I enjoyed Morgan Freeman's "Alex Cross" films. As a thriller fan, I found both to be entertaining, interesting, and well-written (for the most part). Both were pretty standard thrillers though, and the only thing that really set them apart from other films in the genre was the presence of Morgan Freeman. He has to be one of the greatest actors out there, and I'd definitely take him over a lot of the more celebrated actors.
I read the novel this film was based on (written by James Patterson in 1993), and it was quite good. I can't really get into the differences between the book and film without giving away plot points, but essentially, things in the book were changed for the film, which for me, made the film less spectacular. The book's plot played out for over a year, while the film's plot didn't take very long to wrap up. Rushing the plot by cramming it into a small time window for a movie isn't usually the best idea, as much is lost in translation. Here, things aren't allowed to play out as they did in the book, and the shortened time-frame removed layers of complexity that made the book so fascinating. The movie is still good, just not on the level of the book.
I've seen several of Lee Tamahori's other films, enough to be familiar with his particular directorial style, which is essentially large, overblown action set-pieces which are often comprised of rather cheap-looking special effects. That said, he managed to solidly direct this film, without letting his style creep in and mess with the atmosphere, with the exception of the terrible CGI car crash in the beginning. For that I applaud him, and I definitely look forward to more of his films.
Morgan Freeman is a good Alex Cross I thought, even if he is looking a little old in this film. I saw the films before reading the books, so I couldn't help but picture Freeman while reading, which is probably why many people would disagree with me. He had physicality, he was charismatic, calm, and collected, and he really elevated the movie. All the other actors were fine, though not as good as Freeman.
This film's plot was slightly less interesting to me than the previous film, but this film didn't dwell on psychological and sexual terror as much as the last one did, so I was able to enjoy this one more.
This, much like the first, is a pretty violent movie, though not quite as sadistic as the first. It's sill bloody though, and there's a violent car crash in the beginning, a street shootout, a violent apartment scene, and the climax, with bits of violence peppered in between. The violence is graphic, so just note that.
Overall, I marginally recommend it to Morgan Freeman and thriller fans alike. It's not overwrought or overly-complicated, and it's easy to follow. Check it out.
I read the novel this film was based on (written by James Patterson in 1993), and it was quite good. I can't really get into the differences between the book and film without giving away plot points, but essentially, things in the book were changed for the film, which for me, made the film less spectacular. The book's plot played out for over a year, while the film's plot didn't take very long to wrap up. Rushing the plot by cramming it into a small time window for a movie isn't usually the best idea, as much is lost in translation. Here, things aren't allowed to play out as they did in the book, and the shortened time-frame removed layers of complexity that made the book so fascinating. The movie is still good, just not on the level of the book.
I've seen several of Lee Tamahori's other films, enough to be familiar with his particular directorial style, which is essentially large, overblown action set-pieces which are often comprised of rather cheap-looking special effects. That said, he managed to solidly direct this film, without letting his style creep in and mess with the atmosphere, with the exception of the terrible CGI car crash in the beginning. For that I applaud him, and I definitely look forward to more of his films.
Morgan Freeman is a good Alex Cross I thought, even if he is looking a little old in this film. I saw the films before reading the books, so I couldn't help but picture Freeman while reading, which is probably why many people would disagree with me. He had physicality, he was charismatic, calm, and collected, and he really elevated the movie. All the other actors were fine, though not as good as Freeman.
This film's plot was slightly less interesting to me than the previous film, but this film didn't dwell on psychological and sexual terror as much as the last one did, so I was able to enjoy this one more.
This, much like the first, is a pretty violent movie, though not quite as sadistic as the first. It's sill bloody though, and there's a violent car crash in the beginning, a street shootout, a violent apartment scene, and the climax, with bits of violence peppered in between. The violence is graphic, so just note that.
Overall, I marginally recommend it to Morgan Freeman and thriller fans alike. It's not overwrought or overly-complicated, and it's easy to follow. Check it out.