Through the
month of March, I’m going to be taking another look at films I’ve previously
reviewed, correcting any mistakes I’d noticed, and/or adding in some new perspective.
And the first film I’m gonna be recovering is Stormbreaker.
This was one
my earlier reviews (but not the earliest I’m covering) and it’s one I have some
regrets over, I have now read the book and I think it’s fine, not one of my
favourites, but I might check out the upcoming Alex Rider series they’re
developing.
When I first
reviewed this film, I concluded that over-marketing could be the reason for
the film’s failure, it wasn’t, that was really naïve of me to say. Marketing
certainly was a factor for this but the blame seems to land at the feet of
everyone’s favourite company, the Weinstein company, who clearly didn’t like
the film, gave it a trailer featuring more Ewan McGregor than there was in the
film and didn’t bother giving it a wide release in the US, it went straight to
DVD in other territories too, this may be the consequence of not having a big
studio like Warner Bros. behind it like Harry Potter did.
Its
reception probably didn’t help either, it holds a 35% Rotten Tomatoes rating
and only a 53% audience score.
So, let’s
take another look at Stormbreaker and see what else I missed.
If you want
a beat-for-beat summary, check my other review, I’ll summarise here. 14-year old Alex
Rider goes to the rare school in the UK that doesn’t have school uniform, and
it’s here you see the tone this film is going for. The badly shot chase scene
featuring Ewan McGregor goes onto a beach and they crash through a Punch and
Judy puppet show. It occurs to me that this film is kind of camp, no-one around
seems to be reacting to the violence and destruction, it’s really quite jarring
He’s killed
by an assassin hanging upside down from a helicopter, he fires two shots
through the window which will make you question why the car is riddled with
bullet holes the next time you see it. Alex lives with Jack (Alicia
Silverstone) she’s a concerned parental figure which is honestly more than she
was in the book.
Through some
thorough investigative work, wait, no *checks notes* a bike chase straight from
a 90’s kids flick (this film was released in 2006), he finds the aforementioned bullet ridden car, gets trapped
in it as it’s about to be crushed and escapes from it by hard work and luck
*checks notes* no, a convenient ejector seat because this spy car is the one
from Looney Tunes. I know spy cars are hardly exclusive but the book actually
didn’t bother with it, which I thought was better.
He goes to
the Bank where his father worked *checks notes* no, Liverpool Street Station because some guy mentions it.
He finds out here that his father is a spy, and they want him to be one also.
They even dangle the carrot in front of him that his father was secretly
training him (maybe but he’s 14!!!) Anyway, they resort to blackmail as it
turns out Jack is living without a visa. This should have been taken a lot more
seriously than it is. He gets trained and nearly kills some people, then finds
out his mission is to complete his father’s mission, find out about the
mysterious Stormbreaker.
He then gets
gadgets by visiting the gadget man at *checks notes* Harrods Toy Store, how
desperate for money were you? The book was filled with product placement, but at least it made sense, what
is this? It’s Steven Fry though, I can’t be that angry.
He
immediately breaks cover by accidentally blurting his name aloud, wait *checks
notes* he brings his personal phone with him because he’s a moron and none of his superiors thought to check that. The
Stormbreaker turns out to be VR software with dodgy special effects but there
are more sinister secrets beneath.
This film is
bad, it’s really bad. The level of scenery chewing by the likes of Bill Nighy,
Mickey Rourke, Missi Pyle and Andy Serkis makes it abundantly clear that this
wasn’t being taken too seriously. As a spy story it’s fairly stock and its one
unique attribute, that the child was blackmailed into it, is something that’s
underutilised.
The film
favours action over Alex using any sort of deductive reasoning which would be
fine if the action scenes didn’t suck. If Power Rangers can get away with using
martial arts and still be considered somewhat child friendly, why not this?
What was that business with the rope (and why were they trying to kill Alex
anyway?) why the stupid action scene inter-spliced with a cartoon? What on earth
were they doing with the camera in that opening chase?
But that
being said, I still think there’s something of merit here, it’s campness is
kind of endearing to me, it’s clear it’s not something you should take too
seriously and I had fun watching it, even if it required me to disengage my
brain for a bit. As a starter for a franchise though, this was the wrong way to
go about it. It needed to take itself a little more seriously, have a director
who can direct action… and actors, oh and Google Sodium Pentothal for goodness
sake.
Rating
40/100
No comments:
Post a Comment
Feel free to leave a comment, whether you agree or disagree with my opinions, and you're perfectly welcome to. Please be considerate