IMDb > Alex Cross (2012) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Alex Cross
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Alex Cross More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 3 of 16: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 151 reviews in total 

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

So bad it actually hurts...

Author: hminiarj from iceland
6 May 2014

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

1 hour 40 minutes

Author: cageydog from D.C.
21 March 2014

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Thirty years younger

Author: Iain McDougall from Bristol. England
10 March 2014

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A piece of garbage

Author: tchase98
26 January 2014

*** 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!!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Perry acquits himself adequately; too bad he's a bit out of his element

Author: callanvass from victoria b.c canada
25 August 2013

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 for.

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.


Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Are you kidding me? Such a disappointment

Author: Enjoy Movies from United States
6 March 2013

*** 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Cross it out

Author: TomMix86 from United Kingdom
5 March 2013

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 it.

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A Bore.

Author: Convictions from United States
26 February 2013

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Poor effort all around

Author: Bryne Zuege (byrntzuga) from Northern Colorado
12 February 2013

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:


Author: Jay Schwenk from South Africa
12 February 2013

*** 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 16: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history