Tag Archives: movies

The Public Movie Defender – “Robin Hood”

by

35

MOVIE DEFENDER ROBIN HOOD

The idea behind The Public Movie Defender is to take up the cause of a particular movie that I believe is better than the majority of reviews it has received. These are movies which I feel are worth either a second look or at least a more open examination considering the predominantly negative opinions of them. The films chosen are ones that I like so therefore I’m taking their case and defending them before the court of negative opinion. Let the trial begin…

DEFENDANT # 1 – “ROBIN HOOD”

ROBIN HOODOccasionally I like to take the time to focus on a particular movie that I really like but many others didn’t. Call it my unnecessary yet obligatory sense of personal duty or some warped affection for getting blasted by my fellow movie fans. Whatever it is, I find it fun defending movies that I appreciate but many others may not. One such film is Ridley Scott’s 2010 period adventure “Robin Hood”. Lingering at an undeserved 43% on Rotten Tomatoes, “Robin Hood” has faced a variety of gripes from its slow, plot-heavy narrative to its historical inaccuracies. These things didn’t bother me at all and the movie went on to be one of my favorite films of that year.

I still remember when I was driving to the theater to first see Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood”. I couldn’t help but wonder if I had set my expectations so high that it would be impossible for the movie to reach them. After all, this is Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe, the same team who brought us “Gladiator”, a true favorite of mine. Could one of my favorite working actors and one of my favorite working directors come close to matching the success of their previous Oscar winning period film? The answer is yes, for my money they did come close. While overall “Robin Hood” isn’t as grand or as seamless as “Gladiator”, it does well in many of the same areas that made “Gladiator” such a strong film.

This isn’t your standard Robin Hood that we’re all familiar with. This is considered a prequel to the ‘steal from the rich, give to the poor’ story that’s been told numerous times before. It follows Robin Longstride (Crowe) as he goes from being an archer in King Richard’s army to the most wanted man in all of England. Along the way he witnesses the death of King Richard in battle and the rise of King John (Oscar Isaacs), Richard’s younger brother. King John isn’t a likable leader. His arrogant, self-serving approach to governing and his burdensome heavy taxes have turned the people against him and it couldn’t be a worse time for that. An invading French army is knocking on England’s door but the people need unifying.

Robin 1

Meanwhile Robin and his three new but merry men find themselves in Nottingham where secrets to his past may lie. Its here than he runs into the proud and spirited Marion (Cate Blanchett). I won’t give anything away but anyone even remotely familiar with the Robin Hood story knows that they eventually hit it off. But violence and war comes to Nottingham which catapults Robin right into the center of the tumult. The story takes its time getting to this point. It deliberately moves through several plot points and it lays out a lot of story along the way.

This is what turned off a lot people. They found it all flat and plodding. Personally I loved the slow and calculated buildup. I loved the clear focus on the characters, the politics, and the strategies behind the events taking place. I loved that it wasn’t just another period film focused almost exclusively on the action. For me the intentional time spent with character development worked fine and it fed the action sequences giving them more meaning and weight. With the exception of a couple of needless inclusions, I was wrapped up in this story and while it might have been too slow for some, I found its proficient script in the hands of this truly great cast made for some wonderful entertainment.

ROBIN2

Now when it comes to making an epic-scale period piece few can do it better than Ridley Scott. Here his amazing attention to detail, extravagant set pieces, and gorgeous cinematography create a believable and stunning 13th century England. From the film’s opening sequences to it’s furious finish, the realistic feel and old English atmosphere is one of the reasons the film worked so well for me. As alluded to above, Scott also brings just the right amount of action scenes. The frantic, gritty camera work and carefully executed CGI allows for the small battles and huge epic scale war sequences to maintain an undeniable energy. But again the film doesn’t totally rely on them. There’s a very deliberate tale that unfolds in an effort to set up the legend of Robin Hood. Scott takes his time and adds a fresh depth to these very familiar characters.

Then there’s the strong lead performance of Russell Crowe. He has always been able to take a character and combine stength with a genuine humanity. Crowe’s Robin Hood is possibly the most human of any previous portrayals showing a sad but strong man in the dark about his past and uncertain about his future. It isn’t loud or showy work but it fits nicely with the tone that Scott is looking for. I also have to mention the performance of another favorite actor of mine. Mark Strong takes on another “bad guy” role and he’s able to create yet another delightfully despicable villain. He’s such great fun to watch. Cate Blanchett puts together a very different and intriguing Marion. She’s strong and independent and Blanchett certainly holds her own amid the slew of male performances. There’s tons of great supporting work from Max von Sydow, Oscar Isaac, William Hurt and more.

“Robin Hood” is an entirely different look at the classic character that does lend to a more serious telling of his legend. That, mixed with the slower plot-thickened narrative, clearly didn’t work for those with much different expectations for the film. It not only worked for me but it impressed me and I found it easy to be absorbed into the story. I’ll admit there are some moments that could have been cut and there are bits of silliness in the big finale. But they never came close to ruining my experience and after several viewings I still believe this is one of the best films of the Scott/Crowe collaborations. That’s my defense and I’m sticking to it.

THE VERDICT : “ROBIN HOOD” – 4.5 STARS

5 Phenomenal Tom Cruise Movies

by

55

PHENOM 5

With the release of his new science fiction romp “Oblivion” this past weekend, I thought it would be as good a time as any to look at the career of Tom Cruise. Now unlike many I actually like Cruise and think he’s a very capable actor. I certainly understand the backlash that followed his past comments and infantile sofa jumping with Oprah. But that was in the past and much more importantly I think his movie resume is pretty impressive and speaks for itself. So today I’m listing 5 Phenomenal Tom Cruise Movies. Now with almost 40 feature films to his credit I wouldn’t go as far as calling this the definitive list. But I have no problem calling these 5 Tom Cruise movies absolutely phenomenal.

CRUISE TOP GUN#5 – “TOP GUN” – I originally had “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” in this spot. I love that film and consider it easily the best of the franchise. But even though I tried, I couldn’t leave “Top Gun” out of a Tom Cruise list. I fully recognize that “Top Gun” is filled with enough corn and cheese to make a casserole. I also understand that it’s a product of the 80’s and it’s shameless in its display of gratuitous hunk shots. But you know what? I still love it! I still remember being excited about seeing the Kenny Loggins “Danger Zone” video before the film was released and how it amped up my anticipation for the movie. I remember seeing it in the theater and leaving on high. While these days my feelings are more nostalgic, I still hold this 1986 flick from the late Tony Scott close to my heart.

CRUISE JERRY#4 – “JERRY MAGUIRE” – For a long time I heard people I knew singing the praises of “Jerry Maguire”. I had friends who were constantly yelling “Show me the money!” at the tops of their lungs. But I wasn’t able to chime in because I was late coming to this 1996 Tom Cruise drama. But once I finally caught up with it I understood what my buddies had been so excited about. Now I have to admit that it wasn’t Tom Cruise that drew me to this picture. I was really interested in catching up to Cameron Crowe’s work and I was attracted to the sports element of the story. But I found that it was Cruise who really carries the film. I love his performance. He had me sympathizing with him during some scenes and he had me wanting to slap his face in others. It’s a showy performance but it feels right at home in this really good film.

CRUISE MINORITY#3 – “MINORITY REPORT” – This is another of Tom Cruise’s films that I caught up with well after its theatrical release. But it’s another one of his films that blew me away after I saw it. This Steven Spielberg science fiction thriller completely caught me off guard. I went in with pretty mediocre expectations but I was surprised to find a well written and deeply layered story that grabbed me from its opening moments. Cruise gives yet another strong performance as an officer in a preemptive crime task force. He’s faced with a variety of moral quandries and soon finds himself in the middle of a complex murder investigation. Again it’s Cruise who drives this movie and he’s an absolute blast to watch as things in the movie go absolutely bezerk. This is a great sci-fi picture.

Cruise Collateral#2 -“COLLATERAL” – Whether you like Tom Cruise or not you have to admit that over his career he has branched out and hasn’t been afraid of tackling fresh new roles. There’s no better example of that than his role as a professional hitman in Michael Mann’s “Collateral”. In the film Cruise pays an unwitting taxi driver (Jamie Foxx) to drive him around Los Angeles to his five important “appointments”. Armed with firearms and funky dyed hair, Cruise moves effortlessly between his cold-blooded contract killer persona to waxing philosophically in the back of Foxx’s cab. He kills it with his performance and I think it’s some of the best work of his career. If you want to see Cruise’s range, this is a good film to get that.

Cruise Samurai#1 – “THE LAST SAMURAI” – I’ll never forget the first time seeing “The Last Samurai”. I went to the theater on a Friday morning with no expectations whatsoever. I mean we are talking about Tom Cruise as a samurai, right? I left that theater blown away, so much so that I returned the next day to see it again with my wife. First off, Cruise gives a fantastic performance. It may not be his very best work, but for me this is hands down my favorite Tom Cruise movie. Whether it’s his scenes as a burnt-out alcoholic or the great moments he shares with Ken Watanabe, Cruise makes what sounds like a ridiculous role for him into one of of his more multifaceted performances. I never get tired of “The Last Samurai” and for my money it’s Cruise’s best.

So there they are. My 5 phenomenal Tom Cruise movies. See some you like or dislike? Have different films that would make your list? Please take time to share you thoughts below.

REVIEW: “42”

by

27

42 poster

I am a huge baseball fan and I’ve always been drawn to a good baseball movie. Unlike any other sport, baseball has the history, the personalities, and the spirit which are perfect ingredients for a good sports movie. For years we’ve seen baseball movies that focus on everything from the sport’s history, inspirational true stories, hilarious locker room comedies, and spirited fantasy pictures. The newest one to join the bunch is “42”. It’s the story of Jackie Robinson and his breaking of the color barrier which opened the door for black baseball players to play in Major League Baseball.

I mentioned inspirational, it’s hard to find a more inspirational story than this one. While this is the story of Jackie Robinson, a large part of the movie focuses on Branch Rickey, the president and general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers. In the film Rickey (Harrison Ford) decides to shake things up in the world of baseball by bringing a black player into the all white league. With the 1946 season ahead, Ricky knows that the backlash will be severe but he believes it’s the right thing not just for baseball but for his bottom line. He believes he’s found his man in Jackie Robinson (Chadwick Boseman) – a tough kid who Rickey believes can handle the pressures that are sure to come.

42 3

Jackie is brought from the Negro League to play for the Montreal Royals, Brooklyn’s farm team. The movie then follows his eventual rise to the big leagues while documenting the many struggles and hardships he faced in a segregated and racially divided America. Writer and director Brian Helgeland doesn’t gloss over the uncomfortable racism of the time which is something that gives Jackie’s story such a sense of significance and importance. It makes his endurance and accomplishment all the more profound.

I also appreciated how Helgeland showed people on both sides of the racial line willing to look past the peripheral façades in order to see and accomplish a greater good. But of course it was Jackie who bore the brunt of the abuse and it was his strength of character and perseverance that ultimately made the difference. The film also does a great job of recreating the mid-1940s. The clothes, uniforms, and neighborhoods all brim with a pitch-perfect period feel. And seeing Ebbets Field recreated full of energy and life was spectacular.

Boseman gives a really nice performance. In movies like this actors will often take an opportunity to overact which tends to heighten the performance while lowering the material. That’s not the case here. Boseman remains surprisingly restrained even during more emotional scenes. I was also struck by how much he resembled Robinson, not so much in the off the field scenes but during the baseball games. There were four or five glimpses on the field where I would have sworn there was CGI trickery involved.

42 2

And then there’s Harrison Ford, fake eyebrows, gravely voice, and all. It took me a couple of minutes to adjust to his performance, but in no time I was completely sold on his character. It’s such a great role and Ford knocks it out of the park (pun most certainly intended). Ford and Boseman are the most notables but there is some good supporting work worth mentioning. I really liked Christopher Meloni as manger Leo Durocher. Unfortunately his role is a pretty small one. I also liked Nicole Beharie as Jackie’s wife Rachel. And then the baseball guy in me really enjoyed watching Lucas Black as Pee Wee Reese. Granted, sometimes the material he’s given is pretty flimsy but he’s still a lot of fun.

All of these things help make “42” a good movie despite a few issues I have with it. I was really hoping the movie would be able to avoid many of the common trappings that biopics fall into. Now I knew Jackie’s story so I wasn’t expecting a huge surprise. But I  was hoping for more than the obvious and conventional finale we’re given. I won’t go into detail but everything neatly falls into place and the movie gives the emotionally uplifting ending it aims for. You can see it coming a mile away.

42 1

I also had to roll my eyes at several injected scenes meant for either dramatic effect or to shed light on the racism of the day. It stands out because in several other scenes “42” shows the racism of the day in much more potent and effective ways. But then you get Alan Tudyk as Phillies manager Ben Chapman. History bears witness that Chapman was a bad guy and his actions, especially against Jackie Robinson, were deplorable. But here he almost comes across as a cartoon character. He gets to the heart of what actually happened but I had a hard time buying into him.

Still this is a solid baseball movie based on an incredible story of courage and perseverance. I also couldn’t help but feel that giddy baseball fan excitement well up inside of me as I watched it. There’s a great sense of love for the game and a sensitive respectfulness for the subject matter found in “42”. And while it’s not a perfect film, it’s yet another example of how this great sport is fertile ground for quality storytelling.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Inception”

by

47

Inception Poster

After the release of Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” back in 2010, I wrote a review on my earlier blog site praising the film. After several more viewings, I would continue to applaud this production and it was easily my favorite film of that year. But as excited as I was over “Inception”, I still don’t think my previous review did justice to what has become one of my favorite movies of all time. Yes, I said of all time! I still find “Inception” to be one of the most original and most ambitious movies I’ve ever seen. But ambition doesn’t always equal a great movie. “Inception” not only aims high but it succeeds in creating a brilliant and unique picture that’s unlike anything I’ve seen.

It’s hard to pigeonhole “Inception”. It’s a heist film, a tragic romance, science-fiction, and an action film. But the best thing is it uses all of these ingredients flawlessly. The bulk of its success can be traced right back to Nolan. For my money Christopher Nolan is one of our greatest working directors. He wrote , co-produced, and directed this film and I truly believe he’s one of the only visionary filmmakers who could have pulled this off. It took him almost ten years to write and rewrite the script and it took the huge success of “The Dark Knight” to secure the big budget needed to make “Inception”. But you sure can’t argue with the results of the finished product. “Inception” ended its box office run making over $825 million worldwide.

The film stars Leonardo DiCaprio, an actor Nolan had wanted to work with for some time. He plays “Dom” Cobb, a dream thief for lack of a better title. He, along with his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), are paid to infiltrate the subconsciouses of their targets via their dreams and steal information. When the dream extraction from a wealthy Japanese businessman named Saito (Ken Watanabe) goes wrong, Cobb and Arthur find out they were being tested. Instead of extracting information, Saito wants the them to attempt inception on a business rival of his. The idea of inception is that instead of stealing information you plant it in the target’s subconscious while they’re dreaming. There are questions as to whether inception is even possible but Cobb is enticed to take the job when Saito promises to use his influence to clear Cobb’s name of a mysterious murder charge that has kept him out of the United States and separated from his two children.

?????????????????????

To do the job Cobb needs a top-notch team of experts. Eames (Tom Hardy) is basically a forger or probably better described as an impersonator. Once inside a dream he has the ability to take on the identity of anyone. Ariadne (Ellen Page) is the architect. She is able to construct mental labyrinths inside the dreamers subconscious. This is essential if the team is going to know their way around the dream. Yusuf (Dileep Rao) is basically the team’s pharmacist. He’s the one who controls the sleep via his numerous concoctions. Saito also insists on going and keeping an eye on his “investment”. Nolan takes us through the formation of the team, bits of their training, and of course their attempt at inception. As the story moves forward Nolan plays with our minds as he begins placing dreams within dreams and he causes his audience to pay close attention as their well planned heist encounters more and more complications.

One thing I’ve always loved about a Christopher Nolan film is his ability to put to gather the perfect cast. This may be his best yet. DiCaprio has been a critic’s darling with several of his performances, but I think this is one of his very best. Cobb knows his business but he’s a tortured man with loads of emotional baggage. Leo handles all of this perfectly. I also loved Tom Hardy here and he steals nearly every scene he’s in. Eames is a confident wisecracker and some of his best scenes are when he’s giving Arthur a hard time. Speaking of Arthur, Gordon-Levitt gives another strong performance and he has one particular action sequence that’s one of the best I’ve ever seen. And then there’s Ellen Page who I liked as Ariadne. Her character is new to the dream scene and she brings a needed sense of caution and reality to the mission.

But there are some other great performances that are important to the story and worth mentioned. One of my favorites was Marion Cotillard as Mal. She has a special bond with Cobb and repeatedly appears within the dreams potentially compromising the mission. Cotillard’s performance is multi-layered and fascinating. Michael Caine, a Nolan favorite, is very good as Cobb’s father-in-law and caregiver of his children. Cillian Murphy plays the team’s central target for inception and he too is a great fit for his role. It was also great to see Tom Berenger given a nice role to work with and the great Peter Postlethwaite in what would be his last performance before his death due to pancreatic cancer. All of these performers are sharply in tune with the material and the cast serves as just one of the movie’s many high points.

?????????????????????

Nolan is also a visual filmmaker and there is some incredibly eye candy in “Inception”. The movie was filmed in locations all over the world including Tokyo, Morocco, Paris, and Alberta. Each of these places have their own separate and distinct look and feel to them within the movie whether they take place in reality or in a dream. This was an intentional move by Nolan who wanted to place his film in the contemporary world while also playing with our perceptions of what is real and what’s not. And of course since we’re talking about dreams, Nolan has a spectacular and diverse visual sandbox to play in. He wows us with several amazing special effects sequences that include rotating hotel rooms, trains barreling down big city boulevards, and a shootout at a fortified arctic base. “Inception” hits you with one spectacular set piece after another and all of this gels nicely with the movie’s deep and layered story.

“Inception”isn’t a movie with a straightforward by-the-books narrative. It’s a film that requires you to pay attention and I like that. I’ve talked with people who didn’t care for the movie because of its complexities and I can’t help but be puzzled. So many movies are simple and formulaic genre films that never challenge their audiences in any way. For me it’s refreshing to have something completely original and fresh and I appreciate how the film doesn’t dumb things down for the audience. I’m also amazed at just how well this complex story unwraps. Nolan constantly throws new kinks into his story to the point where I questioned whether he could bring it all together. But like a skilled and crafty pro he pulls everything in during the last 20 minutes, right up to the beautiful final shot. And that final scene, well it gets a little misty for me every single time.

For me everything in “Inception” works. The special effects, the action sequences, Nolan’s phenomenal script, the incredible cast, Hans Zimmer’s pulse pounding score. This is why I go to the movies. There’s nothing conventional about “Inception” and there’s no way to watch it and not appreciate its craftsmanship. That said be prepared to think. The story is a bit of a challenge but that’s just another joy I get from watching it. I understand it may not be everyone’s cup of tea but it gives me everything I want in a motion picture experience. For me this is a modern cinematic masterpiece.

VERDICT – 5 STARS

5 STARSs

5STAR K&M

REVIEW: “To the Wonder”

by

49

TO WONDER POSTER

Terrence Malick is a filmmaker that marches to the beat of his own drum. To be honest, that’s one of the things I like the most about him. We say this often but here it unquestionably applies – you know a Terrence Malick movie when you see one. Malick has a distinct style of lyrical and visual storytelling and you either respond to it or you don’t. Personally I love it. Now sometimes his style is more impressive than his finished products, but for the most part Malick is one of my favorite filmmakers. In fact, his last film “The Tree of Life” was my clear favorite film of 2011.

Malick is a director who takes his time and only makes a film when he’s ready. This is evident by the fact that he has only six movies on his directing resume. His latest, surprisingly only two years after “The Tree of Life”, is another exercise in lyrical and contemplative style. It’s one of my most anticipated films of 2013. It’s called “To the Wonder” and for me it’s another soul-stirring gem that throws the textbook on conventional moviemaking out the window. Instead Malick is making another deeply personal film, possibly his most personal movie to date. It’s also his most romantic, most spiritual, and most tragic film all at the same time.

The movie follows a young couple as they navigate the unquenchable joys and the devastating heartbreaks associated with love. We first meet Neil (Ben Affleck) and Marina (Olga Kurylenko) in Paris, France. The two are madly in love and Malick expresses it through a rhythmic series of romantic and absorbing scenes in such beautiful Parisian settings such as the Luxembourg Gardens and the banks of the Seine River. There’s also a majestic sequence with the two outside of town at the gorgeous Mont Saint-Michel. Neil and Marina can’t seem to be able to control their affection for the other. There’s a strong focus on touch in these scenes whether it’s holding hands or running a hand across the shoulder blades. The romance between Neil and Marina is sublime and beautiful and I never doubted its authenticity.

TO WONDER 1

Marina, a Paris native and single mother, decides to move with her daughter to the States in order to be close to Neil. They land in midwestern Oklahoma where Neil works as an environmental safety inspector. The contrast between the energetic and vibrant Paris and their sparse and sometimes empty Oklahoma community almost serves as a metaphor for their relationship. The two who were as passionate as the French city they consumed now battle creeping bouts of emptiness and an emotional wedge that we watch grow and grow. It becomes painfully obvious that their relationship is hurting but neither seems to know what to do.

Then there’s the story of Quintana (Javier Bardem), the local priest in Neil and Marina’s area. Quintana is a troubled man. He has a deep love for the Lord but he feels disconnected. He’s dying to have the intimacy with God that he once had. He visits the sick, the poor, and the needy. He shepherds his flock. Yet there’s still a void in his soul that he desperately wants to fill. But he’s also a lonely man bound by the shackles of the priesthood an its strict rules. Watching Bardem’s solemn face and lonely, tired eyes really drew me to this character. It did surprise me how little he had to do with what seemed like the main focus of the film but Malick shows some moving similarities between his struggles and those of Neil and Marina.

Their stories do begin to connect and we watch as everything plays out. But don’t expect a tight narrative with a fully disclosed ending. Malick is more interested in having us observe and experience than being baby fed an entire story. He wants us to feel, to sympathize, to grow angry, and to meditate. Our time is spent observing and Malick lays his canvas before us. On it he explores inner conflicts, poor and costly decisions, and revived hope. It’s presented through an artistic machine that utilizes everything including the stunning score, the beauty of nature, a graceful camera, and the natural ambiance of the world surrounding his characters.

Affleck and Kurylenko are transcendent. The film features little to no dialogue with the exception of voice-over narrations therefore the two lead actors basically perform off of each other or in scenes alone. Neither ever seem aware of the camera and both get lost in their performances. Affleck was a great surprise. He’s quiet, sincere, and a stout and strong contrast to Kurylenko’s subtle elegance and grace. And speaking of Kurylenko, I think she gives an awards worthy performance. But while the performances are key, a Terrence Malick film is usually made in the editing room. Don’t believe me? Just ask Rachel Weisz and Jessica Chastain. Both shot scenes for the film but all of them ended up on the cutting room floor. Regardless the editing is sensational and the film moves like a page of good music with the exceptions of a few patches of repetition in the second half of the film.

TO THE WONDER 2

As with his other movies, Malick uses his visuals to draw us in and also tell the bulk of his story. His sensational command of his camera and his artist’s eye for capturing beautiful shots are essential to his success. His camera is constantly moving and it always seems perfectly positioned. I was absorbed in what I was seeing and his fluid and poetic transitions from shot to shot kept me that way. Even for those who don’t respond to the film as a whole, they’ll be hard pressed to not be fascinated with Malick’s visual artistry.

There will be plenty of people who can’t latch onto “To the Wonder”. It will be perceived as slow, confounding, and lifeless. I couldn’t disagree more. I loved the film and while it’s certainly not as challenging as “The Tree of Life”, it’s still a captivating piece of cinema. It doesn’t answer every question. It doesn’t adhere to a conventional storytelling formula. It asks the audience to think and to feel. If you’re not open to that you’re probably not going to respond well to this film.

In his final review before his unfortunate passing, the late Roger Ebert said this about “To the Wonder” : “(Many will) be dissatisfied by a film that would rather evoke than supply.” I think he’s right and some early reviews have shown that to be true. But I believe Malick has given us another standout picture that takes a real (sometimes uncomfortably so) look at relationships, faith, and the quest for love in both. Yet it’s all told through an artist’s lens with entrancing metaphoric imagery and a steady grace that could only come from a Terrence Malick film. I know many are going to struggle with this movie but for me it’s the first great film of 2013.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Alex Cross”

by

19

ALEX POSTER

“Alex Cross” is Tyler Perry’s attempt at starring in a serious movie outside of his normal comfort zone. Now you won’t see him running around in drag sporting his familiar Madea getup, but there are times in “Alex Cross” where that might have made things more interesting. Now to be fair, this movie is nowhere near as unbearable as I was anticipating and there are some pretty good moments. But in the end this is all to familiar material and the movie never does anything to set itself apart. In other words we’ve seen this all before.

Tyler Perry isn’t the first actor to portray Alex Cross, the lead character from James Patterson’s series of novels. Morgan Freeman took on the role in 1997 with “Kiss the Girls” and in 2001 with “Along Came a Spider”. Not only are these two films considerably different than this new vision, but the Alex Cross character undergoes a hefty transformation as well. He’s still a police detective and forensic psychologist but here he’s more open to mixing hand-to-hand combat and his sawed off shotgun to his Sherlock Holmesesque skills of deduction.

ALEX CROSS1

Life is good for Alex. He has a beautiful wife, two lovely children, and one on the way. He’s also been offered a cushiony FBI desks job that pays a lot more money and would allow him to spend more time with his family. But isn’t it just like a sadistic serial killer to make things more complicated. Alex is called to a high-profile crime scene with his partner and lifelong friend Tommy (Edward Burns). They connect the murder to a man they call Picasso. He’s played by an almost emaciated Matthew Fox sporting a shaved head and noticeably fake tattoos. As with all of these movies, Alex and company set out to stop Picasso by picking through clues and getting to the next victim before the killer does. Like I said, it’s pretty familiar material.

“Alex Cross” runs the gamut from a crime drama to a revenge thriller. As the movie continues things get grislier to the point of seriously pushing the bounds of its PG-13 rating. Considering the movie does focus on a brutal serial killer and the hunt to find him, it’s not unreasonable to expect some rather gruesome content. But while “Alex Cross” does stretch the PG-13 rating, it seems shackled by it as well. I kept feeling as if the movie wanted to be darker, grimmer, and a bit more shocking than it was. I don’t think that would transform this into a great film but I can see where it would provide an edge that would help it overall.

But back to one of the bigger questions surrounding the movie. Was Tyler Perry able to pull this off? Let me just say that he was surprisingly adequate but nothing extraordinary or memorable. And while there were no egregious flaws in his performance, there are several times where he overplays a scene and other times where his stale line-reading is a distraction. It’s interesting that Idris Elba was initially cast for the part and I can’t help thinking he would be a better choice. But as for Perry, I was expecting a lot worse.

Alex Cross - Matthew Fox

Edward Burns probably gives the best performance of the movie even though some of the lines he’s given are pretty lame. And then there’s Matthew Fox. His performance is a tough one to peg. There are a few scenes, particularly when he’s wrestling with threatening dialogue, where he’s not that convincing. But overall I do think he pulls it off mainly because he sells ‘crazy’ pretty well through the combination of his unusual appearance and his moral apathy. But perhaps the most jarring performance comes from John McGinley as Alex Cross’ police captain. He’s terribly miscast and every line he says is ridiculously overdone. His performance stands out but for all the wrong reasons.

“Alex Cross” isn’t the worst movie out there. Its biggest problem is that it’s just not memorable enough to overcome its clear flaws. Most of the movie features too much that we’ve seen before and the ending feels like a cheap cop out. And while Tyler Perry may not have been the worst choice, I think it’s obvious he wasn’t the best choice. All of this contributes to “Alex Cross” being pretty forgetful. Some ingredients are there for what could’ve been a good movie. But the ingredients themselves don’t equal a fine dish. That’s certainly the case here.

VERDICT – 2 STARS