My folks and Kitten and I went to Stardust tonight.  I'd had some concern about the PG-13 production with Katherine, even though I'd read the book aloud to her and Margie on a long car drip.

It was, during the movie itself, a bit intense for her ("Daddy -- I didn't really like the book that much"), but by the end she thought it had a wonderful happy ending, was a lot of fun (though "there was a lot of killing"), and that we should get the DVD.

Stardust (2007)

Overall		Story
Production		Acting

Story: Adapting a rich, imaginative tale from the pen of one of the great fantasy writers of our time into a two hour movie is going to be a thankless task, but Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn have done an excellent job.  There are numerous bits and pieces (and characters) that are cropped from the story, and others that are expanded far beyond the original (the lightning catchers as the most noteworthy element), but most of the choices are well done, and I left the theater not feeling at all cheated.

Only afterward did I really find myself feeling that there had been something missing.  That was a sense of texture, of depth beyond the glorious prettiness.  Gaiman's village of Wall is a living community -- here it's a facade with a handful of characters.  Similarly the world beyond the Wall is a panoply of fairy tale elements and kingdoms in the book -- here it's largely unpopulated save for the minimum needed to advance the to its conclusion.  Things and people exist in a vacuum, fabulous set pieces with nothing to connect them save a wonderful sound track and stirring photography.

The growing relationship between Dunstan and Yvaine, for example, which grows naturally over time in the book, just seems to happen by shorthand here.  I understand why, just as I understand why the ending of the movie is probably the most radically altered and punched up from the book.  And enough other stuff is going on that it's not too annoying, certainly not during the tale. 

For an adaptation of a book, then, it was more than adequate. But I wouldn't skip reading the book because of that.

Acting:  Everyone does quite a nice job.  There's nothing terribly stirring to it all, no Academy Award-winning roles to play.  But the actors and actresses, known and unknown, do a fine, enjoyable job of it -- and look like they're having a good time of it. 

Production:  Beautiful photography, loving landscapes, excellent music, and some wonderful special effects combine to make this a gorgeous film to watch and listen to. 

Overall:  Very nice movie, quite memorable, and one that I'll want to watch many more times.   I'd have been willing to watch a film twice as long to get some of the parts that were cropped -- but if Neil Gaiman himself is going to give it his nod of approval, I'm not going to criticize it too much.  I'm not sure it will be the warm fantasy classic of, say, The Princess Bride -- but I would encourage folks to go see it ... and to be sure and read the book, too.

Filed under :: Media - Movies
Link · Print · Edit · TR/G

The rushed beginning got to me, but otherwise I liked it. Didn't fall head over heels for it, but liked it.

The whole thing is a bit rushed -- and most of the time covers it up by rushing (lots of grand, sweeping shots of horses and carriages and goat-carts pounding across the countryside, with grand, sweeping music to accompany them). But it was the most noticeable in the beginning.

Hmmmm. A mini-series would have been good. Maybe someday ...

Quoth Kelson ...

The growing relationship between Dunstan and Yvaine, for example, which grows naturally over time in the book, just seems to happen by shorthand here.

Hmm. I reread the book after watching the film, and I actually had the opposite reaction. In the film, you could at least watch the progress of the relationship. In the book, I felt like it dropped in out of left field at the very end.