| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 16:31:13
Stardust
OK, I admit it - even at my advanced age - I'm a total sucker for a good fairy tale. So even Stardust, which doesn't quite live up to the adjective, has plenty to tempt me. But it's a film that's less than the sum of its parts.
Before exploring what's good, lemme catalog some dodgy elements.
1. It's too long. Too long. No fairy tale needs to be this long. Granted, a huge slice of screen-time is taken up by the credit-roll of some ten various producers and a virtual village-full of sfx makers. But if I ever happen to be in an editing suite with the neg and some scissors - watch out!
2. There's a mercurial quality that really can only be imparted by the director [in this case Matthew Vaughn of Layer Cake]. Some call it called heart, but whatever it's called, this film ain't got it. I don't mean it's heartless - which isn't the antonym, but that it lacks charm.
3. Because of the two previous points, the film isn't squarely aimed at a specific market. Sure there are scenes which will appeal to kids and those which speak louder to their parents. But it eludes a cohesive target.
4. Some of the acting isn't in the same league as some others. Granted, when one's being captivated by consummate screen luminaries as Pfeiffer and De Niro, each radiating their enjoyment at playing such atypical roles, subverting their image - lesser performers like Claire Danes, who is playing a star - of the celestial kind, seems dim by comparison. She's best when called on to be sarcastic, but, even so, there's no magic between her and Charlie Cox, her co-star - of the cinematic kind.
So -- what's left to like? Well, scene by scene there are some very funny lines, some fairly decent effects - no, they're not revolutionary but effective none-the-less, and some terrific performances, even in tiny throw-away cameos. And, how refreshing, for once, that here we have a fairy tale adapted from Neil Gaiman, a teller of tall tales - no hidden agenda, but a rollicking recreation of a fantasy world.
If only because De Niro plays a pirate of the High Clouds in an airborne ship, the film will undoubtedly be compared with the work of Terry Gilliam, since it evokes his films Time Bandits and Baron Munchausen. Gilliam would surely have been more inventive with the material, but whether anyone could have given the film a 'heart' transplant is a moot point.
|
| 2 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Salopian |
Posted - 11/08/2007 : 10:28:43
It was much better than I expected. It makes a nice change for the trailer to be weaker than the film.
At the beginning, a young man crosses the wall as in the trailer. I was surprised by his seeming a lot better than in the trailer. Disappointingly, at the time, this turns out to be someone else and thus the trailer one turns up. However, he gets significantly better as the film warms up, and with the addition of longer hair, a frock coat and knee-high boots (care of De Niro's indeed very entertaining character) suddenly becomes good-looking.
It's not The Princess Bride, but has a lot more charm than I expected. |
| Chris C |
Posted - 10/25/2007 : 17:56:25
Had a family trip to the cinema last night to watch this, and we all enjoyed ourselves very much.
In reply to Baffy I'd like to say:
1) I/We didn't think so - time just flew by, probably because we were enjoying it lots
2) Yes, I think I agree to a point. Was it because it was a fairy tale set in a very non-descript time period (a sort of Pythonesque early to mid 19th Century), with a script that was, at times, very 21st Century? I think this may also tie in with your comments on the acting.
3) Perhaps the target was those who enjoy Harry Potter and Narnia?
4) Agreed. I thought De Niro was brilliant.
Don't let my (or Baftababes) comments put you off going to see this movie. It's a great family film, with bits in there for everyone to enjoy (the ghosts were a nice touch), AND it's got Michelle Pfeiffer  . |
|
|
