could have been avoided ENTIRELY (wait, how the hell did it happen again?!), his character might as well have been omitted entirely from the movie. The side plots are even worst, an unnecessary sex scene between Burns and his girlfriend whom he tries to hide from Cross who then finds out 3 minutes later (wow, how clever!), the boxing ring scene to display Fox's violent nature which was so badly filmed anyway, the three loser jesters who got shot on the train.. I could go on but it's not even worth recalling the scenes which did nothing to develop the plot or the characters.
Additionally, the villain is portrayed as someone so much more powerful and skilled than the protagonist that the audience cannot help but think Cross is weak and unable to protect his loved ones. Personally, I felt that Perry's Cross had no redeemable qualities about him, i couldn't care less if he got killed in the end, and that is the major failure in the movie. If a director doesn't even have the ability to create a likable/competent MAIN character in an action movie where a single chasing/fighting scene can set the stage for it, that makes his film a fluke. I would never catch the sequel even if i had to be dragged into the cinema and i truly hope that the upcoming Jack Reacher, which is also based on a famous thriller writer's character, will be less disappointing than this lousy excuse of an action movie.
I just got through seeing Alex Cross. It was a good enough movie to pay the $5.75 matinée price. The movie had decent action scenes, which is totally out of the norm for Tyler Perry, that kept me entertained. The acting in this movie was pretty good and Tyler Perry himself did do a pretty good job with his part especially being that this is his first action roll. But with all that being said I still can see why Morgan Freeman turned the roll down. This movie was kind of predictable. I was telling my wife what was going to happen in the movie and I hadn't seen this movie before hand, done any research on this movie nor have I heard anyone talking about pieces of the movie. Now I've seen some of Tyler Perry's movies and those ones I have seen is what keeps me from watching his other movies, but this one, although he didn't make this one, is better than anything else he played in. Except Why Did I Get Married. So If you're not doing anything on a Sunday afternoon and want to see a little action and a little suspense it's O.K. to go and see this one.
This is perhaps not the worst film i've seen, and may deserve a 3 or maybe even a 4 if I was in a happy way. The things that pulls this down i expectations parred with the title of the film. I do not recognise Alex Crossin this movie, and whats with the sidekick. Come on if you know Alex Cross, you also know his childhood friend and that sure ain't Tommy. The whole setup was like Cross going Dirty Harry. Its like the new Sherlock movies where the great mind, becomes a chaos of violence. I don't know what James Patterson thinks of this movie, but if its positive it must be money talking. Liked Picasso thou, Matthew Fox really found his crazy eyes in this one.
Although I have only given this movie a 5/10 I still don't regret watching it. There are simply a lot of better films out there. It was one I managed to get cheaper tickets for so perhaps that's why I am not as critical as others. I found it entertaining and I was fully engrossed in the story. I felt some of the acting was a bit ropey but then again I thought Matthew Fox was superb. He really did portray a rather scary character, very different from that of Jack in Lost. There was some rather cheesy and altogether cheap parts to the movie, but overall it was a good watch. I can understand why some may have given this film a very low rating, but for me I saw a lot of positives.
Alex Cross is a "doctor detective". He is a psychologist who helps the police draw up the profiles of serial killers. He, along with his motley crew, is on the trail of a psychopath who "loves inflicting pain on people"(is there any other variety of psychos). However, the battle is about to turn very personal. Cross is a fictional detective who is the hero of eponymous series written by James Patterson. The books are generally very fast reads with little or no substance. However, these books are thrillers whereas the movie attempts to be an action movie. It combines elements from different books to make this a personal fight for Alex. Needless to say, it fails. The acting is as bad as I have seen this millennium. Tyler Perry steps in the big shoes of Morgan Freeman, who played Cross in the previous two installments of the series, Kiss the girls and Along Came a Spider and does a terrible job. He cannot emote and is clumsy in the action scenes. When he should be all fire and brimstone, he is pretty lame . Edward Burns used to star in top notch movies like Saving Private Ryan a decade back. He is less than a shadow of his old self. He sucks big time as this "beautiful cop". Jean Reno must be in a cash crunch or the director of this stinking pile must be having his objectionable video with him. I can think of no other reason for him starring in this. The script is terrible. The background music and the characters are also so clichéd that they don't stay with you for even 2 minutes after the movie has ended. The only saving grace is Matthew Fox who plays the villain. He is menacing and terrifying and looks to be the only one who doesn't sleepwalk through his role. Recommended for people who love torturing themselves.
If you think you might like this movie from the trailer...go see it and ignore the bad reviews...its a good movie. If this is the worse movie you seen - you haven't seen very much. As for being predictable - easy to say that- and there aren't many movies out there thats not a bit predictable. The acting was OK, yes it really was - some of the lines they had to deliver weren't the best, but that isn't the actors fault. The thing that keep this from being really good was the directing, camera work, and editing. It really reduced the quality of the movie. Often you will see a shaking camera during a action scene - we all seen that before - but this movie takes it too a whole new level of shaking camera...who ever decided to do this and edit it so badly -needs to take the blame here on this movie for it not being what it could have. But overall for me - last night after the football game, it was an enjoyable evening at the movies.
I think this movie is getting a bad rap. I found the movie entertaining and I think Tyler Perry did a great job. Is it the best movie in the world? no. But I think that people are being extremely critical. I think it is being rated unfairly and it deserves a chance. I liked the story. Quite honesty, most movies are predictable. It is rare to find a movie that is creative, good acting, amazing story line etc. If the way this movie is being rated was the same judgment scale of some of these other box office films, the 4.8 would be much higher. I think people are judging Tyler Perry by his other film and plays versus by the movie that is actually being reviewed. I thought he did a great job in the movie and I believe it is worth seeing. I enjoyed it and I think a lot of viewers did too. Unfortunately, everyone acts like they are a movie critic and only wants the same people doing movies. It is unfortunate that there are only a handful of African American actors used as the main character of a film in Hollywood with a role other than a Maid, Thief or some down trodden person. To see just a regular role with a person of color was nice and enjoyable. And all things being equal, he did a fine job! This movie was very good and the ratings have been played down and are unfair. Is it an instant classic? no, but it is a solid film that is worth seeing. Give it a chance... Many other films that IMDb viewers have rated at 7+ have been way more predictable than this one, less of a plot and the same people doing the same thing as they did in part 1, 2, 3 on so on. Give this film a fair shot! At least this was an original script...
If this was straight to TV movie or even straight to DVD movie it might
have been a alright watch. But for a movie that went straight to
theaters, this one is not worth it. Tyler Perry is decent as Alex
Cross, but he plays the more softhearted and intelligent Alex Cross
that is good with psychoanalysis. And I thought I couldn't take him
seriously at all after his Madea movies. Matthew Fox on the other hand
is great as this psychotic sadistic killer. Who has a lot of insecurity
issues. He sort of reminded me of the villain Zsasz from the Batman
series. In fact if there is a Zsasz in the next Batman reboot Mathew
Fox should play that character. Unfortunately this character just
wasn't developed enough at all. There just wasn't enough substance to
the story nor enough good action sequences or thrilling sequences to
merit this a watch. It's a rental at best but there are plenty of other
better thrillers to rent and watch. Oh and Edward Burns is pretty awful
in this and took most of the believability out of this flick.
Hollywood has got to stop making such sickeningly violent movies which
have violence for the sake of violence and not for entertainment. If
this movie has any use it can be the movie that stopped Hollywood from
making such crap since it was a box office flop.
The premise would have been mildly tolerable if they didn't make the crazy killer so violent for no reason. Matthew Fox turned into an unrecognizably gaunt monster "Picasso" for the sake of this nonsense. Tyler Perry better stick to his roles in which he is wearing a wig. Edward Burns is above this.
Don't watch it. It's just disgusting and a waste of time.
The action scenes are absolutely horrible. The cameraman must have had
Parkinson's Disease. The shaking makes the movie unwatchable. The story
line is old, and has been done repeatedly. But wait, this time its with
a black man, that makes all the difference.
Save yourself some time and money, if you want to see it grab a pirated version but don't pay for this garbage.
Or skip entirely.
Seems awkward that a professional and mature law enforcement officer acts out in the way depicted here all the while on the backdrop of gangsta rap. If there was a way to get my ~1:41:26 back I would. I have never reviewed (publically) a movie as I haven't had the need to, but this was so bad I had to review
With a tag-line like "You better not cross Alex Cross" I'm wondering
why I bothered to go see this at the cinema at all. I think I was
curious to see Matthew Fox of "Lost" try his hardest too shake off the
"nice guy" image he has, by playing a toughened up psychotic killer.
Ever since I saw the trailer and got closer and closer too seeing it, "Alex Cross" has gradually gotten worse. And after seeing the whole thing, I can only describe it as bad. I first started getting weary when I found out that the film is a reboot. Apparently Morgan Freeman has played this character before. Yet they felt the need too restart the franchise, ignoring movies "Kiss the girls" and "Along came a Spider," even though most probably didn't realise it was a franchise too begin with. Then one of my mates, the one who wanted to go see it the most, pulled out, leaving me and another friend off mine (who had barely any interest in seeing it at all) sitting there ready to judge it! And it wasn't hard to start finding faults.
The Plot is so straight forward I can't believe its based on a book. Unless its just been poorly adapted, as it does come across as a bit off a rush job. The script is awful. The entire cinema was laughing un-intentionally, and a lot! and the lead actor who plays Alex Cross (The One you've not too Cross remember) was awful. The whole thing played out like an episode of a bad TV show, and one that's supposed to be rebooting/improving on what's been done before. Seriously?
I actually feel kind off sorry for Fox. Hopefully he gets a better part from this, as he's the best thing in the movie, and has clearly put a lot off effort into what he does here. Its just a shame that no-one else tried at all.
I flicked from channel to channel to find something to watch and found
this, Alex Cross, sitting there with it's promising basic plot hook and
started watching it. Heck, I even made a point of leaving the channel
on while some drivel finished off before it.
When it first started it was disjointed, and it took a while to get remotely invested in following the plot line, but as it progressed it became nearly impossible to be invested in anything relevant to the movie whatsoever.
The performances of pretty much every single actor in this movie is poor or worse. They deliver the lines without any flare, any emotion, with extremely rare exceptions, but to be perfectly honest, it's understandable. You see, the lines they were given to deliver are mostly utter rubbish. NO ONE TALKS LIKE THAT! No one even acts like that. The few scenes not marked by dramatic underacting by the main cast are made hilariously bad by the overacting of the supporting cast.
The whole movie feels like the writing was done by someone who's completely socially inept but fascinated by crime dramas and has spent a little too much time watching movies like Seven.
This movie is so bad it doesn't even serve as a good "background noise" while you mill about on your computer. It's so bad you just can not ignore it. It's so bad it hurts to watch it.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
By the time this film was available on DVD in early 2013, two more
books - Merry Christmas, Alex Cross & Alex Cross, Run - will have been
released, The films have not been nearly as steady, only getting its
third cinematic treatment and the first since 2001's Along Came a
Spider. Patterson's busily stalked protagonist did fairly well at the
box office if not inspiring critics into believing he was worth
following for another eighteen adventures. Fans of Patterson's airport
fiction might disagree despite whatever objections they had between the
films and the varying text. New fans are being sought out for the
franchise reboot though and they should be mostly pleased. Considering
they are used to ham-handed acting, amateurish fimmaking, cartoonish
villains, hypocritical motivations and a touch of old broad sass, they
should be right at home watching Tyler Perry take the lead.
As the new era begins, Alex Cross is once again chasing down another psychopath and saving a battered white girl. Along with his select team, childhood friend Tommy Kane and Monica Ashe - Who are secretly hooking up behind the boss' back - they investigate crimes of some unspecified nature in the greater Detroit area. Their special unit is hardly defined by anything other than Alec being such a master of deduction that he can tell his wife had coffee based on the blouse stain big enough to be spotted by a Fisher Price telescope from Pluto. Other than dealing with the occasional crime scene, life is good for "Detective Doctor" Alex Cross who is on the short list for an FBI job in Washington and he has just been told there's another little Cross on the way.
Also on the way is another psycho. This one, played by Matthew Fox, is a professional assassin who calls himself "The Butcher" but is referred to as "Picasso" by Tommy based on him leaving a drawing at at recent upscale massacre. There is a mystery benefactor behind The Butcher's recent spree which includes getting into underground MMA fights, paralyzing women with a special drug, and concocting elaborate break-ins to take out a French financial specialist. When Cross and Co. disrupt the latter, The Butcher takes to being bullet-grazed worse that being punched in the face.
There is a momentary fascination with the film in figuring out precisely what Fox's psychotic villain is really up to. How does buying one's way into a brutal fight connect to a stolen laptop, what's on it and how it leads to international finance? Just who is Jean Reno's one-scene millionaire is not only superfluous suspect available to be funding The Butcher? Do professional mercenaries go off-script so often to take on personal vendettas after getting a little boo-boo from their adversary For ever answer revealed in Alex Cross - and few are really offered - it opens up ten different logical conundrums over just how brilliant the particular cat and mouse really are. Loosely based on Patterson's prequel novel Cross, the screenplay by first-timer Kerry Williamson and Marc Moss - whose only previous credit is the adaptation of Patterson's Along Came a Spider - actually gets less complicated and more boring as things get pieced together. What begins as a ludicrous police procedural becomes an even more ludicrous revenge thriller that asks viewers to believe this morally-principled Sherlock-wannabe is not just ready to turn into The Punisher but also possesses the superskills necessary for an over-weight, out-of-shape, dopey, doughy detective to take on a cage fighter who overreacts to taking a single punch. There has not been a less convincing avenging angel that Tyler Perry's Alex Cross since Thomas Jane portrayed the comic world's Frank Castle by interrogating a suspect with a melting popsicle.
The stakes in Alex Cross are raised even further with the kind of vengeful horror that most professional assassins would admit is against the code. Both of the Taken films pushed the boundaries of the ratings system but did so under a kind of unwritten guide that throat-punching is less graphic than the more macho-violent fare that Sylvester Stallone has done in his Rambo and Expendable films. Alex Cross will never be confused with those, but its violence is shocking for an MPAA-rated "PG-13" mystery thriller. The connection between sexual fetish and murder is pushed during a torture scene. No less that two other crimes are committed towards women with one worthy of a funeral and the other nothing more than a cell phone snapshot. Patterson's specialty of bruising-up the fairer sex received an "R" rating when Kiss the Girls came out. Fifteen years later, viewers are apparently so numb that it can be extrapolated even while being dumbed down for those used to Perry's cartoonish portrayals of man-on-woman crimes.
All such shocking moments of Alex Cross could be all part of some calculated plan for Perry to prove that he is going hard in trying to prove what a serious, demonstrative actor he can be. Most would recommend a stint in acting classes for starters which co-star Matthew Fox is more than happy to teach. First lesson: Act with the eyes. Bug them out as far as possible to prove the depth of the character's villainy. The originally cast Idris Elba as Cross would have had to take the class on keeping a straight face in the middle of this nonsense. Lesson two goes to director Rob Cohen. With no competency as an action director and stars was wooden as Perry and Burns, shake the camera as much as humanly possible to justify urgency. James Cameron could not make a call to OnStar more dramatically riveting. Mainly because he would never create and action sequence around a call to OnStar. Alex Cross is equally silly, boring, offensive and implausible which are also its best qualities if the viewer is in a mocking kind of mood.
If you can think of ANYTHING else to do for 1 hour 40 minutes, do it. Poorly scripted, odd casting, poorly executed, worst stunts since the 70's. The movie simply fails to ever become interesting. Matthew Fox's performance as Picasso was over the top, unbelievable and was the worst performance I have seen from him. Tyler Perry was equally hard to buy as Alex Cross though he was better than Fox. The storyline included way too much unnecessary distraction that could only have been left in as filler. I also found the over the top stereotyping of Germans to be insulting, but it is this hypocritical double standard that connects this movie with Perry's other works and it is not OK. Perry has a core audience and a formula for success that is based around generating as much revenue as possible from that audience, utilizing works not based on production value, dramatic story lines or artistic expression. If this is an example of the best he can produce outside the lucrative niche he has created, he should stick to what he is famous for.
I'm sure Morgan Freeman wishes he was thirty years younger if he
watches this effort with his characters' name attributed to it. This is
nothing like 'Kiss the girls' or 'Along came a spider'. The performers
can only actor with the script they're given but surely there must be
somebody better than Tyler Perry? Idris Elba would have been perfect
for this role.
This movie feels more like a spoof than an action thriller. Poorly acted by both lead players and the plot is so predictable that it's painful. The cast do their best with the material, 'Lost' star Matthew Fox appears to have invested a lot into the film, almost unrecognisable as the heavily tattooed, muscular psycho. His physical transformation can't disguise overacting, but at least it's a menacing performance.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The only thing this movie has in common with the book Cross is the name of the character. From the location to the type of vehicle he drives is wrong. It might of been an enjoyable movie by itself with different characters. The whole motivation of the Alex Cross character is the fact that he doesn't know who his wife's killer is and why she was killed for many years. His partner is a giant of a black dude who is named Sugar. Cross doesn't have a profiling unit of his own within the police dept and Nana Mamma is his grandmother not his mother. The writers of this movie must of never of read a Alex Cross book before or at any time while writing this movie. I didn't mind the actor who is mostly known for dressing up as an old black woman playing Cross. He did a OK job. I'm surprised they didn't have him play Nana Mamma also. In the end this movie sucked!!!!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I'm a big fan of the 'Alex Cross' series of books. I feel they've
weakened a little in recent years, but was still glad to hear they were
rebooting the movie series. The most exciting part of the books for me
was always the villains, The Wolf, The Mastermind, Casanova etc. and
how Cross would be effected by them and ultimately track them down and
confront them. This was key to the quality of each individual book to
me and I felt the first two movies 'Kiss the Girls' and 'Along Came a
Spider' were a real let down in this regard.
So I was glad to my find myself captivated by Matthew Fox's portrayal of Picasso. His opening scene demands your attention and his screen presence never lets up from that point on. The other thing I was always going to be interested in was how Tyler Perry went at portraying Cross. For me Morgan Freeman has always just been Cross. When I'm reading one of the books I can't help but picture him. He brought a calm serenity to the role that helped define Cross for me and I felt Perry had this as well, at least for the first half of the film.
The film really shows us two sides of Cross. At around the halfway stage, Cross's pregnant wife is shot dead by Picasso himself. This enrages Cross and sends him rogue along with his partner Thomas Kane who also has had his lover murdered by Picasso. From this point on we see a darker Cross, willing to use any means necessary to enact revenge upon his wife's killer. Perry's performance gets even better from this stage on. He nails the intensity needed to bring the audience in on the pain and drive he's feeling to achieve his ultimate goal.
The problems lie in the writing for the most part. The opening and closing action sequences just don't have any imagination. The car crash that sets up the closing one is also bizarre. Are we just supposed to believe this was a complete coincidence? Or has Cross displayed superhuman timing to achieve this, risking his friends life in the process? Incredibly lazy writing shown at that point.
It's far from perfect. The actress cast as Nana Mama was done so poorly. She had none of the charm that the character in the books has. She just came across as mean. The twist right at the end is one of the most foreseeable I can ever remember. One scene, from a big name actor, that added absolutely nothing to the story at the time = has to be a twist that he was in on it. More lazy writing.
But for all its faults its a very watchable movie. Perry and Fox are excellent and the story is entertaining, if flawed. I certainly have no objections to more additions being added to the series.
Perry's foray into a more serious genre is a bit of a misfire to say
the least. I've said it before. I quite like Tyler Perry. He's fearless
and ambitious, but when I found out he was taking over for Morgan
Freeman, that really made my head spin. It's certainly not a horrible
performance. He tries his best, and he does nail one really emotional
scene, but he was rather awkward to watch. You can also tell he had
some serious influence into the making of this film. His character is
religious. There are some decent chase scenes which provide excitement,
and I was never truly bored. It was just there and nothing really
special ever came out of it. Guys like Edward Burns & Jean Reno lend
solid support for Perry. Matthew Fox is the best thing about this
movie. He gives a very good performance as Picasso; very creepy stuff
from him. I admire Perry's foray into another genre, but I don't think
he is gonna usher in a new era for the Cross series like he was hoping
Final Thoughts: It's worth a look if you see it on cable, but I wouldn't pay money to see it. It's pretty mediocre stuff when all is said and done. You could do a lot worse, but you could also do much better. Watch Kiss The Girls if you wanna see a decent Cross film.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
***Spoiler Alert***First, this should have been rated R. There was torture of women with drugs and extremely violent. Aside from that, the flow of the movie was ridiculous. Right after Cross's wife is murdered, he doesn't go straight after the killer, he pauses to have a public funeral first with all of his family and he himself a target. It ruins the flow of the movie and is so insane you can no longer suspend belief to enjoy the film. The scene between Perry and Tyson could have been extraordinary, but it is ruined with poor writing. And then the last scene between Cross despite them both losing the loves of their lives, they try to make the scene a distastefully upbeat. The movie could have been a good thriller, but those involved puked all over it.
ALEX CROSS has all the ingredients we expect in a film of its sort: an
engaging plot-line, a criminal we love to hate and want to see "get
his," harrowing chase scenes, a couple of real surprises, etc. It also
has several of the corninesses and unlikelihoods that are usually found
in a film of this genre, but oh well.
Tyler Perry plays the role of the lead character, a combination psychologist-profiler-homicide detective, very naturally, and the character he plays is better developed than those in many thrillers. Matthew Fox is similarly good in the role of the psychopathic bad guy. Most of the supporting cast play their roles quite believably: There are some truly interesting characters in this film, e.g., Cicely Tyson as "Nana Mama."
Notably, ALEX CROSS succeeds in being rivetingly disturbing without a lot of gore, ultra-violence, or any serious sex/nudity to spice the cake (hence, the PG-13 rating).
I just finished watching the Alex Cross movie, which I was looking forward to but missed seeing in the theater. I am glad I ended up renting the movie for $1.50 from the library. The movie was predictable, badly written, and direction was choppy. Everything and everyone was a cliché -- bad guys are foreign (German, French), Asians are sluts, and White Anglos are not very bright. Although Tyler Perry fits the physical description of the Cross character, the writing and direction was a detriment to his acting. This story bears little resemblance to Patterson's Alex Cross books and am surprised that he allowed this mess to make it to the big screen. I made the mistake of listening to the Director's commentary which was even more boring than the movie. I will not watch another Rob Cohen directed movie again. Don't bother to watch this.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
It's not very often I lose interest in a movie that I've looked forward to viewing for a while, being a fan of the "Freeman originals", but I have to say Alex Cross fails miserably in most of the basic departments that make a film good to watch. Tyler Perry has NO screen presence at all...no passion, boring, painful to watch (embarrassing at times)has no depth in his character and is totally unbelievable in the lead role. I have to admit I haven't watched him in much but on this evidence alone i certainly haven't missed out and won't be rushing out to watch him in anything soon! The plot is dire...rushed but very slow in getting there (if that makes sense???) and very thin to be polite and the apparent twist at the end is dreadful and makes a mockery of everything that went before it!. The acting is terrible, with the exception of Matthew Fox (the butcher of sligo title he bestows upon himself is never explained!) who was totally underused and under developed and in the end brushed aside when he should have been the focus of the film until the end! It was boring enough the first 45 mins or so but when Fox killed Cross' pregnant wife and tortured one of his female colleagues I thought here we go...now the movie might finally get going as we have a decent psycho villain on our hands...but unfortunately no...it got worse! I really hope if they revamp the character again they find a new leading man as it looks as if it's set itself up for a few more sequels...of which I definitely won't be seeing if Perry is in the lead role. Disappointed is an understatement!!!!!!!!!!!!
To begin I have watched tons of movies in the past years out of which
many were really bad. However, this is the first time I am reviewing a
movie and if you watched it you surely understand why. I got this movie
from a friend and I went out to read the reviews before watching it, as
I usually do. Although I had the feeling it's going to be a bad picture
and I postponed watching it as long as possible, I gave it a try on a
boring Thursday evening. My opinion: DREADFUL. The screenplay is the
worst I've ever seen. There is absolutely nothing exciting,
entertaining or even interesting. To me, it looks as if it was written
by a toddler. Friendly advice : do not watch it under any
After seeing this, I went to borrow Kiss the Girls, basically the older version of Alex Cross. There is no possible comparison between these two movies, and I honestly think that Morgan Freeman deserved better. Tyler Perry should stick to Madea as it suits him much better.
1 out of 10 !
I have enjoyed all of the Alex Cross books I have read by James Patterson. The first Alex Cross movies carried big name actors and a thinking criminal psychologist and profiler who uses his mind and knowledge of criminals to solve cases. Yes, he is active, but not nearly as active as Tyler Perry was in this movie.In fact, Tyler did not do Cross justice. That was not a pun! He didn't get inside the mind of the criminal at all and was so much more active than his predecessor in Morgan Freeman. I understand the choice not to use Morgan. However, Cross is supposed to look somewhat like a lean Muhammad Ali. Tyler was far from that and not even close. This was a sad attempt to make a movie without a real story line and poor casting. Like others said, where were the characters such as John Sampson? Tyler might have made a good John Sampson, but he was not Alex Cross.A better choice would have been Will Smith as Cross. This movie ruined the franchise in my book. It was horrible!
The third outing for James Patterson's fictional detective Alex Cross,
following on from two adaptations of his work in the 1990s: KISS THE
GIRLS and ALONG CAME A SPIDER. This one's a mess of a film, which is
largely down to a poor choice of director and two poor choices for the
The narrative involves Alex Cross and his chums who are on the trail of a psychotic assassin who enjoys inflicting pain upon his victims. As the story progresses it becomes clear that this bad guy will stop at nothing to complete his job, which leads to a handful of mildly memorable moments including a great twist thrown in that you won't expect or indeed see coming.
A shame, then, that the execution is so muddled, with Rob Cohen once again proving a poor choice as director. You just can't take the story seriously, somehow. Tyler Perry replaces Morgan Freeman as the crusading detective, replete with Holmesian-style deductive reasoning, and I can't think of a poorer replacement. Freeman is one of those guys who constantly gives solid performances no matter the film whereas Perry's character might as well be a walking corpse. There's no emotion from him, just cold stiffness.
Equally stiff is a lamentable Matthew Fox as the supposed villain. Although Fox certainly looks imposing, when it comes to his acting it's rather dire. I've never liked this guy, and his attempts at wide-eyed menace fall flat every time. Lower down the cast list we get a bloated Jean Reno and the walking plank of wood that is Ed Burns. Even the requisite fight scenes and action bits can't lift this lifeless thriller out of the doldrums.
(31%) A hugely by the numbers action thriller that I can only imagine the sheer number of people who walked out of a cinema after the final scene (or more likely after the first twenty or so minutes) and never giving it a so much as a seconds worth of thought ever again. Big name star (in America at least) Tyler Perry is decent here as he's clearly trying his best with the lame material he has been given, while bad guy Matthew Fox is much better that the one-note character he's been lumbered with. The biggest problem by a mile though is the fact that this isn't interesting enough to make it as a proper thriller, while the action is on the whole is too badly shot utilising the annoying shaky-cam technique to full fullest which just ruins all possible enjoyment. This isn't a terrible watch, but there's so little reason to actually do so.
I just came across this on TV, partway through, and found it compelling
enough to stop channel surfing and watch it to the end.
I think a lot of people who have reviewed this have jumped on the bandwagon and given it scathing reviews simply because some other people have and, being followers rather than voicing their own genuine opinion, they feel the need to 'tag along' and go along with the negativity.
A lot of people have said it's predictable but, as others have said, in some ways the vast majority of Hollywood movies are (and in my experience, usually the most unpredictable movies tend to come from European countries such as France, Italy and - my home country - England).
Alex Cross is NOT a bad movie and is an awful lot better than much of the usual Hollywood fodder. I thought the actors were all good and worked well together and Matthew Fox was actually more believable, and impressive, in his role than in anything else I've seen him in. I would never have thought he was capable of playing such a ruthless machine of a psychopath but he pulled it off really well and was totally believable.
So, I can definitely recommend this movie and I'd recommend anyone else to give it a go, keep an open mind and ignore most of the negativity about it on here! It's really not bad at all!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
So Bad it's good rating: 3,5/5 "Alex Cross" is a by-the-book detective
thriller that's kind of enjoyable to watch, but isn't particularly
good. Dr. Alex Cross (Tyler Perry) is a psychologist and police
lieutenant who's one top of the world. His long time best friend Tommy
Kane (Edward Burns) is his partner on the police squad, he's got a
beautiful, loving wife, two daughters, another baby on the way and his
sassy mother (or is it grandmother?) lives with him in a huge house.
He's so good at his job he can tell you what your favorite colour is
based on the type of ice cream you ordered. That's when our villain for
the movie comes in. Matthew Fox plays a devious serial murderer
nicknamed "The Picasso Killer". He uses a drug that paralyzes people's
bodies (but not their eyes or their mouths) yet enables them to feel
pain. He tortures them to get information, then kills them for fun and,
feeling inspired, creates a charcoal drawing afterward for the police
to keep. Apparently, this guy's been hired, or has some kind of super
elaborate agenda because he is going after high-ranking employees of
CEO Giles Mercier's company (Mercier is played by Jean Reno). When
Cross gets in the way, Picasso decides to take the fight to a whole
new, personal level...
I'm not going to say that this movie's great. I wouldn't even say it's good, but it is entertaining. The entertainment value is mostly due to the game of cat-and-mouse between Alex Cross and Picasso. I give credit to the movie for actually making two characters that feel like they are evenly matched. Alex Cross might be a super detective, but Picasso, he's a super assassin with Batman-level gadgets and insane skills. You will not believe to what lengths this guy goes to get his prey and you will wonder how many people will bite the dust before Cross manages to take him down. I also enjoyed Matthew Fox's totally outlandish performance as the killer. It's a nice balance to Tyler Perry's totally wooden and bland performance. Kind of like a steak that's totally burnt on the outside and raw on the inside, but tasty around the edges where the two extremes meet. The film is that right mix of flat-out ridiculous, predictable and bad elements combined with enough actually intriguing developments to make the whole thing watchable. Well, as long as it's with a bunch of friends who will make it that much more fun by laughing at it.
When it comes to the bad elements, there's no shortage in "Alex Cross". Here are some more memorable examples. Characters that appear to be crucial to the plot are suddenly dropped from the story entirely. What, I ask you, happened to Rachel Nichols' character? I don't mean the obvious. I mean: can someone tell me why there's a big moment with her, and then we never see her again? Characters are either ridiculously skilled, or so dumb they would struggle to survive on a daily basis. When it becomes obvious that the Picasso killer is inside a building, looking to kill his next target Tommy hears an explosion and runs out of the room, leaving the intended target alone for the killer to pick off. What a dummy! This is also a movie where characters just know things because as long as they're off-screen they don't actually exist within the movie. While on the side, they're sitting in a comfortably while reading the script and taking notes. Take the Picasso killer. He's just encountered the police for the first time, unexpectedly. Somehow though, he just happens to have a newspaper clipping showing Alex Cross, his partner and the other officer that confronted him tacked on his wall. How did he figure out who was going to come after him? Afterwards, how does he figure out where these people live? The only explanation can be that he read the script and it told him where to go.
Another great example: Cross is talking to a high-ranking criminal in a car so that they can be "alone". He's bribing the criminal in order to get some much needed information to catch Picasso. The bribe in question is a piece of evidence that would otherwise incriminate the guy if the case was ever revived. The bad guy comments that on top of the pistol that Alex is offering him, there was another one in the evidence locker. At that very moment, Tommy shines the laser scope on the mobster's forehead, shutting him up and making him agree to cooperate. Understand that Tommy is at least 10 meters away and there was no way he could have heard the conversation. How did he know the exact moment to shine the light on the guy's forehead? For that matter, why didn't the body guards catch the guy pulling out the gun and pointing it towards their boss? "Alex Cross" is a film that's badly put together and not particularly inventive either. The editing is simply awful when it comes to the action sequences, the characters' actions often don't make any sense and the story is utter madness more than once. Let's not forget the performances from the leads, which are so outlandish I recommend you watch the film just to see them. Tyler Perry is 100% uncharismatic and about as emotive as the Easter Island statues. Matthew Fox, he's playing an all-out lunatic, so over-the-top he's straight from a cartoon. The film is never really painful to watch, but the director really let these actors down. It boils down to a complete mess that's so bad, it becomes good again. (On DVD, August 1, 2014)
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
***Contains Spoilers****** I have been a fan of the Alex Cross series since the very beginning. I was shocked when we found out the ending in Big Bad Wolf and waited and waited for these movies to start rolling in. First, Tyler Perry, come on! Where was James Patterson when castings were auditioned for? Alex Cross was clearly more of a,the late, Michael Clark Duncan, Denzel role. But anyone, anyone other than Tyler Perry. Frankly, the entire movie was cast inappropriately. And the spots where it's clear, the screen writing was trying to cram Cross' entire back-story into 1 movie, was sloppy at best. Not true to the integrity of Patterson's fast-paced, page turning fervor we are accustomed to. The only hope is that they aren't making any more.
I continued watching this movie with increasing disgust just to see how bad it would get. It did not disappoint me. This is yet another graphic (and bloody and violent and pornographic) example of the decay of American society. If they had made movies in the last days of the Roman Empire, they would have been like this. The film starts with a violent gun battle, moves to no holds barred bare knuckle boxing and soon is showing sexual scenes that leave nothing to the imagination. On top of all this, it is set (although only partially shot)in Detroit, that urban symbol of everything that is wrong with American society. Hollywood pours out violent, negative films like this, full of gun violence then people recoil in horror when an 11 year old boy brandishing a BB gun and believing that life really is as portrayed in the movies is shot and killed by police.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
. . . back in Detroit, when he was Madea. It's as if director Rob Cohen was bankrolled to make history's most ridiculous cop film ever. His cynical treatment suggests that the FBI recruited ALEX CROSS (portrayed by Mr. Freeman in two earlier films set AFTER this "prequel") because Cross was more of a rogue operator\"loose cannon" than Col. Oliver North. Cross is willing to bludgeon fellow (but HONEST) cops, return murder weapons to the known killers, manufacture illegal weapons, plant "evidence" to frame suspects on capital charges, and summarily execute unarmed citizens. The one thing that Cross is NOT good at is figuring out criminals and solving or preventing crimes, as he enables the crooks to rub out one of his partners, plus his wife, as well as most of the non-Black population of the Motor City. To make matters worse, LOST's heroic Dr. Jack is reduced here to cutting off hot chicks' fingers for the fun of it (when he's not destroying guys twice his size in cage fights). Yet when Matthew Fox ("Dr. Jack") faces Tyler Perry ("Madea") Mano A Mano, Madea makes mincemeat of a guy who up till then has been twice as tough and ten times as smart as anyone else on screen here. It's as if somebody spiked Popeye's spinach with stupid pills. The only thing about ALEX CROSS that rings true is that everyone DOES flee Detroit sooner rather than later!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Tyler Perry and, to a similar degree, Matthew Fox do the best they can with a mediocre film which suffers from poor writing and direction. The drama and suspense is greatly lacking, and the action is poorly shot in the currently vogue shaky-cam style. The worst instance of this is in the climactic scene, which should have been how the movie ended. This brings me to another fault I have with the movie: the second ending, where Jean Reno's character gets his comeuppance. The scene was completely unnecessary and didn't make too much sense, especially with the way it ties things up a little too conveniently. Honestly, his character didn't even need to be in the movie. Doesn't really deserve a rental or VOD, but it's fairly good for one, mindless viewing.
****SPOILERS**** Off the wall police drama involving super-cop and
brainy Alex Cross, Tyler Perry, a Detroit policemen as well as part
time psychoanalyst. Cross gets himself involved with this high priced
just released from a mental institution assassin known as the "Butcher
of Slygo", Matthew Fox, who's out to destroy the cities's, that's on
the verge of bankruptcy, top political financier German industrialist
Giles Mercier, Jean Reno, so it can be taken over, in what were made to
believe , a group of Wall Street vulture capitalists. Cross himself was
looking to exit Detroit and get a job with the FBI as a criminal
profiler that paid 35% more then as a Detroit cop as well provided him
and his family with full dental care which was all the motivation he
needed. But it was his gabby old lady, wife, Maria, Carmen Ejogo, who
wanted no part of it. Which made Cross have second thoughts putting her
in front of him getting ahead in the world of law enforcement.
It was a lucky stroke for Cross when the "Butcher" knocked off Maria at a local restaurant, when he distracted Cross on the phone, that the by know mad as hell cop decided to stay in Detroit, like his old lady wanted him too, and take care of business in giving the "Butcher" everything that he had coming to him. This had Cross and his team of crime fighters Thomas Kane, Edward Burns, and Jody Klebanoff, Bonnie Bentley, get on the "Butcher's" tail who in fact was anything but the freelance psycho killer that Cross thought that he was.
****SPOILERS**** It's later on that we realize whom the "Butcher" was working for that involved a sick financial scam thought up by his greedy employer to save what little in money he still had left after the disastrous stock market crash on 2008! As well as keep him from going to jail for both stock fraud and insider trading that in fact, by backfiring on him, almost wipe him out. This ridicules plan also was soon to soon backfired when Cross and his partners Kane & Kelbanoff planted two kilos of cocaine on him at his hideout in far off Indonesia. That sudden turn of events had him busted by the local police and sentenced to death, by firing squad, by the state court!
- the crime-scene cop, the one who is supposed to convey the horror of
what he just found ... is the doctor of "Scrub". - the romance between
2 criminal investigators, in love since they're 12... - "Our killer
thinks he is a Picasso". says the police team-mate... - "We are all
formers from the German police" say the bodyguards...
At this point in the film, I had HUGE doubts regarding the potential of film. And then I saw skinny Matthew Fox swimming in a decorative water pipe, and I totally lost hope.
I will try to stick to plans, and produce a serious review :
- the plot is stupid. Main character Alex Cross (Tyler Perry) investigates the crimes of a contract killer, who gives out transparent clues on his next target by drawing Picasso-inspired fusains (just because he is crazy). The uninspired writers had several reminiscence of David Fincher's seVen (pregnant wife, self-punishment, etc).
- the cinematography is worse than most TV series.
- the music score by John Debney (several Marvel soundtracks, "Hanna Montana") is transparent. The crying violins are repeatedly boring. The moments of emotional tension are highlighted by digital percussions.
- the actors? ...ah ah. AH AH AH!
I have long been a fan of the John Patterson series of books about the
Alex Cross character and have read almost all of them. I read "Cross"
which is the book this movie was based on. Too bad the writers and
producers did not read it before making the movie.
First of all, the good about the movie. Tyler Perry fits the Alex Cross character description as given by James Patterson in the books more than Morgan Freeman did in the earlier movies (a resemblance to a 40 year old Mohammad Ali and Freeman sure is not that). There is enough plot to keep you interested and some pretty good stunts and special effects to keep you stimulated.
The bad is that it had little to do with the book. Alex Cross was single throughout the book series because his wife had been killed many years earlier. His partner, John Sampson, is absent and replaced with a different character. Cross is already working for The FBI in the book. The story takes place in Washington DC, not Detroit. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. On top of that, the plot was different as was the ending. I believe that if you want to base a movie on a book, it should at least resemble the book.
The next movie is supposed to be "Double Cross" which brings back the Kyle Craig character. There needs to be at least some background on Craig, his FBI ties, his relationship to Cross and to the Mastermind before this movie can become viable. Absent this, it will just be another movie that has no relationship to the book it is based on.
Bottom line is-if you just enjoy action, suspense, mystery, detective movies, you will enjoy this. If you are a fan of the Alex Cross series and somewhat of a purest, you will be disappointed.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Alex Cross is a crime thriller that stars Tyler Perry in the title
role.It tells a story about how Cross meets his match in the
Picasso,portrayed by Matthew Fox. This is the third film that features
the character Alex Cross, the main character in a series of novels by
James Patterson.The movie was was adapted from the novel "Cross,"
written by screenwriters Marc Moss and Kerry Williamson.It was directed
In the film,Cross' main target is a psycho named Picasso, a serial killer who tortures and mutilates his victims. Picasso is a bellicose suit-wearing monster who early on takes off his jacket and tie and reveals the psychopath within. When Cross studies the crime scenes he's left and watches as Picasso continue killing innocents around town.But when the mission gets personal,he is pushed to the edge of his moral and psychological limit.
It is too bad that Tyler Moore does not hold a candle to the performance of Morgan Freeman,who performed Alex Cross in the two previous movies namely,Kiss the Girls and Along Came a Spider.Added to that,the story is dull,predictable and boring.It is far from interesting as it is clichéd and has an unbearable dialogue.Added to that,the action scenes does not contribute to make the film even better.Skip this one.
This film is an embarrassment. It makes B movies look like top notch
thrillers. Everything is wrong with this film, exaggerated and
unnatural, like almost everything I've seen Tyler Perry produce. The
script is predictable and laughable. There is no chemistry between the
actors and the dialog is stilted, awkward and difficult to hear.
Perry's character, Alex Cross, is a psychic genius. He can tell what went on at a scene just by his very presence. He knows one man did everything because... well... he's just so darn smart. He has the same cool demeanor the entire film and he's just not a credible character.
The worst part is that there are no twists that can't be seen a mile away and the film plays out from beginning to end without surprises. A serial killer wants to take out everyone and now it's up to our resident genius to prevent that from happening. Even the mediocre "Along Came a Spider" which featured Morgan Freeman was miles ahead of this farce. This is the kind of film that goes straight to video and gets played late night on free TV channels, if you want to waste your time on this (but certainly not your money.)
I wanted to give this movie a 0 out of 10 but the fact is that I
laughed through most of it. If this movie was written as a comedy I
would have given it an 8.
The script, the direction and the acting started out bad and got worse as the movie went on. If I had paid to see this movie I would have asked for my money back
I feel bad that I have to write 10 lines of text to have a review of a very bad movie published on IMDb, I am sure the producers and directors wanted to have a better finished product than this movie and I hope James Patterson got a lot of money for his part but they will need to change the main actors if there is going to be another Alex Cross movie. An 80 year old Morgan Freeman would make a more believable crime fighter than Tyler Perry does now.
James Patterson's novels have given us some memorable characters and
one of the more memorable is Dr Alex Cross, a homicide
detective/psychologist with the Detroit Police Department. The
always-popular Madea of Tyler Perry's creation steps out of the drag
costume this time around and becomes a very credible Dr. Alex Cross:
the transition is comfortable and encouraging for him as an actor.
Dr. Alex Cross (Tyler Perry) with the help of his aide Thomas Kane (Edward Burns) is on his last police duty to track down an assassin called Picasso (Matthew Fox), who's been torturing and killing rich businessmen in Detroit. When Cross' wife is killed by Picasso the mission becomes exceedingly personal, Cross is pushed to the edge of his moral and psychological limits to end this once and for all and from that point on the movie gains speed and is well resolved. There are some fine cameos by Cicely Tyson, Jean Reno, Chad Lindberg, Carmen Ejogo and Giancarlo Esposito.
The screenplay gets a bit self indulgent and sappy at times but the movie as a hole comes off well. Tyler Perry has more chutzpah than we've seen before.
Why, for All that is Holy, would You make a Movie about a Modern Day
Sherlock Holmes with a Doctorate in Psychology who is an Analytical
Detective by way of Being Police, and then Disregard all of that with a
Brain Dead Script with Little Deduction and even Less Detecting. He is
called Detective Doctor Cross Many Times just for Source Material
But there is Action Movie Money to be Made so all of that Brainiac Stuff is too Cerebral for the Masses so no one will Notice. But they did. This Movie was a Disaster at the Box Office and Took a Critical Whipping on Most Posts.
So there. It should be a Lesson Learned but don't Hold Your Breath Expecting too many Complex Thrillers to come from Hollywood Anytime Soon. Aside from Lack of Intelligence in a Movie about an Intellectual Crime Fighter, the Action Parts of the Film are nothing worth Analysis Except in a Word or Two. Boring...Uneventful.
The Final Fight between our Hero and Villain is so Shaky Camera and the Image Bobs Up and Down so Frequently and So Fast that it Might just get the Award for the Shakiest Camera Scene Ever and that's No Mean Feat Considering the Competition.
Finally, a Tyler Perry movie that is actually funny. Sorry, I couldn't
This is the third Alex Cross movie. It ranks fourth after Along Came a Spider and Kiss the Girls, both starring Morgan Freeman. You can't replace Matt Damon as Jason Bourne, and you can't replace Morgan Freeman as Alex Cross.
Weak acting, a sorry script, lousy directing; I could go on, but you get the idea.
It's a good thing we had The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2 and Battleship last year or this movie would have swept the worst movie awards.
Please don't tell me there is a sequel planned.
Disappointing. Started well, and looked set to be a good game of
intrigue between the two main protagonists. However, just when it
started to ramp up the tension, it all got released in a rush by
becoming a conventional action-thriller and sprinting to the
Some more character development, especially of the killer, was required. Might be one of the few movies I wished was longer.
Tyler Perry seems out of his depth as an action hero. His ideal roles are more intellectual. Matthew Fox is great as the killer though. No real stand-out performances among the supporting cast.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
As someone who has not read any of the novels, and had not known much
about the character or of it's plot, I still found Alex Cross to be
subpar. Alex Cross played itself as a brainless and not too interesting
thriller with several cheesy moments and silly dialogue. From the
beginning, the way Picasso (Matthew Fox) was introduced was hard to
believe. His character came down to an MMA sporting event, simply hands
one of the mangers money then is put up to fight an opponent in a
matter of minutes. Although Picasso was the best part of the film and
Matthew Fox played his character great at points but it wasn't enough
to save the film.
Tyler Perry did a decent job as the serious lead of Alex Cross, but having not read the novels, I am not aware of how the character was supposed to act. I did enjoy some of the action scenes including Picasso. "Alex Cross" plays itself as the typical film where the villain and lead first make their encounter, then the villain continuously stalks the lead wanting something of his, the lead being scared and having to to avoid it, and up to the end the lead takes his revenge and eventually kills the villain. There was some violence towards women in the film specifically where Picasso kills Alex Cross's wife (whom was months due pregnant), which was a cheap shot for a "professional" villain in which it happened. This is where and why Alex Cross goes after Picasso, as it does make sense but it could have been done different as we have seen many revenge seeking films before.
Like many of these type of films, it suffers from an interesting plot, though it does have some okay scenes but it isn't enough to keep those truly entertained to not notice its flaws. I also didn't find much of the chemistry between Tyler Perry and Edward Burns. "Alex Cross" simply felt cheesy and could have been done with another lead and a far better script, with re writes.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I have never seen the Madea films so this is the first time I have seen
Tyler Perry in action. As Alex Cross he is stepping into the shoes of
Morgan Freeman in this reboot. Well Freeman is a hard act to follow
although I am unsure as to who Perry's Cross is by the end of the film.
The main star of the film is actually Matthew Fox as the hired killer Picasso. He buffed himself up and lost a lot of weight as the callous and amoral killer.
The biggest problem with the film is the screenplay. It has more holes than Swiss cheese. It means the performers are actually hampered with nonsensical flaws.
At the beginning Fox in a suit pays someone to get involved in a MMA fight. The spectators laugh at him even though when he takes his shirt off he has ripped muscles and tattoos. Even his opponent a seasoned fighter does not twig this guy is a ringer and gets paralysed. His performance is so impressive that an Oriental woman at the fight takes a shine to him, takes him to her home and gets involved in bondage with dire results.
Yet at the end of the film we have a prospect of Perry (a slightly overweight actor best known for appearing in drag) going one on one with Fox even though we have seen at the beginning of the film what he did to the MMA fighter!
In between this Fox who is a gun for hire seemingly gets personal for no reason other than getting shot by the police who are actually just doing their job and takes a detour by going after Perry and his comrades.
Not to forget that one of Fox's hit depends on split second timing depending on a train being on a certain position whilst at the same time his intended victims just arriving somewhere else. How he has planned all this when he is busy going after Perry and co makes the mind boggle.
Also Jean Reno the guy who played the treacherous agent in the first Mission Impossible turns up for a few minutes as the main chief executive of a corporation whose employees are being targeted by the assassin and who is the ultimate target. I wonder who the actual mastermind will be!
This is not to say that its all daftly entertaining. Its just that this is a different Alex Cross as portrayed by Morgan Freeman. We are told Cross is clever and he has his 'Sherlock Holmes' moment at the beginning but very little as to how he arrives with his conclusions.
Its a mash up of an action film and something cerebral. It passes away the time but I doubt this will be a successful rebooted franchise.
This movie is a great one.
I understand some people may not like it as it's not "Hollywood classic style".
It's still very enjoyable to watch though.
Watch it if you like action films with lot of suspense.
It's a very nice story, with ups and downs, an epic manhunt with a psychopath... Wonderful.
It also contain emotion, since some of the main characters are killed.
But the main interest of this movie is the chase.
Very nice movie.
Tyler Perry is taking over Morgan Freeman as the fictional
doctor/police detective. Morgan had played him in the previous two
installments of the series, Kiss the girls and Along Came a Spider.
Sadly Tyler Perry is an inferior lead.
This time Alex Cross is confronting an assassin played by Matthew Fox who is taking on a rich and powerful business. Matthew is looking completely different here. He is gaunt and unlike any of the warm-hearted nice guys he usually plays.
There is a nice tight thriller here. Tyler Perry doesn't help. But he's not so bad as to break it. He is somewhat stiff and a little clunky. He doesn't have the gravitas of Morgan Freeman. But it's also too easy to demean him.
The greatest problem in this movie is how it's been conceived, with the whole plot seeming extremely unlikely. Nothing about this thriller is thrilling, everything's clichéd and quite tedious. Furthermore much of the dialogue feels forced as blatant exposition is placed throughout normal conversations. Even when the movie (rarely) surprises the audience the script offers very little. When you think the movie has manipulated you into trying to care about these characters, all of a sudden it reveals an unnecessary. "Alex Cross" tries to be a grand thriller but fails on nearly every level. It's the script and the plot making this Cross unbearable.
Let's start off with the director. I don't dislike Rob Cohen. Many people believe that "XXX: State of the union" was a flop because of him. However, I think he was walking into a bad one to start with. Knight Rider was iffy at best. Honestly, the last movie that he was involved in that I would give a couple of thumbs up to would be Running Man. Still a classic. Being handed a gauntlet as big as the Alex Cross books is not an easy thing to hold on to. The books were amazing, but we have seen that they can be converted into great movies simply by watching "Along Came a Spider" and "Kiss the Girls". I feel that he most likely over directed the movie. The characters were too boxed in. The lines, facial expressions and body motions looked choppy and uncomfortable. However, was this his fault? Not necessarily. The actors in the movie were simply incorrect for it. First of all, I cannot classify Tyler Perry as a top of the line actor, but he is not horrible. He has been in some good movies and has had me rolling on the floor a couple of times. Not only was he working out of his comfort zone (very noticeably so), but he was following the work of... wait for it... MORGAN EFFING FREEMAN. Not many can follow that. I think the most over directed person was probably Matthew Fox. The character he played made no sense. His actions and personality did not in any way shape or form link up with the books. The facial expressions and movements looked like they would work in a video game, but definitely not in a movie. We have seen him play a character with this type of background, so it could not be all his fault. I cannot describe what is wrong with Nana Mama in this movie. She showed none of the characteristics from the books that made me fall for the character. She acted almost as psychotic as the assassin. Fudged story line, over directing, character mismatches, failed relationship connections, on and on and on.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I'm not a big Tyler Perry fan, and in portraying Alex Cross he was
stepping into some pretty big shoes, since the character had been twice
played by Morgan Freeman (In Along Came A Spider and Kiss The Girls) -
who I do like. So my expectation weren't exactly at a premium coming
in. As far as Perry was concerned, I'd say he was all right in the
role. He was nothing special; he wasn't Morgan Freeman. But he was all
right. He had his own unique take on the character. Alex Cross in this
movie is rougher, coarser, more violent - but just as cerebral in his
own way. That evolution of the character was undoubtedly to allow this
to take on more of an action feel, and it was fuelled by the plot
device of having Cross's wife killed off by the serial killer he's
trying to find. So for at least half of this movie, Cross is less the
psychologist/detective and more the grieving husband seeking vengeance
against his wife's killer. Honestly, it made the character somewhat
less noble, and it made the movie somewhat over the top at times.
One thing that was definitely needed was a little better explanation of the serial killer and his motives - and of the motives of the guy who hired him. Another thing that would have helped would have been a bit more passion or energy in the performances. No one (including Perry) really stood out in this and took hold of the movie. I also wasn't clear on the need to kill off Monica (Rachel Nichols) - Cross's colleague. She was involved with Cross's other partner Kane (Edward Burns) but killing her off at virtually the same time Cross's wife was killed made her death fade away into the background a bit and we never really thought about it all that much.
However, there were some things that worked well. There were a few "cover your eyes" moments at the beginning, as the torture of the first victim was portrayed. The killing of Cross's wife (although it seemed, as I said, contrived more as a way of evolving the character than an integral and necessary part of the film) certainly brought some emotional reactions forth, and the final confrontation between Cross and the killer was pretty well done.
I wouldn't call this a failure. It's received some pretty bad reviews. I'm going to rate it as a 6/10, but I don't think it was good enough to result in any ongoing Alex Cross movies, if that was the intention of the producers.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The principal character still bears the famous name of James
Patterson's 20 novels series (20 as of early 2013) but unlike the
previous two movies 'Kiss The Girls' and 'Along Came a Spider', based
respectively on the second and first novels (1st movie based on the 2nd
novel and 2nd movie on the 1st novel), the actor Morgan Freeman has
been replaced by Tyler Perry. Perry has not been pretentious about the
switch and had only praise for Freeman; he brings with him some fresh
characteristics to the character, which director Rob Cohen may well
have wanted to use for a more action based storyline, as opposed to the
more suspense and thriller mood the Gary Fleder and Lee Tamahori
directed versions are recognized for. This latest movie instalment is
based on the novel named 'Cross', the 12th in the series.
Needless to say, the reception by critics and audience alike has not been warm, given the success of the previous two and mostly because of the departure from the thriller base, to the more action based plot. That's not to say that all three did not have both action and suspense elements, because they do, but on screen, the latest instalment tips the balance in the other direction. The books don't, then again there's the development of Cross' character in the ten novels between 'Cross' and 'Kiss The Girls'. Perusing the comments from critics and other users, it would seem that Freeman's depiction of a forensic psychologist was so much more believable than that of Perry's. In the series, there is of course consistencies and circumstances that would have benefited an actor whose age and range would have been better suited than who was picked for all three movies so far. What I mean is that the Cross character in the first two movies, as successful as he was, did not depict the physical traits of the written character of the books nor does now the one depicted by Perry. In any event, it's unlikely producers of the movies have the means or luck to find actors that can, over a long period, sustain the novel series character depiction with consistencies; they adapt, always, and results are whatever those will be. We know already that the 13th novel will be put to screen and that Perry will reprise the role, building no doubt on the previous one. It may very well have better success under those set of circumstances. I believe this should prove to be the case.
I don't rate 'Alex Cross 2012' as highly as I had 'Kiss The Girls', but I found more to like in the latest than have the critics and audience. If you can view and consider 'Alex Cross 2012' on its own merit, and that appears to be difficult for many, you may rate it better than it has been. The critics could not find that objectivity, try as they might. Also influences against Perry, are the roles he played as Big Mama; that had to be a very big hurdle to overcome. I was able to disassociate Perry as Big Mama as did not see those films and have no intentions of ever doing so.
I liked Edward Burns's portrayal of Thomas Kane; he's not done any second banana role performances in all the movies I've seen with him in such roles. He added credibility to this movie and so did Jean Reno, a favorite of mine. I was delighted by the excellent performance of Matthew Fox in the role of bad guy extreme, Picasso.
I believe in time and with the upcoming "Double Cross" sequel, the 2012 film may pick up some popularity and the negatives currently in play will slowly dissipate, allowing the new Cross to find his way in the midst of movie hero worth a view.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The DVD deleted scene with Cross figuring out the height & weight of the villain would have gone a long way to giving credibility to the character - rather than thinking he knew every thing just because he read the script. The other deleted scenes also added more to the story. Matthew Fox's transformation from his Lost character to Picasso was amazing. Switching from a good cop to bad cop seemed arbitrary and way over done. The director seemed to just go through the motions without regard for how the story would be viewed. Parts of his DVD commentary regarding current politicians and how he avoided taxes were pathetic and should have been excised by the producers.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Tyler Perry's, Alex Cross, wasn't even that bad considering the other movies he's made. So basically the movie was very average and the only thing holding it together was Matthew Fox's role. Typically, it starts off with the usual cliché 'save the day' scenario where Perry''s character, the Almighty Detective Alex Cross, catches yet another bad guy. After this ever so tiresome day of ridding the city from evil its clear his life is going smoothly; receiving news of his unborn child and a promising job opportunity at the FBI, what could possibly go awry? Cue in Mr. Fox. Matthew Fox is incredibly believable in his role as Picassso, a psychotic killer using unthinkable methods to torture his victims. His presence in the film was riveting which had you rooting for him rather than the police achieving justice. The movie in my opinion is a 5. When Cross' wife is shot by Picasso it is emphasized in the film with the scene of the death and funeral however when one of his fellow police mates are tortured and killed by Picasso its like no one cared. The movie probably mentioned it in two lines and that was it. It was if it was swept underneath the rug. So unrealistic. And the fact that Cross predicted the arrival of Picasso two seconds before he actually arrived in the last scene made me roll my eyes so hard I was borderline having a stroke. If I was deducting points from this movie for all the loose ends and its unrealistic nature, the score would be non existent. So I now present this film with 4 points for Matthew Fox's great achievement in portraying a crazy bug eyed killer and 1 point for Tyler Perry actually hiring Matthew Fox. Kudos Tyler Perry! At least you got something right.
You may think it wouldn't be possible to disgrace an author who cranks
out seven or more novels a year, but ALEX CROSS may just about manage
I have read a number of James Patterson's Cross novels, including CROSS (ostensibly the source material for this film). I would not work hard to defend their literary value, but they are very entertaining, and they certainly have the potential to be the basis for a solid series of movies. In a world where EON productions are gearing up for their 24th James Bond movie, there is no reason there couldn't be a string of decent Alex Cross movies; looks like that isn't going to happen anytime soon though.
The Alex Cross character previously appeared on screen in KISS THE GIRLS and ALONG CAME A SPIDER, where the character was played by Morgan Freeman. Given that Cross is written as a bulky, handsome, imposing man in his early 40s, Freeman was in some ways a curious casting choice. Still he has the gravitas, screen presence and charisma to pull audiences through these sometimes convoluted plots, which is more than can be said for Tyler Perry.
Perry was clearly cast because of his strong box-office track record with a loyal audience; however Perry is almost completely unknown to audiences outside the US, and even domestically his figures have been in decline (this followed suit). To be fair, Perry is just about passable in the role. He's wooden, and conveys neither the intelligence or belligerence needed to successfully bring the character (at least as written for this film) to life, but he's far from the film's biggest problem.
CROSS was a good choice of adaptation for "rebooting" the series on screen, with some nods towards an origin for the character and a strong story of a personal mission for the main character. The novel took place over a time-span of over a decade, the film condenses the events to a year or less, which was a good move. Unlike the Freeman films, ALEX CROSS does showcase Cross' home and family life, which some Patterson devotees may appreciate. On the whole however, the film is a very loose adaptation of the novel, which is fine. At least, it would be. Unfortunately, the script (co-written, oddly enough, by Marc Moss, whose only other screen credit is ALONG CAME A SPIDER), doesn't come up with anything fresh or interesting. Patterson is not the most original writer, but this film stoops to clichés that even he (to my knowledge) wisely avoids; fellow cops with clandestine relationships etc. The movie descends into generic revenge pabulum with debilitating ease, when it aspires to be a suspenseful psychological thriller. Cross here seems less a gifted, intellectual criminal psychologist, more a man blessed with psychic powers and the occasional premonition.
In the 90s, director Rob Cohen was a competent journeyman making adult potboilers, including DAYLIGHT and a TV Movie Rat Pack biopic. Suddenly, in the early 00s (his early fifties) he tried to convince the world he was a teenager with THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS and xXx, and seemed to succeed. He likes things which makes no sense but seems cool, which is OK, as most of the world does too, but water-pressure alarms and security doors which don't open from the inside are unlikely to attract the kind of audience enthusiasm that drag racing and extreme sports did a decade ago.
To his credit, Cohen has become a fairly distinctive director, and this movie has a similar feel to much of his other work. Unfortunately, his style is not appropriate for the material, and unctuous fake European accents are not necessarily the best directorial trademarks either. He has little skill with narrative, and one scene cuts to the next with no rhythm, generating little interest. The climactic fight scene is, even by recent standards, excessively incoherent and unexciting.
As it happens, where the movie does succeed is also where Patterson's writing is generally the strongest; the villain. Matthew Fox gives a very memorable performance as a fairly intriguing character. Unfortunately, he doesn't get enough screen time to get the film up to a passing grade, perhaps held back, as much is, by the PG-13 rating.
Though messy and a little silly KISS THE GIRLS was a fairly savvy adaptation and a far more intriguing and cinematic viewing experience. ALONG CAME A SPIDER was absurd and squandered much of the potential of its namesake, but it was slick, lively entertainment with welcome touches of arch humour, and was clearly the work of a gifted director. Perhaps neither were films for the ages, but while watching ALEX CROSS you find yourself pining for them.
Usually when movies get panned, I avoid them. However, once in a while
my curiosity gets the better of me and I can't resist. I probably
should have skipped this one, I never read the books but, I'm going to
go out on limb here and say that the book or books did not transition
well to the big screen. Yes that was sarcasm. I'm sure the books are an
exciting and an engrossing read, but here, the exact opposite comes to
mind when describing this movie. It's a complete bore and sitting
through this is a chore. It borders on unwatchable and though it might
not have been 2012's worst it's certainly close to the top.
I'll do the best I can to remember everything but, not even 16 hours after viewing this, it's been corroding from my mind fast. That should give you a hint on just how memorable this cinematic dump is. The only reason why I'm giving it a 2 is because of Matthew fox. He got himself into shape and prepared himself for this role, and it shows. Even though his character may have been scribbled in with a crayon,(let's face it, his character is about as one-dimensional as a cardboard cut-out, same goes for the rest of the cast) his loony, over-the-top performance is the only thing that kept me awake from slipping into a coma. As for everything else, I'm at a loss for words.
From the guy who directed The Fast and the Furious and xXx, I was at least expecting some exciting well-shot fighting scenes but, we can't get what we always want. The very few actions scenes are boring and nausea-inducing, especially the climatic fight scene. Why director Rob Cohen decided to shake the camera so much? I don't know, the two films I mentioned showcase that he's a competent action director, whatever the excuse was it doesn't matter, this is just lazy.
With the exception of Fox, the cast is dull. Though, I'm not sure the cast it completely at fault, they're not given much to do. Perry is miscast here, he has the chops but, there are better suited roles out there within his range. When he's required to show emotion he's good but, when he's required to do action he doesn't fit in well. The rest of the cast is bland and unmemorable, they all seem like they don't want to be here and I don't blame them. I'm sure they at least got nice paychecks.
I'm going to on a little tangent about the MPAA, so skip to the next paragraph if you'd like. I don't understand how something like this could get a PG-13 rating and then another movie who uses the "F" word a couple of times get an R. I would rather let a 13 year old watch something that's R because it has the "F" word a couple of times in it than letting them watch this. I'd say see this for yourself, but then that would mean you would actually have to watch this garbage. So I'll give you a few examples instead. This doesn't spoil anything but, I can't imagine why anyone would care anyway. There is one scene where we're shown a woman getting her fingers cut off, sure it's brief but, we see the whole thing. Then there's a legitimate sex scene, and I'm not talking about the brief PG-13 ones I'm talking about an actual sex scene. These are only a few examples as there are more but, that would give away something. I'm done now, time to continue....
Like the ending of this movie, I'm going to rush things here because thinking about this movie is giving me a migraine. The pacing is uneven, we're given slow set-up then the movie keeps shifting, rushing things here and there, slowing down things here and there, this is an on-going process and by the end I found myself wanting to grind my face against a cheese grater. The characters are all underdeveloped, thanks to the lazy script, I didn't care about anyone. This movie clocks in at 100 minutes yet, it felt like I was watching Titanic again. It seemed like this movie would never end.
Overall, don't even bother wasting your time. The acting is dull, the character's are cardboard cut-outs, the direction is horrible especially during the climatic fight scene, the script is lazy, and the pacing is widely uneven. There is nothing good here, except Matthew Fox, but it's still no where enough to recommend this on any level. How this movie made it to theaters is one mystery I'd like to solve.
Watched this movie last night and I have to say I was quite disappointed. The story was OK and the cinematography was good. The acting, however, was quite horrid. Ed Burns mailed in the worst performance I have ever seen him produce. Never once was I convinced that he had anything but a "little chip" of an involvement with the female partner. Nothing showed the possible love that the scripted words professed. I won't beat the dead horse about the comparisons of Tyler Perry to Morgan Freeman. There were flashes of what could have been a compelling portrait of a character, such in his interaction with his wife. The overall effect of this portrayal though was disjointed and shallow. And none of the female roles had any substance. Even the great Cicely Tyson was watered down and washed out. Disappointing.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
First off I have to say the movie was not what I expected. If you are a
big Tyler Perry fan then you may enjoy it more than most
action/thriller fanatics. I for one was very disappointed when i
watched the movie. Unfortunately i have read the complete Alex Cross
series written by James Patterson and I have also watched the two
previous movies with Morgan Freeman. This made my expectations high as
I was looking forward to a new look into the "world of Alex Cross".
The story line is a complete mix up and the details are so far off from the original stories it actually feels as though the writer of this script thought that James Patterson's work was not up to a level that could be appreciated. Having said that there are a few parts in the movie that are good though, the acting of the criminal is something that does meet the same level as imagined when you read one of the novels. I guess it is all down to personal preference but I did not enjoy this as much as i thought i would. If they had a whole new story line with a new serial killer but kept the facts from the books it might have been better.
The difficult part to being a psychologist/police officer is deciding if you should bill your client for time spent beating them with a phone book.
Sadly, the shielded shrink in this crime-thriller does not expound on his invoicing practices.
Detroit police lieutenant Dr. Alex Cross (Tyler Perry) and his partner Tommy (Edward Burns) are called to a crime scene where a businesswoman (Stephanie Jacobsen) was brutally murdered.
Following a clue left by the artistic assassin dubbed Picasso (Matthew Fox), Cross sets a trap at his next hit.
After Picasso eludes capture, Cross deduces that his true target is a billionaire (Jean Reno).
Angered by the detective's constant meddling, Picasso focuses his crosshairs on Cross' wife.
Full of retributive violence but low on tangible mystery, this adaptation of the popular literary character lacks a suspenseful script and a believable lead.
Besides, psychologist cops blame every murder on the killer's mother.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I had heard a lot of people say how bad Alex Cross was but I wanted to
hold out and see for myself. I have read one Alex Cross book but never
more than that so I was going in mostly blind to the character and the
book series. To say the film was a mess is an understatement. Its hard
to say exactly where the film goes wrong but bad casting, bad acting,
bad music, horrible direction and horrible editing just to name a few
of the main points that derails this film. I don't usually comment on
the intricacies of the actual film making but the editing was simply
awful. The sound and music for the film goes up and down throughout.
Sometimes the music is so loud you can hardly hear what's going on and
sometimes the dialogue is so low you can't even hear it. That can be a
good thing considering how poorly delivered many of the lines are. The
plot holes are so gapingly large that you can fire a rocket through
them. There are only a few little saving graces that save this from
being a complete and utter disaster. Some of the action scenes are
relatively entertaining and watchable. Matthew Fox as the villain is
actually almost stunning, and the production values on the special
effects are very good. But that's about where the impressiveness ends.
I heard a lot of people complain about Tyler Perry being cast as Alex Cross. I thought he could pull it off because he is a very talented and versatile actor. I was wrong. He brings no depth to the character at all and is so stereotypical that it makes you want to yawn. The scenes with emotion he over-delivers and comes across as cheesy. The character was also written very quickly so that you understand how "brilliant" he is and this comes across as pompous and annoying. He was poorly cast, no doubt about it. Edward Burns plays Cross' partner. He is written as some sort of dumb, fast talking, one liner sidekick. Its really unfortunate. The chemistry between Perry and Burns is non-existent and yet we're supposed to believe they are lifelong friends. Jean Reno makes some sort of cameo as a villain of sorts but the story around his character is so convoluted and makes very little sense that he is lost in the shuffle. I'm not even sure why he would do this. And then there is Matthew Fox who literally is the only actor that makes this worthwhile. In fact, he steals the show. His twisted, sadistic, tortured villain is a thousand times better than this film. His twitching, facial expressions, line delivery...all first rate. I don't know if I have ever seen anyone give a 10/10 performance in a 4/10 movie but Fox does it flawlessly. What a total waste of a great performance and character. However, if you're going to see this...see it for Matthew Fox.
The last thing an Alex Cross movie should be is campy. And yet the script for this and the performances are extremely campy. When watching, check out the expressions on some of the officer extras around them. Its beyond bad, like awful. With some really good action scenes there should have been some really tense moments but all of that is completely lost with bad directing and even worse editing. The fights often look low budget and cheesy like watching a WWE wrestling match. I am truly surprised that director Rob Cohen who has helmed some very good action flicks let this slip into such a bad area. Perhaps it was just the chemistry or a badly edited script but however you shake it...they screwed up Alex Cross badly. James Patterson fans may find themselves waiting a very, very long time before this gets rebooted. Until then we have the HUGELY superior Morgan Freeman films which were better in every aspect. Skip this one or watch it for Matthew Fox. 4/10
I was looking forward to this movie, since I thought this would be more
true to the books than the ones with Morgan Freeman. I was mistaken...
Our bad guy was a surprise, having only seen Fox as the doctor on Lost I enjoyed his over the top performance as a real psycho. He was pretty much the only thing I liked.
I love Jean Reno, and try to watch everything with him, but he was wasted on this movie, This role could have been filled with a nobody and it wouldn't have changed anything.
We know the actors can act, and the director can direct, so why are we left with a movie with bland acting and characters we care little about. It even seems that the characters don't even care about what happens to each other.
This movie should win an award for irritating camera-work. The climax was so shaky I wished I could skip it. Can only imagine how sick I would be if I had been drinking before seeing it.
It is far from the worst movie I have seen, and would probably have seen it no matter the reviews, and a lot of you probably feel the same way, but please don't set your expectations high since this is not a very good movie.
Adapted from the acclaimed James Patterson novels, the film adaptation
of 'Alex Cross' is a mixed bag, worth watching for several notable
features which can do nothing but fail to salvage the whole affair.
A painfully miscast Tyler Perry receives top billing as a rogue detective facing off against a threatening antagonist played excellently by 'LOST' alum Matthew Fox, who brings an unsettling edge to his character, exploring his motivations where the bland screenplay dares not. Equally complacent is Rob Cohen's direction, which reduces film's technical and artistic merit to that of a television serial. This isn't improved on by an attempt to emphasise characters that, at the same time, are being drawn with a comic edge that negates the serious tone.
With Patterson likely responsible for any ingenuity plot wise, the writers and producers at least owed the material a thrilling big screen adaptation. Yet even with a number of clever set pieces demanding tension and spectacle, 'Alex Cross' still fires blanks.
I was really looking forward to this movie after having read many of
the books written by Patterson and I must say my eagerness to watch it
as soon as it was released maybe makes my review a little more negative
than it would have been if i did not know and understand the character
Alex cross, one can never compare a book to the movie, but the basic
building blocks of a story must remain intact for it to be at least
I can not see any of the Patterson magic in this movie, to be honest it is one of those movies that will go down in history as being overrated and misunderstood by both actors and the director. The Alex cross from the books is nowhere to be seen, there is too much of the "leave it up to the audience to decipher his inner thoughts" and this lets it down.
Hopefully anyone looking at the director and editors of this, to do work in the future will look at this and decide that maybe taking a chance on some college graduates would be a safer bet.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Matthew Fox was a main reason why I think it's worth seeing the film.
He's acting was perfect. Tyler Perry was on the other hand something I
would skip forward if I had remote in my hand. Not sure who chose him
as a main star of the film. It was almost annoying to watch him act.
They made him the chosen one of the unit. It was getting really silly
sometimes whole team was depending on him. Edward Burns role was bad as
well, not that he is bad actor he did what he could with the poor
script and role of a useless cop who always ask what to do "Dr.Alex"
And can't start his relationships without Alex all mighty approval.
Like please.. He is your partner not a father.
Ending was terrible if it would ended with cliff hanger or assassin running away I would give the movie hire score and would recommend my friends to see it. Last fight was terrible and doesn't make any sense. The assassin was train and skilled MMA fighter which were shown in the beginning of the film. And Dr.overweight fried chicken Alex could keep up with him and even overpower him many times. It made me angry since I practiced MMA for 2 years. Many good actors but I would rather hire one less and pay someone better to be the main detective. Yes if not for the ending or perhaps main actor I would really enjoy it more. Now how can I get a refund!?
Before I go straight with the review, picture this: Tyler Perry, who
made a fortune playing a cross-dressing, gun-toting mama in the
lucrative MADEA series, tries to reinvent himself into a different
actor. An action star, to be exact. For those who have seen his MADEA
series before, some of you might be thinking: seriously? Frankly, an
actor who is primarily known in comedy genre can make a smooth
transition as an action star. Take Bruce Willis, for instance, who had
successfully became an action icon when he did DIE HARD back in 1988
after a short stint in TV's Moonlighting. Unfortunately, Tyler Perry
looks uncomfortable playing his first action-oriented role in ALEX
CROSS -- a loose prequel to 1997's KISS THE GIRLS and 2001's ALONG CAME
A SPIDER (both starred Morgan Freeman). Shame about the movie as well,
which is nothing more than a clunky and haphazard thriller.
Long before we get to know the older Alex Cross (Morgan Freeman) as a brilliant FBI agent in KISS THE GIRLS and ALONG CAME A SPIDER, we are introduced to a younger version (Tyler Perry), who first working as a Detroit-based police detective. Cross and his team -- partner and best friend Tommy Kane (Edward Burns) and beautiful rookie Monica Ashe (Rachel Nichols) -- are called in by police chief Richard Brookwell (John C. McGinley) after a wealthy woman named Fan Yau (Stephanie Jacobsen) and her bodyguards are found brutally massacred in her Detroit mansion. Apparently it was done by a psychotic killer nicknamed Picasso (Matthew Fox), who is actually targeting the city's wealthy elite and slowly made his way up to Leon Mercier (Jean Reno), an oily French business tycoon with plans for reinventing Detroit city. Things goes out of hand when the killer himself starts messing around with Cross, killing one of his teams as well as one of his family members. Devastated, Cross turns the case into a personal vendetta to seek vengeance against Picasso.
Marc Moss and Kerry Williamson's screenplay is strictly by-the-numbers, and everything here plays out like a typical serial-killer thriller you used to watch during the 1990s heyday. Actually, there's nothing wrong being nostalgic here but it's a shame that the story is unimaginative and lackluster. Even veteran action director Rob Cohen (THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS, xXx) is out of his element here. The action (which often his forte) is disappointingly shot with shaky-cam and one particular climactic fight set-piece between Cross and Picasso is so incomprehensibly shaky it's impossible to figure out what's really going on.
As mentioned earlier, Tyler Perry is out of depth here. It's actually good to see him venturing out something different, but it turns out the actor's range is more limited than expected. As awkward as he looks playing an action role, he remains comfortably at ease whenever the scenes involve him with his wife and his family. Both Edward Burns and Rachel Nichols are nothing more than showing up in thankless roles, while Jean Reno (looking really old) is just as forgettable. Matthew Fox, who lost a huge amount of weight to look scarily skinny, is suitably cast as a sadistic psychopath. Too bad his character is given little room for development.
ALEX CROSS is actually meant to jump-start a new franchise based on James Patterson's crime novels, but this prequel itself is already a failure. So much for the anticipation.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I went for a month of no movies just hoping and waiting that something
spectacular would come along, no such luck I'm afraid. When I saw Perry
on the poster I didn't know what to expect so I went in there really
action desperate- disappointed. So here it goes.
Cross didn't bother itself with crossing the line it played it safe and we all know that safe is boring. My mistake, safe is just plain old desperation to gross. Firstly the name is dull for an action film, secondly the storyline lacks a background that's compelling enough to want to see it again. After all the trouble that he went through turns out the villain is not the real bad guy, and the bad guy "is clean." I absolutely hate such films they make you feel naive, and we see Hollywood doing this all the damn time. Mr.Assassin kills people and we don't know why plus he loves doing it.
Cross' wife takes a bullet while pregnant very clever let's give the hero motivation to hunt down 'o mr.Assassin, because wasn't already on the case? Everything about this film is too predictable.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This flick should only receive 1, but then there is Matthew Fox, with a good performing, and i have to give it 2. The rest is simply awful. The story it's good. A nice idea for a film, but the script ruins it. The performance from Mr. Perry its pretty disgusting. I don't know where to start. I could talk about the poor soundtrack, the scenes without any meaning or continuity for the story, the stupid details emerging all over the film, but i will summit it all with this: In the beginning of the movie we see 2 characters: the daughter and the mother of Perry's character. Roughly one hour later, (spoiler) at the Perry character wife funeral, we see those 2 characters again... with the exactly same clothes as before! OMG! Even the f******* wardrobe was wrong! Everything is wrong! Except the bad guy, Fox's character. What a shame. A good director, good screen writing and specially, good actors could turn this originally good idea in a good movie, instead of crap.
From director Rob Cohen, a guy whom has been known for making a string of mediocre action movies, "Alex Cross" is the third film appearance of, you guessed it, Alex Cross, who is known as the main character in James Patterson's series of crime novels. At a pace of 101-minutes, Tyler Perry stars as the title character, a psychological police detective who can tell what happened in a crime, when did it happen, why did it happen, or how did it happen. Now, he must try to take down a psychopathic assassin, played by Matthew Fox, sadly following the tired and formulaic cop story. Not only unoriginal and predictable, but also painful and uncomfortable to sit through, "Alex Cross" is one of the very worst movies of the whole year. Although Tyler Perry is really trying his best to make something good out of this tired material, he sadly fails to bring a lot of charm to a character that was once portrayed by Morgan Freeman, and he sadly felt miscast-ed. Nothing god-awful or anything, I just can't take Tyler Perry seriously in a dramatic role, since all he does in his career is be in drag the whole time as Madea. But, hey, at least he tried! But, don't even get me started on Matthew Fox. Although he's a very talented actor and also tries hard in this film, he tries way too hard, going way over-the-top, in one of the most unintentionally laughable performances of the whole year. Edward Burns, Rachel Wilson, Cicely Tyson, Jean Reno, and Giancarlo Esposito, all star in the supporting cast, given literally nothing to say or do than just read lines from such a horrendous script. Luckily most of these actors have higher talent than these writers, and they are really trying their best. Sappy and melodramatic moments, childish writing, over-the-top performances, and unoriginal story might have been enough, but the main problem of the whole movie involves all the action scenes, provided by director Rob Cohen and the cinematographer. Horribly directed and filmed, the action scenes left me uninterested, but most of all, it gave my brain a major meltdown. Delivered with some of the worst use of shaky-cam, it feels more like the camera-man is literally shaking the camera back and forth, which I bet actually happened. The scenes are all over the place, totally inconsistent, and Rob Cohen should stop making action movies! Generic, bland, inconsistent, sappy, over-the-top, and annoying are the perfect verbs, nouns, or adjectives to describe my hate for this film. But, if I had to correct anything to make this a good movie, I would have casted Idris Elba as Alex Cross, have very talented writers known for making very good cop movies, and a director who takes these films very seriously. Sadly, this movie doesn't give us any of that. "Alex Cross", in my review, "waste of potential, formulaic and indulgent".
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Last time I saw the titular character on screen he was played as a more
cerebral type of detective by Morgan Freeman. Freeman is an actor who
has an effortless natural cool and gravitas, a crumpled sort of chic
dignity, careworn and human. He can manage sharp and business-like,
thoughtful and compassionate, passive and aggressive, by turns and make
them all convincing components of the same character. This is because
first and foremost he is a character actor.
Tyler Perry plays Alex Cross in this film and his incarnation is more of an action hero type. A physically chunky gun-toting ass-kicker who fancies himself as a profiling modern day Sherlock Holmes hunting down the bad guys. I don't know what the character of the books is like, having never read them, but I do know that Perry ain't no Morgan Freeman and that this Alex Cross is a one-dimensional shop window dummy with all the personality of a paper plate.
He's not alone here, though, because all of the characters run on rails like bland cardboard cut-outs wheeling through a CGI shooting gallery. None are particularly engaging or resonate on any meaningful emotional level and I didn't really care about the fate of any of them.
The film is a brash and crass churn through a dumb and irrational narrative that fails to sustain much interest after the first twenty minutes or so. There are some moments of jaw-dropping unintentional comedy. My favourite is when Cross employs his Sherlock Holmesian deductive techniques on his wife. It was almost like something out of THE NAKED GUN. To paraphrase:
"I deduce you have been for coffee."
Wife looks astonished at the sheer brilliance of his investigative prowess.
"Judging by the froth on your blouse, I can conclude it was a latte!"
Cut to wife and huge stain on her blouse that looks like half a pint of Camel slobber.
Wife is sooooo impressed that her husband is sooooo smart. Gazes at him with awestruck adoration
She's pregnant. She gets killed soon. That get's Alex cross and so it's time for a little revenge-seeking.
The story is something about a sociopathic assassin (are there any other kind?) bumping off foreign corporate types. He turns his attention to Cross and his team when they thwart one of his attempted hits. Much else I can't relate because I had tuned-out and was just waiting for it to run its course. I'd paid to see it so I was going to hang on in there till the bitter end.
If you are expecting something of the calibre of KISS THE GIRLS or ALONG CAME A SPIDER then don't. This isn't in the same league. Cross this one off your list.
Tyler Perry might be funny if he hasn't worn out his shuck-n-jive
shtick with "Madea" out completely with everyone but blacks, maybe even
them. This movie was just awful. Even my foreign born wife who knows
good movies thought it was horrible and funny. I am ashamed of Jean
Reno even consenting to be cast in it, he is one of the great living
actors in the world. The whole movie had great potential but became an
intolerable disaster. And BTW, just how many wigs does Cicely Tyson
have? At least three or four bad ones in this movie at least.
I would be embarrassed to have my name in the credits even if my face wasn't seen. I mean really...............Tyler Perry as a brilliant crime solving detective with intuition to boot and who is NEVER wrong? Give me a break "shugah chile".
The trailers for this movie looked okay. Watched it thinking it would be a regular action flick nothing special maybe with some half decent acting in it. After watching this movie I was again reminded of just how awful Tyler Perry is at acting and making movies. This movie had a horrible script and story line. No character development and the most predictable plot ever. The acting in this movie was atrocious, I was actually somewhat excited to see Matthew Fox in something after lost and playing a completely different type of role. His character had no depth at all. Some pretty poor character development I must say. I would not recommend wasting any money let alone time on this movie. By that I mean that this movie is not even worth an illegal download. Better off watching something else, I am not sure how this wasn't a straight to DVD movie I would have been angry if I actually paid to watch this in the theatre.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I have read some of Patterson's novels and don't think he is
particularly good. I watched the two film spin offs which were OK
mainly due to the superb Morgan Freeman rather than any great plot or
I have seen a few movies with him in but don't know the lead actor and from his performance doubt he will trouble me in the future. Bad does not even come close to his performance. Not that he was alone as some very good actors joined him in the stinking the place out stakes.
This seemed to be a modern take on a black version of Sherlock Holmes as the Cross guy would for no particular reason make wild deductions of his daughter, friends and of course the psycho killer called Picasso. Ed Burns (who is a very good actor) seemed to spend all his time looking lovingly at the genius of Shelock Cross as he burbled out his 'keen' insights into the mind of the killer which frankly would embarrass the dog in the Famous Five which had more idea. If this was the best the department had then it must have been staffed by some of the stupidest cops in America.
The script was not even pedestrian and there was no character or plot development and the one dimensional killer, victims and detectives who peopled this so called thriller were ordinary in the extreme. Only the very dull Alex Holmes stood out from this dismal pack because he could throw out some nonsense that had them in awe of him.
But of course there was no deduction involved. Simply he would say something that turned out to be right. Such as the ridiculous scene with the train when looking around the square with cops and victims everywhere he deduced with seconds to spare that the threat was coming from a train that had not yet hoven into view.
The killer who was supposed to be some super expert mercenary hit-man did some pretty stupid things such as driving around in the same car oblivious to whether some camera would photograph his number plate. Why he bothered to target Cross made no real sense as the detective surely was nothing more than a minor irritant to such a professional. But of course we needed Cross angry for the final section of the film.
The angry Cross even more ridiculous then a calm one as he and Norton carried out an armed robbery, beat the hell out of a drug dealer and somehow illegally stitched up a perp from thousands of miles away.
The finale and then the shock ending where Sherlock solved the case and the perp was brought to 'justice' was laughable. How a cop who looked like he could skip a few meals could overpower a man who looked like (and had shown in the opening sequence) that he could eat Seal Team 6 for breakfast left me bewildered.
Hopefully this will be the final nail in a series of films that was OK at best only due to the presence of Morgan Freeman.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
could be spoilers but I don't think so I'm not being too specific
well this movie was not as good as it should be with today's talent. The plot had pieces missing then all of a sudden your someplace else. But what killed me is every action seen they use a hand-held camera and started to shake it. I was getting sick. Cheapest special effects why did the director call for this. Anyway overall a poor formula movie totally predictable and disappointing. If you don't mind brainless action and acting then it's great. But if you're looking for something well made this is not for you.
What gets me even more is how the writers and director expected us to believe the impossible collision and capture of the villain completely by accident. There's no real plot here of trying to capture or hunt down your psychotic killer it's just he will be handed to you on a platter completely by accident. I almost started laughing but painfully this expert bad guy seem to lose all his talent even his acting talent right at that crucial moment. They should have made this a little bit more suspenseful instead it's like they just through the script away. Just a waste of writing and acting.today's movies with all the wealth of information and skill on how a movie should be made I still wonder how these ones get produced with such obvious lack of insight and skill
|Page 1 of 3:||  |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|