The first trailer has arrived.
I'm really not sure what to make of this as both Robert DeNiro and Claire Danes seem really out of place here. However, Ricky Gervais is great as usual.
Stardust (Matthew Vaughn, 2007)
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
-
Cinesimilitude
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:43 am
-
lord_clyde
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:22 am
- Location: Ogden, UT
-
Jean-Luc Garbo
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 5:55 am
- Contact:
I wrote this review for some friends so please excuse the enthusiasm. 
"This movie based on the Neil Gaiman novel was released on Friday and I saw it that afternoon. Here's what I have to say. Don't make me force you to go.
The lead is Charlie Cox. He is in love with Sienna Miller. He promises her ownership of a star if she agrees to marry him. She says yes and sends Cox out to get her a falling star. Our falling star is Claire Danes. Cox isn't alone in his desire for Danes. Michelle Pfeiffer is a witch trying to kill Claire Danes so as to gain immortality. Robert De Niro is a pirate who rather accidentally becomes an ally to Cox and Danes. Also in the mix is a prince who needs Danes so that he can ascend to his father's throne. As you can imagine, these three forces all converge in their plans to get Danes. (Just guess who wins - the how is more fun than the who anyway.)
If anyone compares it to "The Princess Bride" movie, what they mean is that both films share similar attitudes toward fairy tale clichés. This one, however, takes the postmodern spirit that Neil Gaiman is known for and makes it all its own for the cinematic version. It's clever, but not insufferably so. It's hip, but not in a smugly ironical fashion. It basically takes the audience along as an equal and doesn't betray that trust. It's still the work of storytellers, though, so be prepared for the twists. It's a pity that more movies based on novels don't succeed as excellently as this film. While Neil Gaiman-approved, it's still director Matthew Vaughn's own vision (as he co-wrote, co-produced, and directed it). This is still a fairy tale with innocence and terror in the old fashioned way, but it doesn't make itself at the audience's expense. There are metanarrative elements in the film, but they operate more to underline what we as the audience already do as people who suspend disbelief (or at least who sit in the dark and ask to be told a tale). In any case, these elements don't feel smug at all. If you can take Tarantino or Whedon, you can take the postmodernity of this film.
The movie's message is one about love, of course, but it's mainly one of fantasy. As a Neil Gaiman theme, the movie is about "fantasy" and "reality" living side by side. In the movie and in the book, a wall separates the two; it's a wall that one can easily step through, however. Love and imagination here are two things that live in the fantastic and the realistic. Both are unreal, but are still based in the real: we mediate them in our imaginations. As in the movie and in real life, both have consequences. Our hero does have to step into the fantastical to save his love, but that's the consequence. One makes the action so forcefully that one eventually makes it a reality. It only depends on how one mediates between the two. There's not always the happy ending, but that's always the realism of some things.
All in all, "Stardust" the movie does no disservice to the original material. Vaughn pulled it all off with imagination, fun, and brio. His realisation is impressive. The costumes are great because they add to the characters so very well. The spectacle of everything is superb in that it does what it does and doesn't call more attention to itself. It still amazes, but it's not overkill like "Spiderman" recently. The heart of it all, however, is the acting. I can't think of a single actor not given their due. Everyone really shines and wins us over. Our young lovers Cox and Danes are a lovely pair. (Cox, quite understandably, continually has the look of a man who can't believe his luck - ahem, ahem Claire Danes.) Cox is a newcomer and does very well. Danes is already quite famous, but here she really shines (ha ha). The most fun is had from Michelle Pfeiffer and Robert De Niro, however. Their experience comes into play here, of course, but the fun and professionalism that they bring to their respective roles really make them shine. I just wish there was more Peter O'Toole, though. (He, as ever, rocks.) Each of the royal princes (well, the ones not chasing the stars, but you'll see what I mean) is a riot. I thought they were great, too. Actually, I'm amazed at how Pfeiffer, De Niro, and Rupert Everett all let their egos get beaten up a bit by the good humour of the film. Pfeiffer is hag most of the time, Everett gets an interesting and unglamourous end, and De Niro gets to do something very un-Bicklesque. But Vaughn pulls it all together and makes it work exceedingly well.
Also, this movie gets the award for most inventive use of a voodoo doll.
It's a delightful movie, but the fact that it succeeds on so many levels makes it even more enjoyable. Whether you study fairy tales, avidly enjoy Neil Gaiman, avidly enjoy fairy tales anyway, or just need a good movie, "Stardust" does it all very well. I love this movie and can hardly stanch my enthusiasm. I walked in not knowing what to expect besides fun and I left incredibly entertained. Even a little moved. I'm still smiling about the movie."
"This movie based on the Neil Gaiman novel was released on Friday and I saw it that afternoon. Here's what I have to say. Don't make me force you to go.
The lead is Charlie Cox. He is in love with Sienna Miller. He promises her ownership of a star if she agrees to marry him. She says yes and sends Cox out to get her a falling star. Our falling star is Claire Danes. Cox isn't alone in his desire for Danes. Michelle Pfeiffer is a witch trying to kill Claire Danes so as to gain immortality. Robert De Niro is a pirate who rather accidentally becomes an ally to Cox and Danes. Also in the mix is a prince who needs Danes so that he can ascend to his father's throne. As you can imagine, these three forces all converge in their plans to get Danes. (Just guess who wins - the how is more fun than the who anyway.)
If anyone compares it to "The Princess Bride" movie, what they mean is that both films share similar attitudes toward fairy tale clichés. This one, however, takes the postmodern spirit that Neil Gaiman is known for and makes it all its own for the cinematic version. It's clever, but not insufferably so. It's hip, but not in a smugly ironical fashion. It basically takes the audience along as an equal and doesn't betray that trust. It's still the work of storytellers, though, so be prepared for the twists. It's a pity that more movies based on novels don't succeed as excellently as this film. While Neil Gaiman-approved, it's still director Matthew Vaughn's own vision (as he co-wrote, co-produced, and directed it). This is still a fairy tale with innocence and terror in the old fashioned way, but it doesn't make itself at the audience's expense. There are metanarrative elements in the film, but they operate more to underline what we as the audience already do as people who suspend disbelief (or at least who sit in the dark and ask to be told a tale). In any case, these elements don't feel smug at all. If you can take Tarantino or Whedon, you can take the postmodernity of this film.
The movie's message is one about love, of course, but it's mainly one of fantasy. As a Neil Gaiman theme, the movie is about "fantasy" and "reality" living side by side. In the movie and in the book, a wall separates the two; it's a wall that one can easily step through, however. Love and imagination here are two things that live in the fantastic and the realistic. Both are unreal, but are still based in the real: we mediate them in our imaginations. As in the movie and in real life, both have consequences. Our hero does have to step into the fantastical to save his love, but that's the consequence. One makes the action so forcefully that one eventually makes it a reality. It only depends on how one mediates between the two. There's not always the happy ending, but that's always the realism of some things.
All in all, "Stardust" the movie does no disservice to the original material. Vaughn pulled it all off with imagination, fun, and brio. His realisation is impressive. The costumes are great because they add to the characters so very well. The spectacle of everything is superb in that it does what it does and doesn't call more attention to itself. It still amazes, but it's not overkill like "Spiderman" recently. The heart of it all, however, is the acting. I can't think of a single actor not given their due. Everyone really shines and wins us over. Our young lovers Cox and Danes are a lovely pair. (Cox, quite understandably, continually has the look of a man who can't believe his luck - ahem, ahem Claire Danes.) Cox is a newcomer and does very well. Danes is already quite famous, but here she really shines (ha ha). The most fun is had from Michelle Pfeiffer and Robert De Niro, however. Their experience comes into play here, of course, but the fun and professionalism that they bring to their respective roles really make them shine. I just wish there was more Peter O'Toole, though. (He, as ever, rocks.) Each of the royal princes (well, the ones not chasing the stars, but you'll see what I mean) is a riot. I thought they were great, too. Actually, I'm amazed at how Pfeiffer, De Niro, and Rupert Everett all let their egos get beaten up a bit by the good humour of the film. Pfeiffer is hag most of the time, Everett gets an interesting and unglamourous end, and De Niro gets to do something very un-Bicklesque. But Vaughn pulls it all together and makes it work exceedingly well.
Also, this movie gets the award for most inventive use of a voodoo doll.
It's a delightful movie, but the fact that it succeeds on so many levels makes it even more enjoyable. Whether you study fairy tales, avidly enjoy Neil Gaiman, avidly enjoy fairy tales anyway, or just need a good movie, "Stardust" does it all very well. I love this movie and can hardly stanch my enthusiasm. I walked in not knowing what to expect besides fun and I left incredibly entertained. Even a little moved. I'm still smiling about the movie."
-
lord_clyde
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:22 am
- Location: Ogden, UT
-
domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:42 pm
Re: Stardust (Matthew Vaughn, 2007)
I somehow saw this today and found it to be an enjoyable attempt at recapturing the feel of the late 80s fantasies, only now with more obnoxious computer effects and an overstuffed plot. The film thankfully has a real sense of novelty-- I particularly liked the idea that using witchcraft had the effects of drugs on witches, aging them prematurely, and just the very idea that a fallen star would be human (Claire Danes was surprisingly effective). But oh lord, that De Niro sky pirate sequence is deadly, and it's pretty sad that with so much creativity in bloom the filmmakers couldn't find something else to do other than deliver another pathetic "joke" about burly men who dress up like women. Har har har, good one! The film was already too, too busy and full of characters and plots before it ground to a halt for the requisite training/falling in love montage set to effeminate accompaniment. But, overall, a pleasant surprise
-
brendanjc
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:29 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Stardust (Matthew Vaughn, 2007)
The marionette sword-fight at the end with Mark Strong, in front of the panel of wise-cracking ghosts, is one of my favorite action scenes from last decade, but I feel pretty ambivalent about the film overall. I think a big problem for me is Neil Gaiman - I find something about his work thin and derivative, and the plotting in particular always feels haphazard and arbitrary, even by fantasy standards. He never seems able to integrate his protagonists into the adventure very well - they're constantly tagging along with the story instead of urging it on. Overall the film doesn't resonant with me very much as a result (and the blandness of the leads didn't help). It hits the same mediocre bar that Vaughn's other films have for me (Kick-Ass and Layer Cake) - they're entertaining, sure, but there aren't enough exciting or funny or clever moments on the balance to make them feel like anything other than lightweight retreads of their respective genres.