Was Stardust a good movie? Let's get that out of the way right off the bat. Hell yeah. I'll admit readily that I am a bit biased, loving both the author's entire body of work so far experienced and the actual book in question. However, my bias plays only a small portion of my instant fondness for the movie. As with all movie adaptations of books, whether they're full text, comic panels, or a mix of both, things change when moved from pages to screen. In most cases, if I've read a book before I see the movie, these changes serve as minor annoyances. Sometimes the changes make sense, sometimes they don't, they're almost always unwelcome.
I don't know if it was
Neil Gaiman's extensive involvement in the production of the movie that helped or the creators' obvious love for the source material, but the changes between the two mediums did not bother me in the slightest here. Some of the differences were drastic, too, such as the entire climax. They felt as if they fit into the story, though. As if I had attended two different tellings of the same story by equally masterful storytellers, both of whom know how to weave the myriad pieces together to form a pleasing whole, no matter that the ingredients differ slightly.
The casting was well done. Everyone from the guardian of the wall (
David Kelly) to the shady Ferdy the Fence (
Ricky Gervais,) both of which are new characters to readers of the book. Original characters fared equally well with the protagonists
Claire Daines playing Yvaine and
Charlie Cox as Tristan (one odd change, removing the "r" from his name.) I am not a big fan of Daines, there's usually something about her eyes that bugs me. However, she and Cox did very well. The casting of the seven brothers of Stormhold was fitting as well, but you really have to see the movie or have read the book to understand where they come from. I loved seeing
Peter O'Toole as the King of Stormhold. I could have used with more realistic arm throwing action, but I suppose when you get as old as O'Toole, you can spend your scenes reclining luxuriously in a magnificently appointed bed as well.
Michelle Pfeiffer, no stranger to the role of villain, plays a delightful witch who you can't help but sympathize with every once and a while. That is, when she isn't busy transforming hapless goats into inn keepers (Hilario Dawson!) Perhaps the most notable bit of casting comes in the form of a very talented supporting actor, one
Robert DeNiro. His Capt. Shakespeare is a considerable departure from the book, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Those of you that have seen the movie know why. He definitely stole the scenes in which he was featured and showed us a new layer of the DeNiro talent. Oh, and snagging
Ian McKellen as the narrator is just badass.
Now that I'm done name-dropping, I can tell you that this is definitely a movie to add to your list of must-sees. It has high-fantasy, excellent action, magic, intrigue, quests, and a fair bit of romance. Whether you like fantasy movies, action movies, romantic comedy movies, or any combination of the above, this is one that will satisfy. My regards to the original creators,
Messrs. Gaiman and Vess as well as those behind the movie,
Vaughn and
Goldman. I hope this one does well enough so we can see more of Neil's work make it to the big screen.
I give this movie seven out of seven slaughtered princes on a scale I just made up that doesn't mean anything.
2 comments:
Naturally, and as you pretty much know, I agree with your comments. I'm not big on Claire Daines either, but she acquitted herself nicely (still would have liked to have seen Keira Knightley in the role, though).
I had only two minor complaints about the movie: the missing F Bomb, and the sort of arbitrary compression of the timeline down to one week. The timeline didn't harm the story at all, it just seemed like an odd and unnecessary choice, and it made some of the events seem to occur unnaturally quickly.
Still, these are only minor quibbles.
Oh, and a minor correction to your entry: it's Vess, not Hess.
And shouldn't that be Seven of Seven slaughtered princes? It just seems more appropriate than Five.
You are right, of course. All errors amended. Thank you for that, that's how I learn.
Post a Comment