193 reviews
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Troy_Campbell
- Nov 8, 2012
- Permalink
- cummingsjosh7
- Oct 25, 2012
- Permalink
Being that I grew up watching party of five, I never could've pictured Matthew Fox (the good-looking older responsible brother in POF) being a psychopath but I felt he played the character well.
Was it a blockbuster, no but it still held my attention. Maybe that's because I didn't have any expectations going in as I never read the books. Bottom line is, I was entertained and have seen far worse.
Was it a blockbuster, no but it still held my attention. Maybe that's because I didn't have any expectations going in as I never read the books. Bottom line is, I was entertained and have seen far worse.
- smithereenie
- Sep 14, 2019
- Permalink
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.
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.
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.
- candoit333
- Oct 28, 2012
- Permalink
- dionneschedler
- Oct 25, 2012
- Permalink
- jtindahouse
- Jan 15, 2014
- Permalink
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.
- jbaxter-204-326379
- Oct 17, 2012
- Permalink
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...
- burnettnicole
- Nov 11, 2012
- Permalink
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.
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.
- Cunnilingilator
- Jul 8, 2012
- Permalink
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.
- chris-ells88
- Dec 4, 2012
- Permalink
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.
- hurricanerobertson
- Feb 7, 2013
- Permalink
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.
- dayjones23
- Oct 18, 2012
- Permalink
Tyler Perry might be funny if he hasn't worn out his shuck-n-jive shtick with "Madea" out completely with everyone but blacks, maybe even them. This movie was just awful. Even my foreign born wife who knows good movies thought it was horrible and funny. I am ashamed of Jean Reno even consenting to be cast in it, he is one of the great living actors in the world. The whole movie had great potential but became an intolerable disaster. And BTW, just how many wigs does Cicely Tyson have? At least three or four bad ones in this movie at least.
I would be embarrassed to have my name in the credits even if my face wasn't seen. I mean really...............Tyler Perry as a brilliant crime solving detective with intuition to boot and who is NEVER wrong? Give me a break "shugah chile".
I would be embarrassed to have my name in the credits even if my face wasn't seen. I mean really...............Tyler Perry as a brilliant crime solving detective with intuition to boot and who is NEVER wrong? Give me a break "shugah chile".
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.
I'm happy I ignored the bad reviews. It's certainly not terrible and I feel like a lot of the vitriol is more about not liking Tyler Perry for whatever reason than the film itself. I haven't read this particular set of James Patterson novels, but the man is not only a producer but has a writing credit for the screenplay. Clearly the movie was good enough for him to be involved. Will it change your life? No. Will you be breaking down each aspect of the plot with your buddies? No. But if you are looking to simply be entertained with a decent plot and acting, watch it and judge for yourself.
- rashidaboyd
- Sep 18, 2020
- Permalink
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.
- freshclean-66-318608
- Nov 2, 2012
- Permalink
It's not Tyler Perry's fault that man is Talent unbridled! The screenplay just was horrible-I mean where is John Samson? How can you make a Alex Cross movie without John Samson? Did Mr. Patterson even read the screenplay before he gave it is okay and if he did why? The high points are Cecily Tyson as Nana Mama that was absolutely inspired! This is the second time I watched it by the way and only because there was literally nothing else on Prime and I wanted to at least get one more show in for my month before cancellation for another 2 years before more series have new seasons. I just don't understand why one buys the rights to a series they don't include all the characters as are in the books because the readers of the series are the ones that are going to be sending the most to watch the video version hands down. Just a thought for the future...
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.
- ragingbull_2005
- Dec 13, 2012
- Permalink
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.
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.
- Leofwine_draca
- Jun 14, 2015
- Permalink