I've read enough Cross novels by James Patterson to know I can't be bothered reading any more. Enough to also wonder why the stuff sells so well. It's kind of like the Mills and Boon of crime - writing: very formulaic pulp. Even the twists end up being half - expected and relatively unsurprising. At any rate, much as I think Morgan Freeman is a great actor, he was always about as convincing to me as Alex Cross, as Tom Cruise was convincing as Jack Reacher. In other words ... not particularly.
Even back in the day, Freeman was at least 20 years too old for the Cross character. He was so old, that from memory, he was made a single bachelor in the previous 2 movies, which were good, because Morgan was in them. It's just that they seemed to be Alex Cross in name only.
Rob Cohen is not a great director, but to give him some credit, he does capture the tone and feel of the Cross books in this movie, better than the earlier films. And Tyler Perry is a better fit for Alex Cross, as described in the books, than Morgan Freeman could ever hope to be. And what do you know, Cross is actually drawn here as a family man and his family play almost as big a part in the book series, as the various villains and the crimes they commit. So I'm not quite sure why so many arm - chair critics on this forum long for those days of an even then quite elderly Morgan Freeman in the part.
Other things I liked were Matthew Fox's psychopathic assassin, playing impressively, even bravely, against type.
A couple of things that stood out as being weird. Monica is virtually not even mentioned again after her off - screen murder. There's no funeral, no recognition bar some solitary reference to a pathology report. At least Maria got a funeral and a wake. Monica = zilch! Was there an editing glitch? And how in the hell did Cross and his off - sider Tommy, (Why not John Sampson as in the books?) know exactly when to hit Picasso's car? Coincidence? It was just never explained. Bizarre!
Alex Cross is not great cinema, though I did think it catches the spirit of the Patterson books, better than the earlier films. As such I found it reasonably entertaining in a low brow way and I think some of the criticisms directed towards it are misguided and unwarranted.
Even back in the day, Freeman was at least 20 years too old for the Cross character. He was so old, that from memory, he was made a single bachelor in the previous 2 movies, which were good, because Morgan was in them. It's just that they seemed to be Alex Cross in name only.
Rob Cohen is not a great director, but to give him some credit, he does capture the tone and feel of the Cross books in this movie, better than the earlier films. And Tyler Perry is a better fit for Alex Cross, as described in the books, than Morgan Freeman could ever hope to be. And what do you know, Cross is actually drawn here as a family man and his family play almost as big a part in the book series, as the various villains and the crimes they commit. So I'm not quite sure why so many arm - chair critics on this forum long for those days of an even then quite elderly Morgan Freeman in the part.
Other things I liked were Matthew Fox's psychopathic assassin, playing impressively, even bravely, against type.
A couple of things that stood out as being weird. Monica is virtually not even mentioned again after her off - screen murder. There's no funeral, no recognition bar some solitary reference to a pathology report. At least Maria got a funeral and a wake. Monica = zilch! Was there an editing glitch? And how in the hell did Cross and his off - sider Tommy, (Why not John Sampson as in the books?) know exactly when to hit Picasso's car? Coincidence? It was just never explained. Bizarre!
Alex Cross is not great cinema, though I did think it catches the spirit of the Patterson books, better than the earlier films. As such I found it reasonably entertaining in a low brow way and I think some of the criticisms directed towards it are misguided and unwarranted.