Metro

Eddie Murphy as a foul-mouthed, loud-mouthed action lead? I'm in. True, the man has done little worth one's time past the 80's, but he's fun to watch with only a few exceptions. The plot and writing in general is cliché-ridden... the best way to enjoy the film is really to avoid thinking about it, and just going with it. The action scenes are fairly well-done, and the cinematography is decent enough. Whether or not you enjoy the frequent jokes appearing early on regarding one particular characters identity is difficult to say... personally, I found them to be somewhat cute. The humor in general is fair. The dialog is okay, but not terribly memorable. The plot progression is good enough. The action isn't breaking any new ground, but it manages to be exciting and intense, and fairly well-edited, as well. The finale is quite good, very good tension. The acting is good... Rapaport and Murphy work well together, and Wincott makes a good villain(as Alien: Resurrection will tell you, he makes an awesome bad guy, criminal type). The romantic interest of Murphy works well... they've got good on-screen chemistry, and their scenes together are credible. In conclusion; sure, we've seen all this before... but it's still good for a fun two hours. I recommend this to big fans of action films and/or Eddie Murphy. 6/10

For the first hour of this film all I could think of was how average it was, I even had an average review written in my head for it. However, there are certain scenes, thrills and aspects - e.g. the ending predicament that are actually pretty good and will throw you.

Eddie Murphy plays a 'wisecracking' hostage negotiator, although tbh he's very much the 'serious' Eddie Murphy for most of the film. I prefer the fun Beverly Hills Cop guy, but there we go. There is a scene where he's talking about being in a thong and being seen by his mother's friends that is hilarious though. Plot-wise he basically gets on the wrong side of some nutter and his cousin and they conspire to make life hell for him and his English girlfriend. The female lead is a tad weak in this, and I must admit I've never ever heard of her (although I was 7 when this film came out - maybe she was big then) but she looked good - Carmen Ejogo she is.

Michael Rapaport is in this as well, as an intelligent sniper who is paired up with Murphy. Now I thought, judging by the cover etc, this was gonna be a buddy cop movie but Rapaport (an actor I like) is underused really. Don't get me wrong he's in the film a fair bit but his character has next to no personality. All I learnt was he's polite, sharp, from the Swat team and is a sniper. That's it. The film could have been done without his character if they wanted to save whatever fee he commanded.

Whoever plays Eddie Murphy and Carme Ejogo's dog is good in this though. Stellar, powerhouse performance reminded me of Hanks in The Green Mile or Orson Welles in Citizen Kane.

So yeah, mixed bag really - there's hate for post-80s Murphy films sure, but this is one of the better ones. It's a solid watch (on netflix atm) and there's some good action and the bad guy is easy to hate, so there's a lot worse out there. I won't strongly recommend but I'll say it's worth a shot - you know what you're going to get.

Metro appears to be a low-budget action affair, which whilst it has nothing new to offer, shows us a different side to Eddie Murphy as an actor that we hadn't seen before in his previous films. People have in the past often compared this to Beverly Hills Cop 1, in terms of the fact that they are both your typical, run- of- the- mill cop movies, but the comparisons seem to come to an end when you compare that film to Metro, in terms of plot, character types and the fact that Eddie Murphy doesn't joke about as negotiator/cop Scott Roaper that often. Not like his predecessor, Axel Foley. Here, as Roaper he is much more serious and not as laid back in contrast to his most famous movie character. Metro plays out as a straight out action movie that isn't reliant on laughs, which in itself is no bad thing. One of the main problems that some of the audiences had, in regards to their expectations of Metro, was by assuming that it would be something similar on the lines of Beverly Hills Cop. It has its funny moments, but these are few and far between throughout the film, as the narrative in Metro is very much serious and the standard cop thriller we'd come to expect.

Overall, Metro is not a bad effort and the action sequences are well executed. Murphy gives a surprising turn and performance as Roaper and thus it makes a change to see him in an almost completely non-comedic role, which he does well in.

Not bad indeed.

Eddie Murphy plays a hostage negotiator in San Francisco, he lives a dangerous life, but he still thinks it´s pretty okay. One thing he doesn´t think is okay is when his friends gets killed. But that is just what happens, his best friend is murdered by an evil jewel-thief, and now Murphy wants revenge.

The plot in "Metro" did not really impress me when I heard about it. Eddie Murphy as a comical hostage negotiator... It sounds pretty corny to me, but it was actually not as bad as it first seemed. The action scenes are well made, especially the breath taking car chases down the steep streets of San Francisco.

But I can´t really say the movie was good. The plot is not very original, this could actually have been titled "Beverly Hills Cop 4" and no one would have noticed. Between the action scenes there aren´t very much to write home about. Murphy is occasionally funny, but he can be really annoying too.

The best thing in "Metro" is definitely the villain, played by the underrated Michael Wincott. He is truly the perfect bad guy. That rasping voice, that glance in his eyes, wow! He can make even the simplest villain into a terrifying monster, which he should be highly praised for. And I wonder if not this guy holds the record in movie-deaths? I´ve seen Wincott in about ten movies, and he gets to meet his maker in all of them! I almost feel sorry for him, but I don´t think he´s complaining too much. If he dies in "Metro" or not, I´ll let you figure out for yourself.

Back to "Metro" now. If you don´t expect any clever ideas, just some good action sequences with a silly plot, it´s not that bad. But on the other hand, not that good either.

* * ½ out of * * * * *

Metro, starring Eddie Murphy, may well be worth your viewing time. Yes it got a fair amount of negative reviews from people who wanted to see another "Nutty Professor" or thought of "Metro" as Murphy trying to play Axel Foley again. Others had problems with the script, the plot, the pace of the film, but nobody cared to mention how good Murphy actually is in this. His character is a San Francisco hostage negotiator, named Scott Roper, who one day meets his worst enemy in a jewel thief (played wonderfully by Michael Wincott) who makes his job a nightmare. From that point on a cat & mouse chase between Murphy & Wincott develops, & plays it's part in a rather amusing way. I don't want to give a lecture here on this subject, because movies like "Metro" are just made to entertain the viewer. "Metro" is a solid action film, with some suspense, some great stunts, and very good performances from the whole cast. Murphy, in what I think is one of his better roles, gives us his comedic touch, but this is more of a dramatic, serious role for him. I saw not Murphy, but Scott Roper, throughout the whole movie. A sure sign that an actor is doing his job quite well! - Murphy is superb.