When teenage Alex Ryder's uncle Ian dies, Alex not only loses his adult guardian but also learns how little he knew of his uncle's "boring" job. For, you see, Ian was a top British spy and very good at his job (well, apart from the last twenty seconds of it). Ian's final mission is not complete though and his employer Alan Blunt needs someone to complete the undercover operation. Realising that Ian had been grooming (sorry "training") Alex, Blunt sends him undercover as a student computer geek into the organisation of American Darius Sayle and his mysterious and "Stormbreaker" devices.
From the very start it is clear that this is going to try and be a James Bond film for children and this in itself was not a real problem for me. That said though I did think that some of the action was sailing very close to being silly from the outset. This continued into the plot as what is delivered is a quite unremarkable affair that serves as a way in to the character as well as a spy story that puts children at centre stage as the targets. It doesn't serve up a great deal but I suppose it did just about enough as a story to be able to hang a film round it. The action has clearly been given a limited budget but you can see they are trying to make the most of it.
However lack of budget isn't really the problem I had with this it was the tone. One side of the cast and crew genuinely seem to be trying to make a semi-serious spy film for kids, while the other half are convincing that it is actually a bit silly and, although not playing it for laughs, are obviously trying to have a bit of a wink at the camera and fun with the audience. Either approach might have worked and my personal preference would have been for the latter, but this mixed approach just doesn't work. It is hard to describe cause at times we have people like Nighy producing ham that would suit a slightly "cheeky" spy film, but in a scene that is delivered as dry as you like; then conversely we have some action scenes delivered "seriously" where really the silly action would have benefited from a more "fun" delivery to prevent us viewing it with serious eyes.
I'm not sure where the failing lies but certainly a lot of it rests with director Sax for not managing to put his stamp on it and make it his own. Pettyfer is also part of the problem I'm afraid. He has the looks but it is charisma and presence where he falls down and he is unable to really get the tone of the film right. The support cast is mixed but mostly wasted. McGregor seems to enjoy playing James Bond but is only in a small part of the film. Nighy is stiff but hammy, Okonedo is crisp and quite sexy, Fry does his best Q impression, Pyle is rubbish, Carr is mercifully limited to a few seconds and Coltrane is given a poor Tony Blair joke to fluff. Lewis is hampered with a bad accent but is still a solid presence but it is Rourke that makes for a lack of villains in the film and he is too silly to buy into. Walters and Serkis are OK in small roles but god knows what Silverstone got out of it apart from a paying job and maybe a shot at being a bigger character in a sequel.
Despite all this it is actually a reasonably OK spy film for tweenies unable to get into a "proper" film. It should have been better though and the mixed tone and lack of genuine fun is what limits it and probably means that there won't be a sequel anytime soon.
