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 guidemessage board
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 1 of 16:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 151 reviews in total 

18 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Do not see this movie unless you want to have fun picking out everything that is wrong with it.

Author: hurricanerobertson from Winnipeg
8 February 2013

This movie is laughably bad. The only saving grace in its favour is the ability to add it to the pantheon of movies that are so bad they are good. Only, it takes itself far too seriously, and think it's far too good, to be worthy of an addition to that list. The movie is nonsense in every way. Without spoiling anything, I will sum up how ludicrous the movie is with one comment (and this kind of stuff runs throughout the movie): we are supposed to believe that a pudgy Tyler Perry can beat a super cut, super bad-ass Matthew Fox in a fight, when at the beginning of the movie Matthew Fox destroys a seasoned MMA fighter. As Dr. Evil would say: Rrrrrrright. Tyler Perry, by the way, is a horrendously bad actor. I cannot believe they were talking sequel before this movie came out. I also can't believe that the author of the books about Alex Cross was actually touting this movie. If I had written this character, and this trash came out, I could not distance myself more from this movie. I'd be like Alan Moore, and not allow my name anywhere on this crap.

Was the above review useful to you?

26 out of 40 people found the following review useful:

Mediocre entertainment.

Author: Troy_Campbell from Sydney, Australia
9 November 2012

Adapted from James Patterson's pulp novel 'Cross', this cat-and-mouse action flick more closely resembles an extended episode of 'NCIS' or 'Law and Order' than it does a fully-fledged feature film. The episodic narrative and say-everything-I'm-thinking dialogue destroys all subtlety and intelligence this may have had, whilst Rob Cohen's murky, in-your-face direction is over-zealous, distracting and at times makes it difficult to decipher what's actually going on in the action sequences. Tyler Perry is hugely popular in the States thanks to his dumbed-down, cross-dressing comedy output, but he goes full serious here to mixed results. Perry's not a complete dud yet is easily out-acted by Matthew Fox, whose psychotic serial killer – replete with twitches, tics and crazy eyes – is fun to watch and elevates this from total boredom to mediocre entertainment.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 32 people found the following review useful:

Don't Ever Cross Alex Cross? More like don't ever watch Alex Cross.

Author: Zachary Tang
17 December 2012

*** 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

28 out of 46 people found the following review useful:

Good, but still way below Morgan Freeman standards.

Author: 2fresh 2clean from Baton Rouge, La
3 November 2012

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Crossed at Cross

Author: buttkick from Odense, Denmark
21 July 2013

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Worth a watch

Author: chris-ells88
5 December 2012

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

22 out of 38 people found the following review useful:

Cross is a gross injustice to Patterson's books

Author: dushyant chaturvedi from India
14 December 2012

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

OK Movie.

Author: candoit333 from Canada
29 October 2012

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

47 out of 91 people found the following review useful:

Entertaining...Give this movie a fair shot...

Author: Nicole Burnett from Orlando, FL
12 November 2012

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...

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Should have been a straight to TV movie

Author: KineticSeoul from United States
6 March 2013

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.


Was the above review useful to you?

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