I rarely go to the movies. I might occasionally watch one on TV, if something happens to be on that looks interesting. But I rarely go out of my way to sit down and watch a movie. It’s not that I don’t like movies. It’s just that it’s rare that I see a movie that really grabs me and leaves an impression. Too often, they just feel like a mindless diversion — which perhaps is the whole point. After sitting through a recent release, most often my initial reaction is: "There’s two hours of my life I’m never getting back."

If it wasn’t for the eclectic selection of classics and cult films at The Astor — often shown as double features — I probably wouldn’t ever venture into an actual cinema. And so it was once again the lure of its double features that enticed me back to The Astor, and I happened to catch a (relatively) recent release: Alex Cross. I knew little about the movie (or the work of Tyler Perry) beforehand, and only really saw it because it was part of the double feature.

Now while it’s rare that I see a movie I really enjoy, it is great when that does happen. Watching a truly great movie can be a thoroughly uplifting experience. Even if the movie deals with some dark or violent subject matter, a well made and well executed film can leave me feeling elated for days afterwards. A sublime joy from appreciating a creative work of art, along with the simple pleasure of a good story well told.

That’s how I felt after watching The Cabin in the Woods last year. I was walking around with a smile on my face for days afterwards, just reveling in the mindfuck awesomeness of it all.

In contrast, after sitting through Alex Cross, for weeks now I have been hating movies as an art form and pondering what a complete waste of time most are — time that could much more productively and enjoyably be spent jerking off to internet porn.

Seeing a bad movie wouldn’t normally induce me to blog about it. Jaded and cynical as I am, I have very low expectations, and generally watch movies only in the vain hope that my stunningly low expectations might occasionally be exceeded. But I admit Alex Cross did have once quality in common with some of my favourite movies: it left and impression. Enough of one that I was still thinking about it days later, if only to ponder how truly terrible it was.

Sometimes when going to see a band, there can be some strange intangible sense right from the moment they start playing whether it’s going to be a good gig or not. I got a similar feeling right at the start of Alex Cross, where there is a montage set in the aftermath of a chase scene. Tyler Perry as Alex Cross is walking towards camera in slow motion through a chaotic tableau, and as a stretcher is wheeled by him, he leans over to briefly check on the wounded person lying on it. Apart from the mind numbing cliche of that particular visual, there was something about Perry that was entirely unconvincing in that scene, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact he wasn’t even doing very much — a self consciousness to his movements, all amplified by the slow motion.

I suspect one of the biggest crimes as an actor isn’t necessarily to be wooden, or play a character badly — but to look like you’re trying really hard to "act". This is something I felt at times throughout the whole movie about Perry’s performance. Granted he was perhaps better during the dramatic scenes, but he is no action hero, and was entirely unconvincing when trying to be one. His performance was so bad it left me with a new found respect and appreciation for the great actions stars. Say what you want about the acting abilities of the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis even — at least they are usually fun to watch in a good action move, and often even in a bad one. Hell, there’s even more entertainment value in watching David Caruso remove and replace his sunglasses in CSI: Miami than watching Perry fumble his way through Alex Cross. (And say what you want about Caruso as an actor, no one takes on and takes off his sunglasses like that guy — he owns that shit!)

The rest of the cast isn’t a whole lot better. Edward Burns plays Cross’s partner and friend in a performance memorable mainly for the complete lack of any interpersonal chemistry, their scenes together interminably tepid. Never have I hoped so fervently for major characters to be killed off unexpectedly, if only to be spared the sight of such awful acting. (Where’s Joss Whedon when you need him?) No such luck unfortunately, although the minor characters tend to drop like flies, often in gratuitously gruesome ways. Even the performances of competent actors seemed lacking. Jean Reno was just phoning it in. Matthew Fox playing against type as the sadistic bad guy was the closest thing to an impressive performance, occasionally capturing creepy, although at other times unintentionally comedic and overwrought.

Rob Cohen’s direction was a mess. I couldn’t believe this was the same guy who did XXX, which I remember quite enjoying at the time. Perhaps I was just distracted by the hotness of Asia Argento. (Maybe I should watch it again just to be sure…)

The whole thing was a poorly written and badly executed mess from start to finish. I haven’t read any of the novels, but surely there was enough source material there for a decent movie in there somewhere.

But it isn’t just that it was a terrible movie — it was the particular type of terrible that has mystified me. It just didn’t work on any level. It was universally terrible in it’s entire execution — the acting, directing, and writing were all woeful. It attempted to blend elements of action thriller, police procedure, cop buddy movie, serial killer movie — and succeeded at none. The result is a mess, and this is what confuses me. It was such a terrible movie in a way that I didn’t think was possible in this day and age, with movie studios generally playing it safe and loathe to release anything even a hint of originality. The land of mainstream movies is inhabited mostly by formulaic dross. It’s the same stories, same themes, same old cliches over and over again. Perhaps in this age of mass marketing and mass media that is inevitable. Perhaps most people don’t care about the movies they watch that much — they just want to be distracted/entertained for a fleeting moment. Maybe most people just happy with whatever mindless entertainment might come their way, and don’t necessarily want or expect high art each time they head to the cinema. (Even so, I suspect the movie going public is still often short changed.) Perhaps staying within the confines of a formula, a genre, a franchise, a trope — it makes films easier to market.

It’s the McDonalds fast food thing — you know what you’re going to get each time. Consistency over quality. So in that kind of media environment, how did a movie as bad as this end up being made? A movie that completely fails not only as an exercise in story telling, but as a genre film? It’s a genre film unsure of what genre it’s meant to be. Most film-makers at least succeed in creating the "type" of film they set out to create, usually (unfortunately?) within the constraints of some established structure: "action movie", "thriller", "road movie", "buddy movie", "romcom", "parody film". This movie fails at even that basic level.

Which is not to say sticking to a formula is a good thing, and some of my favourite movies are ones that break the mold. It’s one of the reasons I loved The Cabin in the Woods. But it has to be done right. Nothing was done right on Alex Cross — it’s as if everyone involved thought they were making a different movie.

It makes me wonder how and why this movie managed to even get released. We the consumer have to put up with a movie industry that constrains the creativity of talented film makers to make film more marketable to the general public, yet we still get such drastic misfires as this that attempts to blend genres but doesn’t deliver on any level. Wasn’t there a point where someone looked at this during the film-making process — perhaps someone from the studio bankrolling it — and said: "This is shit! I don’t understand what this is. What the fuck are you all thinking?"

It’s all the more mystifying considering we are living through a kind of golden age of television, where even average shows tend to have at least a veneer of quality about them. And there is no lack of crime shows and police procedurals to choose from, some better than others, but some nicely done. This is what movies like Alex Cross are competing with for our attention, so it once again confuses me how it ever got released. For even the lamest episode of the CSI franchises is better than this shit. And that’s saying something.