RipDelight
This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.
Invaderbank
The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.
Ginger
Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.
Steve Pulaski
Growing up in the late nineties and early two-thousands, I noticed how popular fantasy and junior secret-agent movies were with young children. It seemed everywhere kids were playing with action figures, wearing apparel from the latest adventure movie, or quoting and impersonating their favorite movie hero. Such films of my generation that were quick, run-of-the-mill fads were the two Agent Cody Banks, the Spy Kids trilogy, and maybe throw in The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl for good measure, to keep with the fantasy-adventure theme. These films couldn't have mattered less to me - I was too busy watching TV I wasn't supposed to be watching and getting films from my uncle that were far too thematically mature for my age.However, as I grew up, my curiosity to the strange and relatively broad array of junior actioneers from my childhood had surfaced and I began watching these types of films every now and then. The only action film from my childhood that seems to have held up is Spy Kids. Both Agent Cody Banks films are hopelessly ordinary action-fare with not much more than a few cool gadgets and the occasionally watchable action sequence. Alex Rider: Stormbreaker, the first in the planned-series of Anthony Horowitz novel adaptations, however, is about as ordinary and as forgettable as a teenage action film can be. It's named after the first book in the Alex Rider action/mystery series by Horowitz, all of which were once planned to have a film counterpart. After Stormbreaker's disappointing numbers at the box office, the sequel and all other films were scrapped, leading to an upset Horowitz and a practically stillborn franchise.Stormbreaker, as it's simply called in everywhere but America, isn't a bad film by the usual standards, but plagued by indifference, monotony, and the usual spy-movie offerings with a younger hero who may as well be a special effect. Alex Rider is played by Alex Pettyfer, a fourteen year old boy who is ejected from his typical life to avenge his uncle's death against the ruthless computer hacker Darrius Sayle (Mickey Rourke), whose most evil attribute is possessing the ability to talk in a rigid voice and chew on a toothpick simultaneously. The "Stormbreaker" in the title is a powerful super-computer which will be placed in every school in America and, after being launched by the Prime Minister, will have unknown consequences far from the planned ones, which is to provide people with smooth technology.The film has all the right components for the genre such as the love-interest, the helplessly ordinary teen boy, the cool gadgets (the Nintendo DS with interchangeable cartridges that will provide a different weapon is pretty damn slick), the ruthless villain who looks more frightening then he is, and the grand finale. When I say the "right" components, I mean the relatively predictable ones. Films like Stormbreaker are hard to make because everything the novel seemed to touch isn't unfamiliar to audiences. Even without reading the novel, I can see Anthony Horowitz had the pleasure of grabbing the pen for the adaptation of his film, showing the material doesn't stray too far from the book.The purpose of the Alex Rider books is to give kids some harmless escapism that, while fun, isn't really necessary reading. Like the Artemis Fowl series, it would seem these kinds of books are best left to the page. This way, even if the reading is light and rather formulaic, kids will have the ability to imagine the action in their heads and exercise their right to dream and envision things. Having a film based on books like these isn't really vital because they dilute that sort of imagination. When it comes down to this series, if one needed to choose, kids should be given the novel of Stormbreaker - not the DVD.Starring: Alex Pettyfer, Mickey Rourke, Alicia Silverstone, Bill Nighy, Sophie Okonedo, and Missi Pyle. Directed by: Geoffrey Sax.
ryanshepard92
As a teen, I have enjoyed the Alex Rider series. Yes, it is a book series about a kid who becomes a spy, but it's done A LOT better than Spy Kids, Agent Cody Banks, etc. The books actually make it believable that a kid really could become a spy. Unfortunately, the movie fared far worse than Cody Banks and is just as bad as Spy Kids, if not worse.When I saw the trailer for the movie, I thought, "This could be decent. After all, the British did give us the Harry Potter films and the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and those are fairly faithful movie adaptations of the books. Why should this be any different?" Unfortunately, I learned a hard lesson about judging an entire country based off of a few individuals.For starters, I'll say that the movie itself actually wasn't bad. If it was just a normal movie, I'd probably give it a 5/10. Unfortunately, I simply can't do that. If you are going to make a movie based off of a book, for the love of God, could you please make it similar to the book? Americans almost always fail at this attempt, yet I've always respected the British for making good movie adaptations of books. As the Harry Potter movies and the Lord of the Rings trilogy demonstrates, it's really not that hard. This is all you have to do.1. Read the book. 2. Get hired by a studio to make a film based on the book. 3. Make a movie based off of the characters, settings, and scenes in the book.There. That's it. So, why on earth do so many movie adaptations come out like this? The way this movie turned out, I wouldn't be surprised if the director heard the plot of the book from "this guy who knows this guy who knows this guys hairdresser's cousin who skimmed through the plot on Wikipedia."Let me just say that I don't care about minor changes. I don't mind that Alex used a Nintendo DS instead of a Game Boy. Those are expected changes that actually enhance the plot of the movie. But there are so many things wrong, they're just unforgivable.Why does Alex go all James Bond on multiple guards with a rope? In the book, Alex just took out one guard by kicking him, which is far more realistic and less stupid than him flinging a rope around like an idiot.Why on earth did you change the name of the villain in the movie? Are you telling me there wasn't a single Lebanese person in the entire world willing to play this part?Why, why, why, is Sabina here? Why? It doesn't make any sense?Why don't the characters look or act like each other as they do in the books?Why did you turn this into a Spy Kids-esque movie where, instead of presenting a good plot or believable characters, you decide to show someone getting kicked in the nuts? Oh, won't that just make the primary school children giggle with glee?Movies based on books are beyond easy to make. You literally have the plot, characters, dialogue, and set designs sitting right in your lap! All you literally have to do is make a movie based on what you see in the book. It is beyond simple, yet it astonishes me how so many of them fail.Oh, well. At least the movie bombed and we won't have to suffer through any sequels.
Neil Welch
Having not read any of the books, I approached this entirely at face value.The feel of it is very much James Bond from the Roger Moore era - a relatively light hearted spy romp. Add in the training aspect, and the fact that a youngster is the main character, and you have an entertaining action thriller for family audiences.It may not match the books, and if that's important to you going in then it's going to disappoint you. But the main cast is all fine, with Mickey Rourke's comedy helpers making it clear the level on which the film is to be approached.Alex Pettyfer does satisfactorily as Alex, but doesn't set the screen on fire (not that there are many juvenile leads who do). On the whole, this is entertaining but forgettable.
jeremyscalf
First let me say I need a lower rating for this film made available. Gouge my eyes out Awful! I have a couple of questions for the creators of this monstrosity. This is not directed at England in general, just the writers of this movie. Everyone knows England is the center of the universe already.Why waste money on developing a computer with a virus that kills people? why not just kill people?.. or maybe brainwash people. you know, something to validate the development of a new computer system. why was the kid afraid of the computer dinosaur? what kind of accents did the blonde chick and the red headed dude have? do the British always portray the French, Germans, Russians, Americans and people from everywhere other than england as the villains? Do they think everyone living outside of England think England is the center of the universe? why did random people not get sucked into the photo booth? Is there a guy there monitoring everyone who walks into the booth? Why would they want to stereotype themselves as ignorant white people and speak Japanese and mocking Japanese culture while eating sushi? why is there a jelly fish that does not exist in real life in the bad guy American's house? why put a smoke bomb in a Nintendo ds when you can just give the kid a real smoke bomb? it takes more time to find the cartridge and put it in the ds, start the ds and load the program than to just through a smoke bomb. why did the kid have to ride a horse when the car made it across the field in about the same time? Why would a millionaire American kid move to England with "the greatest school system in the world," and get made fun of for living in a trailer and smelling bad? Why would the producers of this film think anyone but Englanders would relate to this? how did they convince all those famous actors that this would be a good film to be in? why is the fail safe button for releasing the virus so hard for the bad guy American to get to? Answer me these questions and maybe I wont kill myself thinking of this movie.After watching this movie I feel the urge to develop a lethal virus that kills all the people who made this film. do not watch this movie unless you hate yourself or you are a 10 year Englander. Really never ever ever watch this film. Ever. Even if you are just curious.(note to self: submit the restrained review of this film, not the one that says really horrible things about this film)
