"(If you're in two minds about Stardust, about whether or not to see it or even when to see it, please go and see it this weekend. Friday night if you can. Take friends. If necessary, take them at gunpoint. They will love the movie so much they will forgive you afterwards. And if they don't forgive you, you can dispose of them quietly -- you're the one with the gun, after all -- and you will have a wonderful time for the rest of your life with the new friends you made at the Stardust screening.)"
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
What? No love for Mr. Woodcock? Or Balls of Fury?
Yeah, I intend to see it this weekend, on opening night. I've loved the book ever since it was an illustrated prose mini-series.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Casual viewers should be warned that the movie has nothing to do with Stardust the Super Wizard. Sorry, folks!
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
I'm also enthused about, but probably won't make it to it this weekend Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I wonder why we haven't seen Bimbo Hart in any other movies.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Wow. So this doesn't suck? Because it looks lame.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Never read the book, Icarus?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Not that I know of. Who's it by?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Neil Gaiman, of The Sandman, Death, Coraline, Good Omens, Anansi Boys, etc. fame.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I've heard of (but not read) him, but I haven't heard of Stardust.
Doesn't that diminish the value of Gaiman's recommendation?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
My friend is reading the book, and asked me if I'd heard of it, or wanted to see the movie this weekend.
I said: "What's it about?"
He said: "Oh, magical stuff."
I said: "I'm in."
Then I found out it was Neil Gaiman, and I was doubly in.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
What Ic said. Both posts.
The more ads I see, the less interested I become.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I've heard of (but not read) him, but I haven't heard of Stardust.
Doesn't that diminish the value of Gaiman's recommendation?
I personally have not read the full blog post you and Chris are referring to, but I would assume Gaiman was aiming his remarks in the context of people who already know of and love the book.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
There was a longer clip shown on SciFi last night during Eureka that was a huge improvement over the commercials so far.
The problem with this movie is the same problem with all cross-genre movies (Princess Bride, Serenity, Labyrinth). How do you promote it? It's a fantasy romance comedy drama action movie.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh, a Fracdm. I love a good Fracdm.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
The trailers made the mistake of adopting a snide "wink-wink" self aware tone that's quite honestly tired and worn out. One of the good things about the novel is that despite being clever and biting in its take on old-fashioned Faerie...it's also delightfully unpretentious and sincere. "Fun" fantasy doesn't have to mean snide fantasy.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
It's got Robert DeNiro in it. I've yet to see a movie of his I didn't like.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
You obviously haven't seen Rocky and Bullwinkle. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The trailer didn't look that bad.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: It's got Robert DeNiro in it. I've yet to see a movie of his I didn't like.
Does this mean you avoided the bad ones?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm going to see it instead of HP5 Because I still can't decide if it's worth seeing that after I just finished the book again. I'll just whine and bemoan all the cuts and annoy people.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
The trailer is lackluster, yes. Mirrormask's trailer was equally "Huh?" and that one turned out really well.
If my Beloved isn't in South Africa by Friday night, I shall drag him to see it.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
I think Gaiman was urging people to see it this weekend so that it would have a good opening. Similar to how many Firefly fans (and Joss Whedon) urged people to see Serenity on the opening weekend.
I love the book and to hear that Gaiman loves the movie is encouraging to me. I've heard a lot of positive comparisons to The Princess Bride.
I doubt I'll see it this weekend but I hope to see it in the Theatre. I only get to about 3 or 4 movies a year though so I don't know if that'll happen.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I just saw the full trailer again on Monday night when we went to see Pirates. It looks like just my kind of movie. I won't get to see it this weekend, but I'll definitely be checking it out when I can. I still have to go see Ultimatum. I'm falling behind.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm seeing Ultimatum on Friday, or I would definately go and see this.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Saw it today!
The good:
Peter O'Toole rocked, as usual.
Michelle Pfeiffer was an excellent Witch of the Lillim
Charlie Cox, his growth from hapless country boy to dashing hero was charming.
The bad:
Robert DeNiro hammed it up in a way the distracted and detracted.
Claire Danes' accent.
Plus, I wish there had been some way to keep all the lush, lavish creatures and artistic Easter eggs Charles Vess put into the book illustrations.
All in all an entertaining movie. The book is better of course, but like Neil Gaiman I'll think of this as "The Stardust of Earth 2". Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I thought Claire Danes really carried this movie. Her performance was outstanding. In a cast that includes a lot of stars, she shone brighte-
I cannot finish that sentence.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, Puffy. I was thinking of seeing it this weekend and I trust your "reviews".
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
What do stars do best, TL? Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'm in. This looks great.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
I just saw it. I really enjoyed it.
I agree that Claire Danes' accent was a little silly, but I still loved her performance. I thought Robert DeNiro was absolutely hysterical and I loved the over the top goofiness of his character.
And since I've never read the book, I am now compelled to go to the library because I'm sure the book is better. The book is almost always better.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
The book, while still tongue-in-cheek, is a bit darker and more magic and creature intensive.
Plus, the pirate king is not a drag queen. Whether you see that as a plus or a minus. Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
You know, I really thought that Robert DeNiro could not make me laugh harder than he did when he cried in Analyze This, but I was so plainly wrong.
Charlie Cox was as cute as a button, especially with the long hair. (Lightbulb: Oh! He could be Michael if they ever made a movie of Howl's Moving Castle! That wasn't anime. And everything.)
There were a few bits of the script where I was like, Nnnnnnnggg, I wish you'd let Neil Gaiman glance over this before you gave it to the actors; but mostly I liked the film a lot. Michelle Pfeiffer was good, Rupert Everett in his wee bit part was good, everyone was good, I loved it.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I saw this movie last night and it was absolutely wonderful! The story was simultaneously cute, hilarious, and sweetly moving. This was the best movie I've seen in a long time, and it really hit the spot. Also, I saw it with my boyfriend and I have to say this is a great date movie. (Although probably not first or second date material.)
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
So, anybody have any opinions on kids seeing it? My sons are ten and nearly eight. They saw the latest Harry Potter movie and the Spiderman movie. Is there anything really dark or scary?
My gut tells me they might like it, or might not, but most likely would not find it disturbing.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
I saw it last night without having seen any trailers for it, and fell absolutely in love. I need to re-read the book, but this is a movie I think I definitely want to buy.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am sold, and won't be checking in this thread at all until after I have seen it. Probably within a week or so.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Nothing particularly dark. Some scenes of murdered princes, but no visible gore -- not red, anyway -- and the princes become ghosts immediately, which takes away some of the shock. Oh, and a scene of a disembodied dead prince fighting, but again no real horror involved.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Just got back, and i loved it. Loved loved. Some awesome stuff, a lot of unexpected humor and sweetness and silliness, and generally just a lot of good magical stuff. I was pleased:)
There is a lot of implied violence, to piggy-back on Chris's post. A lot of shots where the camera doesn't pan down or over to where you know something a little violent or gorey is happening. But I wouldn't say it wasn't "particularly dark" -- i thought it was very "violent" for a humorous fairy tale. Not in an offensive way, though.
[ August 12, 2007, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
i'll see anything with Ricky Gervis(Brittish Office) so i'll see this sometime over the next week. YAY
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I kind of figured that was the way it would be. I'm pretty sure I'll take them. I'll be back to the thread afterwards, I'm sure. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Plus, I wish there had been some way to keep all the lush, lavish creatures and artistic Easter eggs Charles Vess put into the book illustrations.
Wait, there's a version of the book with illustrations?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
The story was originally told in the form of an illustrated prose mini-series, erso.
I believe the collected edition of that version was re-released earlier this year in anticipation of the movie.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
While I liked it a lot, I don't think it will quite reach the heights of iconic fairy tale adventure the way "The Princess Bride" did. While it was fun and exciting and gorgeous to look upon, and it probably featured better acting, overall, none of the dialogue really stood out for me.
Whereas I can practically recite TPB.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, that was actually Christy's biggest gripe: it was in almost all ways a superior movie, but it was somehow infinitely less quotable. That said, we enjoyed it enormously; we just can't quote it to each other. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Regarding reciting Princess Bride, you're in good company, I suspect.
It's been a while since I've read the novel; never read the illustrated version. I enjoyed it quite a bit, particularly Pfeiffer's performance. And I enjoyed DeNiro (possibly because it's been as long as it has since I've read the book.)
The ending disappointed me a little, mostly because what I most strongly remember about the book "Stardust" is how the ending in some ways sends up conventions of myths and fairy tales, whereas while the action-ending of the movie has its moments, it's pretty much a conventional heroic-journey-movie action-ending.
I'd recommend seeing it. And I'd generally say that if a child has seen Spider Man 3, they'll likely find this rather *less* disturbing.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Got to see it this weekend after all.
Liked it. Probably would've liked it even better if I hadn't just re-read the book last year. I don't think I can really enjoy a movie if I've read the book it's based on too recently -- I do too much compare-and-contrast and have a hard time getting into the movie.
I didn't mind Clare Danes's accent (she's a star, probably all stars sound like that), and enjoyed De Niro's character.
I'd love to see an extended edition of the movie. One of the bits that suffered for compressing the book was the timeframe -- the love affair being squeezed into a week instead of several months as in the book -- I'm not a fan of the movie cliche of true love being discovered and worked out right away...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I loved that movie, it was so good. the movie changes were not so bad either.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Just saw it. Loved it.
Not as good as Princess Bride, but definately made me laugh a lot, and I'd see it again.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Mostly I missed the Tori Amos tree.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: It's got Robert DeNiro in it. I've yet to see a movie of his I didn't like.
You need to see more movies then... Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Robert De Niro was perfect in this. And the movie was very good.
*spoilers* *spoilers* *spoilers* The only thing I didn't understand was why Tristen left at the end to go back to Victoria just to give her a piece of the girl's hair. I mean, he already decided that he loved the star, so why leave her just to prove a point to some girl when he risks not finding her again? * * END SPOILERS
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Because he promised that he would, and he keeps his promises.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
And so the film makers could indulge in some gratuitous "Ha! She's so lame" jokes that are mostly absent from the novel. Right down to the hint that her husband-to-be is really...well, read the book and compare the movie's version.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
i'm going to see this again tonight with my mom and sister. i hope they like it as much as i did!
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I really loved it, but I felt a bit like i did with the last Pirates of the C movie: "End it already! We get it!"
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
I loved the movie. It was funny and cute and nearly magical. Tristan was a-dor-able and DeNiro made me smile. I did have a "Wait, Gandalf?" moment at the very beginning of the narration, but I got over it pretty quickly.
I did, however, not need to see so many Freddie Highmore-led previews. He's a very cute kid and decent actor, and maybe he should play Ender( ), but that was an overdose.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I liked it a lot, and I'm sure I would've liked it better if I hadn't already read the book.
It just didn't have enough fun with words to put it on par with The Princess Bride.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I saw this tonight and thought it was great. I was maybe a tiny bit lost at the beginning only because they jump into it so fast and I've never read the book. But I got into it really fast.
I liked the preview for that music movie with Kerri Russell, but jeez that little kid is in a lot of movies, does he have a childhood at all?
After seeing this and the previews for other movies, I finally broke down and spent the money to buy this book, all of His Dark Materials and all of The Dark is Rising, which I hope will keep me busy for the month of September. It's been recommended to me that I should read a lot of Neil Gaiman, which I just might do if I like the novel version of Stardust. I want to see the others before they come out as movies.
I've only recently discovered that my reading list of fantasy was woefully inadequate, and that I need to venture out from Sci-Fi a bit more.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: Also, I saw it with my boyfriend and I have to say this is a great date movie. (Although probably not first or second date material.)
Oops...
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Is there a story to accompany that oops? Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Saw this on Friday with my wife, brother, and sister, we loved it! You are right that it's not very quotable, but it was just so much fun, and it seemed like alot of the humor was more visual than verbal.
Spoiler* I suppose there was a funny one liner when Michelle Pfeifer's boobs suddenly sagged after that spell, but the look on her face was almost priceless.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
We saw it for our anniversary yesterday, and we loved it. I think I loved it more than Jon Boy, but we definitely both enjoyed it. This is the first movie that I would classify as "my kind" of movie that has come out in over a year.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I enjoyed the movie a great deal. Michelle Pfeiffer was awesome, and the whole thing was fun.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I read the book last night in one sitting. It was a really really good read, though surprisingly graphic here and there. I liked a lot of the changes they made, though I agree with OSC that I don't see why they needed to add the slam bang finish at the end.
I liked the book more than the movie, but the movie was a fantastic adaptation. One of the best I have seen in a long time.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
*MINOR SPOILERS*
I did really enjoy it. My annoyances with it were rather minor—Ricky Gervais and Robert De Niro, while funny, didn't quite seem to fit into the story, and I think Tristan's one-week zero-to-hero transformation was a bit much. He was always terrible at fencing class, but he spends a couple days with a pirate and becomes a champion swordsman? Um, right.
The goat man and ghost brothers were surprisingly funny, though.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
In the book it took months.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Plus, he's in a magical land! Anything can happen.
Added: I loved the movie, in case you couldn't tell. In the interests of full disclosure, though, I had a huge crush on Claire Danes as a teenager and apparently the aftereffects are still lingering. Added 2: And I've never read the book (or any Gaiman other than Neverwhere, which didn't rock my world).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah that was a bit much to take in, it made a lot more sense in the book, even with how short the book was. I don't remember specifically how long it took in the book for him to get back, but it wasn't a really long time. He used the candle to get to Yvaine, and then flew, rode, carted, and candle walked back to Wall. If it wasn't for Louisa there to talk about how much time had passed with him away, I probably wouldn't have realized he was really gone for that long.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I loved this very much. I'm going to take my sister, now that she's finished the book.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually in the book, there is no fencing training. Nor is it needed.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I had someone call me last night basically to tell me that I would I would love this movie (which I already knew, having seen it last week).
The funny thing was this person totally didn't remember me talking about how much I wanted to see it when we'd had dinner together (with family and some other folks) weeks ago. When I said, "I told you that you should see it, that I thought YOU'd like it" he insisted that I hadn't. Heh.
I'm plagued by the lingering feeling that if he had remembered my recommendation he would not have liked the movie. O_O
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
In the book the pirates do train him and Yvaine during their period together. Though upon rereading it, it's specifically stated as mainly being on how to help out around the ship.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
I finally saw it today. Left the theater grinning -- loved it, loved it!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Better late then never I suppose. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Well, I'm dredging up an old thread. We saw it today, and we both loved it. Thought it was the best movie we'd seen in a very very long time.
One question for those of you who've read Neil Gaiman. I read American Gods, and was not at all impressed with it - I found none of the characters particularly likable. I've read reviews both positive and negative for the Stardust book, and comments saying that the book is darker, has more language, much more blood & gore, and sex scenes. The darker I can handle, but blood & gore, profanity, and sex scenes turn me off completely. I'm wondering what y'all have to say to that before I possibly buy a book I might end up hating.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How much do they turn you off? There's profanity, gore, and sex in the book, but very little of any of the above.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I didn't like the book nearly as much as the movie, for what it's worth. It seemed more directionless and less funny.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I actually liked the book better. Here is why. The ending was rather a bit sweeter to me. Plus Tristan was nicer in the book than in the movie.
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: Well, I'm dredging up an old thread. We saw it today, and we both loved it. Thought it was the best movie we'd seen in a very very long time.
One question for those of you who've read Neil Gaiman. I read American Gods, and was not at all impressed with it - I found none of the characters particularly likable. I've read reviews both positive and negative for the Stardust book, and comments saying that the book is darker, has more language, much more blood & gore, and sex scenes. The darker I can handle, but blood & gore, profanity, and sex scenes turn me off completely. I'm wondering what y'all have to say to that before I possibly buy a book I might end up hating.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Stardust's darkness, sex, language, and gore are nothing compared to American Gods, iirc.
I *almost* put Stardust on my classroom library shelf for 7th grade. If the sex scene had happened later in the book, I would have.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I watched this movie for the first time last night. My husband and I enjoyed it a lot, one of those movies we might buy if we see cheap enough.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Scholar, the cheapest source for DVDs is usually Amazon.com. Right now for Stardust they are offering "65 used and new from $7.99." Wait a month or two, and it will go down to half that. I have gotten some year-old DVDs from Amazon for 99 cents. Good as new. You can also try Barnes & Noble online, but I always check Amazon first.
quidscribis, admittedly Neil Gaiman's fantasies are a bit strange, and seldom very pleasant. But there is character development, and people who seem to care about each other. It is just such a change of pace--imagine a fantasy set in the sewers under London (as in Neverwhere.) Anansi Boys was almost a breath of fresh air, even if predictable. It did range wider than most fantasies, from England to America to an island in the sea. I thought American Gods was quite original, with ancient Norse Gods squaring off against modern techno-gods cleverly invented. I thought that particular story was no more gorey or violent that Stephen King (but Stephen King is gorey and violent).
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
I also watched this movie recently with my wife and enjoyed it. I hadn't recalled hearing anything about it and wondered why OSC didn't review it. Upon searching the archives, I found his review, which was rather lukewarm. That review probably made me not watch it in the theaters, which is a shame, because it was really quite good, overall....
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Watching Robert DeNiro dance the can-can dressed in a tu-tu was worth the price of admission. I just wonder how he managed to get such an excellent sound system on a pirate ship. But I guess anything is possible in a fantasy.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Ron, thanks for the info! We'll probably be waiting a while before getting it, but it is now on the list of DVDs we want. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I appreciate the comments, everyone. If there's less gore, sex, and profanity than American Gods, then I'll probably give it a try.
Ron, I agree completely that American Gods was original - I have no complaints on that score. I also thought the writing was rather well done overall - nothing about the writing style itself took me out of the story. It's that, like I said above, I found none of the characters particularly likeable and I didn't particularly care for any of them. I just didn't care.
And yeah, I loved watching Robert DeNiro dancing in a tutu too.
Liz, if you thought it was *almost* appropriate enough for a 7th grade classroom, then it *might* be okay for me. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
You'd probably like Anasazi boys. It has a bit of nudity in it but it's in a book, so you can't see it and he didn't cuss in it for a lot of pages. and just one time too.
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: I appreciate the comments, everyone. If there's less gore, sex, and profanity than American Gods, then I'll probably give it a try.
Ron, I agree completely that American Gods was original - I have no complaints on that score. I also thought the writing was rather well done overall - nothing about the writing style itself took me out of the story. It's that, like I said above, I found none of the characters particularly likeable and I didn't particularly care for any of them. I just didn't care.
And yeah, I loved watching Robert DeNiro dancing in a tutu too.
Liz, if you thought it was *almost* appropriate enough for a 7th grade classroom, then it *might* be okay for me.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I really liked this. I needed a sweet movie.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Added 2: And I've never read the book (or any Gaiman other than Neverwhere, which didn't rock my world).
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)