"(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.)"
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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". Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 511 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
i'll see anything with Ricky Gervis(Brittish Office) so i'll see this sometime over the next week. YAY
Posts: 856 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
