Alex Cross (2012) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
155 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Convincing performances by Perry and Fox prevent Alex Cross from being completely unwatchable.
Andrew Gold8 May 2015
It's not hard to figure out what's wrong with this movie. Skeptics may think Tyler Perry was a bad choice to fill in a young Morgan Freeman's shoes but he was absolutely fine in the role. Plus, Matthew Fox as a psychopathic skinhead assassin? Hell yes. Edward Burns as Perry's detective partner? Eh, less convincing but I'll let it slide. The direction and the writing though... whew. It's amazing the actors were able to recite this dialogue with a straight face.

The story of Alex Cross is a simple murder mystery - Alex Cross and his partner investigate the scene of a crime and discover that they're after a professional killer referred to as Picasso. Then things get personal and Cross plans to seek his revenge once and for all. Standard crime thriller plot, right? The problem is when the characters start talking to each other. Honestly, it's laughable how bad some of this dialogue is, especially between Cross and his family. They throw in these "emotional" scenes to break up the action but all they do is make for a really awkward paced movie. It would be passable if the dialogue actually moved the plot forward but it doesn't, at all. There are some subplots that are introduced and never brought up again. Like Alex Cross becoming an FBI agent. What was the point of even including that?

The main reason to watch this movie is for Matthew Fox. He's playing a sadist who is "fascinated by pain." Not very original but who cares, it's Matthew Fox playing a 130 pound untamable psychopath. The scenes in which we see him doing his job - stalking his targets, infiltrating their houses, taking out their body guards and whatnot - are the most interesting parts of the movie. He's really the only character given a clear cut motive and enough development to make him a decent antagonist. He's also batsh*t crazy, did I mention that? Yeah, he's a lot of fun to watch.

Unfortunately Perry isn't given nearly as much to work with. He's a generic detective masquerading under the name Alex Cross who acts as a poor man's Sherlock Holmes. His whole objective is to get into the mind of this madman while trying to maintain a steady family life, but instead of building tension between these two factors and having them play off one another and ultimately effecting Cross' personal life, the writer/director think it's more effective to jump from one setting to another with no lead-ins or relevance to what just happened or what is about to happen. The family scenes are cringeworthy, and even the dialogue with his partner gets really cheesy. I wanted to see more psychological warfare between Cross and Picasso. They try to do that in a couple scenes but it's so poorly written that you don't believe a word of it.

Tyler Perry's acting shines in a few scenes. He's certainly a capable dramatic actor and anyone who says otherwise is talking out of their ass. Thankfully I haven't seen the Madea movies so I had no prior opinion of Perry but he won me over with this. Mind you, some of his lines sound forced and awkward but that's completely on the scriptwriters. It's just impossible to be drawn to the character, and you'd think with a title like Alex Cross that we'd get a deep look into the mind of the title character, but instead they spoon-feed us this cheesy soapy dialogue and the occasional battle-of-wits with the villain that isn't the least bit intriguing. Also, the climax of this movie, if you can even call it that, is laughable. The fight scene is probably the worst camera work I have seen in an action movie. You can hardly see what's going on half the time, and once it ends you're just like, okay. Is that it?

Again, the leads save this movie from being a total bomb. I was admittedly entertained for a good portion of the movie despite its stupid dialogue. None of it is inventive or new; it's just your run-of-the-mill murder mystery that is low on thrills and high on cheese. Worth a one time watch if it's on TV or something, but really the main thing you'll remember from Alex Cross is the criminally wasted talent.
79 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Alex Cross fails miserably
Josh Cummings26 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Finally, a Tyler Perry movie that is actually funny. For those who don't know, however, Alex Cross is not meant to be a comedy. It's supposed to be a serious action/drama. With all of its cheesy moments, corny dialog, and doubtful plot points, Alex Cross misses entirely.

Alex Cross stars Tyler Perry as an expert detective who is about to embark on his most difficult case. The case is to track down a deranged psycho-killer played by Matthew Fox. Matthew Fox enjoys torturing people to death and playing mind games with the detectives that are on his trail. I would like to say more about the plot of this movie but sadly, there isn't much more to tell. It's that basic. You'd think a plot where a genius detective is facing an intelligent serial killer would have more complexity, but it doesn't.

There are a lot of problems with Alex Cross. For starters, the script may as well have been written by a thirteen year old. This is probably one of the worst scripts of the year. In order to buy this script, you just have to believe everything the characters say with no explanation. The character Alex Cross never proves that he's smart. The audience is just supposed to believe he's smart because other characters say so. Cross just throws out theories without backing them up and of course, they turn out to be right. For example, when Cross and his partner (Edward Burns) walk into the first handful of murders committed by Matthew Fox, Burns guesses that this must have been the work of multiple guys. Cross replies, "Nope. This was one guy." Does he bother to explain why he feels that way? Nope. In another example, Fox is on a train and Burns comes up to Cross and says, "You need to get in his head and think like him. If you were him, where would you be?" Cross thinks and then exclaims, "He's on a train!" Care to enlighten us on how you arrived to that realization Dr. Cross? The problem is, the writers clearly aren't smart enough to come up with ways for their characters to solve the case. Because this movie is so poorly written, it is unbelievably predictable. I'm no Alex Cross, but I knew exactly what was going to happen throughout the film. Literally, every scene can be predetermined by a first time viewer.

Not only is there terrible writing, but there was also terrible directing. Matthew Fox and Edward Burns are both very good actors, but they can't do anything under poor direction. Everyone in this movie is horrendous except for one person and that's Tyler Perry. I found this very surprising because I can't stand Tyler Perry's work and I thought he would be the worst thing about the movie. However, he is the only thing that can be considered somewhat decent in the movie. You can tell Perry wants to branch out but unfortunately, he can only do the best with what he was given. There were so many bad decisions made by the director. For emotion, he tries to add some family value by adding in an old sassy black woman as character. Thankfully, this character was not played by Tyler Perry. Another terrible idea was to have the camera constantly shaking because that's an action movie cliché that everyone loves (sarcasm). The camera was shaking during the most still moments. For example, the camera was shaking ferociously when, I kid you not, a woman was typing on her computer. Perhaps one of the worst decisions from the director though, was to throw in a twist at the end. Not only did he add a twist, but he made it glaringly obvious.

The only reason anyone might find Alex Cross appealing is because they get a kick out of watching bad movies or they really might enjoy seeing Tyler Perry try and do something different. Other than that, there is absolutely no reason to see this film. The acting is horrific, the dialog is idiotic, the action sequences are poorly choreographed, and the plot is 100% predictable. This movie is so bad, that you will find yourself laughing at moments when you're supposed to be either gasping or crying. D
89 out of 130 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Cross to Be Placed on A Grave
james184419 October 2012
When you make an action crime film please remember to connect all the dots so that we, the audience, can achieve some sense of the story line. The trailer was a slice of many of the best scenes but, unfortunately the real film falls so sadly short of good storyline due to poor dialog and some jerky acting that the viewer struggles to make sense of the various actors.

If this film had been prescreened (proof read) any average movie-goer would have pointed out just how poorly made it was. I sensed that Tyler Perry gave a over acted performance. I really wanted to like this film when it first came out but, it just was so boring and unimaginative I began to realize that it was due to faulty construction of scenes and character's dialog. This was mostly due to the director.
75 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Real Stinker of a movie
ivisuals17 October 2012
Tyler Perry takes on the Alex Cross character and fails miserably. Though he's hardly the only one at fault here.

The trouble starts with the screenplay, which is nothing short of dismal. All of the main characters are one dimensional with no development whatsoever. Patterson's novel is condensed down to a formulaic and predictable plot, where you can see trouble coming a mile away. There is no development of the villain, why he does what he does and why a professional assassin would make the choices that he makes. Time makes absolutely no sense in this movie. Events must have occurred over a period of time in the book that have been condensed down to minutes in this movie. I haven't seen a movie in a while we're I've said to myself "You've got to be kidding me" multiple times because the scene was so implausible. Rob Cohen's direction is nothing short of terrible. Action scenes that are so blurry you can't tell who is beating up who. When there's not action scenes, the rest of the film is a talking heads 70's made for TV movie. The acting flat out stinks (with the exceptions of all to brief appearances of Cicely Tyson and Giancarlo Esposito). No chemistry with Perry and Ed Burns and no chemistry between the villain (Matthew Fox) and Perry. The movie score mostly sounds like a movie of the week from the 70's. The only redeeming value I find in this film is the location. There were some nice uses of Detroit buildings in the film. Other than that, don't waste your time.
144 out of 234 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Move over, "Plan 9 From Outer Space"
jbaxter-204-32637918 October 2012
This is hands down one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life, and I've seen a boatload of lousy movies. Both the dialog and plotting are hackneyed beyond description--not one original idea or twist, and not a single exchange that feels genuine. It's the kind of childishly obvious genre rehash in which you can tell who's going to be killed just by the relative one-dimensionality of their characters. Matthew Fox, who clearly dropped his body fat to zero for this film, will one day look back and regret all those months he went without a decent meal, because a) the movie is terrible, and b) his portrayal of a psychotic killer is ultimately a study in cliché. Ed Burns furrows his brow convincingly enough, but his easygoing charm has nowhere to go here. Likewise John McGinley, whose neurotic fatalism seems plucked from an entirely different and more lighthearted police procedural being filmed down the street. And then there's Tyler Perry, who expends so much energy in a futile attempt to project faux masculinity and criminological gravitas that he apparently has nothing left for tangential stuff like changing his facial expression once in a while. Perry can thank his lucky stars he's already a Hollywood fixture, because If this were his first movie, he'd never get another offer--truly, he's that bad.
140 out of 230 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Do not see this movie unless you want to have fun picking out everything that is wrong with it.
hurricanerobertson8 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.
19 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mediocre entertainment.
Troy_Campbell9 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.
29 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
complete waste of time and money
dionneschedler26 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I have read all of the Alex Cross books. I have seen the other Alex Cross movies....this "sham" is Alex Cross in title only. It's like Alex Cross in bizarro land.....his wife Maria is still alive (for a while), yet his daughter Janie appears to be around 9 or 10 years old, Damon is the younger child, they live in Detroit, his best friend and partner is a white guy; no Sampson???? The plot, the characters, everything is so far off from what it could/should be, I have to wonder if they used the title just to sucker in the many James Patterson fans. I was very sceptical of Tyler Perry playing Cross. I have to say that overall, he did a somewhat decent job. Fox was a great creepy guy. I think had they been given a better story, like, Alex Cross to work with, and had the directing not been so cheesy,it might have been a decent movie.
33 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
apples and oranges
nillobit20 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Alex Cross - fictional sleuth known for taking readers on excursions into killer's minds. Tyler Perry - personality known for making face on camera.

This film misses the whole point of the Cross stories. The public doesn't read or see Cross stories to watch Cross emote. We want to see him solve the puzzle.

Adolescent execution, the film tells us instead of showing us. We know Alex Cross is smart because all the other characters say so. We know the first female victim was brutalized because everyone says so.

I don't know for sure but this production seems to have Perry 's fingerprints on it.

Some of the action was choreographed well. In particular the rail car footage was well done. Moreover, the child who played his daughter stood out. Fox's performance was top rate.
35 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Crossed at Cross
buttkick21 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.
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Did I Just Hear a Line from Madea?? Sounded like it.
bb-29121 October 2012
This movie was worse than I expected. A lot worse. The blame goes all around. The script is extraordinarily weak. Too much pulling on the heart strings, not enough compelling action. The acting was completely flat, no chemistry. I swear I could hear Tyler channeling Madea at least twice. Feels like Perry and Burns dialed it in. Direction was apathetic. Hand-held camera was noticeably bad, randomly jerking and swinging wildly usually during action scenes. It felt like some weak ass 1980's/90's TV cop show. I somehow felt bad for everyone involved: Perry wanting to be an action hero; Fox trying to make a name for himself by losing 40lbs, etc. Then I thought of a line from Entourage: "It ain't easy making a movie." I heard a sequel is already being planned. Can't be any worse but don't expect me to pay to see it.
69 out of 120 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Don't Ever Cross Alex Cross? More like don't ever watch Alex Cross.
Zachary Tang17 December 2012
Warning: 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.
22 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worth a watch
chris-ells885 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.
18 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good, but still way below Morgan Freeman standards.
2fresh 2clean3 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.
28 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Entertaining...Give this movie a fair shot...
Nicole Burnett12 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...
48 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cross is a gross injustice to Patterson's books
dushyant chaturvedi14 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.
22 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
OK Movie.
candoit33329 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.
16 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Tyler Perry and Matthew Fox are the best part 6/10
Cunnilingilator9 July 2012
I have not ready the books or seen either of the previous films. Also I have only seen parts of Tyler Perry's other movies and that was enough to let me know I didn't want to watch any more. That being said, I felt that Tyler Perry's performance was very believable and very different than what I was expecting. At points in the film he is a bad-ass (albeit a bit overweight, but hey not all heroes hit the treadmill) and at others he is quite likable. He has some some quick and funny dialogue that he looked very at home with. All in all I now believe he is a pretty decent actor especially when comparing to his other "characters."

Matthew Fox plays an intense dude. Check out the images section to see what I'm talking about. He plays the insanity factor pretty hard and at times feels like he is nearing the "full retard" line but he never quite jumps the shark. It's sort of hit and miss. At times it's extremely effective and at others it seems a bit overdone. As a whole, pretty effective, and definitely crazy.

I liked Edward Burns as Alex's partner and Rachel Nicols as the third in their team. I was disappointed with basically everything else in the movie. Acting was for the rest of the characters pretty downright bad (with the exception of Dr. Cox who was acceptable). The stunts, aside from a cool fight scene in a business office, were pretty lame. The cinematography was average. The script was too heavy handed and convenient. The dialogue was good but the situations were not so much. It sort of felt like they were trying too hard to be gritty and raw.

Seriously though Tyler Perry is BY FAR better than you are expecting. Go see it just to have your perception of him shattered a bit.
37 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A darker Cross let down by its opening and closing action sequences
jtindahouse16 January 2014
Warning: 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.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
None of the 'so called' talent attached does anything to make it bearable!
Hellmant24 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
'ALEX CROSS': Two and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

Tyler Perry takes over the titular role from Morgan Freeman (who previously played the detective in 1997's 'KISS THE GIRLS' and 2001's 'ALONG CAME A SPIDER'). The film also co-stars Matthew Fox (looking very slim) and Edward Burns and was directed by Rob Cohen (the popular B action film director of hits like 'THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS', 'XXX' and 'THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR'). It was written by Marc Moss (who also wrote 'ALONG CAME A SPIDER') and first time feature film writer Kerry Williamson and based on the book 'Cross' by James Patterson (writer of the entire 'Alex Cross' book series). Patterson also served as a producer on the film. As far as reboots go this one took the series in a seriously wrong direction (and there's already a sequel planned with Perry reprising his role called 'DOUBLE CROSS', adapted from the thirteenth novel featuring the character). The films with Morgan Freeman were much more respectable crime thrillers. This isn't even 'so bad it's good'!

This film centers on Alex Cross (Perry) discovering his wife (Carmen Ejogo) is pregnant with their third child as he's also offered a job working for the FBI. He breaks the news to his partner Tommy Kane (Burns) who also breaks the news to Cross that he's began relations with another officer on their team, Monica Ashe (Rachel Nichols), much to the disapproval of Cross. The two respond to a murder scene where a madman (Fox) tortured and murdered a young woman (Stephanie Jacobson) and her bodyguards. Clues lead them (and Officer Ashe) to the offices of a businessman known as Erich Nunemacher (Werner Daehn), who they realize is the insane assassin's next target. They engage in a conflict with the killer before he escapes. This causes the three detectives to be marked for death by the killer and all hell breaks loose when the Cross family is put in harm's way.

The movie, like most of Cohen's work, is heavy on action and extremely light on plot and character development. The characters aren't really fleshed out at all, despite whatever moves the plot along in typical 'cops chasing killer' crime thriller fashion. The dialogue is dull and the acting is even worse. Fox is somewhat creepy as the psychopath bad guy but given his atrocious real life image as a women beating asshole it's not hard to dislike him at all. Burns is wasted and Nichols looks beautiful but offers the film nothing else. Perry is severely miscast. I've only seen one of his awful 'Madea' movies but it was enough (along with the trailers for the others) to know I'd never want to go through the pain of watching one again. He might actually be better in action films like this but he's still no actor and he's definitely no Morgan Freeman! I had heard Idris Elba was originally cast in the film instead of Perry. He would have made the movie much more intriguing and fun. As it is it's pretty bad and none of the 'so called' talent attached does anything to make it anymore bearable.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at:
12 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Just a Very Good Cop vs. Serial Assassin Thriller
doug_park200120 June 2013
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).
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Tyler Perry nailed this performance.
dan jones19 October 2012
I am so upset at the number of people who said this movie deserved only one star. This was by the far the best I have ever seen Tyler Perry. The Movie is based on cop "Alex Cross" which is a character from series of books written by acclaimed author "James Patterson". The movie is far from whats actually in the book but lets be honest most movies from books are. Tyler Perry's team of cops look to hunt down an assassin which is wreaking havoc in Detroit. Going into this movie you will be thinking of Tyler Perry as madea but you quickly get to see a side that you never seen of him before. I agree that the movie didn't really get into why the bad guy was so cruel but for what its worth every movie does not have the perfect script. The cast did a great job and its an all around good movie despite the people that said they hated it.
13 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3.5/10, go on a cheap day
scifiactionfan20 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Really boring.

The was lots of action but very little excitement.

The ending was a nice twist but it isn't enough to make it a decent movie.

It was totally unbelievable that Alex Cross could beat Picasso in hand to hand especially after Picasso showed what he could do.

It would have been nice if they told more about Picasso's background. It's hard to believe they never profiled him in depth.

It was a bad movie and it won't surprise me when it doesn't stay in theaters very long.

I give it a 3.5/10 and my friend also gives it a low rating.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good movie! But would rather have had Morgan Freeman!
ksbdolls30 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Morgan Freeman has set a standard as Alex Frost that is going to be hard to beat. However, having said that, this shows Alex as a younger man still ready for a good fight. Although I have never thought of him as a young man, I guess this is what he probably would have been in his youth. And Tyler Perry has done a good job portraying a younger Alex. He can do more "rough work" than an older Alex is expected to do. I think Idris Elba would have been a more perfect replacement for Freeman. He's not as old as Freeman, but he's more in line with what I expect Alex Cross to be. In most of the books, Alex comes across as an older guy, so this doesn't really seem to be him. Again, this is a good movie...just not the character I expected to see.
15 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Where's Morgan?
Catt Jones19 October 2012
I want to start off by saying that I have never read a James Patterson novel, nor did I see Morgan Freeman's interpretation of Alex Cross. This film is about a gun for hire who takes particular enjoyment in sadistically killing his marks. I think that the story was okay, but there was nothing fantastic about it. It was pretty much your run of the mill crime drama that could have probably aired on Criminal Minds on television. Tyler Perry (Dr. Alex Cross) steps out of his usual comedic role to take a stab at the action genre. I don't think that Tyler did a bad job, but I guess that the role would have been more believable with Denzel or Indris. It just seems like some of the emotional aspects of his acting seemed a bit forced, but I have to say that the fight scenes were well choreographed. It seems like Cicely Tyson (Nana Mama) appears in every film that Tyler is in or makes. I like Cicely and I am just glad that she is still getting roles and getting paid. You go, girl! Matthew Fox (Picasso) plays one crazy nut job. However, some of the stuff that he does in this film, I have seen before. His tactics was not new or surprising. I would have really liked it if the writers would have come up with a new and more twisted torture method. Not that I am into torture or anything, but I am into originality. Edward Burns (Tommy Kane) is Alex's partner and lifelong friend. He is ultimately as eager as Alex to hunt down this lunatic for reasons that become clear in the film. Giancarlo Esposito (Daramus Holiday) appears to be popping up all over the place lately. I remember first seeing him in Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing and now he also has a major role in Revolution on television. Good for him. To sum things up, the film did keep my attention and the story was good, but I am not sure that this is a film that belongs on the big screen. I hope that they are not thinking about turning this into a franchise, but that probably depends on how well the film does at the box office. Maybe Morgan Freeman did a better job than Tyler. I may have to go back and check out his version. I give this film an amber light.
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews