Review: Alex Cross

Here comes the understatement of the year.  Tyler Perry is NO Morgan Freeman.  I know.  You’re shocked and chagrined to hear this (sarcasm intended), but really, that’s the one thought that kept bouncing around inside my head the entire time I watched Alex Cross.  Sure, the script does Perry no favors, but his appearance in this film as the protagonist (Police Det. Alex Cross PhD) is a case of gross miscasting of epic proportions – the likes of which we have not seen since Tim Burton tried to cast Nic Cage as Superman some fifteen years ago.

But I digress.  Alex Cross, the character, is from the pages of a series of novels penned by author James Patterson.  In these literary works, Cross is an athletic heroic figure with a doctorate in Psychology and an incredible acumen for detection that borders on genius.  Before this film, this character had been brought to life twice on the big screen by Morgan Freeman in “Kiss the Girls” and “Along Came a Spider.”  And while those films were not remarkable, Freeman delivered layered performances that captured Cross’ aura of superior intellect and keen detection skills. 

In this film, Perry is charged with building upon Freeman’s performance while adding a bit more physicality to the role as he jousts with a professional assassin, hired to eliminate some of the corporate elite taking up residence in Detroit.  Aided by his Detroit PD task force, Perry’s Cross must bring down this assassin and uncover the motives behind his benefactors while the lives of those he cares for hang in the balance.

It doesn’t sound like too bad a premise – not groundbreaking, but with just enough there to put together a decent narrative.   Unfortunately, the powers-that-be make the mistake of empowering writers (Kerry Williamson and Marc Moss) who simply are not up to the challenge.  If you are going to write a character of incredible intelligence then the writing itself has to be incredibly intelligent.  Otherwise, the movie completely lacks credibility.  Sadly, the writing in this film is rudimentary leaving this script with about as much credibility as Lance Armstrong. 

Tyler Perry as the lead exasperates these issues immensely.  Having Cross deduce that his wife drank a latte because she has a stain on her jacket isn’t a sign of great detection. It’s called comment sense.  And having other characters talk about his PhD as a means to convey brilliance is weak at best.  I know a ton of advanced degree holders who won’t be getting an invite to join MENSA anytime soon (including yours truly).  The failure to convince the viewer that Cross is a savant is a fatal flaw because his brilliance as a detective is the crux of the plot.  Sadly, this Alex Cross seems more suited for CSI Miami with David Caruso than as a future elite profiler for the F.B.I.

What can I say about Tyler Perry’s performance?  It’s clumsy, lazy, and void of any conviction.  Yes, he brings greater physicality to the role that his predecessor, but it’s a awkward hulking portrayal of a character who is meant to be calculating, efficient, and precise.  And in those moments when the script calls for him to emote, things completely fall flat.  It is as inept a performance as I have ever seen and it completely drags down the work of some pretty fair actors in Ed Burns, Jean Reno, Cicely Tyson, and (to a lesser extent) Rachel Nichols.

As for Matthew Fox, clearly he goes under an impressive physical transformation to take on this role and when he doesn’t speak a line, he does a fair job of playing the part of a deadly assassin.  Unfortunately, when he does interact with other characters, his work unravels in much the same way that Perry’s does.  In my opinion, Fox has never been much of an actor but has had the good fortune to fall into two television roles (Lost, Party of Five) that garnered him more attention than he deserves.  In one regard, he is the perfect choice to play the antagonist to Perry as they are equally bad actors.

I think when you look at a movie and say that the writing is bad and that both the protagonist and antagonist are terrible, it more or less tells you everything you will ever need to know about the film.  And not only should you avoid this film, you should perform a public service act by preventing others from seeing it.  Station yourself at the local Best Buy and dissuade uninformed consumer from buying it; or start one of those asinine petitions that people send to the White House (like building a Death Star, or getting Piers Morgan deported) to beseech the Obama Administration to ban Tyler Perry from ever making another movie.  Whatever your methods, you have been warned about this film and it is your civic duty to extend that warning to others.

Standout Performance: No one.

Read More

Review: Friends with Kids

Friends with Kids is a textbook example of the good ole bait and switch.  Trailers, one-sheets, and other marketing materials feed the consumer with a steady diet of Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, John Hamm, and Chris O’Dowd.  The goal clearly is to create an association between this film and the quartet’s last project together - Bridesmaids.  In doing so your expectations align to that film experience – the laugh out loud humor, the witty repartee, and just the right amount of sentimentality. However, in reality you are getting something completely different with this movie.  Instead of the aforementioned four, you are getting Adam Scott and Jennifer Westfeldt weaving their way towards parenthood in a overly contrived plot that tries to take aim at the conventions of parenthood and relationships.  Instead of humor, you get soapbox preaching. In lieu of charm, you get drab.

The film provides us two protagonists who believe the traditional concepts and conventions of parenthood are silly and frivolous after watching the mundane lives of their friends and so they decide to platonically have a baby together.  Even as you are reading that last sentence I would venture a guess that you have already figured out how this movie will end for our two protagonists.  The problem then  is that before we - the viewers - can get to that incredibly telegraphed conclusion, you must first endure the plot.

If the movie had only one message to disseminate and if it were actually a useful one, then there might have been value in the almost two hours I spent watching it.  But sadly the plot takes off in so many directions and tries to address so many different relationship issues that it all gets lost in a morass of social angst.  What truly exasperates things is that by the third act, you realize that there are no real answers to be had, no anecdote that makes all the onscreen drama make sense.  Like a dog, the plot seems to be chasing its own tail in one big circle. 

The cast in this movie does very little to acquit itself or the film.  Jennifer Westfedlt and Adam Scott star in this movie but in all honesty are not suitable-for-primetime-players.  Their best work clearly is as bit parts.  That the duo is supported by a group of very successful actors makes their lack of star panache more glaring.  As for the aforementioned  supporting cast, the four Bridesmaids alums are sadly underutilized and appear void of the dynamic qualities that define each of their respective talents.  It’s not so much that they are not trying but more that their respective characters are one-dimensional.  Everything they do feels so bland and muted.

I am going to be honest and disclose that this movie put me to sleep for about 10 minutes between the first and second acts.  That alone makes this movie no better than a C- though even that grade may be a bit generous.  I don't think the movie is an abomination or anything to that extent but it is inconsequential and sterile with no one good redeeming quality. I would be hard pressed to recommend this film even if it were on network TV, because it is just not entertaining.  If these kinds of movies really are your cup of tea, then I would recommend you keep an eye out for This is 40 starring Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann.  Hopefully director Judd Apatow can stem the tide of his Sandler-like descent into mediocrity.

Standout Performance: Megan Fox. She may not be able to act, but she is carving out a little bit of a niche channeling her real-life persona into some smaller roles.

Read More

Review: Man on a Ledge

The trailers for Man on a Ledge really did nothing for me.  The supporting cast looked excellent on paper with Eddie Burns, Elizabeth Banks, Anthony Mackie, Ed Harris, and Jamie Bell, but Sam Worthington as the lead dulled my interest.  I know he has a big following post-Avatar, but this is the same person who was the lead in Clash of the Titans, The Debt, and Terminator Salvation.  So in my mind, a Sam Worthington movie without James Cameron’s name splashed somewhere across the one-sheet is more likely to be a miss than a hit.  Unfortunately, in the case of Man on a Ledge, I am right.

The plot of the movie focuses on Worthington’s Nick Cassidy – a cop who has been sent to jail for stealing a diamond from Ed Harris’ David Englander.  One jailbreak and a couple of twists and turns later, we find Worthington on the ledge of a high-rise verbally jousting with Elizabeth Banks’ Lydia Mercer – a down-on-her-luck police negotiator.  If by now you are envisioning the movie The Negotiator starring Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey then you are on the right track.  Only it’s a lot less hip.

So here is the problem.  When the majority of a film’s scenes are shots of a man standing on a ledge engaging in dialogue, the action on the periphery has to make up for the protagonist’s relative inertia.  Sadly, the schemes, machinations, and physical jockeying amongst the stellar supporting cast drop the ball.  The plot is too generic, the process too thin, and the payoff too predictable.  To remedy this, it feels like director Asger Leth and writer Pablo F. Fenjves try to inject a bit of sexual tension between Worthington and Banks to no avail.  Their chemistry feels forced.

I feel that movies such as these, where the plot is not particularly original and the twists not inspired, can get rescued by strong character acting.   On paper, Man on a Ledge has the pieces in place to pull off something that at the very least is entertaining.  Unfortunately, too much of the film relies on Worthington, who seems to be a one trick pony as an actor – surly.  The dour demeanor and low rumbling vocals can carry you a long way as an antagonist, but not so much as the lead.  Sure Ed Harris is solid as the heavy and Anthony Mackie, Jamie Bell, Elizabeth Banks, and Eddie Burns turn in solid workman-like contributions, but at the end of the day it’s all for naught because Worthington - burdened with script limitations - is not up to the task of elevating the movie.

I don’t want to be overly harsh in my write up of this movie.  It has a handful of solid tension-filled moments and a couple of nice action scenes that utilize the physical space of the film well.  Should you happen to see the film, you will find entertainment value.  I just would not suggest you plan your social calendar around it.  It’s a bottom-of-the-queue Netflix movie that will one day in the future help you pass two hours of your time.  However, I would guess that soon after you put the red Netflix envelope back into your mailbox for its return trip, you may never think about it again. 

Standout Performance: Ed Harris.  It is by no means his best performance, but Harris is a pro and knows how to hits all the right notes to deliver a credible performance.

Read More