Wednesday, October 27, 2021


October 19, 2012 by · 1 Comment 

Tyler Perry rarely allows critics to view his movies before they’re released. Alex Cross is the first movie he has starred in that he didn’t also write and direct (and it’s a significant departure from the previous ones). But it might have been wise for Lionsgate, which is releasing the film, to have dispensed with the critics’ screenings for this one, too. Reviewers are almost unanimously giving it a drubbing — although most allow that Perry’s performance in the title role is adequate. Joe Morgenstern in the Wall Street Journal acknowledges that Perry’s “fans may welcome his transformation into an action hero cum vigilante, and he does get away with it,” but the film itself, Morgenstern remarks, has a major fault: “It neglects … to make any sense.” Manohla Dargis in the New York Times comments that Perry is a “likable screen presence, even when not wearing Madea’s wig and bosomy padding. But he doesn’t have the skill that can lift a performance up, up and away from the substandard movie surrounding it.” Betsy Sharkey in the Los Angeles Times figures that casting Perry in the role — the character, created by novelist James Patterson, has previously been played by Morgan Freeman — “is no doubt driven in part by the hope that the money guys can get some of that Tyler Perry box-office magic. Perry may actually pay off; not much else about the movie does.” And Wesley Morris in the Boston Globe writes that even having to sit through the movie may be a chore. “Some movies make it to theaters, and you don’t know why. Nothing works. Or some of it works, but that doesn’t matter because what’s working is so deeply, painfully boring,” he remarks. “Alex Cross is that kind of movie. If I hadn’t had to stay awake, I would have slept though the whole thing.”