Alex Cross

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.

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 main actors.

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.

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.

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.

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 fine in the role. Plus, Matthew Fox as a psychopathic skinhead assassin is a lot of fun. Where the movie fails is in its haphazard direction, bland writing, and godawful editing. 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 a brutal crime scene and discover that they're after a professional killer referred to as Picasso. Things get personal and Cross plans to seek his revenge once and for all - standard crime thriller plot. 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 or added depth to the characters but they don't, at all. There are some subplots that are introduced and never brought up again, e.g. 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 plays a sadist who is "fascinated by pain." Not very original but who cares, it's Matthew Fox playing a 130 pound unhinged lunatic. 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 the only character given a clear cut motive and enough development to make him a passable antagonist.

Unfortunately, Perry isn't given nearly as much to work with. He's a generic detective with 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 weaving tension between these two factors and having them play off one another, the writer/director think it's more effective to jump from one setting to another with no momentum building or rising tension whatsoever. Also, there wasn't enough psychological warfare between Cross and Picasso for there to be a compelling hero-villain dynamic. They try to do that in a couple scenes, but it's so poorly written that you don't believe a word of it.

The lack of good characters and dialogue would almost be forgivable if the action was excellent, but unfortunately that is not the case. The action scenes consist of shaky cam galore, constant jump cuts, and incomprehensible choreography. The climax of this movie, if you can even call it that, is a horrifically edited nightmare. You can hardly make out what's going, 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. It's worth a one time watch if it's on TV or something, but the main thing you'll remember from Alex Cross is the criminally wasted talent.