Alex Cross (2012)

Oh snap. I'm about to cross Alex Cross. The trailer inferred ill effects should one attempt to do so, but what are my options? This is kind of what I do. Hopefully the towering manliness that is Tyler Perry isn't enough to cause my head to explode at the mere suggestion that I question his virility. I guess I'll take my chances and hope for the best.

"Alex Cross" was not a film that I was looking forward to by any stretch. I've never seen nor intended to see a single Tyler Perry movie despite him releasing roughly 47 of them every year, and my plans were happy and comfortable remaining exactly there. I don't think he's a good actor based on what I've seen of him, all his films looked asinine and boring, I hate the Eddie Murphy fat-suit schtick, he's kind of racist if you listen to him talk, and the fact that he is so transparently marketing a cut and paste product for his brainwashed fan-base consisting manly of white teenaged girls and has never been called on it is frankly irritating to me.

As you may know, this film is a reboot which follows the character of Alex Cross, who was played by Morgan Freeman in "Kiss The Girls" and "Along Came A Spider." Apparently those were such big hits that they felt a need to bring Cross back again. And they thought Tyler Perry was a good replacement for Morgen Freeman. I can't even make a joke about something that stupid. Anyway, Cross is a detective on the tail of a serial killer called "Picasso" (Matthew Fox) who seems to be targeting a business man, working his way up the chain to him, so to speak.

Cross will attempt to catch him using either the power of his massive intellect, or psychic ability. It's kind of hard to tell which one of those he possesses based on what I saw. I guess it's not that important, since by the end he doesn't really use his powers of deduction/magic to solve anything related to actually catching Picasso. He just kind of picks up a gun and goes Charles Bronson on him after the whole thing becomes overtly personal. So whatever. It doesn't really lead to anything anyone else couldn't have done with basic investigative competence.

Ah yes. "Perry's Untouchables," for sure.

"Alex Cross" is not going to break any new boundaries in terms of police dramas featuring psychos. It's all quite stock in a "Red Dragon" meets "In The Line of Fire" way. That's not to say it's bad, it's just recycled. And PG-13. It's a movie about a serial killer that's rated PG-13. That's always a good sign. But hey, it's got Edward Burns, Jean Reno and John C. McGinley. Those are some nice grabs for the supporting cast at least.

You know, I will give Tyler Perry the slightest bit of credit for trying to expand a bit and do something other than playing an old crazy lady, but right from the get go there's a problem with him being in this, which even from the trailer is clearly evident. The problem is that there is no way in this bizarre, messed up world that a guy like Tyler Perry is suited to be an action movie lead.

Maybe if he were cast as one of the IT guys, or the police chief, or a sidekick or something else where he didn't have to shoot a gun or look intimidating or anything involving punching someone else in the face I could have bought it. But as it is, we're supposed to not only believe that this doughy lump of smug is a competent police officer, but that he can run down and take out a guy like Picasso in hand to hand combat, which he does during the film's ludicrous climatic fight scene. I feel it necessary to inform you that earlier in the movie we saw Picasso utterly DESTROY an MMA fighter nearly twice his size. Like, nearly to the point of possibly killing him. With his bare hands. And this miniature, chocolate flavored version of the Stay Puft Marshmallow man is supposed to beat this guy? Please.

Oh honey no, put it down. You're going to hurt yourself.

There's actually something funny that happens every time we are meant to buy Tyler Perry being a badass. Every single time he's shown throwing a punch, or shooting a gun, or anything involving something other than talking, the camera goes into seizure mode like it's inside a dryer on spin cycle. One could easily chalk that up to it being yet another film trying to make the action "more intense" by making sure we can't see a thing, but I'm sure the real reason was so that we wouldn't notice Tyler Perry having a heart attack every time he was forced to raise his fist and swing.

And as you could probably guess, the end fight between Cross and Picasso is filmed so wildly shaky and cut so spastic that it's almost impossible to tell that Matthew Fox is basically standing still waiting to be hit. That's a good thing in the same way that if I had my face melted off, I wouldn't be able to see how hideous I was since my eyes would be gone. It is so pathetic watching the editing try to salvage the action scenes when it's clear the lead actor probably couldn't even put bread in a toaster without needing an oxygen tank. It's like I'm watching a Segal movie by accident.

Matthew Fox is the one shining light that breaks through the haze of cliched plot and Perry's paunch, however. Good gravy, this guy was awesome in "Alex Cross." I've never been huge on Matthew Fox, and I'm still convinced he's a C+ actor at best, since his only got two modes: dour and smirk. But he is in the wrong movie here. He and his character are far too awesome for the likes of "Alex Cross." He needed to be going up against Karl Urban in another "Dredd" movie or in the next "Mission: Impossible" or something. The shenanigans he's pulling off are nearly Bond Villain-esque in their over-the-top nature, and it's by far and away the most entertaining thing going on here.

I would have finished watching "Lost" if Jack had been this awesome as opposed to irritating.

Matthew Fox does provide the only shocking moments in "Alex Cross," one of which occurs in a scene that's all over the trailer but goes down in a much darker way than one would usually expect a scene like that to resolve. The film gets credit for that, but the PG-13 nature of the movie means that both scenes, particularly the one in the trailer, feel a bit neutered. The second scene, which could have been really gruesome, isn't even shown except for a blurry picture of the aftermath sent via text. Must have been a hell of a scene. Glad they didn't show it.

Oh yeah. This guy has no chance against the hulking powerhouse that is the guy who plays Medea.

And I don't mean that unless a movie is graphic that it's no good, but when a person gets a hole blasted through their chest with a large caliber bullet and there's literally not a single drop of blood to be seen or even a hole in their shirt, it tends to undermine what just happened because we can tell that "Alex Cross" is made for the kiddies, and we can't have them seeing scary blood in a movie about a serial killer.

There was another thing that really irked me as well. This was Tyler Perry's mother-in-law they call "Nana-Mama" (groan) who, when Cross goes commando and suits up to take out this crazy assassin, attempts to convey the "message" of the film. This "message" is basically that by taking revenge on this guy, he becomes just as bad as him, and that he won't be able to live with himself if he goes out and gets him. And sure enough the last shot of the movie conveys that he may not be able to move on, and that there's a big cloud hanging over him for what he's done. And you know, that may have been a valid point in another film, but there's one little problem that makes it kind of stupid: He's a goddamn cop. It's his job to stop people like Picasso.

I just wanted to punch Nana-Mama in the face. Her self-righteous judgement on Cross when he goes out to stop a guy MURDERING PEOPLE like his profession requires came across as extremely preachy and insulting. And while it was nice to see Cross basically tell her to piss off, it's clear that we as the audience should be siding with her. You know what? I don't want the people trying to stop serial killers to have second thoughts about turning the other cheek. I want them to stop the serial killers before I get tortured to death. How about that?

"Sorry, folks. I'd uphold the law and protect the innocent and everything but...well...Nana Mama loves her some Jesus so...you know. I'll be in car."

Of course, the end of this movie makes Alex Cross out to be a complete and utter scumbag who definitely and very illegally overreaches not only his professional jurisdiction but also his character's sense of morals, but it's not really having anything to do with Picasso. That happens at the end when Jean Reno's character turns out to be behind the whole Picasso thing (it was so obvious from the beginning), and Cross essentially sells him out to a drug cartel after setting him up. So the Cartel grabs Jean Reno to take him away and kill him. Most likely in a very horrible fashion. Nice, Cross. Very professional. And unnecessary.

I don't understand why that moral grey area was thrown in there at the last minute, like they needed to artificially create a dilemma. Cross didn't have to do that. He could have gone about getting Jean Reno's character in a more official capacity. He didn't have to go all thug-justice on him, and there wasn't really a good reason why he did it that way. In fact, it would have made far more sense for both the story and character to do it in an official capacity, because that's what Cross would probably have done based on the very trite characterization I was given with this film. He's mad, yes, but he's a good cop. At least he was for 95% of the film.

Did you know that Idris Elba was originally going to be Alex Cross? That I could have bought. And not that I need a reason to dislike Tyler Perry, but come on. I could have been watching a good actor here. That's not helping much. On top of that and the fact that he took out Matthew Fox, the only decent character in this whole debacle, it's a wonder I even watched it all the way through to the end after Fox buys it with 15 minutes left to go. Who cares after that point? Then it really is a Tyler Perry movie, and screw that.

If you want a good laugh, check out Tyler Perry trying to be hardcore. It's pretty funny.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Alex Cross" is a movie whose biggest problem is bad casting for the lead. If the story had been R rated with someone other than Tyler Perry, the combination of that and Matthew Fox could have made for a halfway enjoyable thriller. But as it stands, it's just kind of there and gone with no real redeeming qualities. Tyler Perry should stick to his schtick so I don't feel any inclination to suffer through another one of his performances.

Conan the Barbarian (2011)

So I've talked about Conan. The original one, that is. And while my plan was to do "Conan The Destroyer" next, unfortunately for me (or fortunately, depending on how apt you are to get excited over the prospect of watching a PG rated Conan movie) the duel-sided Conan DVD I have which has "The Destroyer" on side B seems to be so utterly ashamed of itself that it refused to play in any player I had. I tried it in 4 different machines capable of playing a movie. Nothing. This thing did not want to admit that it contained "Conan The Destroyer" among its 1's and 0's.

What was I to do? I wanted to watch some Barbarian action, even if it sucked. I was just in that kind of mood. I own "Red Sonja," but I didn't want to jump from the first to the third film. That's just incompatible with my OCD. Besides, that's technically not even a Conan movie, even though it's totally a Conan movie.

Ah, but there's another Conan movie out there, isn't there? It was Blockbuster to the rescue as I headed out to get my fix of the latest installment in the journeys of everyone's favorite monosyllabic Crom devotee. That's right, today we're doing a remake.

The 2011 remake of "Conan The Barbarian" was met with, let's be gentle here, horrible reception. The general consensus was that it was a brainless, soulless, silly affair that faffed about while smearing itself with blood and entrails only to pause randomly to grunt and throw feces at the camera like the uncivilized neanderthal it was. On the plus side it scored better reviews than "Pathfinder." So there's that.

"What? Conan never welded two swords. This movie sucks."

Does it really deserve all that hate? Well, to be honest it's not a very good movie. I'm not going to say that it's something that I'd make a point to own. Maybe if it was part of a package deal or in the $2.99 clearance bin or something I'd consider it. And that's got to be the Blu-Ray for $2.99, not the DVD. It's one of those movies that I'll probably get the strange urge to watch every 5 years, then I'd do so and be set for another half decade. This is not a film that has any special place in my heart.

On the other hand, it wasn't nearly as bad as you'd imagine given all the negativity. Was it silly? Oh yes. Was it stupid? You bet. Was it anywhere near the level of quality as the original film? Not a chance in blue hell. But I have to be honest and admit that I have seen worse sword and sorcery movies, and FAR worse remakes/reboots. That may sound like very scant praise, and perhaps it is, but I thought that the 2011 "Conan The Barbarian" was not without some merit.

Here's the thing. When it comes to what this film is all about, it's very clear what the intention was from the very start. It's about a big hulking shirtless man killing stuff in fountains of blood. After that fact is established, the question must then become "Does it do that well?" And the answer to that is "Yes, it's pretty good at killing stuff in fountains of blood." And Conan is sufficiently shirtless throughout the majority of the film. So there we go. It's not about anything more than big, hairy, swinging...

 Chutzpah.

If you come at it from that perspective it's a perfectly serviceable, bloody distraction for an hour and a half. It's not going to fire up your imagination much or enchant you with the setting like the original did for me, but I look at it the same way I look at something starring Seagal or Dolph Lundgren. I'm in it strictly to see something badass happen. And this movie has Jason Mamoa killing a guy with a catapult. If I want a well written drama staring shirtless Jason Mamoa as a barbarian, I'll watch "Game of Thrones." But for now, I just want to see him kill something.

Not that he isn't a badass in "Game of Thrones," mind you.

Speaking of him, I was excited when Mamoa was announced as the new Conan, and I got pretty much exactly what I both wanted and expected from him. It's no secret that Jason is one of my favorite up-and-coming action movie gods, and there's fantastic intensity in everything he does. His turn as Conan was no different, as we got a guy who is just as physically intimidating as Schwarzenegger was. But whereas Arnold was more silent and stone-faced in his anger, Mamoa is very expressive and animated with his barbarian rage. And while that makes him a much different Conan than we're used to, honestly he's a lot of fun to watch.

I seriously liked this portrayal of Conan, and I don't understand anyone who can't get a charge out of scenes such as when Mamoa drives his huge sword into the back of a foe, twisting the blade with an audible, sickening crunch while staring unblinking into the eyes of his next enemy, promising that this is the fate that awaits him, all with a crazed, toothy grin on his face. Then he pulls out the sword, smears the blood on his face and swears a God-oath that if his enemy runs, he will follow him to the gates of Hell if need be. And then kill him.

Are you not entertained?!

That's what I wanted, and that's what I got. Conan kills a bunch of stuff. That's worth the hour and a half of my time. Now there were issues, which mostly had to do with the plot. This is no intricate web of a story, naturally, but even so there are a number of silly things that didn't make a whole lot of sense, and had the unfortunate side-effect of making the entire production come across as somewhat half-assed.

For starters, the villain's plan centers around a mask that gives him "The Power Over Death." That is pretty much a direct quote. He plans on using it to resurrect his dead Necromancer wife, and of course after that's done, they'll rule the world. Never mind the fact that it seems that his wife was very easily killed before, as she couldn't even save herself from being burned at the stake, so the amount of power she actually has to take over the world is debatable, but I digress. The bigger problem comes from the fact that it's never very clear what exactly the powers of this said mask are, but I can tell you for a fact that it's not nearly as impressive as it sounds.

Once he gets the mask up and running, one would assume he'd be unstoppable. At least I was assuming that since it's what was implied for the entirety of the movie up to the point when he does in fact succeed and obtain this "Power Over Death." But its not like he can just will someone back to life with the mask or become immortal, which is what you would assume would be the case. But no, you need a ceremony and a body and special doowops and all that jazz to bring someone back, and it's not so much "raising from the dead" as it is "possessing someone with the soul of that dead person." The mask's role just seems to be to allowing the ceremony to work. There's nothing that it actually does. It's like a key to a car - it allows the car to drive, but it's not doing much more than just sitting there. And as far as immortality goes, I assure you that he can be killed even with the mask on. Quite easily, actually.

On the plus side, at least the villains look dignified.

You see what I'm getting at? If you're going to make the villain scary due to an object that grants power, make the powers that the object grants actually scary. Make it so he can't be killed while he wears it. Make it so he can resurrect the dead with his mind. Make it so he's conjuring skeletons from the ground or something. Anything but what they did, which was nothing. In fact, he was more scary and intimidating in the movie before he got the mask fully functional. Like that one time he fought Conan in melee combat and won? He and his witch daughter were pulling out all kinds of crazy magical stuff during that fight and straight up kicked Conan's ass. Then at the end he gets this "Ultimate Power" and he's got nothing? What a crock.

You know, maybe they were going for the whole hubris angle, but somehow I doubt that's what was going on. I just think they didn't define their terms well enough, which made the whole point of the villain's plan seem questionable and confusing. And even though Stephen Lang as the villain was actually pretty fun since he was hamming it up to cosmic levels, he just wasn't a good baddie for Conan to take on. Particularly when compared to the original, with James Earl Jones' quiet dignity and actual power - something Lang possessed neither of.

There's also the issue of Conan's friends and followers being thrown at us with literally no introduction, seemingly with the expectation that we've known these guys for years and are deeply familiar with them and their backstories. This is untrue. I have no idea who these people are, and it's confusing and really tends to make me not care about any of them. On the other hand, Subotai and The Wizard and even Valeria in the original had just about as much depth. So they got me on that one. Plus the cast of good guys is honestly just a tiny bit better in the remake, I'm going to be honest.

Oh, and the original didn't have Ron Perlman as Conan's father. The remake one upped it there.

The strange thing is that out of all of the things that could have bugged me about the 2011 "Conan The Barbarian," it was the damn boat. That damn boat was the most awkward and confusing crap I've ever seen. Okay, okay, okay. What is the damn boat, you might be asking? I'll tell you what the damn boat is.

So Stephan Lang's got an army right? They're traveling around, bopping from place to place, getting all the things he needs to make the mask work. In this cadre of men and supplies are a bunch of elephants. Elephants to carry heavy things. Well, all the elephants are carrying just one heavy thing. Can you guess what this one heavy thing may be?

It's the damn boat.

Why is he carrying a boat across the land? It appears all he is doing is using it for a portable house. That's all he does: Sleep in it. I get the idea that he's a powerful warlord and decadence and all that good stuff, but do you really need a damn boat? That seems awfully overcomplicated. And the minute I saw it I said to myself "They had better use that to cross an ocean or have a battle on it or something." Well guess what? Never does that damn boat even touch the water in this movie. I don't even think it gets rained on. No action takes place on it. The only scenes that happen on the boat are conversations between Stephan Lang and his daughter. Conversations that could have occurred literally ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD BESIDES ON A DAMN BOAT.

Godamn it, that pissed me off.

Check out the trailer for the remake of "Conan The Barbarian." Avoid if you dislike fade in/outs.

THE BOTTOM LINE - The remake of "Conan The Barbarian" is not the horror show you may have heard, but it's critical that you don't expect too much out of it. I mean, it IS directed by the guy who did the "Friday the 13th" reboot. Expectations should be adjusted accordingly. The first twenty minutes with Conan as a child are really solid, and are the best part of the movie. Once Jason Momoa shows up it goes downhill pretty quick. It's not his fault, or anybody else in this movie's fault. They just didn't have much to work with. But hey, a lot of stuff dies. If that's all you need, you could do worse. At least it's rated R. (coughConanTheDestroyercough)